ONDP Leadership thread II - discuss, debate, post news here!

You missed my point entirely. 

"I feel I am the frontrunner" says Tabuns.

Funny. Most people, especially if you might be the frontrunner, tend not to say they're the frontrunner (eg. Dalton McGuinty in the last Ontario campaign [4]). If there's a strategy here I don't get it.

From the same article, the socialist warrior notes that, "government can only go so far when it comes to pressuring businesses to adopt environmental policies. In answer to a question about forcing automakers to build more hybrid vehicles, government can “only apply political pressure,” he said."

but who would we boycott?

Xtra profiles the race.

The comment section quote cracks me up: "Gilles Bisson is a hot bear!"

I see that I have not missed that much in the last week. I really wonder if this is changing anyones mind?

Maybe we should ask Deputy Mayor McCheese.

No...I seriously doubt the incestrous bickering between political operatives are changing or motivating any minds.  Poor Synth came on and was practically attacked for his "university" mind set.  Wow...and the NDP wants to rebuild...new blood...empower youths?  This is exactly the "old guard" mentality that is destroying the party.  Congratulations!

"Funny. Most people, especially if you might be the frontrunner, tend not to say they're the frontrunner (eg. Dalton McGuinty in the last Ontario campaign). If there's a strategy here I don't get it."

In a leadership campaign where core party members are voting - it makes sense to send out the message that you are a winner and are leading.

Well, with both Kormos and Marchese endorsing Horwath, Tabuns needed a major endorser to break her momentum. Who better to endorse Tabuns than --- Tabuns?

The Star endorses Horwath in it's Editorial.  Not sure if that's good or bad for Andrea considering they spelt her last name wrong.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/590904

Some of the comments on synthome were unfair. However, his comments weren't fair either. Many weren't even accurate. These threads have been dominated by a number of fairly partisan people - many of whom insist that everyone who oppses them is too partisan.

Anyway...

Toronto Star endorses Horwath

I don't know how much this helps Horwath but it's definitely bad news for Tabuns. His hometown paper quickly and brutally dismisses him. Prue's skewered as well. Bisson comes off relatively well.

Of the four, Bisson and Prue have been the most ready to challenge NDP orthodoxy during the leadership campaign. Bisson has called for the NDP to move away from its "tax the rich" stance in favour of "wealth creation," and he has advocated a tougher position on crime. But like Hampton, Bisson is a northerner, and it is time for a southern NDP leader. [16]

Prue is pushing for a debate on whether the NDP should continue to support separate school funding. And he alone of the four candidates questioned the party's decision to hold up the York U. bill. But in other respects, Prue's positions seem hackneyed, up to and including his campaign slogan ("results we've never had before"). [16]

Tabuns comes across as a single-issue candidate focused on the environment and energy – a reflection of his past position as head of Greenpeace Canada. He appears to be the choice of many in the party establishment. [16]

Of the four, Horwath would be our choice. While during the campaign she has stuck rigidly to past NDP platform positions, she represents change in other ways – generation (at 45, she is the youngest of the four candidates), geography (she is from Hamilton) and gender (the provincial NDP has never had a woman leader). And there is hope she would grow in office. [16]

Now that I've had a good cry and a hug from my therapist I can lift my head and face you mean bullies again. ;-)

I stand by what I've written, most of which was an expression of what I'd like to see the NDP become and of what would, as an active member, drive me away.  Sunday Hat, I would suggest you similarly stand by what you wrote and not resort to the "but he did it too" stuff. Just call me out when I'm out of line and I'll show up.

Let me be clear. I self-identify as a democratic socialist and desire the NDP to represent those interests in some way. The ONDP can't do much worse in terms of electoral success and, in my view has little lose and everything to gain by taking a sharp left turn rather than sidling up to the Liberal center.  That is my ideological hope.

I voted for Peter Tabuns  for a variety of reasons. It's not that he's casting himself as a "socialist" but he is in my view the most "leftist" of the candidates. So aside from the specific reasons, which I've mentioned a few times, (See here) for supporting Tabuns, a very simple one is that I always start counting from the left and Peter was the first candidate that came into view and increasingly the only one that comes into view at all until you reach the middle road owned by the Liberals.

re: Star's endorsement of Andrea Horwath

When the Liberals, I mean The Toronto Star, makes such an endorsement, it should only give us pause for thought (after all they were so kind to the ONDP in the previous provincial election).

Is it because Andrea's been adopted into the Liberal family or because she's seen as easy prey for the Liberals in the next election? I believe this now makes Andrea the establishment candidate, the Liberal establishment that is.

I'd say they endorsed her because they assume a leader from Hamilton would be good for Toronto Liberals (the only Liberals who count in the Star's editorial board room.) Deliberately misspelling her name would be consistent with that motivation.

Am I unfair to the Star? Consider their attitude to Proportional Representation. Look at the effect of regional MMP on the Liberal Party's MPs. Instead of having only seven western MPs, Liberal voters would have elected 16, nine more. And this was even more true in Ontario outside the GTA where they elected only five MPs, and would have elected 15, ten more. On the other hand, they would have elected seven fewer from the City of Toronto. The Liberal establishment and the Toronto Star are apparently more concerned with keeping those seven Toronto MPs than getting nineteen from the rest of Ontario and the West.  

I read that Andrea Horwath will be going to Welland and Port Colborne on Monday. 

the star has a new editor who is far from being a liberal.

Yep. And Peggy Nash and Marilyn Churley are even bigger Libs - after all the Toronto Star says they should have run. Evidently, Peter Kormos is a Liberal plant too. He's been luring us all in for the last 2 decades with radical rhetoric but now his real plan is revealed.

Once Horwath wins she'll rip off her mask and reveal she's Dalton McGuinty.

or...

Maybe the Toronto Star simply thinks that Andrea's the best of the candidates.

Well, certainly I think Andrea's the best of the candidates. But it's so long since I've ever agreed with the Toronto Star on anything that it's making me a bit paranoid.

There's a headline: "Toronto Star and Wilf Day agree"

My only concern about Andrea Horvath is that she was one of the co-chairs of the last provincial election campaign - which was a bit of a flop - and that I hear that she is backed by all the "lifers" at ONDP HQ who want a leader who won't rock the boat and won't change anything and will let them all keep their sinecures. That is cause for concern. I think Tabuns is the most intelligent of the candidates and has the best grasp of the issues - and despite all the focus on image - I think that being very smart is a major factor in being a good leader. 

That being said, Horvath wouldn't kill the party in the way that Prue or Bisson might. My concern is whether she actually has what it takes to be leader or if people are just thinking: She's a woman - check, she's younger - check, she's from Hamilton - check. When parties choose a leader through that kind of thinking, you end up with Kim Campbell leading the PCs and Audrey McLaughlin leading the NDP. People who know her better than me can explain why they think she DOES have the right stuff - but I want to vote for someone whoI think is the smartest person with the most forward looking ideas and who is running for the right reasons -not based on who fits a series of demographic characteristics....and before anyone accuses me of being sexist for saying the above - note that to this day, I think the most catastrophic mistake the ONDP ever made was in NOT picking Frances Lankin to be leader in 1996!

The deliberate misspelling is cute Stockholm (but please don't keep it up) I think the rumour mongering is lot less so.

The nice thing about assertions that can't be proven is that you can smear a person with them and the victim of the smear can't dissprove them.

But, let's look at the facts:

A quick look at Tabins (sic) website shows that he is backed by Diane O'Reggio, the outgoing provincial secretary who had a much much much bigger role in the last campaign than Andrea - or anyone else.

He's also backed by Sherrill Game, David Mackenzie, Michael Lewis, etc. all of whom were working at provincial headquarters in senior roles in the last campaign.

I don't think any of this is a reason to vote against Tabins (sic) but if his campaign wants to start a whisper campaign about Andrea Horwath this is the one that makes the least sense.

An even better idea would be to NOT start a whisper campaign and discuss the facts.

ETA:

Your comparisons are interesting. Kim Campbell was seen as having a very sharp mind and a strong grasp of the issues. It was something the PC campaign emphasized in 1993. I think it's still safe to say that Campbell had a better grasp of the issues then Chretien. Chretien was simply a better politician. I don't think anyone accused Dave Barrett of having a better grasp of policy than Audrey McG either. When people claim he would have made a better leader they rarely cite his grasp of policy.

All that said, I think it's a subjective call. From what I've seen Peter has a thorough understanding of energy supply issues. That's fine for an energy Critic but it seems to me that a myopic focus on a single issue is a risky proposition - particularly if most people in the province don't care that much about the issue.

Get Orange - now that was a big hit - NOT. Now which MPPs were the co-chairs of this "all over non-coherant campaign mistake?

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

After all its not like the entire election campaign was hijacked by an ill-conceived plan to discuss religious school funding issues that will always work to the Liberal's benefit.

I heard that certain candidates were the cause of raining frogs and for low tides in the Great Lakes too.  Let's burn them at the stake.  After all its not like ALL MPPs would have senior roles in setting the tone and tenor of the campaign now would they.  You know like the property tax plan that was a complete dud. 

Or being quiet on things right now like a hugely bad precednet in McGuinty's "Green" energy plans.

I'm asking for someone to make the case to me that Horwath is a giant intellect who will take the ONDP in a new direction and who is willing to shake things up and assemble a brand new team of people around her to run the party. If you think that is her - then I'm glad to hear it. I want to be convinced that there are reasons why she would make a good leader beyond - she's a woman and she's young. I want to feel enthusiastic about the next leader and not just feel that we got the least of four evils.

Well no wonder McGuinty thought it would be great - running against "funding all" and knowing that the NDP held the same position that the liberals and thus off-siding them, as me too.

Anyway, who was the co-chair of "get orange"? 

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

Stockholm, I have to say I have trouble believing you're sincere given the fact that you've made it plenty clear that you've made a decision. And that by that decision you've made it pretty clear that you don't actually have much of a problem with the party establishment and have little sincere desire to shake them up (the Tabuns campaign team was at the centre of the last campaign so the idea that he represents some radical break is farcical, to say the least).

All that said, assuming I've misunderstood, here's why I voted Horwath:

- Andrea is the only candidate who can actually play province-wide. Throughout this campaign, and in the past, Andrea's shown that she can bring people into the tent and can spearhead a broad movement that works in downtown Toronto as well as Kenora. The team that's forming behind her includes everyone from urban Toronto activists like Jehad Al-Iwewi and Andrea Calver [31] to class warriors like Wayne Samuelson. While other candidates have made bonehead moves that alienate key constituencies (like Bisson's opposition to the Endangered Species Act [32] or Tabuns' praise for high electricity rates [33]) Andrea's avoided these traps and shown that she can be a provincial leader - not a spokesperson for a constituency.

- Andrea has put the jobs crisis front and centre. She has earned the support of workers and their unions (she's got more endorsements from organized labour then the other candidates combined) not just because she has put a lot of thought into protecting the manufacturing sector and creating new jobs [34]  but because she's promised to stand with them when the going gets tough - and it will be getting tough very soon.

- Andrea is charming, funny and quick. That's a subjective call and people have had a chance to see the candidates in action and can make their own calls. Having canvassed - like a good New Democrat - in the by-elections where both were first elected I can say, with confidence, that Andrea inspired a fevered devotion in her potential constituents and Tabuns invoked a shrug.

- Scott Piatkowski supports her. And he's never wrong.

ETA: His name is spelled correctly.

My inclination is to vote Tabuns 1 and Horwath 2 - I just hope whoever wins - fires everyone at ONDP headquarters and hires a whole new bunch of people with new ideas. In fact, I think it would be good if everyone who worked for Hampton hands in their resignation to the new leader and let's him or her have a totally free hand in deciding who to ask to stay and who to wave goodbye to.

Check your PMs Sunday Hat.

Piatkowski (it's the day for misspellings I suppose). But, thanks... er, I think.

To respond to the three most recent lines of attack on Andrea:

1. She co-chaired the last campaign. Without minimizing what is a very important role, the primary direction of the campaign was the responsibility of paid staffers and consultants. And, without telling tales out of school, I can assure you that there was vigorous debate on the EPC both before and after E-Day and that Andrea was a part of that vigorous debate. She also made sure that those of us who like to ask tough questions were heard.

2. The Toronto Star supports her (ergo, she must be evil). Frankly, that was a pretty tepid endorsement at the end of a horribly argued diatribe against the NDP and Howard Hampton. So, if you want to hold that against her, go ahead. But maybe, just maybe, they have a point and she really is the best candidate. There are certainly more and better reasons to vote for Andrea than gender, age and geography; The Star just didn't bother to note them (or to look up the correct spelling of her name).

3. "Lifers" at Provincial Office allegedly support her because she allegedly won't shake things up. There's hardly anyone left working at Provincial Office due to budget constraints. The Acting Provincial Secretary is leaving soon (hence the word "Acting" in his title). He and everyone working for the party and Hampton's office are neutral. Furthermore, there's little evidence that Horwath is a status quo candidate. If she was, I wouldn't be supporting her.

.

.

I don't think Bisson's vote makes him an anti-environmentalist. I do think the fact that he alienated a boatload of environmentalists with his actions a little boneheaded - though maybe not as boneheaded as Tabuns call for higher hydro rates. If Tabuns wins the leadership expect Liberals to raise that over and over and over.

Gilles Bisson has talked about the economy a lot - but his argument that New Democrats should join the business community in calling for lower corporate taxes and less "red tape" is the wrong way to go. I don't think we gain anything by abandonning our principles. Particularly now, when the NDP's critique of blind faith in the market looks more and more accurate.

ETA: I've responded to a phantom comment. It's vanished.

I agree NWL. 

I have addressed Gilles voting against the ESA a few times before.  It is a majorly flawed bill that places the entire economic burden of saving species on the individual landowner that had the foresight to protect the habit that the rest of us destroyed.  Dumb-ass stupid doesn't come close to describing how poor the Act is.  Gilles deserves credit, not condemnation for doing the right thing on that bill.

Gee, I guess that makes Bisson leader of the Randy Hillier wing of the ONDP. Isn't that almost exactly the line he is always taking?

Horseshit.  This was a completely flawed act.  Many, many progressive rural people opposed this bill.  If you want to be that way you could claim that those who supported this legislation were the reactionary ones since they were using the power of the state to impose this act on individuals without any democratic representation.

However, I see it more that this was urban people just not getting the reality of what rural Ontario actually looks like and why it is that these spots have become the last refuge of these species.

Scott: "But maybe, just maybe, they have a point and she really is the best candidate. There are certainly more and better reasons to vote for Andrea than gender, age and geography; The Star just didn't bother to note them (or to look up the correct spelling of her name)."
 
No one is suggesting that Andrea is evil, but when you dine with the devil you had better have a long spoon. Kidding aside, and this only further highlights a major drawback of not having a critical left friendly voice in the MSM (trotting out Linda McQuaig once in a while is only pretense on the part of The Star).
We know the editorial board of the Star has become increasingly brazen and unequivocal in its support for the Liberals.  And it's not only motivated by the fear of Harper's Reform Conservatism. The Star endorses neoliberalism. It should have been a campaign expense for the Liberals in the last provincial election. More recently, The Star has even actively joined in the chorus against labour and the left in this province. Their recent coverage of the CUPE 3903 strike was simply appalling.

 So, in an article whose subtext, as you rightly point out, is to pillory the ONDP, the editorial board "tepidly" and on the back of completely feeble reasoning come out in support of Andrea Horwath. Can you imagine Andrea running on that basis? "Vote for me: I'm young, I haven't the mettle yet to be leader but will grow in office. Not only that, have I mentioned that I'm a woman? Moreover, are you aware that I'm from Hamilton? What's that? policy you say? I'll stick with the old tried and true middle road tricks that have almost reduced us to total obscurity." Seems to me The Star does "really" see her as the best candidate, but in whose best interests? The ONDP or the Liberal Party of Ontario?

Andrea of course is not evil, in fact she's quite a wonderful person, as frankly, are all the candidates. That they knock themselves out seeking political office would be enough to earn my respect, but to put themselves out there for the leadership (while a great opportunity, seems like mostly thankless and heavily scrutinized work that must make being an MPP a walk in the park by comparison) is deserving of much respect. But the Liberals are evil and worthy of being approached with caution.

I would point out that Bisson has not called for corporate tax cuts and less "red tape" across the board or anything like that. What he has been talking about is taking a more moderate approach to such things and less absolute. Also, he's talked about doing anything like that as a trade off for other things, like job guarantees, anti-scab legislation, better environmental protect by industry and better labour laws. As he's said, he's talking about all of this stuff in the context of Corporate Ontario's duties to the people of the province. He's not talking about blind give-aways like the Liberals and Tories have done, what he's been talking about is using things like corporate tax cuts in some situations almost like bargaining chips. That seems to me to be very much in line with the party policy of making sure that guarantees are attached to any money going out the door. I wouldn't call that selling out principle; I would call that making use of everything a government has at it's disposal.

As for what happened to my comments, that's wierd.... i'm not sure why they went all ghost on me. I'd say it's a conspiracy, but that's not my way... hehe 

Thanks for agreeing

Listening to three candidates yesterday (Tabuns had a prior commitment in his home riding), did not make the big decision any easier. They're good.  And as one observed, that's what 41 "debates" will do for your presentation style.

But what I have finally decided , by reading people's comments on Star articles the past couple of days, and views on the Globe and Mail, and a discussion with Gilles Bisson about what it takes to get some lineage in the north country - between elections and at election time - I've decided that now is not the time to think about radical innovation. First develop a structure prepared for battle.

The point was well made that New Democrats have to stop being centered on the legislature and be creative, putting forward innovative proposals, be pro-active. 

But who is going to learn of change in all its complexity if there is not a solid network of well-financed riding associations with IT put to active work across the land informing all, not waiting, helplessly, for a paid-for and increasingly ad-desperate MSM to decide, for some masochistic reason unrelated to their business, to come on board?

In the simplest terms possible, I'm putting the organizing horse up front of the cart with its baggage of political innovation(and yes, I know what Gilles has done in Timmins) , looking to see an influx of youth and a wider representation of our changing demographics at the riding level.

And information.

So it's Andrea.

Toronto Star endorsment = kiss of death.  However, its gotta make the Tabuns and Prue camps a little bit nervous.  Will Horwath cut into their base?

FYI

http://trssastt.blogspot.com/2009/02/well-since-toronto-star-endorsed-an... [53]

Well, since the Toronto Star endorsed Andrea Horwath...

Labels: government [54], ontario [55], politics [56]

As already noted, the Star endorsement might not help Andrea tremendously but I'd argue it's a serious blow to Tabuns and Prue who are dismissed as "hackneyed" and "single issue" respectively.

I think the conspiracy theory that the Star is endorsing Andrea out of some secret desire to sink the NDP is too crazy to take seriously.

I think the theory that media doesn't matter is also a little off base.

It's not a roaring endorsement of any candidate but, it's a really SOUND rejection of the two Toronto candidates.

I wouldn't be surprised if Horwath wins. If you aren't personally acquainted with the candidates and if you aren't intensely involved in the campaign - she would give the impression of representing novelty etc... I just hope that she actually does represent novelty and not just the impression of representing novelty.

"the Star is endorsing Andrea out of some secret desire to sink the NDP is too crazy to take seriously."

Not a conspiracy since there's nothing secret about The Star's allegiances and desire vis a vis the NDP. The Star has been brazenly undermining the NDP's credibility for a long time.  Whether their choice of Andrea is so motivated is anyone's guess, but I don't think anyone could fail to see that the article is broadly and foremost an unflattering portrayal of the ONDP.

As far as "a really sound rejection of the two Toronto candidates", seems that the editorial board undermines any and all credibility in that regard when it proffers such a superficial appraisal and unreasoned endorsement of Horwath. Unless, of course, you find The Star's reasons compelling ones upon which to base a choice for the next leader of the ONDP.

In general, I tend to agree with Stockholm on the criteria for choosing a candidate.

However, I will say I am aghast to find that ... even after they all PROMISED in the Ottawa leadership debate to do better ... the final pitches coming out of the Tabuns and Prue campaigns have been in English only.  Horwath's last one contained a french translation at the bottom (although the subject line was in English only), and of course Bisson's campaign materials have been bilingual all the way through.

I wrote back once to Tabuns' campaign about this ... to no response.  I've just written again to say that if they don't take the time to reply this time, I'll withdraw my support for his campaign.

It's not nothing that someone from Ottawa was prepared to support a Toronto candidate, in spite of how we get treated by Provincial Office.  Sadly, the continued unwillingness to follow through on a commitment to communicate in both official languages by the Toronto candidates' campaigns does give pause for thought.

Prue phoned through again the other day in English and French, but again the French was unpracticed and halting.  Regardless, he lost me in the Ottawa forum when he flipped out at the other candidates, so I'm not sure he could have won me back regardless.

The Toronto Star article is a slurr against the NDP.  Take a bunch of potshots, say there could be something better in the choices, undermine those in TO, write off a Northerner, and then underwhelmingly support Andrea and spell her name wrong.

I wouldn't put anything into the article.  The Star had nothing good to say, which is on par with their Liberal Bias.  The Star is as irrellavent to the NDP as the NDP is irrellavante to the Star.

I can see them taking potshots at whomever becomes the NDP leader in March. Even if it is Andrea, they will continue to say bad things about the NDP, and if it is the other choices, they will have a 3 in 4 shot of undermining that choice of the NDP.

I think the NDP should be happy with any coverage of the Star, as no news is the worst news. Bad News is better, and Good News the Best.

Yesterday in Cambridge, Bisson used a line that I hadn't heard before. Oddly enough, he's started touting the fact that he is the SECOND YOUNGEST member of caucus during debates. With the person who is the actual youngest member of caucus sitting beside you, it's a tough argument to make (i.e. age is a factor, so vote for the second youngest).

I shared a quick WTF-glance with Andrea's tour person when he said it twice yesterday. I really don't know what he's thinking. If he was saying 'Isn't it sad that the second youngest member of caucus is 51; We need more need blood.' that would be different. But, he's not. Anyone want to explain the rationale (assuming this argument works on them)?

Scott.... maybe it had something to do with the fact that while he is the 2nd youngest candidate at 51 (only like 5 years older than Ms. Horwath), he has over 19 years of elected experience at Queen's Park in both government and opposition. That combination of youth and experience is something that many members are looking for in this race, especially these days. The argument is that he's young enough to be in this for the long haul to rebuild the party, but has the most elected experience of the whole group. That's a powerful combination.

NWL. Agreed. Experience does matter. So does age. Andrea should put her time in and run in a few years when she has been at the provincial game a little bit longer.

To visit the ageism angle....

If Bisson wins, at 51 he probably has two terms as leader in him.

Once done, Horwath would be 55, seasoned and a bit more ready for the job.

Prue and Tabuns are already too old to have the energy needed to do the job (for long) and would be better off as senior advisor MPPs to the leader.

Here's some fun facts:

- Tommy Douglas became Leader of the Saskatchewan CCF at age 38.

- Ed Schreyer became Leader of the Manitoba CCF at age 34.

- Stephen Lewis became Leader of the Ontario NDP at age 32.

But now we're actually having a serious conversation about whether a 46 year old working mom who has served as an MPP, City Councillor, community organizer etc. has enough "experience" to lead the NDP?

I know some folks are scared of change but this is crazy.

So now we're actually having a serious conversation about whether a 51 year old working father who has worked and served in the labour movement and as a MPP in both government and opposition for over 25 years has to some how apologize for the fact that he has the most experience of the bunch? Especially one who is actually running on changing how our party organizes itself and reforming the party.

I know some folks are scared of an actual change, but this is crazy

I don't think Gilles should apologize at all. I just think his "experience" is not his best selling point. 20 years as a backbencher doesn't impress me much. If it did, I'd think Tony Ruprecht was God.

Maybe if he had spent 20 years as a backbencher, I would be worried, but that's not what Gilles has been doing. Trying to paint him as such is just wrong.

Last time I checked, being a Parliamentary Secretary in a government isn't being just a backbencher. It's being heavily involved. Also, in all of his years in Opposition, it's not like there were that many people in our benches, so I would argue that no NDP MPP in Ontario for the past 14 years has been a backbencher of any sort simply because they've had lots to portfolios to pick up. He's held many tough critics positions (on top of being party whip), as have all the members of the caucus.

I'm less interested in how good a job each of the candidates can do of padding their resumes. I want to know about their actual capabilities. When the federal party last chose a leader - paper Nystrom was the most qualified and Layton was the least qualified. But, I think that almost everyone would agree that Layton was a better choice as leader than Nystrom would have been.

Wow.... doing ones job as an elected official is now considered to be "padding ones resume". Bravo for trying to reduce the work of our elected officials

As for the best choice for the job, I want the candidate who is best able to reach out to the province, who's best able to communicate with them and is best able to sell our party to the electorate. To me, that's Gilles Bisson and many people who have been attending these debates across the province have come away thinking that he's the best person for the job too.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that anyone was actually padding their resume. I guess I was thinking of all the dirt flying about whether or Tabuns can say he was Deputy Mayor and whether or not so-and so actually did anything as a backbencher etc...anyone can make themselves sound like a big shot on paper. I'm more interested in personal qualities and traits that each candidate has.

Not totally unexpected, but an interesting development with Leo Gerard endorsing Horwath for leader.

Steelworker Leaders support Andrea Horwath for Ontario NDP Leader

    TORONTO, Feb. 23 /CNW/ - United Steelworkers International President Leo W. Gerard and Canadian National Director Ken Neumann have both come out in support of Andrea Horwath for the leadership of the Ontario New Democrats.

"I know Andrea has worked hard for both our members and working families, locally and across the province, and she is clearly ready to be the new rovincial voice for the New Democrats as leader in Ontario. We need someone ith Andrea's talent and experience to be speaking out in the face of the conomic downturn," said Leo W. Gerard, International President of the United teelworkers
   

"Andrea has been a tremendous friend to the United Steelworkers not only n Hamilton, but in the North and around the province. She is an experienced ocal leader - in the community and in the province, and now she is ready to ead a new generation of New Democrats in Ontario," said Ken Neumann, National irector of the United Steelworkers in Canada. "Andrea has worked with the abour movement for years and understands the challenges that are facing orking people all around our province - in our cities, rural areas and in our Northern communities," Neumann said.

I went into this campaign quite undecided – and I even joked with a few friends that this is the first time someone would actually mark me a 3 in NDP vote during an election!

While I was honestly open to all the candidates, Bisson quickly ruled himself out in my books. His “tough of crime” and “wealth creation” statements have been vague, but they strike me as code for steering the party drastically to the right. While I’m all for modernizing, and even moderating, our party, I don’t want to see us adopting our adversaries positions on crime and economics. And while I would have supported a candidate from Northern Ontario if I thought they were the best potential leader, I do think our next one needs more urban sensibilities.

Prue also quickly became problematic for me. And it’s too bad, because with his strong municipal background, I expected to like him more. But his campaign has lacked any coherence and so I worry about what kind of leader he would be. At times he has positioned himself as the insurgent candidate: opposed to the party “establishment” and for empowering the grassroots to decide controversial policy stances. But he has mostly been all over the place: refusing to answer which side of the separate school funding issue he stands on and promoting lower corporate taxes. Worst of all, he has advocated that the NDP court large corporate donations as a way to pay off our campaign debt. This is both a terrible policy position for a progressive and terrible politics for a politician of any stripe (imagine promoting yourself as FOR the special interests or IN the pocket of big-business).

So that really left Peter Tabuns and Andrea Horwath. While I like them both a lot, I was really hoping that Andrea would win me over. I like that she’s from Hamilton and that she has a strong background in social justice, the labour movement and municipal politics. And, I thought, that all things being equal it was “time” to have a woman lead the Ontario NDP.

Unfortunately, Andrea failed to impress me beyond her impressive CV. During the debate I saw, I thought she was the weakest performer with the least substance to her proposals. She consistently talked about “growing the grass roots” but failed to articulate one example of how that could be done, or, more importantly, how SHE was doing that very thing during this campaign. Furthermore, with an impressive list of supporters that includes many of the Ontario’s major labour leaders, I would have thought that her organization would be equally impressive. In my view, her organization has fallen seriously short, which gives me great concern when choosing a leader who we hope will rebuild our organizing capacity. While I have received 3 personal calls from Peter Tabuns (and two more from campaign workers), I have not heard one word from Andrea or her campaign.

Peter Tabuns is not the perfect candidate and may not be the perfect leader. But he has proven to me that he knows how to organize, how to attract good people and how to articulate a plan for the party and Ontario. I have faith that with Peter at the helm, we can rebuild our fundraising and organizing capacity. And, unlike the other leadership candidates, at least he’s taking the time to call our members and listen to their ideas.

yah but back in those days people got married at 12 and lived till 55.....

Hislop... just to clarify one of your points, for what it's worth. Gilles hasn't been talking about adopting the other parties position on issues like crime and the economy, actually it's been quite the opposite. His point has been that we as a party have been silent on issues like crime and that we don't talk about it from the social democratic view point. His point wasn't having our party take a "tough on crime" approach like the Liberals and Tories, but to have our party talk to what we would do in regards to the issue. Let's fact it, the core constituency that we represent as New Democrats are the on the bottom of the socio-economic scale, and they are the one who statistically are the most likely to be the victims of crime and most likely to be those committing those crimes. That being the case, we as a party need to have a response that's consistent with our principles, and that's something that we haven't done in past elections.

As for "wealth creation", I don't think that this is that aweful to talk about. Let's face it: when the economy is going well, employers are in a better position to pay more to their employees, more families having a better standard of living and through taxation, the government has more funds to administer any programs that we feel that we need. Ontario is better off when more of it's workers and families are making more money, creating "wealth", as it were. 

At the end of it, I don't think that Gilles was trying to talk in code or anything like that. What it is about is taking a different approach to what we talk about. It's about widening the scope of what we talk about and therefore making ourselves more relevant. At the end of the day, if we are ever going to form government again in this province, we need to talk about all the issues across the spectrum and talk about them from the social democratic perspective. If we don't show the people of Ontario that we aren' thinking about the whole spectrum, then we shouldn't be surprised that Ontarians won't consider us an option to form government.

Best of luck with your decision.

Yes.

Are there any stats on mean or average age of members then vs. now?  I suspect the NDP now skews towards a much older demographic. 

Maybe. I doubt it. The NDP still tends to score highest support amongst 18-35 year olds.

And lest we forget, Stephen Harper is two months short of 50.

32 sounds a lot younger to me now than it did back then, I'll tell you ;-)

Even if the NDP is popular amongst younger people, i'm 32 and at the last ONDP convention in Toronto i felt like i was definitely on the young side.

In any party, the kinds of people who have the time and money and interest to attend an out of town convention tend to be older.

But, the federal NDP convention in Quebec City actually had a lot of young people. But let's face it - the federal party has become very hip and knows how to put on a good show and have a fun event. The ONDP is a very dull institution. 

If I had to choose between going to a federal NDP convention in Yellowknife in the dead of winter - or going to an ONDP convention across the street from my house - I go to the Yellowknife.

Hislop, I have to agree with northwestern-lad, you misrepresent Bisson's position on crime. At the debate I attended he never said the ONDP should "get tough on crime". He said it was an important issue we had been avoiding when in fact we should probably own it because all the studies show that you really fight crime by addressing its causes. Our policies isn't as simple and knee jerk as those of the lock em up and throw away the keys crowd, but they're right & we should be able to convivce people of that.

I think that's true. And that statement was made before Leo Gerard and Ken Neuman endorsed her.

There's an odd silence here about how she did that and what it means. I find it highly reassuring. These guys aren't impressed with superficial virtues. 

Actually I like that line, but maybe that's my anti-extreme bias. Pollsters will tell you that some folks will never choose the outliers in the range. I wish our Greens would be more strident, as they are in Europe; it would make the NDP look like the second-most-left party. Youth if necessary, but not necessarily youth. For example, I like to buy the second-cheapest brand, not the cheapest.

Greens will never become strident because it does not become the libertarian.

Although their faith in the market to solve the carbon question must be a bit shaken by now.

"Andrea has put the jobs crisis front and centre."

Please, which other candidate hasn't in his own way done the same?  

"she's got more endorsements from organized labour then the other candidates combined". 

How's this claim being substantiated? Is it just self-evident?  Rhetorical?Moreover is this a claim that rank and file will simply follow the lead of organized labour, because that's been working so well for NDP lately. Or is it a claim that it will lead to more super delegates? I think things are much more uncertain than they look. Even Prue, whom it seems people, around here and in the polling thread, are writing off still has a viable shot.

Just because Prue's Crue is nowhere to be seen, could simply mean that Prue's staff and volunteers are spending less time with something frivolous like this and doing more of the hard grunt work of phoning, of attending events and meetings and identifying their support, of outreach and connecting personally with members. In the end, I believe, that will decide the leadership. At doing the hard work of organizing and campaigning, none of the candidates is a slouch. But the Tabuns campaign would have to rank as second to none in this regard.

I have been talking to some facebook friends who live in Northern Ontario. They tell me that up there Bisson is a hero.  I have to think that given that 25% of the membership lives up there and people seem way more tuned into the NDP movement; he has got to expect a big boost in votes from this  region.  Meanwhile Prue, Tabuns and Horwath scrap it out for the so called urban vote.

I think that's accurate - particularly in the Northeast. But I don't see him growing much beyong this base. 25 per cent won't win it.

Like a record baby, right round round round.

Of course we will never know how different regions of the province voted because results won't be published by riding. I suspect that Bisson will get a block of votes from the north, but that everyone else will rank him dead last - so he'll have no growth potential. I'm not saying that he is the worst candidate or that he deserves to have that happen. I'm just saying what I think is going to happen.

Of course, that's assuming that he Zero support anywhere else in the membership and Zero support in affiliated labour, which is far from being the case. And on top of that, I disagree with Stockholm's position. He's not going to be last everywhere else. I  respect to your opinion, I just believe that you're wrong... we are allowed to disagree. His growth potential is very good. If you don't want to believe me, don't worry, we'll all see what i'm talking about come the 7th.

right round round round

ETA totally groovy pete burns still

Just as I don't assume that the others will get every single vote in their back yards....

and i'll save foxy the trouble... round and round and round

Straight Goods has supporters of the candidates writing about why they support who they support.

Straight Goods has supporters of the candidates writing about why they support who they support.

This press release from the union that negotiated with Peter Tabuns when he was ED of Greenpeace should help dispell one of the  negative slanders being circualted during this camapign. 

Attention News Editors: COPE Local 343 - Press Release TORONTO, Feb. 24 /CNW/ - In our January 23, 2009 letter to the Michael Prue Leadership Campaign, a reference was made to the 'lockout' of Greenpeace Canada Door Canvass staff. This was not accurate. The circumstances surrounding the closure of the door canvass were amicably resolved as between Greenpeace and the Union, COPE Local 343, formerly OPE1U Local 343. COPE Local 343 regrets any inconvenience caused to Greenpeace by this error. COPE Local 343 and Greenpeace continue to have an amicable working relationship. For further information: COPE Local 343, (416) 703-4448

Do you have a link?

http://newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2009/24/c3343.html

At the risk of feeding the beast, I'll note that this is the sort of thing you release when your lawyers remind you that you can't tell the truth about something due to the conditions of a settlement.

Tabuns and Andrea sure seem to generate a lot of garbage for a pair of so called environmentalists. My favourite peace of campaign literature came from "The Desk OF Andrea Horwath" , yes she is the youngest candidate, all that was missing was for her to dot her " i's" with little hearts. If that's the type of intellectual giant you want as a leader it should provide good comedic fodder for this hour has 22 minutes.

Tabuns high end glossy hand outs should be decorating landfill sites for the next decade, and how much electricity has he used with all his videos on U Tube?

Alphasix, it's hard to take your comments seriously as you've been shilling for Prue for months and now claim you used to be "for Peter".

Unless by "for Peter" you mean "ardently opposed".

Alphasix,  ok I'll bite. That last bit of tripe against those 2 candidates is the absolutely silliest I've so far read in this thread. "Electricity" being used for (only 1 candidates) videos? LOL. "glossy" pamphlets? If I hadn't read your earlier posts I'd think you were being sarcastic. Not to delve into the details here, but ALL THE CANDIDATES put out glossy pamphlets (I would dare suggest they were ALL made by unions and recyclable... in fact I have all four candidates pamphlets right in front of me) and yes, ALL HAVE VIDEOS, for like, you know, CAMPAIGNING. 

Next election, how would you recommend the NDP communicate it's message? Smoke signals? (or would that leave too big a carbon footprint?). 

A note about the way you diminish the other candidates rather than give reasons to support you own: You are doing nothing but damaging your own reputation (and by extension your preferred candidate) by doing so. Furthermore, the intellectual dishonesty to suggest any of the 4 NEXT POTENTIAL LEADERS suffers from some sort of diminished capacity is pretty sad. I have a preferred candidate, as most of us do. But I have to say you stated something that I construe as pretty damn sexist, as well as ridiculous. 

You want to influence peoples votes, then I would suggest you start talking about the reasons to vote FOR your candidate not throwing mud at the others. (which mostly, as seen by the recent press release mentioned above, tend to be mistruths AT BEST anyhow. This BTW applies to everyone who has been attacking ANY candidate with, dare I say it, Liberal tactics.)

I have seen the some silly attacks on all of them (Like Gilles not using a union bug on his GLOSSY PAMPHLET just for example ergo he's anti union.) Stupid, childish and quite ridiculous.

And Sunday Hat called you out, quite correctly, on who you've been shilling for (albeit extremely negatively).

At one time I was Behind Peter for his stance on the Environment. I began to question his ability to win when it became apparent to me that he was a one issue candidate. Not a stance that will win a General election. I like Gilles I think he has a strong presence and is an affable guy with some good policies, but I don't think Ontario wants another NDPer from the north at this time. Andrea seems to be too inexperienced, at least in formal speaking functions to win over the soft liberals and conservatives.

I think Michael has the most overall appeal to get elected by both NDP and Non NDP voters.

With regards to Andrea proclaiming she is the right choice because she is a woman, that's sexist. Saying she was the right person for the job would have been a more mature decision.

You know, I've let a lot of subtle sexism pass without comment during this campaign. But, this is pure over the top unvarnished paternalism.

Do you really think that's going to help your candidate. I certainly hope that you aren't being paid by the Prue campaign to post here because, if you are, they should ask for their money back.

P.S. On the environmental question, at least Andrea's campaign sent only one mailing to the four members in my house. Others have sent four. BTW, I'm using electricity to send this message.

She is the right person for the job. And a woman.

As I've pointed out before, mentioning her gender is exactly comparable to Prue reminding people (repeatedly) that he grew up in Regent Park.

And, after your last post, I don't think you should be lecturing anyone else about sexism.

Or when your lawyers tell you you can't say something because it's not true. Lockout has a specific meaning in labour law and there was simply no lockout at Greenpeace.

double post

True enough.

Now at least your attempting to talk about POLICY. Very good! However, using talking points from a negative editorial from a NDP hostile board from the Liberal Star is a little unbecoming. I'm quite sure you visited all the candidates websites and looked at the "Issues" sections.  In fact, I recommend you take a look at all 4 leaders websites again and re-read what they say when it comes to "issues"....  some have (much) more to say then others.... I'll leave it to you and others to decide which candidate(s) has (have) the most comprehensive, fleshed out ideas, on a myriad of issues.

I know people in the NDP like to blame vast media conspiracies for setbacks but can we not accept that it's possible the Star said Peter Tabuns was an uninspiring single-issue candidate because they thought he was an uninspiring single-issue candidate? I voted NDP all of my life and it's pretty much the conclusion I reached.

If the worst thing that can be said about Tabuns is that he is a "single issue candidate" and that single issues can be described as "economy/environment/energy" - my reaction is that this "single issue" is kind of the "elephant in the room". The leader probably should talk about that more than anything else.

Anyone care to make an estimate as to how many members will be at convention? 

I've never been but plan on attending this one and would like to know what to expect.

All I know right now is that it costs a whack of dough and I don't think I get a free t shirt......

Anyone out there have any experience on this one?

What do I wear?

Should I leave my inflatable hammer and sickle at home?

Bring the inflatable hammer and sickle SN.

And Stockholm, I don't think the Star meant "single-issue candidate" as a compliment. I think when the average Ontario voter listens to Tabuns they don't think, "There's a guy who gets me and my concerns." They think, "That guy says 'green energy economy' incessantly and I don't know or care what he's talking about."

Wear whatever you will be comfortable in, in a southern Ontario winter.  There is very little formality -- the Leadership candidates will be "dressed up" and virtually no one else will be (that makes it easier to spot them  ).  Don't plan on bringing a hammer, inflatable or otherwise.  You will be downloaded with paper -- recent conventions have given delegates a cloth bag in which to hold the endless paper, but it will get heavy after a while.  A hammer will only weigh you down!

You could attend the arts and crafts event where we will be making paper mache hammers and sickles from all the paper handed out  - glossy is best for a great look by the way.

Heh.  An excellent comment to close this long thread, BA.

Continue here, folks.