Broadbent endorses Tabuns, Kormos endorses Horwath, how will it affect 2nd choices?

Broadbent, Dewar, diNovo... if I knew nothing else about Peter Tabuns (and I know little else), that would be enough for me.

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?

I think it's just the lowest ranking candidiate (in any case, if there was a threshold it would be something like 5% and I don't think any candidate is at risk of doing that badly).

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.

Actually Laughren attended rallies with Layton in Sudbury in the recent federal election and he campaigned for the victorious NDP candidates in Sudbury and Nickel Belt.

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]

Speaking of people in Toronto "not getting it", why is this thread in "Canadian Politics" instead of the regional forum for "Central Canada"?

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? 

Yeah, but Unionist, on the other side, you've got Kormos endorsing Horwath.  That should be "enough for you" too!  I'd be much more likely to respect an endorsement from di Novo and Broadbent than Kormos, especially after that Christian Supremacy victory in the Legislature he was crowing about.

I've moved it.  Robo, maybe be a little bit more patient with newbies, okay?  It's one thing if people who have been here for a long time post something in the wrong forum, but you might cut a bit of slack for someone who just registered for babble yesterday and might not be familiar with the regional forums yet.

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?

it's one member, one vote, but labour is guaranteed 25%, based on a weighting system.

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 [26].

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?

I don't recall them only condemining the taxability of the $100 or them even saying that.  I think they took a reasonably defensible stance on childcare (i.e. argued for a national childcare program rather than a gimmick like Harper's plan).  But you're right about their dreadful positions on Afghanistan, crime, the Clarity Act and taxes  during the 2006 election.

..and what does that have to do with Broadbent's endorsement of Tabuns??  BTW: For those of you who are among the three or four people in all of Canada who are still obsessed with the Clarity Act - have you grilled the four ONDP leadership candidates as to whether they promise that if they become leader they would make it a central part of the ONDP campaign platform that the next Premier of Ontario demand that the Clarity Act be repealed?

I recall it very well. Start reading here, for example. There were threads during the election campaign as well, but they appear to be lost in New Babble cyberspace.

The key thing is that the NDP was afraid to say, "Don't give lump sums to parents, irrespective of whether they use child care or not - use the money to create affordable public child care spaces." They said things like, "Let's do both!!!" So, Harper won that argument.

So, in other words, you agree with Scott Reid that if we give give any cash to parents - they will just blow it on beer and popcorn!

I see no reason to drag down the reputation of a noble beverage like beer.

No, Stockholm. Harper replaced child care by cash hand-outs so that he could promote and reward stay-at-home parenting. Instead of identifying and condemning that cynical move, the NDP was worried that voters wouldn't understand if they said, "don't give people $100". So they said, "ok, give the $100, but please please don't forget child care too - oh, and make the $100 non-taxable".

Harper laughed and won.

Yes, it is an important part of the NDP voting process. In a nutshell, Labour gets 25% of the vote.... Now as to which affiliated union members vote is completely up to them, however, the weighting system is not based on a fixed number... 25% of the vote is be weighted based on the number of affilated members that vote, regardless of how many do. It really is a wild card, and should make for an interesting race!

Ah, so it is still individual votes but an affiliated union vote will count for more than a normal member's vote. I guess that if a high number of voters come from the affiliated unions it will water that down some.  Where does one find the affiliated unions?

There's nothing inherently wrong with giving people $100 a month. Its basically just bringing back the old baby bonus (and I remember how when the Liberals scrapped that it was people on the left who screamed bloody murder) The issue is whether or not money will be set aside for child care. Why not simply have the best of both worlds and give parents $100/month AND also create a national child care program. Or maybe you think that we should also eliminate welfare since that means just handing people cash that they might waste and instead give people food stamps and bus tickets. 

You still don't get it, and Harper is still laughing. The issue has been killed for three years now.

Actyally what would have really killed the issue would have been if the oppositrion parties had campaigned on a platform that said to everyone "You know that $100 cheque you in the mail every month? Elect us and we will take it away from you!!" Then Harper would have won a majority government and he owuld REALY be "laughing".

Exactly my point, Stockholm. Cowardice. Just replace "$100 cheque" by "personal income tax cut" or "Catholic school funding" or a host of other such, and you'll understand one of the big problems facing the NDP: it's "supporters".

From the ONDP website: some voting details

"Voting online or by phone on March 7

Using your PIN number, you can vote in real time during designated convention vote periods from anywhere, using the Internet or a phone.

You will be voting for one candidate only per balloting round. The voting periods will be announced at the convention, on the voting website, the voting phone number and on this site."

This is interesting. It means that there will be some room for last minute vote swaying on the floor of convention as only the advance votes (probably the vast majority) will rank their preferences. 

If by "its supporters" you mean - Canadian citizens - I guess maybe you should move to another country.

As I've said before. there is nothing inherently wrong with giving parents a monthly cheque for $100. In fact it could work well in tandem with a comprehensive national child care program by giving people access to affordable child care AND by giving people some cash to help pay for it. In Quebec, child care is $7/day - so with that $100 a month people can pay for 14 days worth of subsidized child care! Whats not to like. BUT, as the NDP has said, we need to adjust the tax system so that virtually all of the $100 gets clawed back from people with high incomes and so that people with low incomes don't have it all taxed away. Seems like good progressive policy to me.

BTW: What ever happened to the Kyoto Accord. Just a year ago, the big litmus test was supposed to be whether or not a candidate or party would make an iron clad commitment that Canada meet its Kyoto target by 2012 - no one seems to care about that anymore. Layton has even uttered a complete sentence without saying the word Kyoto and "Unionist" hasn't complained. Mind you at the rate at which the economy is shrinking, we may meet the Kyoto targets despite ourselves just because of all those factories being idle. 

The 100 per month goes to people who don't use child care. It's a horrible joke, and the NDP was (is) too nervous to mention that this emperor has no clothes.

As for Kyoto, have you actually forgotten how the Liberals and Layton caved to Harper in late 2006 on the so-called Clean Air Act - under the guise of Harper giving them committee input? Canadians who care about the environment have simply stopped looking to the federal parties for solutions, unfortunately.

Anyway, sorry for the drift, but some people seem to think that endorsements by big names mean something.

"The 100 per month goes to people who don't use child care."

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. The $100/month goes to every single solitary family in Canada that has a child under the age of six. It doesn't matter whether you use child care or not - you still get the money. Did you seriously think that the Government of Canada has an army of private detectives spying on everyone with kids under six to see who uses child care and who doesn't so they can NOT send any money to people who use child care???

There is plenty to criticize about the Conservative (and Liberal) approach to child care (or lack thereof), but you only weaken your argument when you say things that are totally false.

Endorsements by "big names" do mean something because 99% of us don't know all the people running personally and in deciding who to vote for - one of the things we take into consideration are the endorsements of people whose opinion we respect. You obviously don't Ed Broadbent at all - so his endorsement means nothing to you. But about 98% of NDP members high ly respect Broadbent and his endorsement will carry some weight with those people.  

Stockholm, I beg you to re-read my post. With a grammar guide handy.

huh?

Sigh. I posted on this issue ever since the 2005-6 campaign. I did not say that the $100 goes ONLY to stay-at-homes. I said my problem was that it does go to stay-at-homes. If they handed out $100 CHILD-CARE CREDITS to all parents, it would be at least a bandaid and a less cynical approach than Harper's sick joke, but it wouldn't address the underlying problem of providing infrastructure.

There is nothing wrong with parents who don't use child care getting some extra cash to help make ends meet. There are lots of poor people who don't use child care - for whatever reason. I think child care has to be there for people who want it - but NOT wanting to send your kids to child care is also a valid choice.

 Whether you child is in child care or not - raising a child is still wayyyy more expensive than not having a child at all. So, let's have universal child care and make it as cheap as possible - but I have no objection to ALSO sending out a "baby bonus" cheque to all parents to help with all the OTHER expenses you incur when you have young children such as food and clothing etc.. 

Similarly, I'm glad that old age pensions are a universal program - and that you don't ONLY get your CPP if you live in a nursing home. If you choose to live on your own - you still get the money.

This idea of giving people credits that can only be used as vouchers for child care - as opposed to giving people cash - is exactly the kind of patronizing program that poverty advocates object to. Its like saying that we can't trust people with welfare or EI cheques - instead we will give them food stamps and housing sudsidies so that those supposedly irresponsible poor people don't go "wasting" their money on booze and cigatettes and flat-screen TVs.

Forget it.

Wow! This almost turned back into a discussion about endorsments and their effect on the vote!

I have to admit that I am more interested by the strategies of the different candidates in the leadership race than I am by their particular positions. Aside from school funding, the campaign seems like the menu at Taco Bell: you have a choice of the same 8 ingredients, just a question of  proportions and whether you want it in a hard or soft taco.  

 Ok, here is hoprefully a provocative question:

Is there a killer endorsment still to come for someone and who would it be?

Layton? Mcdonough? Blaikie? Obama? 

Would any endorsement change YOUR vote?

My first choice for leader was Peggy Nash, my second was Scott Piatkowski. I know whom Scott is endorsing. Anyone hear from Peggy?

That's a good question. I will be curious to see who Peggy Nash supports. BTW Unionist - you were saying before that you thought endorsements were worthless and irrelevant - but it sounds like if Peggy Nash enthusiastically backed one of the candidates - it would make you sit up and take notice - so obviously SOME endorsements do matter to you.

I can guarantee that there will no endorsement of anyone by Layton or Chow. I assume that they probably privately favour Tabuns simply because he's a close personal friend of theirs and all three served together on city council - but I think that Jack is wisely avoid giving any appearance that he supports anyone.

I think you misunderstood this comment:

My focus was on the phrase, "big names". My whole emphasis in this thread has been to say: "Look at the views, actions, policies of those who are doing the endorsing - not just the fact that they have some celebrity - and judge their endorsements accordingly."

I admire Peggy Nash, and Scott Piatkowski for that matter, and I think both are principled - so their recommendations mean something to me. You've heard what I think of some others, and whether you agree or not with my conclusions, those conclusions are based on my perception of what they have said and done, not just who they are.

Endorsements by "big names" mean something to people who like and respect those "big names". Its a matter of opinion. Peggy Nash is obviously a "big name" whose opinion carries more weight with you than does Ed Broadbent's. To other people Nash's views might be meaningless but Broadbent's might be very influential.

If - hypothetically - notorious ex-New Democrat homophobe Bev Desjarlais announced that she had relocated to Ontario and rejoined the NDP and was publicly endorsing one of the candidates because she felt they reflected her views - it would make me think twice about backing that person.

Not only do I have little use for Broadbent, but please read carefully his endorsement:

Doesn't say Peter Tabuns is a person of principle, of conscience, of accomplishment, of integrity, whose heart beats for the downtrodden of our society, nothing like that.  Even if I respected Broadbent's opinion, I'd still be left scratching my head wondering what exactly he was saying about Tabuns' principles...

...he didn't even mention the Kyoto Accord - what a lame endorsement!!

There's a lot Broadbent never mentioned during his entire "career" as "leader" and beyond. My point is that it is important to see what someone is endorsing, not just whom. At least, it's important to some of us.

Who is Ed Broadbent?

Who is Ed Broadbent? You are kidding right?

And you've been up front in noting in earlier discussions that you are not a NDP member eligible to vote in the Ontario leadership race. 

I think that enodrsements matter, to the extent that they give voters some opinion of people they have not met but have heard of.  Do I think that Peter Kormos' endorsement of Andrea Horwath will increase her support among NDP members living in the riding of Welland?  Yes.  Do I think that the endorsment will result in not a single NDP member in Welland voting for someone other than Andrea as her/his first choice?  Absolutely not. 

Endorsements move the weight of opinions among eligible voters broadly, but don't determine individual opinions is any absoloute way. 

This is interesting.

Responding to questions about who the frontrunner is Tabuns says Horwath is his real competition.

Actually it was in response to the comment  about observers seeing the race as betwen Prue and Tabuns:

"Some observers say Tabuns, who once worked for Greenpeace, is the front-runner along with Prue. Tabuns is flattered, but believes he and Horwath are the front-runners".

 that suggests  to me  Tabuns does see Prue as his main rival, but is trying to be nice to Horwath, especially in her home base. and hoping to get her support second ballot..

Hmmm...no one has remarked on the fact that Kormos and Horwath are both Hungarian names. I think that this alliance is evidence of a Hungarian conspiracy to take over the party. Before you knowit they'll have us all eating goulash and dancing the csardas!

Perhaps this is a cheap shot, but the article about Tabuns mentions he is a graduate of the separate school system.  Interesting how he believes the religious education he received should be publicly funded, but not others.

From that article - it sounds like Tabuns attended several schools - some Catholic and some not. Its not clear which he graduated from.

I don't see why you're singling out Tabuns on this issue when he and Horwath and Bisson explicitly favour the status quo in terms of funding public and separate schools - and even Prue only says he wants a debate on the issue - but refuses to say what his personal position is.

Maybe we should demand a list of what schoolls all the candidates attended so we can level the same accusation at all of them.

A fair point.  I had a chat with Tabuns (a very nice guy BTW) and at least he told me his opposition to debating the issue was "entirely strategic."  I guess it's pretty hard to reconcile support of the discriminatory separate school systm and social democratic principles.

Not to give any credibility to your post, but "Kormos" is a Slovakian name. Of course, with my endorsement as well, you can add Poland to the list of conspirators.

Usually when someone goes on the record as saying "Candidate X and I are the frontrunners", it's because they believe that to be the case. I believe it to be the case as well.

Your alternative explanation is both condescending and counterintuitive. 

Slovakia used to be part of Hungary and a lot of ethnic Hungarians lived in what is now Slovakia.

I have a Hungarian surname - I have Hungarian Jewish roots (Hungary was one of the most tolerant societies for Jews but after the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire and the backlash against Bela Kun - it became very anti-Semitic and my grandfather left the country) - but I'm undecided.  So there.

Kormos is a Hungarian name, Scott.

Kormos' family is from Slovakia.

I think Tabuns is being perfectly honest when he says that it isn't strategic to stir up a hornet's nest over separate schools at this point in time. I agree it isn't strategic. Just like I think it would also be a mistake for the ONDP to make it a centrepiece of their platform that Ontario get rid of the monarchy and that all images of the Queen be tane down and burned.

Some battles just aren't worth fighting at this point in time.

I'm sure you're right. But his name is from Hungary. Anyway, stop arguing with me, you were my second choice for leader.

Out of curiosity, when will it be the "right" time?  

The monarchy?  I'll bet you the vast majority of people who vote "monarchist" are Tories and would never vote NDP in their lives.

You might be surprised. Michael Valpy who was the NDP candidate in Trinity-Spadina in 2000 is an ardent monarchist.

Another example of an issue that I think is way ahead of its time is marriage. For all the talk about same sex marriage - I personally think that marriage of any kind should be abolished and that the law should only recognize individuals. I'm fed up with how society offers all kinds of treats and perks to people who marry - while singloe people get treated like second class citizens. But, that being said I would not recommend that the NDP call for the abolition of marriage at this point in time in our history.

Well on the same wavelength as Peter. Strategically speaking, it wouldn't surprise me for Tabuns to suggest it's a competition between him and Horwath. It gives her some credibility and also might move some people from Prue (who has good support in Horwath's backyard) to Tabun's ledger to prevent the youngest, most inexperienced NDP leader candidate winning if one believes she is actually the competition. Good strategy but not believable. 

Fending hurt feelings aside, one can't help but know strategy is at work here. Sorry you feel offended Scott. 

_

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

It's possible that this is a plot by Tabuns to throw people off - and that Prue's the real threat. Except, in Hamilton that's really not likely the case. If he was engaging in this tactic he'd say he was fearing Bisson, I think. 

So far, Scott's explanation seems most probable. The guy just told the truth.

It certainly jibes with what I'm hearing.

Well it doesn't jibe with what I'm hearing. Tabun's is not trying to get Horvath people, he is trying to get Prue People, so he wins on first ballot. Cause if he doesn't win on first ballot, which is how this race is shaking down, he knows he is sunk. 

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

That works if you ignore the fact that anybody supporting Prue likely has Tabuns as their last choice (unless you assume that the hamfisted efforts to paint Tabuns as the prince of lies are having no effect).

And you ignore the fact that most Hamiltonians seem to be rallying behind Horwath (federal MPs, Councillors, etc)

And you ignore the fact that most people likely won't view serving as Mayor of a non-existent burough as "experience" that's particularly relevant and will likely consider all of the candidates pretty equal in experience (if not in age) given that they all served in municipal government and provincial opposition.

ETA: Except Bisson who never served in municipal government.

 Gee Sunday Hat, no surprise that Prue isn't you 2nd choice after Tabuns. Anyway, I wouldn't be so sure about the most "Hamiltonains" as I attended a rally for Prue in Hamilton that was well attended, particularly with public school trustees from the area, and also Paul Miller people. But don't let that get in the way of the beliefs. 

Anyway, I think it is about moving Prue people in other places. And as for relevance of previous experience. One should not ignore relevant experience before forced amalgamation by Harris and company. And having mayor experience is quite different than being a councilor. It requires being voted for by a larger cross section of people in a larger geographical area but don't let that get in the way of trying to diminish regard for Prue in York. Incidently, the people of Toronto fought long and hard against forced amalgamation, so I don't think this is a winning strategy here. It just might turn some folks off. But that is just MO.

Carry on.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Plus, oddly, the Ottawa Labour Council. How did she do that?

Plus the Kingston District Labour Council, the President of the Sudbury and District Labour Council, the President of the Cornwall District Labour Council, and so on. How did she do that?

hat:

 no one needs to try painting tabuns in such a way. he does just fine on his own.

But every so often, if you look hard enough, you can see the truth in whatever he happens to be saying. In this particular case, the truth is that he'd and his people would like to see Prue as the weaker candidate, because his only path to victory is an outright one on the first ballot.

Blame Prue's people all you want, but Peter's record makes a significant portion of eligible voters profoundly uncomfortable. He's shown himself in his public actions to be dishonest, to say things that are demonstrably false in the hopes of bamboozling folks.

Simply put, he has no growth potential beyond the first ballot, despite the best efforts of a party establishment to turn this into a coronation. So it's a no-brainer he's trying to talk up Andrea's purported strength.

As for ham-fisted, Prue's people are rank amateurs in that department. Learn from the master himself...

Friday, February 23, 1996
Page: 3
BY DON WANAGAS, CITY HALL BUREAU

Harvey's is no longer a beautiful thing in the eyes of Toronto's health board.

The board yesterday endorsed a public boycott of the burger chain because its parent company, Cara Operations, donated $4,000 to the Ontario Progressive Conservative party in each of the past three years.

Councillor Peter Tabuns, board of health chairman, said Premier Mike Harris' government has put the public's health at risk with cuts to welfare and social services. "They have to be stopped and the board is doing what it can to help," Tabuns said.

He saw nothing improper in the board backing the Harvey's boycott and suggested it was just the first step in a wider campaign against companies that supported the Tories financially. "Corporate Ontario put Mike Harris where he is today and corporate Ontario has a responsibility to do something about it," he said.

The board plans to send Cara Operations a letter demanding it stop giving money to the Tory party. Otherwise, it will ask other health boards to join in endorsing the Harvey's boycott.

Darrell Jarvis, legal counsel for Cara Operations, said it's ironic the health board would attack a $4,000 political contribution, but overlook the company's $1.5 million in charitable donations in the past several years -most in the health field.

"The passage of its motion is entirely inappropriate," Jarvis said. He couldn't predict how the company would respond.

Jarvis said he believed Cara made political contributions "across the board" to all major parties.

"This is ridiculous," said Councillor John Adams, a health board member who opposed the boycott and demanded it be sent to city council for debate.

"This whole thing has been trumped up by NDPers on council whose party was the government of Ontario for five years and blew it," he said. "They're just mad because they lost the election."

"The inmates are running the asylum," fumed Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski. "The board of health has always been anti-business and this is proof. It's an embarrassment."

There are six councillors on the 13-member health board. The boycott motion passed 7-6 with NDP Councillors Tabuns, Dan Leckie and Martin Silva supporting it. Councillors Adams, Kay Gardner and Kyle Rae (NDP) were opposed.

Once again we got going on an interesting strategy discussion before it all fell apart.  Hmmm, I wonder how the 13 year old article will affect people's second choice?

Who is Mike Harris endorsing?

There are two assertions being made here that don't hold any water.

1. I don't know where anyone gets this crazy idea that Tabuns has to win on the first round or he loses. I can see that half a dozen junkies (at most) who read babble mightbe casting an "anyone but Tabuns" ballot. But among the tens of thousands of members - its going to largely about name recognition, geography and some vague sense of following the preferences of people whose opinions they value. Tabuns will get his share of 2nd preferences just like everyone else.

2. You might be surprised at how many Prue and Tabuns supporters will preference each other. They are both from the east end of Toronto. Tabuns ran in Beaches-East York in 2004 and still has a lot of ties there. Prue used to be mayor of East York which includes the northern third of Toronto-Danforth. I'm quite sure that if you asked Prue supporter Marilyn Churley who her second choice was - it would be Tabuns.

People have to remember that the leader is NOT going to be chosen through a delegated leadership convention with all the group dynamics and emotions that entails and with candidates who get dropped off "throwing their support" to this person or that person. There won't be any "Kennedy going to Dion" type of moment. Thevast majority of votes will be cast by 20,000 or so card carrying members sitting at the kitchen table weeks before the convention - and the vast majority of those people aren't following this race closely enough and don't have strong enough feelings one way or the other to systematically cast an "anyone but-so-and-so" ballot. 90% of the members probably think all four are good people.

To the extent that there will be anyone systematically ranking anyone last (and I'm not saying there will be many). Some environmentalists will rank Bisson last because he managed to burn a lot of bridges with the environmental movement and some people will rank Prue last because they don't want to touch the issue of separate school funding with a ten foot pole.

This leadership campaign has been rife with disinformation about the question of Catholic school funding. If the misinterpreted stand on the ability to debate anything as a party elects a candidate, it speaks volumes about the lack of common sense amongst the voters. Certain camps muddying the waters about open debate as well as the new voting system will make for an interesting convention.

Stockholm said: 

 I'm quite sure that if you asked Prue supporter Marilyn Churley who her second choice was - it would be Tabuns.

Personally, I prefer to traffic in facts, so I won't say I'm quite sure you're wrong. Rather, I'll say I'm quite sure you you should ask her and find out.  I'm almost, but not quite sure you haven't. Which makes me almost quite sure that you're engaged in the perfectly normal and healthy practice of spinning as people are preparing to cast ballots. All well and good, but let's at least keep it in mind when people make completely baseless assertions that they can't back up.

Khan, I appreciate your sentiment, but this thread was more or less going to degenerate into spin the moment you came up with the title. Stock's spin is just the most recent evidence of such. I take your desire for a thoughtful discussion of strategy at face value. I'm quite sure it's shared by a lot of other people, but spin is one of the most crucial components of campaigning. I'm quite sure just about everyone who actively supports a candidate contesting an election does it (Stock: Note how I qualified that statement with the qualifier 'just about').

That's why facts are important, and that's why a 13-year-old incident actually does have some import when discussing this race. Unlike the stock market, in politics, past results are quite often (another qualifier!) an indicator of future performance. That's why candidates should be vetted better before they get supporters that they might wind up embarassing.

The Harvey's story was huge back in the day. One of the biggest embarrassments ever perpetrated in the old city of Toronto. It was an emarrassment to anyone who claims to be progressive in their politics. It was a further blow to a left already damaged by the NDP's experience in government. It didn't just make us look collectively bad, it reinforced in people's minds that we were a bunch of wild-eyed thought police hellbent on punishing anyone who didn't think the same way we did.

Look, I hated Mike Harris (and continue to hate the damage his government inflicted on people) as much as the next lefty. But you've gone down a very slippery slope when you start putting limits on the rights of ordinary people and organizations of any sort (that includes business, I'm sorry to have to tell you) to participate in the political process. When you use your office to orchestrate a boycott of a company, simply on the basis of a donation to a political party whose policies you disagree with, that's just plain wrong. It's an inappropriate use of your office, especially when it's an office that has pressing issues to confront. Things like infectious diseases (we've seen what being slack on that during SARS did for the city), safe drinking water, etc.).

I mean, when Barbara Hall accuses you of a 'witchhunt', I mean, geez...

  Monday, February 26, 1996
BY DON WANAGAS

As chairman of Toronto's board of health, Councillor Peter Tabuns should have no trouble getting his head examined.

All he needs to do is pop up to the 7th floor of City Hall's east tower where Dr. David McKeown, the public health department's chief medical officer, can give him a brain scan.

McKeown, you see, is pretty much expected to do anything Tabuns asks of him. Which is why the good doctor will soon be posting notices in health department offices around the city urging people to boycott the Harvey's hamburger chain.

Tabuns, with the backing of a slim 7-6 health board vote, has decreed that Harvey's burgers are bad.

Does this have something to do with cholesterol or saturated fat in those charbroiled patties, you ask?

Not on your life. Tabuns wants to hit Harvey's where it hurts because its parent company, Cara Operations Ltd., made cash donations to the Ontario Progessive Conservative party. That's $4,000 a year for the past three years, if you want to be exact.

As far as the councillor is concerned, corporations that bankrolled the election of Premier Mike Harris have to share the blame for his welfare and social services cuts.

They're a health risk, Tabuns says. And consumers should boycott Harvey's until Cara publicly renounces the Tories and pledges not to give them any more money.

"This is nuts," says Councillor John Adams, who voted against the boycott at last Thursday's health board meeting.

Nuts it is. And Dr. McKeown would likely come up with the same prognosis if given the chance to read Tabuns' electroencephalogram.

As Adams pointed out, health board members received no report from city staff requesting any kind of action against Harvey's. All they got was a letter and a brochure from a group calling itself the "Riverdale Against the Cuts Committee."

Not surprisingly, the "committee" is headquartered in Tabuns' east-end ward. And, the truth be told, the councillor's City Hall staff were distributing notices of the group's boycott plan in early January - dutifully printed on stationery from his office and reproduced on a council photocopier.

If Tabuns wants to throw his personal weight behind the group and its cause that's one thing. But for him to use the health board as a tool to give the perception the boycott has the sanction of the municipal corporation is wrong.

It's anti-democratic and downright stupid.

In this society, individuals and corporations have the democratic right to make financial contributions to the party of their choice within the established legal guidelines.

If Tabuns and his NDP colleagues don't like the fact Cara gave its allowable contribution to the Tories, that's their problem. Just like it was Tory supporters' problem that unions and organized labor gave cash to help install Bob Rae's NDP government at Queen's park in 1990.

There are some folks out there who will claim the New Democrats also posed a big threat to the public health with the programs they brought in during their five-year tenure. But we never heard a thing about boycotts from Tabuns and the board of health during all that time.

That's because the Harvey's boycott has nothing to do with public health concerns. It's purely political.

As an angry Mayor Barbara Hall pointed out on Friday, Tabuns' action "verges on a witchhunt."

Today it's Harvey's. Tomorrow, who knows who else in the corporate world will be targeted?

And council wonders why it has trouble attracting new businesses to the city to help strengthen its suffering economy.

I suspect if Tabuns had his way even individuals would be subject to checks concerning which political organizations they make donations to. Give to the wrong bunch and, who knows, you might not qualify for a building permit.

You bet it's scary. The inmates are indeed running the asylum.

"Rather, I'll say I'm quite sure you you should ask her (Churley) and find out.  I'm almost, but not quite sure you haven't."

Sorry to disappoint you - but I have asked her. She said it was a very difficult decision as to whether to back Prue or Tabuns (no mention of Horwath or Bisson). Tabuns is a close personal friend who she thinks very highly of and Prue is the MPP for the riding she has run in twice federally and he was very helpful and generous to her federal campaign. In the end she endorsed Prue, but it could easily have gone the other way.

I say bravo to Tabuns for his policy on Harvey's. When you consider the horrific damage Harris did to the social fabric of the province - i wish more people had had the courage to fight back using every means at their disposal.

I believe the race is now between Prue and Horwath. Tabuns has a lot of first ballot support, but not enough to get him elected on the first ballot (50% +1). Tabuns doesn't seem to have the necessary second ballot support either. That leaves us with Prue and Horwath who each have a strong support base of first ballot supporters, and a significant number of second ballot supporters. Prue and Horwarth are the only candidates with enough first ballot and second ballot support to win. While I like Andrea, especially her energy throughout this campaign, I want to see Prue take the leadership. I think his experience as mayor of East York, and certainly his governing experience during the 90's recession, makes him the better candidate to lead our party. Most interesting, Prue was able to get his agenda through even though most of the city councilors were liberal conservative and very much against his ideas. He was able to do this because he was so widely popular. There is no doubt that this is going to be a very exciting race right to the end!

Odd, Stock, that nowhere in your reply does it say anything about who Churley told you her second ballot choice was.

As for your last paragraph, I only have to ask you if you think it would be appropriate for a right-winger on a council committee to have done the same thing to, say, Dooney's if they donated to the NDP...

I'm almost quite sure that you would be outraged. Like progressives in the States were outraged when they found out the Republicans were using the machinery of government to weed out lawyers from the Justice Department, or started using 'anti-terrorism' wiretapping to spy on their own people.

I'm afraid we don't get to play by a different set of rules. And for once, I'm quite sure of something--that cheering on that sort of behaviour with a hearty 'bravo' would be something you'd quickly regret if you were on the receiving end if some city councillor who didn't agree with your political leanings started telling traffic cops to ticket your vehicle because he or she didn't like the fact you donated to the NDP.

For those interested, the full London leadership debate is available on youtube and nicely clipped into individual questions.

"Odd, Stock, that nowhere in your reply does it say anything about who Churley told you her second ballot choice was."

When someone tells you that it was a very tough decision as to whether to back candidate A or candidate B - but that they never even considered backing candidate C or D - you don't have to be clairvoyant to know how that person will rank the candidates on their ballot. I'm sorry if I didn't ask her to physically fill out a replica of a ballot so I could scan it and post here.

I don't know why you find it so hard to believe that there are people (esp. in Toronto) who are trying to decide between Tabuns and Prue. They are very similar in many ways. Both from the east end of Toronto from adjacent ridings, both with backgrounds in municipal politics etc... and many Toronto New Democrats have worked on both of their campaigns over the years. I realize that a (mercifully) very, very small number of people have some bizarre personal vendetta against one candidate or another - but in the REAL world of 25,000 card-carrying NDP members - I think you will find that about 24,950 of them don't actually "hate" any of the people running and don't have any of the mean-spirited hate-ons that we see from three or four babblers. 

Stock - I spoke with Marilyn too just the other week. She told me it was a hard decision between all the candidates because she has a good relationship with all of them. As such, she was trying not to get heavily involved in the race. But hey, good friends like you make her the focus of attention on rabble and air your private conversations on line. I'm sure she appreciates that. Maybe if she had known your intentions to use her on rabble she would have dished out so much more to you.... then again, perhaps she did know your intentions and that's why she chose to keep her second ballot choice to herself.

I remember in the leadup to the last leadership convention Howard Hampton was pretty severely smeared by some people in the Lankin camp (no evidence that Lankin herself approved of it) as sexist, pro-life, homphobic, a right winger, a northern rube etc. This actually bacfied with several undecided delegates I knew who were disgusted by the tactic with the end result being that they ended up voting for Hampton instead of Lankin. I'm wondering if the smear campaigns we've seen this time might have the same unintended impact?

My only point is that contrary to what you are trying to spin - very few people in the NDP have the kind of pathological hatred of any of the candidates you seem to be trying to provoke. I know that you seem to wishing and hoping that thousands of people will share your pathological hatred of Peter Tabuns and that some sort of "anyone but Tabuns" movement will materialize. Dream on.

Quite frankly, I don't get it. We all have our preferred candidates etc...but I don't see why some people insist of making this into some sort of personal hate fest. I've met all the candidates (except Horwath) and they are all what I would call "nice people" with very pleasant personalities and whatever Tabuns's strengths or weaknesses might be as leader, I actually found him to be the friendliest and most personable of them all. I really don't see what he has done to deserve having three or four people on babble bouncing off the walls foaming at the mouth because they hate him so much and then trying to project their personal feelings of hostility towards the entire of ONDP membership.

I just hope that if Tabuns wins the leadership you will have some blood pressure medication nearby. I wouldn't want you to hyperventilate and have a seizure.

I, on the other hand, am prepared to support and work with whichever candidate wins the leadership.

"This actually bacfied with several undecided delegates I knew who were disgusted by the tactic with the end result being that they ended up voting for Hampton instead of Lankin. I'm wondering if the smear campaigns we've seen this time might have the same unintended impact?"

That was a delegated convention. This is a modified OMOV process. The vast majority of people voting will be totally oblivious to all these smears and invective - so I'm not sure it will make any difference one way or another.

That's a valid point. However, the other difference with a delegated convention is that a voter was more likely to actually have met Hampton and realize that he wasn't some sexist, homophobic, gun toting, ogre and that they'd been lied to. If the vote had been OMOV with members voting at home, or in their communities, and had heard a rumour or read it on a blog (had there been such things then) the bromide of actually meeting the targeted person in person and realising that maybe the rumours were false would not have been as readily available.

As Churchill said "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

"a voter was more likely to actually have met Hampton and realize that he wasn't some sexist, homophobic, gun toting, ogre and that they'd been lied to."

That's true. Unfortunately, people were so busy trying to decide whether or not Hampton was all of the above (he isn't), they didn't bother to notice that he was kind of ineffective and uninspiring. The people working against him were barking up the wrong tree.

The only way i would even be aware of any of the smears about any of the candidates is from reading babble and since about 98% of ONDP members don't read babble - it will be like a tree falling in a forest.

aka mycroft and stock - I seriously what to know how it is that you can justify supporting a person that has locked out his workers? How it is that you can support a person that recently fired a staff member without just cause. Does his actions not go against your morals and principles as an NDPer? And what about denying democratic debate in the party? How does that jive with your NDP principles? Tabuns and Horwath say that school funding is not a priority and that we'll lose the support of practicing Catholics. Guess what - Michael Cassidy is quoted saying that gay rights "are not a priority at this time" and because of him and Rae's open vote on 167 we lost loads of our queer supporters.... I'm sure we made all those practicing Catholics happy. Tell me, did their donations go up? The thing is, if we lose sight of our principles we stand for nothing. I'm voting for Prue because it's people like him that make me proud to be a New Democrat.

glad to see you removed your nasty comment at me akamycroft ;o)

I'm melting! I'm melting!...

It's ok Stock. We'll recycle you into the Prue Crew and give you a new platform that won't melt under the pressure!

Long thread!