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

[1]Continued from here! [1]

Comments

Submitted by Lord Palmerston on February 27, 2009 - 12:18am.

It's so uninspiring...

Submitted by aka Mycroft on February 27, 2009 - 2:06am.

Here is Rabble's profile of Andrea Horwath.

Submitted by Lord Palmerston on February 27, 2009 - 3:11am.

Quote:

On Michael Prue's suggestion of re-examining Separate School funding

"I co-chaired that [last] campaign and I watched that train wreck up close and personal and I don't believe we need to spend our time shooting guns at each other on the convention floor. I'm sure there will be some kind of resolution we'll debate but I believe that we need to look at education from the perspective of where are the common pieces and a common piece is the fact that we're still operating under the Harris funding formula; a common piece is that we know that there isn't enough ESL being provided in our schools, there's not enough special ed teachers for kids with special needs, our schools are physically crumbling as we speak, the closure of community schools instead of reopening them to the community so they can become hubs of recreation, of public health and all kinds of other services; the closing of rural schools, pulling out the last bastion of any kind of community activity from these rural communities. Those are the kinds of things that we have common ground on; those are the kind of things that we can build from on common purpose as opposed to the politics of division which I'm so sick and tired of. After Harris and now even McGuinty he's following in the same footsteps in terms of the politics of division that Harris had except maybe a little bit more subtly. I've gotta tell you I don't have time for the politics of division; I have time for the politics of building."

I'm sure those who don't want to debate this "stupid, divisive, non-pressing issue" think this is a brilliant statement. I think this statement sucks.

Submitted by wage zombie on February 27, 2009 - 3:10am.

from the Rabble profile wrote:

When asked about messaging and specifically about the "Get Orange" slogan used in the last election, Horwath, who was co-chair of the NDP's 2007 election campaign, bristled and answered defensively.

"You know what, to be fair in terms of the last campaign - we could have stood on our heads and spit golden nickels and we would not have cut through the faith-based school funding issue. We could have had the most perfect campaign in the world and it still wouldn't have gotten through the Liberal's brilliant move to pull that piece out of the Tory playbook and ram it like a wedge."

Asked directly what she thought the party's message should be in an election, Horwath refused to speculate.

"You can't develop your message now. The message gets developed in the context of the environment as you're leading up to the campaign. I have no idea. I don't know, I mean how deep is the recession going to be, how long is it going to last? ... It's absolutely impossible to do the messaging on a campaign when you have no idea what the environment is going to look like and what the variables are."

This seems pretty weak to me.

Submitted by Wilf Day on February 27, 2009 - 6:53am.

"we could have stood on our heads and spit golden nickels and we would not have cut through the faith-based school funding issue. We could have had the most perfect campaign in the world and it still wouldn't have gotten through the Liberal's brilliant move to pull that piece out of the Tory playbook and ram it like a wedge."

Although the government (though Elections Ontario) made sure most people had no idea what the referendum was about, some people opposed MMP on the grounds that a Muslim Party could win seats since 3% of Ontario are Muslims. The faith-based schools issue not only hijacked the election, it even hijacked the referendum. The Ontario PC Party started to rip itself apart on the issue. The NDP stayed focussed on our issues, even though the media were busy chasing the red herring. That was the right and only messaging. But Howard should have gotten mad at the media circus earlier than he did.

Which proves the point: you have to adapt your election messaging to the context of the time. I think anyone who has fought a campaign knows this.

Submitted by janfromthebruce on February 27, 2009 - 8:45am.

That's right Wiff, and a third party does not get to set the context or the dominant message unless it happens to be "different." The liberals set that campaign theme as soon as tory said he would run on "fund all religious schools." The media just followed along. Nothing in "get orange" fit that election frame.

The only way the NDP could have "shifted the frame" was to start in the "dominate frame" and shift from there. To do this the NDP needed to differentiate its education message from the liberals, but alas it's education message was "liberal lite" and thus got lost. Even if the NDP had strategically suggested that an NDP govt would setup a panel on education funding would have gotten some media attention, and thus provided the segway to "talk about their issues." But they remained "silent" and thus irrelevant.

Getting "angry" did not change that reality and nor would getting "angry now" or in the future would be good politics. Saying to Ontarians that this issue is not important, when obviously a lot of Ontarians expressed keen interest showed they were not "in touch" with them.

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

Submitted by madmax on February 27, 2009 - 9:05am.

Faith Based funding killed the Tories and won the Election for the Liberals. Anyone who wishes to fight the Liberal Party on the Education front, no matter what position they take will lose and lose BIG. The Liberals will do everything in their power to fight an election on Education. I can see the strategists rubbing their hands and thinking.... "Go ahead Make My Day". Project a 3 peat, because if the NDP are that naive to go attacking on the education front, the Liberals will have a field day at the NDP and NDP new leaders expense, and ironically SideLining John Tory, who won't fight an election on education again. So the only party to play the education ball with is the NDP.

The Liberals OWN education. And they own it in the Public and the Separate school system. Thousands upon thousands of teachers donate money, time and organizing to the Liberal Party.

IF the NDP wishes to engage in political suicide. I will miss them.

Submitted by Scott Piatkowski on February 27, 2009 - 9:32am.

wage zombie wrote:

This seems pretty weak to me.

It seems pretty smart to me. Do you really want to develop the campaign strategy and message two-and-a-half years in advance.

And, even though Andy labels her response on the last campaign as "defensive", that seems to me to be bang on as well. Whatever mistakes were made by the NDP campaign (and there were plenty of them), we simply weren't going to get through the facade that was school funding debate.

Submitted by Hislop on February 27, 2009 - 10:32am.

I’m sorry, but to me, this is evidence that Horwath comes from the “no, we can’t”, Howard Hampton wing of the Ontario NDP.

Was there anything we could have done to win government in the last election? No, maybe not. But, we had a Liberal government with a record of broken promises and a Conservative leader whose campaign self-destructed. We should have been able to grow our seat total, popular vote and claim a victory, of sorts.

I really think we need to get as far away from this defeatist attitude, that has permeated the ONDP, as possible.

Submitted by Scott Piatkowski on February 27, 2009 - 12:03pm.

No, it's evidence that she's realistic about what happened in the last campaign. But, the new leader doesn't have to run in the last campaign (that's already over); she or he needs to run in the next campaign (and that's what we can still do something about).

It's like noting that the Liberals won 65% of the vote in Hamilton East in 2003. It's just a fact -- and acknowledging it didn't stop Andrea from winning 65% in the by-election held six months later.

Andrea's commitment to double the party membership by 2011 (to give just one example) certainly doesn't sound like a "no we can't" attitude to me.

Submitted by madmax on February 27, 2009 - 12:15pm.

The NDP taking on the Separate school funding isn't defeatist, it is the "charge of the light brigade".

Perhaps people here, and they are few, have very short memories of that horrific campaign that ended with Liberals Laughing and not having to defend their record because they could scream "education" at the top of their lungs. It was the only voice they had. Their trump card to counter a pathetic record in office. After the election, well, the issue no longer exists. Surprise.

The Federal Liberals will not campaign on a GreenSHift ever again. These are lessons learned. Infact, the Federal Liberals are unlikely to campaign on environmental issues for the next decade because of the stink of the last campaign.

But I have my eyebrows raised when I read on these forums that people believe that this issue on Education is going to could win them a single seat.

I think, you might be lucky to have a single seat left, if you choose this issue as part of the next election cycle. Religious school funding was a minor, minor, and near insignificant plank of the Tory Platform. But it was that plank he nearly walked off of heading into EDAY.

Charge of the Light Brigade, it's not defeatist, it isn't victory either.

Submitted by madmax on February 27, 2009 - 1:59pm.

Just started to check out the Leadership websites.

Micheal Prue webpage loads and crashes.

Peter Tabuns site isn't working at all.

Andrea Horwath Site is up.

And Gilles Bisson site works.

Well that's 50% with a Website to meet the masses.

Submitted by aka Mycroft on February 27, 2009 - 2:00pm.

All four candidates are on TVO's "The Agenda" tonight.

Submitted by foxymoron on February 27, 2009 - 6:02pm.

Max, Prue's site loads okay for me, although there have been times before where it failed to do so. Another try usually seemed to make it go.

Tabuns site loads, but a lot of images aren't loading.

Submitted by aka Mycroft on February 27, 2009 - 6:47pm.

The New Democrats Online site has been down as well producing the same error message as Tabuns' so perhaps it is a problem with a common server?

Submitted by wage zombie on February 27, 2009 - 6:52pm.

Scott Piatkowski wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

This seems pretty weak to me.

It seems pretty smart to me. Do you really want to develop the campaign strategy and message two-and-a-half years in advance.

So oh well i guess the Liberals had the trump card last election and there was nothing we could've done. Gee, i sure hope the Liberals don't have a trump card next election too or there will be nothing we can do. That's the attitude that seems weak to me.

Because that might happen right? The Liberals (or the Conservatives) may have another trump card and we'll be caught flatfooted again. It's not that i want to decide on an election campaign 2 1/2 years from now--it's that i want to see proactivity and an ability to control the message.

There are plenty of major obstacles to the NDP getting government and i want to see leaders talking about how we can overcome those obstacles, rather than giving those obstacles as the reason why "there was nothing we could've done".

I still think she's the best candidate but the passage i quoted strikes me as defeatist, uninspiring, and, well, weak.

Submitted by adma on February 27, 2009 - 8:52pm.

Scott Piatkowski wrote:

It's like noting that the Liberals won 65% of the vote in Hamilton East in 2003. It's just a fact -- and acknowledging it didn't stop Andrea from winning 65% in the by-election held six months later.

Actually, Dom Agostino won only a little over 52% in 2003--1 1/2 points *lower* than in 1999, despite the McGuinty landslide. The NDP's Bob Sutton, meanwhile, grew his share by over 10 points. So the signs of the future were there.

(Among other victorious Liberals with a lower share in 2003 than 1999 was Caroline DiCocco in Sarnia--who went on to be one of the few defeated Liberal incumbents in 2007.)

Submitted by Scott Piatkowski on February 28, 2009 - 1:51pm.

Thanks for the correction on the 2003 numbers (I was going from memory). But it was still a 22 point spread, so I think my larger point stands.

Submitted by Stockholm on February 27, 2009 - 11:03pm.

Gerald Caplan has written an article about the race and I am very much in agreement with his analysis:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090227.WCaplan28/BN...

"I can't say the race has been inspiring, and I've spend much scarce time deleting oceans of unwanted emails and phone messages. But I'm probably not untypical of many weary party members. Here's what I see.

Gilles Bisson was in the caucus when I was briefly research and strategy director a decade ago and was very much an outsider. He hasn't exactly become a household name since, and I know little more about him now than I did then. I am assured he's grown in various ways, but for me he remains a remote figure.

The last time I encountered Michael Prue, he offended me deeply. But my lasting view of him was cemented when he wrote a provocative opinion piece calling for the party to reopen the separate school question — as daffy a piece of advice as could be conceived — and then failed to say which side he was on. Pure attention-grabbing opportunism, so far as I was concerned, and a strategic suicide bomb.

That brings us to Peter Tabuns - a competent, pleasant man with a wealth of knowledge about the environment, one of the great issues of our era. He'd be my choice, except…

There's Andrea Horvath - a new face, a young face, a Hamilton face. A woman. Community-based.

Friends I respect who are closer to the scene are split between the Mr. Tabuns and Ms. Horvath. Each side thinks its candidate is more likely to grow, and maybe one is capable of finding the royal jelly.

For the sake of my dimming party and our troubled province, let's hope that candidate is the winner."

Submitted by Sunday Hat on February 28, 2009 - 1:10am.

While I agree with Gerry Caplan's conclusion (or at least half of it) his lazy analysis (complete with typos) and his ongoing tendency to pimp himself out as an "NDP pundit" when it's been over a decade since anyone sought his advice leaves me more annoyed than anything else.

Submitted by Scott Piatkowski on February 28, 2009 - 1:41am.

It's hard to blame Gerry, though, when the reality is that the Globe and other media simply haven't updated their rolodexes in 20 years (and, yes, they probably still use rolodexes). Maybe they should have soliited a column from one of his "friends ... who are closer to the scene" to get their take on the leadership race.

Submitted by adma on February 28, 2009 - 7:16am.

Scott Piatkowski wrote:

Thanks for the correction on the 2003 numbers (I was going from memory). But it was still a 32 point spread, so I think my larger point stands.

22 point, actually--a 10 point gain placed Bob Sutton a notch below 30%.

Submitted by Stockholm on February 28, 2009 - 10:04am.

"Maybe they should have soliited a column from one of his "friends ... who are closer to the scene" to get their take on the leadership race. "

The trouble is that any of those people are almost certainly involved in one of the campaigns and would not be able to give much of an overview. Caplan is writing an article from the point of view of someone with unimpeachable NDP loyalties who has a vote in this race like any other NDP "grunt" and who has the same dilemma as the rest of us. I have no problem with that.

Submitted by foxymoron on February 28, 2009 - 10:06am.

for an ndp 'grunt', he seems to be a rather delicate flower. shame he's let some personal animus colour his judgement.

did anyone watch 'the agenda' on tvo last night?

Submitted by Stockholm on February 28, 2009 - 10:29am.

Our personal views colour all of our judgment. and so they should. How else do you choose a leader other than by expressing your personal view of the candidates on offer.

If I had met any of the candidates and thought that one of them was a total asshole - I would definitely not vote for that person.

Submitted by Sunday Hat on February 28, 2009 - 11:54am.

Christina Blizzard writes:

Horwath could build NDP future

I often wonder if provincial New Democrats have some lemming-like instinct that compels them to periodically jump off high cliffs en masse. [28]

Next Saturday in Hamilton, the party that seeks to attract young people, especially women, will pick a new leader. The choice is between a feisty young woman and three older, grey-haired men... The NDP could and should have a future. Maybe all they have to do is pick the right woman. [28]

Once again, I'm not crazy about the messenger but agree with the message. I'm getting the sense that the Queen's Park press gallery finds Tabuns status as a frontrunner baffling.

Submitted by Stockholm on February 28, 2009 - 12:01pm.

The main thing I disagree with in Blizzard's article is that she writes about the NDP leadership process as if it was going to be an old-fashioned delegated convention - when its NOT. She quotes France Gelinas talking about the Nickel Belt members deciding who to support after the first ballot if Bisson gets knocked off. She writes about a potential "anyone but Tabuns" movement on a final ballot.

She is living in a fantasy world. This is a OMOV mail-in preferential ballot. While there may be some negligible number of junkies who will watch the convention and vote in real time between ballots - the overwhelming majority of people will have already filled out their preferences long before the actial convention. Horwath (or any of the others) may well win - but it will not be as a result of some dramatic "kennedy goes to Dion" gesture - it will be because thousands of people sat at their kitchen tables this past week and filled in their preferences (more often than not almost randomly IMHO).

Submitted by scarboroughnative on February 28, 2009 - 12:31pm.

re: TVO and blizzard article

Blizzard chimes in with her sage wisdom as a tool of the media plot to destroy the ndp.

Observations as follows.

Bisson is 51 compared to Tabun's 60 and Prue's 57.

I'd put him at barely grey versus moderate grey versus definitely grey

Horwath was sporting a new hairdo. Not too shabby for 45!

btw it occured to me that last time i checked the majority of women in this world are attracted to men so wouldnt it seem logical that if the ndp wanted to attract women it would be best to market a male product as leader?

Was funny when Tabuns got slapped around by the interviewer a bit!

Also liked when Bisson commented that the young demographic isnt the only group the NDP should be targeting but one of many that deserve attention.

Everyone on the panel looked tired and a bit worn out.

Otherwise boring format but hey its TVO.

Submitted by Stockholm on February 28, 2009 - 12:31pm.

Actually Tabuns is 58 not 60 - but why quibble.

Submitted by scarboroughnative on February 28, 2009 - 12:32pm.

Oh so is it prue that is 60? i thought one of them was 60?

Submitted by Scott Piatkowski on February 28, 2009 - 1:57pm.

And Horwath is 46, as she hastened to point out to the host.

Re. the Blizzard column. I have no illusions that Blizzard cares any ore about the future fortunes of the NDP than the Toronto Star editorial board. But, sometimes observers of the political process are able to see the obvious in spite of their biases. There is a trend here, and it's undeniably in Horwath's favour.

Submitted by Stockholm on February 28, 2009 - 2:32pm.

Blizzard is - oddly - one rightwing pundit who always given Hampton very good press. She wrote some surprisingly glowing articles about him (not that it did much good). She's a rightwing populist, but i think that because of her working class English background - she has a bit of a soft spot for "rough-hewn" politicians like Hampton. But dating back to her days covering municipal politics in Toronto - she seems to have a bit of a hate-on for the Toronto municipal left types (which would include Layton, Chow, Tabuns, Churley etc...)

Submitted by madmax on February 28, 2009 - 2:41pm.

The Toronto SUN is Was read by many working class joes, who regularly voted Conservative, read the Conservative Sun. But guess what, they have just lost nearly 300,000 readers who no longer pick up a Sun on the way to work, because their ain't no work to go to.

Current Governments aren't going to be popular, and Ironically, I have seen more NDP articles, and NDP headlines in NewPapers. Unfortuneately all media is losing their Add Revenues and Subscribers.

They may be joining the ranks of the Proletariat soon ;)

Submitted by aka Mycroft on February 28, 2009 - 2:43pm.

And having seen Bisson's "I'm second youngest" quip which someone commented on before, it's clear he was being tongue in cheek.

Submitted by Scott Piatkowski on February 28, 2009 - 2:52pm.

aka Mycroft wrote:

And having seen Bisson's "I'm second youngest" quip which someone commented on before, it's clear he was being tongue in cheek.

Really? It just struck me as... well, odd.

Submitted by aka Mycroft on February 28, 2009 - 3:21pm.

It was clear to me he was trying to be funny. Now whether he succeeded or not is another question:)

Submitted by Wilf Day on February 28, 2009 - 3:39pm.

Stockholm wrote:

While there may be some negligible number of junkies who will watch the convention and vote in real time between ballots - the overwhelming majority of people will have already filled out their preferences long before the actual convention.

Probably true, but unfortunate. Jack Layton would have won the federal leadership under any scenario, but Pierre Ducasse would have done a whole lot better if more people had heard his speech before they voted.

I expect Andrea to be in the final count, so I doubt my second preference will ever matter .. but I'll vote round-by-round in real time, just in case of the unexpected. Either online or in person (I haven't decided whether to attend.)

Submitted by aka Mycroft on February 28, 2009 - 3:49pm.

Two thirds of the membership vote in the federal race were cast in advance mail-in balloting. I think people have a bit more confidence in doing things online these days so that proportion might be lower this time.

Also, don't forget that the labour vote, which is weighted at 25% of the overall vote, is cast by union delegates on the floor so in a close, multi-ballot convention decisions made on the day between ballots (and in the wake of candidates dropping off and endorsing one of their rivals) still have some potential to influence the final outcome - though much less so, obviously, than in a situation where there are no advance votes.

Submitted by Ciabatta2 on February 28, 2009 - 6:23pm.

I thought the TVO show was relatively interesting. There wasn't anything there to bring in new voters, but I really doubt anyone watching TVO is the type to be an undecided voter. I mean, it's a pretty small viewer pool. So the show wasn't earth-shaking, but it wasn't as snoozy as I expected.

Bisson's age comment was definitely a joke. It may have been unfunny, but I suspect anyone who found it "odd" is looking for a reason to find it odd.

I thought Andrea was the best, clearest, most passionate, very level headed and relatable. Community focus was a welcome deviation from the general politician script. Gilles I would say came in second, as he was also relatable and deviated the most from the standard candidate/NDP schpiel (sp?), but I'm not sure he had the policy/ideas to back it up (I assume he does, just that it didn't show this time around.)

I thought Prue looked extremely weak on the school issue (Paikin made his intentions show through on that) and I thought his attempts to refute some of the other candidates comments about him made him look a bit petty. There's a fire there within him, he just needs to make it show a bit more. While I agree that Tabuns got 'slapped around' a bit by Paikin, he did better than I expected. Came across as very informed, but not inspiring. But then again, rating the candidates at the end of a leadership race based on a pretty quiet show with a mundane format is a bit of a useless exercise.

Paiking is a terrible host and interviewer. Without fail, he always finds a way to make the show about him, and not about the guests or subject at hand. He seems to have mistaken hard-hitting/bold for snarky and devious. It's not becoming, and doesn't add to the show whatsoever. Maybe it's my own bias, but I thought I felt a general sense of dislike emanating from the candidates toward the interviewer. Or maybe they're just tired. :)

Submitted by Sunday Hat on February 28, 2009 - 7:51pm.

Stockholm's right that Blizzard doesn't seem to understand the difference between the OMOV system and the traditional delegated convention.

That said: I do think Bisson's support will overwhelmingly go to Horwath if he's off the ballot. So, while he can't "declare" for Andrea he could easily be the kingmaker through strategic withdrawl.

It's possible that Bisson's support would be split between the other candidates but based on what I've seen and heard I assume - like Blizzard - that most people with Bisson have Horwath as their second choice.

Submitted by Ciabatta2 on February 28, 2009 - 7:59pm.

Agreed Sunday Hat. And the surprise of the convention could be that Bisson's support is strong enough to make her a winner very early in the voting.

Submitted by northwestern_lad on February 28, 2009 - 11:41pm.

What I'm finding amusing here is that some people here are saying that Bisson's support is so strong, yet somehow believe that he won't get to the last ballot. That's why I couldn't help but get a chuckle out of the Blizzard piece because she seems to make the same assumption (on top of the fact that, as has been said here already, she didn't seem to have a grasp on the OMOV set-up). Bisson is a lot of other people's second choices too, from what i've been seeing and hearing, so it's just as likely that when others go off the ballot that a lot of those people will go to him too.

But hey folks, just a week until the suspense is over and all questions will be answered

Submitted by alphasix actual on February 28, 2009 - 11:45pm.

I found that the TVO program on the candidates was for the for most part not half bad. Greenpeace was mentioned, the misinformation about the school question was covered, at least for those intelligent enough to be rational. Gilles was some what restrained and Andrea seemed somewhat more comfortable when asked direct questions.

Michael seemed to have the most presence as the future Premier of Ontario.

Submitted by aka Mycroft on February 28, 2009 - 11:51pm.

It's a shame that no one replied to Steve Paikin's statement that he'd heard people around the province say that the NDP is sanctimonious by saying "That's funny, I've heard people say the exact same thing about you, Steve."

Submitted by Sunday Hat on February 28, 2009 - 11:53pm.

We won't know for sure until it's over but I do think Gilles' inability to attract any MPP or MP support south of North Bay; or the support of major trade union leaders, etc. indicates that he's running very strong in Northern Ontario and not so strong in the rest of the province.

Northern Ontario is vitally important to the NDP (a third of our provincial caucus and a fifth of our federal caucus are from here) and vitally important to this race so Bisson's dominance here is significant - but support in the North is not enough to win. Unless Gilles is doing a lot better than I think he is in the Rest of Ontario (ROO) then he can't win this.

Submitted by Stockholm on February 28, 2009 - 11:54pm.

"I do think Bisson's support will overwhelmingly go to Horwath if he's off the ballot. So, while he can't "declare" for Andrea he could easily be the kingmaker through strategic withdrawl."

I'm not sure what you mean by "strategic withdrawal"? If he's fourth his votes get redistributed among the top three and then if he's third his votes get redistributed among the top two. Once the votes are cast - he really has no say.

Submitted by Lord Palmerston on March 1, 2009 - 12:04am.

Oddly enough, I think Gilles Bisson did well on The Agenda - in terms of presenting the case for rightwing social democracy. Of course that doesn't stop him being my last choice.

Submitted by Sunday Hat on March 1, 2009 - 12:13am.

Ouch LP!

I've gotta say - from a purely tactical point of view - Gilles' decision to paint himself as "business friendly" makes little sense. Gilles could join the Conservatives and people still wouldn't trust him to "manage the economy". He's just not that kind of politician. Gilles could have built a strong case that he's a real working class guy who will stand up for real working class people. That would have been credible and, within the NDP, a pretty compelling argument for support. Instead, he's trying to cast himself as a Premier in waiting who can build bridges with big business. It's not too credible.

I can only conclude he actually believes it - which is kind of sad. From the look of his donor list he's been spending way too much time getting schmoozed by mining executives and their lobbyists. If anyone has a better reason why he's banging the "tax cuts" drum I'd love to hear it.

It makes me wonder about some of his supporters - people like Tony Martin and Charlie Angus who, I had always assumed, were on the left of the party. Is there partisanship to the north trumping their political beliefs? It's really weird.

I don't want to run down Gilles too much because he is a very good MPP and the work he's done - particularly for First Nations - is something that makes me proud to be a New Democrat. But his campaign doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

And Stockholm, Gilles has some noteworthy union support (UFCW) that will be voting on the floor. And they've pledged to go to Andrea Horwath if and when they can't vote for Gilles.

Submitted by aka Mycroft on March 1, 2009 - 12:44am.

I've been told that Steelworkers make 68% of the total labour delegation. I know they're are the largest affiliate but are they really a 2/3 majority?

This is the breakdown I've been given:

USW 68 per cent (from amongst 85 seperate locals),
CEP 4 per cent,
UFCW 8 per cent,
SEIU 2 per cent,
18 per cent is CAW, COPE, DLCs, IAM, IBEW, IWA, Ironworkers, UA, NUPGE.

Affiliation is actually by local and then, according to the ONDP constitution, the number of delegates depends on the number of members in the local who voluntarily agree to pay part of their union dues to the NDP which is why one union that actually has fewer members than another might have more NDP delegates at convention - because more of their locals are affiliated and more of their members pay NDP dues.

Submitted by Sunday Hat on March 1, 2009 - 12:38am.

Those Steelworker endorsements seem a lot more significant now.

Which CAW locals are still affiliated?

Submitted by aka Mycroft on March 1, 2009 - 12:43am.

Two CAW locals and one retirees local reaffiliated in recent months. Not sure which ones.

Submitted by Lord Palmerston on March 1, 2009 - 1:02am.

Who are you supporting Mycroft?

Submitted by aka Mycroft on March 1, 2009 - 1:08am.

I'm neutral.

Submitted by Sunday Hat on March 1, 2009 - 1:29am.

Some of the CAW locals/leaders who've weighed in include:

For Horwath:

- Rolly Kienhe, President CAW 112

- Willie Lambert, President CAW 1256

- Tim Carrie, President CAW 27

For Prue:

- Rick Laporte, President CAW 444

- Gord Vickers, CAW Retirees Local 222

Are any of these locals going to be at convention? It's interesting that locals are weighing in even if they aren't affiliated. Not sure what to make of that.

Submitted by foxymoron on March 1, 2009 - 1:43am.

truthfully, every camp is going to claim sewn-up delegates, but i don't think that's necessarily how it's going to play. the delegates aren't going to be casting their ballots with someone in a position of authority looking over their shoulders. i suspect a lot of the supers (for lack of a better term) have resented the arm-twisting that went on and either cast for someone they've decided on in their own minds, or wait for the convention debate and assorted conventioneering.

this is one of the most fluid electorates i've ever encountered, of any sort.

people paid no attention for a very long time, and just kind of shrugged it off. judging from the jump in the volume of posts, the trotting out of the usual suspects passing themselves off as ndp-ologists, the Blizzard article, the impending plagues of boils, locusts and gadflies--oh, the gadflies got here ages ago!

and people are paying a little attention. certainly the agenda got far more attention than focus ontario a few weeks ago. the spin is in. i have a feeling there's gonna be a ton of it, from all four camps.

for the record, i offer up my partner, somewhat left-ish in orientation, but not much for paying attention to politics. indeed, would much prefer to drive knitting needles into their eyes than pay much attention to queen's park.

prue: definitely looks the most like a premier. seems most comfortable and has best hair.

tabuns: kinda scares me.

bisson: meh.

horwath: a little bit too, 'pick flick'.

steve paiken: did he just say, 'is it your family who tells you that?' that's harsh!

Submitted by Sunday Hat on March 1, 2009 - 2:05am.

Labour delegates are usually pretty disciplined.

I think campaigns that try and undermine the decision of the union by going directly to delegates will find themselves in pretty serious shit pretty fast.

Submitted by Ciabatta2 on March 1, 2009 - 9:33am.

Sunday Hat -- I think you'll find many of the northern elected members generally are on the right of the party on many issues. As much as I wish it weren't true, the north isn't voting NDP because they're socialists. I think Gilles is playing the business friendly card because that's the type of approach that's won him four or five elections with in and around 50 percent of the vote. He's not getting results like that in places like Timmins or Kapuskasing or Cochrane by being ideological. Naturally, I'm not surprised that's it's not going over well with the party support that is more ideologically inclined.

Submitted by Ciabatta2 on March 1, 2009 - 9:34am.

...and that's not a criticism of a more ideologically-inclined approach. Just an observation.

Submitted by northwestern_lad on March 1, 2009 - 10:07am.

Sunday Hat wrote:

Sunday, Gilles has been formally endorsed by former MPP from Windsor Wayne Lessard, Ottawa Candidate Rick Dagenais, by UFCW, former OSPEU President Fred Upshaw, former OFL president Gordon Wilson and many other labour groups. His support is much more broad than many might realize

Submitted by northwestern_lad on March 1, 2009 - 10:23am.

Submitted by Sunday Hat on March 1, 2009 - 12:29pm.

The NDP in the North is actually to the Left of the party on most economic issues - which, to me, are key. If you look through ONDP history it was northerners that wanted to nationalize INCO (while Rae tried to keep a lid on it), northerners fighting hardest for public auto insurance (while Rae led the retreat), northerners leading the charge to keep hydro rates public (while the Toronto-based environmental movement cheered).

If you look at the Northern Ontario platform that got the federal NDP their northern sweep you'll see a lot of class war rhetoric:

"governments have poured billions into corporate tax giveaways, and failed to recognize the legitimate needs of Northern Ontario workers" [64]

"Make corporate polluters pay [64]to clean up the mess they’ve made, not ordinary families." [64]

This is the platform that 7 out of 7 Northern Ontario candidates won on and it's filled with the sort of language that Gilles insists we should put behind us.

And while I can't say that I've been up to Timmins during a provincial campaign, I'd be surprised verging on stunned if Gilles Bisson wasn't using the same rhetoric in his campaigns.

I don't know where you get the idea that northerners are "right wing".

Submitted by robbie_dee on March 1, 2009 - 1:08pm.

aka Mycroft wrote:

This is the breakdown I've been given:

USW 68 per cent (from amongst 85 seperate locals),
CEP 4 per cent,
UFCW 8 per cent,
SEIU 2 per cent,
18 per cent is CAW, COPE, DLCs, IAM, IBEW, IWA, Ironworkers, UA, NUPGE.

Where's CUPE?

Submitted by Stockholm on March 1, 2009 - 1:43pm.

"tabuns: kinda scares me."

I only wish Tabuns actually did "scare" anyone. It would actually make him a much more interesting and attractive candidate. I like the guy, but the last thing i would ever call him is "scary". He strikes me as a very earnest, plodding sort of guy in an almost Broadbent-like way and he is a very mild-mannered and polite.

There are strengths and weaknesses in all the candidates but calling Tabuns "scary" is pretty absurd.

Submitted by Ciabatta2 on March 1, 2009 - 2:39pm.

Sunday Hat -- I didn't realize that Gilles was shifting directions, away from the sort of things you've bolded. I wasn't aware of that...I haven't really noticed it in the three debates I've attended, or during the TVO show, or the campaign literature. I'd be interested to see that. Especially on the tax breaks to big corporations, I've heard Gilles rail against that before, so it'd be interesting to note his shift there.

Now, if you're talking about Gilles' targeted tax cut/working with industry messaging (which I personally am not much of a fan of, I think it's just a bit bathwatery/schlocky) then that's fine, we'll agree to disagree that that represents a fundamental shift in his approach. I just think it's a bit of a stetch to generalize that single plank to Gilles wanting to move away from the principles you bolded, the principles he's probably stood for for 19 years.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that northerners are "right wing" either. I suggested that the current crop of northern MPs/MPPs are generally right of the NDP's left. From my interactions (not every day but not limited either) I think that's pretty accurate. Your experience may suggest otherwise.

I'm not an expert by any means, but I have worked campaigns in the north, lived there for a short time, and interacted with some of the Gilles/Charlie campaigns (both community and electoral.) When they need to, they do their class war rhetoric well, I don't disagree. I'm with you on that - politics in northern Ontario is a different beast than in the south, and I'm thankful for that because a lot of the push on major issues have come from our northern MPPs/members.

I've heard some barnstorming speeches of the kind from Bisson in the past (Smooth Rock mill closure, Iroquois Falls dam severance, the one he did for cabbies two years back was pretty good too) and have attended a a fair amount of meetings (including one where Gilles took a mining executive to task for some obvious doublespeak on mill closures and innovation.) But if NDP members are looking for some solid northern class-war rhetoric as a key measure of a candidate's left-wing credibility, then yeah, I'd agree that Bisson's probably not their guy. I think you'd find that in both their campaigns and in their day-to-day work as MPPs, they're a lot more nuanced than that.

[I do agree though that, thus far, this sort of class-based approach has been missing from the campaign - nothing from Tabuns, a bit from Prue, a reasonable amount from Horwath, and a bit from Bisson (but evidently negated by the business stuff.) -- edited to add this]

[ Edited to make sentences actually readable :) ]

Submitted by scarboroughnative on March 1, 2009 - 2:03pm.

Northerners tend to be sensible.

Period.

This might be a condition brought about by removal from the fast paced and distracting world of the typical urban environment.

Most are blue collar workers who support unionism, but tend to shy away from the ideological highground that sinks our support in the south.

Example: Your typical Northern voter says wages should be fair, taxes should be fair, people should get up and go to work every day, we should help our neighbour if he doesnt have the ability to go to work, take care of the woods cause we like to camp and fish there and shit like ban the seal hunt is a waste of my goddamn time.

That is a simplisitc example of the difference between the northern ndp member and the southern ndper. It speaks to why the NDP is successful in the North because their leaders dont get too involed in these ivory tower intellectual discussions but keep it real, simple and effective. They hit the ground, meet with people and try to work with industry since it puts food on their peoples plate.

If Southern Ontario NDP leaders focused on issues that matter to the public like creating a harmonious balance between business, industry the environment and the working man instead of choosing to make prinicipled stands like the York U hold up or faith based funding or what special interest group didnt get their life spoon feed to them this week they might actually appeal to the voting public and grow regionally.

Suggestion: The NDP should look to the North, put the latte and the manifesto down, develop a populist approach and learn something about how to grow this party from the people who have had the real success.

The Northerners.

Submitted by aka Mycroft on March 1, 2009 - 2:45pm.

robbie_dee wrote:

aka Mycroft wrote:

This is the breakdown I've been given:

USW 68 per cent (from amongst 85 seperate locals),
CEP 4 per cent,
UFCW 8 per cent,
SEIU 2 per cent,
18 per cent is CAW, COPE, DLCs, IAM, IBEW, IWA, Ironworkers, UA, NUPGE.

Where's CUPE?

While provincial office refused to give me a breakdown of delegation sizes (I got that elsewhere which is why I'd like corroboration) they did tell me the following unions had locals that were affiliated to the NDP:

Quote:

IAM, UFCW, SEIU, COPE, USWA, IBEW, Plumbers locals (UA) , CAW (1 large local 1 retiree chapter 1 small local)caw, some building trades locals, cep, some cupe locals, labour councils, ofl has 3 delegates.

CUPE wasn't mentioned by my source for the union by union breakdown but provincial office did say some CUPE locals were affiliated so my guess is they're lumped into the 18% "other" category I was told in the breakdown and that therefore they wouldn't amount to more than 1 or 2% overall. Or perhaps the affiliated locals haven't sent in their NDP dues and so weren't assigned a delegate entitlement?

BTW, I am quite appalled that provincial council wouldn't share that information - it's not exactly a state secret and should be basic publicly available information. During the federal Liberal leadership one was able to get quite detailed breakdowns of how many delegates each riding association, party "commission", etc were entitled to.

Submitted by Joe Strummer on March 1, 2009 - 3:25pm.

I'm glad the Howwath campaign knew the union breakdown from the start.

AKA - Possibly the breakdown was too confusing for the person at the provicial office to breakdown for you. serioius. I was told by my "source" last summer a ruff breakdown that made sense to me: Steel has around 2/3 of the delegates.

Organizing is so easy.

Go Bulldogs!

Submitted by aka Mycroft on March 1, 2009 - 3:35pm.

No, I was told directly by a senior official that those numbers wouldn't be released. Given the person I was talking to if the problem is that he was confused then the NDP really does have a serious problem :)

Anyway, if you were told Steel has 2/3 then that jives with the breakdown I gave earlier.

Submitted by scarboroughnative on March 1, 2009 - 6:41pm.

Somebody from central party confused? Impossible!

Submitted by alphasix actual on March 1, 2009 - 7:06pm.

Open question to all, considering we are in an economic manure pile, do you think its right to put on a big show at convention when most people have already voted?

More money has been spent on campaigns than goes into individual riding associations to win elections.

Submitted by Sunday Hat on March 1, 2009 - 7:25pm.

scarboroughnative wrote:

Northerners tend to be sensible.

Period...

The Northerners.

I agree. Though it's a little ironic that the NDP's biggest success in the North was in an election where the Leader was pretty much the quintissential latte-sipper. To be fair, Jack has curbed his Torontoisms quite a bit.

I don't object to a pragmatic approach, I do object to calling for corporate tax cuts at a time when even the Liberals are saying it's a dumb idea.

Submitted by adma on March 1, 2009 - 10:33pm.

Re any purported "right-wingness" in Bisson, remember who his predecessor as MPP was: Alan Pope, 1986 PC leadership candidate and a rare survivor of the 1987 Grossman rout--indeed, he remains the last provincial Tory to be elected beyond Nipissing...

Submitted by aka Mycroft on March 2, 2009 - 12:33am.

alphasix actual wrote:

Open question to all, considering we are in an economic manure pile, do you think its right to put on a big show at convention when most people have already voted?

More money has been spent on campaigns than goes into individual riding associations to win elections.

The ONDP's regular biennial convention was due to be held this spring anyway.

Submitted by aka Mycroft on March 2, 2009 - 12:34am.

What I'm wondering is this - past Ontario NDP leadership conventions have been televised. I know this one is being webcast but are any of the networks or news channels actually planning live coverage with commentary?

Submitted by RevolutionPlease on March 2, 2009 - 12:49am.

I highly doubt it.

Submitted by Wilf Day on March 2, 2009 - 1:26am.

Sunday Hat wrote:

This is the platform that 7 out of 7 Northern Ontario candidates won on and it's filled with the sort of language that Gilles insists we should put behind us.

I'm not at all sure what Gilles is saying, but I'd guess he might be saying "Brothers and sisters, you know I'm a northern union man, but we can't win in the south with that kind of talk, we have to broaden the base and talk about jobs, and wealth generation, and that I know how to meet a payroll."

Submitted by TinTincognito on March 2, 2009 - 1:23pm.

I have voted, by the grace of Canada Post, and don't mind saying that it's for 1. Horwath, 2. Prue, 3. Bisson, and 4. Tabuns. Having met a few and listened at a debate I can't say I'd be displeased with any of them as leader.

Submitted by aka Mycroft on March 2, 2009 - 3:58pm.

Rabble has published its interview with Peter Tabuns (click here)

Submitted by madmax on March 2, 2009 - 4:30pm.

aka Mycroft wrote:

It would be surprising if CHCH in Hamilton wasn't covering the convention or parts of it. No idea about national television or Cable news networks.

Submitted by Frustrated Mess on March 2, 2009 - 6:44pm.

I just cast my ballot for Tabuns, Horvath, Bisson and Prue in that order.

Submitted by Lord Palmerston on March 2, 2009 - 8:12pm.

I think Tabuns does far better in the interview than Horwath. Horwath can't even criticize the "Get Orange" campaign and treats the Catholic school funding with outright contempt. Tabuns talks about class consciousness, is willing to criticize the last campaign, and while unwilling to talk about separate schools at least isn't outright hostile about the issue even being raised.

Submitted by Sunday Hat on March 2, 2009 - 8:22pm.

aka Mycroft wrote:

Rabble has published its interview with Peter Tabuns (click here)

A few comments:

- Tabuns notes that Horwath's position is "consistent" with his and she's following his lead. The former may be true but the latter isn't. Tabuns positions on "green energy" are exactly the same as the ones Howard Hampton ran on in 2007 - from the green energy commitnent, to the industrial hydro rate, to the solar panels [86]. Tabuns really has nothing new to say on policy. He seems to think if we talk about electricity policy MORE we'll do better. I'm not convinced that was Hampton's problem. It certainly doesn't make Tabuns original.

- "The NDP needs to look back at why we were successful with Portuguese and Italian communities in the early 70s". Good point. Worth noting that the only current MPP with links to that movement (Rosario Marchese) is backing Horwath.

- Same point on his CAW comments.

I'll back LP's praise for his acknowledgement of class analysis.

Submitted by spincycle on March 2, 2009 - 8:46pm.

(Nash throws support behind Tabuns)

Today, Peggy Nash and Michele Landsberg jointly released a statement endorsing Peter Tabuns for leader of the Ontario NDP.

"When our party chooses a leader, we have to go way deeper than geography or symbolism. We have to search our hearts and consciences and find the one person who best exemplifies our party’s values - the one who can lead with clarity, intelligence and an unshakable commitment to the issues.

Leadership demands vigour and moral courage. Peter Tabuns’ mettle has been tested and has proven itself over and over: Remember when, as a city councillor, he fought to a standstill the privatization of hydro, when he promoted the retrofitting of office buildings long before energy-saving was popular, and when he proposed an "outrageous" smoking ban in restaurants and bars.

We believe that Peter has the experience, the vision and the energy to step into leadership right now to guide us through this frightening recession. Peter fully grasps the social democratic approach to our deepening economic crisis - it’s not pouring money into the pockets of bankers and contractors. It’s about creating and sustaining jobs in both public and private sectors. It’s about shifting our health care focus to the prevention of illness and societal unrest by ending poverty, healing the environment, creating housing for all and confronting the inequality and economic injustice that destabilizes our communities.

He’s the right leader; the one we can proudly back right now."

Peggy Nash and Michele Landsberg

Submitted by ottawaobserver on March 2, 2009 - 8:48pm.

"Tabuns positions on "green energy" are exactly the same as the ones Howard Hampton ran on in 2007 - from the green energy commitnent, to the industrial hydro rate, to the solar panels.Tabuns positions on "green energy" are exactly the same as the ones Howard Hampton ran on in 2007 - from the green energy commitnent, to the industrial hydro rate, to the solar panels [86]."

Not banging the drum for anyone in particular here, but could that observation be explained by the fact that Tabuns wrote that policy? I believe this is what he told the Ottawa leadership debate forum.

I missed the TVO Debate, and am a little annoyed to see that there's no video of it at their website (although there is a podcast), and that party members were not notified about it ahead of time.

Submitted by Scarberian on March 2, 2009 - 8:49pm.

Kind of odd to wait so long to announce endorsements like that. A majority of people have likely already voted.

Submitted by Sunday Hat on March 2, 2009 - 11:15pm.

ottawaobserver wrote:

Not denying he said it but I'm not sure I believe it. Hampton was talking about renewables before Tabuns was in the Caucus and the industrial hydro rate is pretty antithetical to Tabuns much noted earlier praise for higher hydro rates - that latter move seems more like Hampton. I've no doubt that Peter had input but, frankly, the NDP's position on green power could have been written by any number of environmental groups - all opposed coal, all opposed nuclear, all insisted we could get by on renewables and conservation.

Which gets to my more crucial point: the people of Ontario weren't dazzled by a detailed plan for Ontario's electricity system when they last had a chance to vote for it. It was ignored in 2007 why does Tabuns think it will be a hit in 2011?

Submitted by candle on March 2, 2009 - 11:21pm.

TinTincognito wrote:

I just voted the exact same order online. Horwath was a clear #1 to me. I don't really think the order of my #2, 3 and 4 votes really matters as I expect Andrea to be on the final ballot.

Submitted by aka Mycroft on March 2, 2009 - 11:36pm.

ottawaobserver wrote:

I missed the TVO Debate, and am a little annoyed to see that there's no video of it at their website (although there is a podcast), and that party members were not notified about it ahead of time.

There's no video but there is audio.

Go to this page and click on "podcast" in the right hand column

Submitted by Scott Piatkowski on March 3, 2009 - 1:04am.

candle wrote:

TinTincognito wrote:

I just voted the exact same order online. Horwath was a clear #1 to me. I don't really think the order of my #2, 3 and 4 votes really matters as I expect Andrea to be on the final ballot.

Even though I'm a delegate, I voted in advance online (I never wait until E-Day to vote; there's too much to be done that day and, well, one never knows what lies ahead).

I didn't bother to use my 2, 3 or 4.

Submitted by RevolutionPlease on March 3, 2009 - 1:18am.

Please, give me some hope for the NDP. Go Andrea.

Submitted by the grey on March 3, 2009 - 8:29am.

Scott Piatkowski wrote:

I didn't bother to use my 2, 3 or 4.

Yikes. That's as bad as Kormos supporters waving their pre-marked ballots around at the last leadership convention.

Submitted by Sunday Hat on March 3, 2009 - 8:46am.

Sid Ryan endorses Horwath.

And

This article, in Horwath's hometown paper, heaps on the praise.. (Conspiracy theorists take note: this guy is a Liberal):

The NDP really has to shake things up if it wants to regain its relevance in Ontario politics. They were last in government 14 years ago and have not come close to competing since that time. Without a modern vision and the right leader, the NDP may become an ineffectual rump in the Ontario legislature -- something that would be unfortunate for democratic choice in Ontario. [97]

Four members of the caucus are vying for the party leadership. Two are from east Toronto: Michael Prue is a former mayor of East York, while Peter Taubuns used to be executive director of Greenpeace; Gilles Bisson is a well regarded but quiet member from northern Ontario. Then there's our Steeltown advantage -- Hamilton Centre MPP Andrea Horwath. [97]

Whether the government cares to admit it or not, Horwath's selection as leader of the NDP would prove a formidable obstacle for the Dalton McGuinty Liberals. She brings urban savvy, a fresh perspective and a strong social consciousness to the table. Perhaps, more importantly, like another community organizer-turned-politician named Barack Something-or-Other, Horwath's ability to mobilize community members around core issues could be a defining skill both at the convention and in a subsequent provincial election campaign.

Submitted by madmax on March 3, 2009 - 10:14am.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

I just cast my ballot for Tabuns, Horvath, Bisson and Prue in that order.

Didn't you vote for the Green Party in the September Federal Election?

Submitted by madmax on March 3, 2009 - 10:17am.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Tabuns talks about class consciousness, is willing to criticize the last campaign, and while unwilling to talk about separate schools at least isn't outright hostile about the issue even being raised.

There isn't any light between Tabuns, Bissons, and Horwaths position on this issue. All three of these candidates are "hostile" or "opposed" to the issue. Choose your wording however you like, but there positions are the same, and the words used should be the same for all.

Prue has the biggest light shining through, as he doesn't have a position.

Submitted by Scarberian on March 3, 2009 - 10:27am.

I just cast mine for 1. Prue, 2. Horwath, 3. Bisson, 4. Tabuns.

I'm not sure who will come out on top on the first ballot, but for all three of the other campaigns Horwath seems to be almost everyone's second choice.

Submitted by Pete_1983 on March 3, 2009 - 10:49am.

spincycle wrote:

(Nash throws support behind Tabuns)

An endorsement from respected women like Michele and Peggy is a great boost for the Tabuns campaign.

This, along with the endorsement from Ed Broadbent, should help a lot of the rank and file members make up their minds.

Submitted by Lost in Bruce County on March 3, 2009 - 12:46pm.

Sorry Peggy and Michelle - Tabuns' anti-labour practices are wrong for party staff and wrong for our party. And I don't see anything in Tabun's platform that targets women's issues.

As for Andrea, where was her support for women when Christopherson's provincial seat opened up. A black woman was going to become candidate uncontested, but Andrea called up Wayne Marston and asked him to come home from Atlanta and run. Marston came home, but Andrea jumped ship ended up supporting a different white guy altogether! And where was Andrea's support for women when she gave up her municipal seat to run provincially? Andrea wouldn't endorse the female, NDP candidate who was a local riding president for OPSEU - Andrea choose to endorse the male, liberal candidate. So much for party loyalty and helping women in our party...

On a different note - this endorsement flew by my email the other day:

ONDY Female Exec.s Voting For Prue

As young female activists in the ONDP we find Michael Prue to have the most progressive platform when it comes to addressing the issues that matter most to Ontario women. His party renewal platform will help transform gender parity from an aspiration to a reality. Prue's $10,000 pledge toward every riding association's election budget will enable more female candidates to run and be successful. Prue's vision for municipalities will restore many gutted social services that have ultimately been off loaded onto the province's women. Additionally, this will result in job creation in female dominated sectors. Prue has also offered the most detailed poverty reduction strategy. As poverty disproportionately affects women, we are confident that his $11 minimum wage, market measured housing benefits, and freeze until sale property tax initiative best addresses the concerns of women, young and old, from across Ontario. We feel that Michael Prue offers the most comprehensive and holistic platform; addressing the realities and concerns of women both within and outside our party.

Alex Johnstone: ONDY Clubs Coordinator
Sarah Douglas: ONDY Secretary
Carilyne Hébert: ONDY Working Youth Coordinator
Elizabeth Kessler: ONDY Francophone Director
Sonja Missio : ONDY Southeast Regional Organizer
Paris Meilleur: Former ONDY Southwest Regional Organizer

That's almost the entire line of female exec. on ONDY! Young females want change in our party and they see that happening with Michael Prue!

Submitted by Lord Palmerston on March 3, 2009 - 1:23pm.

madmax wrote:

Prue has the biggest light shining through, as he doesn't have a position.

You're right - all of them suck. Prue's is just slightly better - an actual debate (crazy, crazy!)

But even without the issue, Tabuns did far better than Horwath, IMO.

Submitted by madmax on March 3, 2009 - 1:49pm.

Lost in Bruce County wrote:

It sounds unlikely that there was going to be an uncontested nomination. Roy Adams won the nomination. He must have received the support of the card carrying New Democrats. Considering that Marston ran numerous times, it isn't surprising that he would be on the ballot. I am certain he received many calls from people to run, and yet, he didn't win the nomination.

Quote:

And where was Andrea's support for women when she gave up her municipal seat to run provincially?

Andrea is a woman. She could well be the leader of the Ontario New Democats. I can't recall the last time the Ontario NDP had a female leader. IIRC the Ontario Liberals had Lynn McCloud. I don't know if the PCs have had a female leader. I do know that many women prefer voting for men, and some men prefer voting for women. What's important after that is their ability to lead a party. The NDP pressed by female activists and have provided the ability for women to lead the party. What is funny is that we are still having this discussion in 2009. How old is the suffragette movement? 150 years? Maybe "It's time" for the ONDP to get a female leader. Ofcourse, from what I am reading here.... people have already voted, and your going to count them on the weekend?

And the choice of whether a female leads, will be shared equally by women with the right to refuse or accept a female leader.

Submitted by madmax on March 3, 2009 - 1:52pm.

Quote:

Lord Palmerston But even without the issue, Tabuns did far better than Horwath, IMO.

Sorry, missed the TVO stuff.

Submitted by Lord Palmerston on March 3, 2009 - 1:54pm.

I think they all did pretty well on The Agenda. In this series of interviews, however, Tabuns was far better than Horwath.

Submitted by Scott Piatkowski on March 3, 2009 - 1:59pm.

Lost in Bruce County wrote:

I have no reason to think that your version of events above is anything but an exercise in creative writing, but let's take on your point.

Where was Michael Prue's support for women when Frances Lankin resigned?

Where was Peter Tabuns' support for women when Marilyn Churley resigned?

Submitted by Lost in Bruce County on March 3, 2009 - 3:12pm.

Marilyn Chruley has endorsed Michael and considered him one of her allies while working internally in the party on women's issues. She told me this herself. Michael Prue was right there for Marilyn Churley. Always was and always will be.

Submitted by Sunday Hat on March 3, 2009 - 3:16pm.

Looks like Lost in Bruce County needs to apologize to Horwath.

I think the moderators should contemplate some action here if that doesn't happen. Lying is not cool.

Myrie pursues NDP Hamilton West seat
The Hamilton Spectator
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
Page: A05
Section: News
Source: The Hamilton Spectator

A Spectator columnist and social development consultant wants to represent Hamilton West and the NDP in the next provincial election.

Evelyn Myrie, owner of an art shop and the co-chair of Hamilton's Black History Committee, announced her decision to try to replace outgoing MPP David Christopherson yesterday.

"We have good representation right now and I'd like to carry that mantle and have a strong voice at Queen's Park," Myrie said. "Ontarians deserve access to affordable housing, quality education and health care, child-care and affordable public power."

Wayne Marston, public school board trustee and head of Hamilton's labour council, announced his intention to run last week.

Myrie said she would be "a people's politician -- someone who listens to the public, validating their concerns."

Ward 2 Councillor Andrea Horwath chose not to throw her hat in the ring for the NDP Hamilton West nomination, but threw her support behind Myrie instead.

"She is a bright, energetic woman who brings many perspectives to the table that will only enrich the debate," Horwath stated in the release.

The provincial election is expected next spring.

Submitted by Scott Piatkowski on March 3, 2009 - 3:20pm.

Lost in Bruce County wrote:

My point is that you can't question Andrea's commitment to advancing women based on some fictionalized version of events (thoroughly refuted above by Sunday Hat) without having your candidate judged by the same standard.

Submitted by Lost in Bruce County on March 3, 2009 - 3:49pm.

Well Scott & Sunday I do apologize. I had heard about Andrea supporting Roy from several long time Hamiltonian NPD'ers this past weekend. To my credit, I did perform several Google searches and nothing came up.

Andrea did refuse to support Kelly Hayes from the CLC and instead endorsed Liberal Bob Bratina who continues to hold Andrea's old seat today. Shame on Andrea!

Submitted by alphasix actual on March 3, 2009 - 4:12pm.

Scott why are you so adamant about supporting Andrea because she is a woman. A rational stance would be to support the best PERSON. True equality no?

Submitted by alphasix actual on March 3, 2009 - 4:12pm.

Scott why are you so adamant about supporting Andrea because she is a woman. A rational stance would be to support the best PERSON. True equality no?

Submitted by Scott Piatkowski on March 3, 2009 - 4:57pm.

I am supporting the best person.

You keep saying that I am supporting her only because she's a woman. I've never said that, because it's not true.