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

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
khan
Broadbent endorses Tabuns, Kormos endorses Horwath, how will it affect 2nd choices?

What effect do you think endorsements will have on the ONDP leadership race?

 

Ed Broadbent Endorses Peter Tabuns for Ontario NDP Leadership

TORONTO, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - Feb. 10, 2009) - Ed Broadbent, former leader of Canada's New Democrats, announced that he is supporting Peter Tabuns for the Ontario NDP leadership.

"Peter Tabuns has exactly the qualities of leadership the party and Ontario need. He is very intelligent, has a comprehensive view of social democracy and has the capacity to persuade new people to come with us," said Broadbent.

Ed Broadbent was first elected as the MP for Oshawa in 1968. He served as Leader of the federal party from 1975 to 1989. He returned to the House of Commons, sitting as the MP for Ottawa Centre from 2004-2005.

"I am thrilled to have Ed's support. It really means a lot to me personally because I think Ed is one of our country's greatest leaders," said Tabuns. "Ed gives politics a good name in Canada and I am proud to have him in my corner."

Peter Tabuns has received the public endorsement of over 1000 individual New Democrats, organized labour, the Ontario NDP youth wing, MPs Irene Mathyssen and Paul Dewar and fellow MPP Cheri DiNovo.

Please see www.tabuns09.ca for a full list.

The successor to NDP leader Howard Hampton will be elected at the Ontario NDP Convention March 6-8 at the Hamilton Convention Centre.

 

NDP vet Kormos backs Horvath for leadership

Updated: Fri Feb. 06 2009 2:22:41 PM

var byString = ""; var sourceString = "The Canadian Press"; if ((sourceString != "") && (byString != "")) { document.write(byString + ", "); } else { document.write(byString); } The Canadian Press

TORONTO — A veteran Ontario New Democrat is endorsing Andrea Horwath's bid for the party's top job.

Peter Kormos says his Hamilton colleague has his support to replace departing leader Howard Hampton.

He says Horwath is the leader the party needs to take the NDP into the next decade.

Horwath is the only woman among the four candidates who are running to replace Hampton.

Peter Tabuns, Michael Prue and Gilles Bisson have also thrown their hats into the ring.

The party will select its new leader in Hamilton on March 6.

 

Unionist

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

Sunday Hat

Unionist, I'm shocked. What about his staunch opposition to unifying school boards?

 

aka Mycroft

I'm curious what the Socialist Caucus makes of Kormos' endorsement. The Socialist Caucus was campaigning for Kormos to run and then endorsed Prue when it became obvious Kormos wasn't a candidate.

The Kormos endorsment may influence some lefties to give Horwath another look. Those left NDPers who are supporting Prue may make Horwath their second choice (to be clear, there are "left NDPers" in various camps as none of the candidates is solidly on the "left" of the party. At best some are on the left on some issues and on the "right" (or centrist) on others.

Unionist

Sunday Hat wrote:

Unionist, I'm shocked. What about his staunch opposition to unifying school boards?

 

I think you may have misunderstood my meaning when I said, "that would be enough for me." Laughing

khan

Does anyone know the method of eliminating candidates at the bottom of the ladder after the first count? Do they take off just the last or all below a certain threshold?

 

aka Mycroft

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

khan

So as each candidate is removed from the ballot, the 2nd place votes will be distributed and when someone gets to 50% they are the winner? 

I wonder if the people at the convention have to make all their votes at once or if they vote after each elimination.....if it is the former, they will just announce a winner right? 

That would lack dramatic tension Smile

Sunday Hat

aka Mycroft wrote:

I'm curious what the Socialist Caucus makes of Kormos' endorsement. The Socialist Caucus was campaigning for Kormos to run and then endorsed Prue when it became obvious Kormos wasn't a candidate.

I'm curious about the Socialist Caucus generally. Prue has now accepted the endorsement of Floyd Laughren, called for a push to get corporate support and lowering corporate tax rates.

He's the antithesis of everything they claim to stand for.

madmax

Floyd Laughren.... didn't know he was still active in the Party. I thought he checked out like Bob Rae.

Stockholm

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

synthome

Don't mean to be disrespectful -if you check my previous comments you'll see that I quite admire Peter Kormos- but can you even compare the two endorsements? I personally think this is a pretty huge endorsement. Ed Broadbent has served the party for over 40 years, was our federal leader through some of our best times, his list of accomplishments long, and his popularity unquestionable. The last time I was truly proud of an NDP leader was when Ed Broadment was our federal leader. He commanded respect from all corners, was thoughtful and deliberate, and well liked. Frankly, I see many of these qualities in Peter Tabuns. Slightly less charisma admittedly, but given the spotlight, Tabuns could shine. 

Notwithstanding that Unionist obviously isn't a fan of Broadbent's, in response to the opening post, it seems to me that Broadbent may have a more universal appeal and influence than Peter Kormos. Not only do some of the membership likely not even know who Kormos is, but also of those who do, some are not at all impressed by him. Opinions of Kormos aren't usually half measures.

Never mind second choices, this could impact the first choice on the ballots. Believe it or not many ONDP'ers don't even realize that a leadership race is on, or many who do, don't really know the candidates. So this endorsement could affect people who aren't leaning in any particular direction.

ottawaobserver

I got that endorsement by email today too.

For crying in the sink, it arrived in ENGLISH ONLY!  We just finished going through with all those candidates in Ottawa the other weekend, the embarrassment of our party only communicating in one language and trying to get elected in Eastern Ontario and the North.  They ALL promised to do better, and yet we still get these emails in one language.

Do people in Toronto still not get it!?!?!

[ok, sorry about the rank; I've got it out of my system now]

Robo

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

khan

Oops,

 

That is my fault that the posting is here. My apologies. What should/can I do? Can I move it over to the other spot? 

Michelle

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

Michelle

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

Unionist

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

Smile

Hey, Michelle, I'm just havin' some fun here! It's not my province, so I don't really have a say in picking leaders. I do agree with you about Kormos.

However:

1. You know how I feel about Dewar, I believe.

2. Broadbent downplayed opposition to Free Trade in the 1988 election, helped Mulroney win a second majority, and was rewarded by being appointed head of that newly-created Human Rights organization. I once had a little debate with him when I suggested that basic economic rights should be entrenched in the constitution like others (right to a job, right to a roof over your head, right to education, etc.), and he got livid saying I didn't understand constitutional law. In December 2005, he gave a seminal interview where he condemned the "demonization" of Stephen Harper, thus giving his blessing to what came after in the NDP campaign (including failure to condemn Harper's anti-women policies such as the anti-childcare monthly subsidy, teaming up with the Conservatives to create a phoney scandal about Ralph Goodale, etc.).

3. Di Novo - don't know.

So, I know nothing about Tabuns (or Horwath), but if people are promoting them based on who is endorsing them, then I have something to say about that.

Michelle

I'm just having fun too - I don't have a say in picking the NDP leader either since I don't belong to the party. :)

Interesting experiences you've had.  I don't know how you feel about Dewar, but I'm assuming from the posts in this thread that "not a big fan" might be a way of putting it?

aka Mycroft

Malcolm Allen, MP for Welland, endorsed Andrea Horwath today. This leaves Jack Layton, Toronto-Danforth; Olivia Chow, Trinity—Spadina; Joe Comartin, Windsor—Tecumseh; Wayne Marston, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and Brian Masse, Windsor West as the Ontario NDP MPs yet to declare. Marston is a curious holdout given that he's in Horwath's backyard.

As for MPPs, Hampton and Marchese are left to declare. Hampton will likely remain officially neutral but I understand he's informally supporting one of the candidates. 

Stockholm

"In December 2005, he gave a seminal interview where he condemned the "demonization" of Stephen Harper, thus giving his blessing to what came after in the NDP campaign (including failure to condemn Harper's anti-women policies such as the anti-childcare monthly subsidy, teaming up with the Conservatives to create a phoney scandal about Ralph Goodale, etc.)."

How  can you of all post people such a load of crap. Have you been cutting and pasting from Liberal bloggers like Jason Cherniack and Warren Kinsella - because they are the only ones that still believe that Liberal fantasy.

khan

I read somewhere that the unions get 25% of the vote but I also read that it is one member one vote.

Which is it?

 

 

foxymoron

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

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

"In December 2005, he gave a seminal interview where he condemned the "demonization" of Stephen Harper, thus giving his blessing to what came after in the NDP campaign (including failure to condemn Harper's anti-women policies such as the anti-childcare monthly subsidy, teaming up with the Conservatives to create a phoney scandal about Ralph Goodale, etc.)."

How  can you of all post people such a load of crap. Have you been cutting and pasting from Liberal bloggers like Jason Cherniack and Warren Kinsella - because they are the only ones that still believe that Liberal fantasy.

Stockholm, I'm just being honest about my feelings. If there is something in the above that is not factual, let me know. But I'm glad you didn't (yet) challenge the rest of what I said about Broadbent.

Unionist

Michelle wrote:

Interesting experiences you've had.  I don't know how you feel about Dewar, but I'm assuming from the posts in this thread that "not a big fan" might be a way of putting it?

In [url=this">http://www.rabble.ca/babble/central-canada/ondp-leadership-vi-plus-york-... thread[/url], I mentioned Dewar's threat to the OC Transpo drivers that the NDP would support back to work legislation if the drivers didn't agree to his terms on binding arbitration - a position never adopted by the NDP caucus.

I also mentioned his shameless written applause of Stephen Harper's decision that Canada would be the first country to announce a boycott of the U.N. Human Rights meeting in Geneva (Durban II) based on pro-Israeli smears of Durban I - another position which was never adopted by the NDP caucus, leading to the removal of Dewar's statement from the NDP website.

As foreign affairs critic, his comment on Harper's criminal response to the Gaza slaughter was to critique it as "muted" and to demand that Canada play a more "robust" role in aid delivery and monitoring an eventual ceasefire.

He's not a moral person.

ETA: Oh, I guess I shouldn't forget to mention [url=http://rabble.ca/comment/988105/Listen-three-stooges]his latest act of moral cowardice, yesterday[/url].

Stockholm

I don't even know where to begin to repudiate your tripe about what Brfoadbent had to say. First of all, the NDP condemned Harper's child care policies in the 2006 election over and over and over and over again - but they also criticized the Liberals for breaking promises to take action on child care for 13 consecutive years. Good for them. The idea that the NDP teamed up with the Tories to create a phony scandal about Goodale is so ridiculous that you might as well start telling us that the world is flat. Guess what parties call for investigations of possible corruption among their opponents all the time and this was no exception. There was evidence that some weird stuff was happening on the stock markerts just before the income trust announcement and any responsible opposition party would raise questions. Its not the NDP's job to refrain from demanding answers when there is reason to believe that a Liberal government did something unethical - just because we don't want to make the Liberals look bad. Its also not up to the NDP when the RCMP decides to publicize the fact that its looking into the matter.

Let's face, the Liberals try to demonize Harper - not because they actually disagree with anything that he stands for - but because its a convenient tactic for them to try to get New Democrats to vote Liberal. When you heard Paul Martin sanctimoniously intoning about how 2006 was the MOST IMPORTANT election in Canadian history and about how people had TWO STARK CHOICES etc... he knew full well this this was not to get a single solitary person to switch from Conservative to Liberal - it was all about hoodwinking New Democrats into voting for him under the false premise that he as PM would be some progressive's wet dream.

As for the other stuff. Broadbent is probably rightn and you DON'T understand constitutional law. I suspect that he probably knows vastly more about the topic than you do.

The fact that the NDP didn't choose to put a major emphasis on free trade at the start of the 1988 election campaign didn't help Mulroney win that election - the Tories were going to scoop up 100% of the pro-free trade vote no matter what. It hurt the NDP in the end because it allowed the Liberals to win over anti-free votes that might otherwise have gone NDP - so MAYBE if the NDP had built its whole campaign around opposition to free trade - ther NDP might have won a couple more seats and the Liberals a couple less - MAYBE - but the Tories would have still won the election. In fact the emergence of free trade as the main issue in that campaign actually HELPED the Tories because it was a wedge issue that worked well for them against a divided issue. They would have had a harder time winning if free trade had NOT been the main issue because then people would have cast their ballots based on which leader they liked best (Broadbent hand down) and on the vast amount of Tory corruption that was in the headlines in the mid-80s.

Unionist

Well, Stock, you like Broadbent, I don't. It has a lot to do with what you and I like and don't like about the NDP. And the world. Thanks for explaining your view.

By the way, when I spoke of the NDP teaming up with the Conservatives to create a phoney scandal about Goodale (which, by the way, turned the tide of the campaign, as everyone who followed the polls and media knows), I meant Judy Wasylycia-Leis teaming up with Paul Summerville. Laughing

Stockholm

Again, its not the NDP job to cover-up Liberal scandal and unethical practices. The Liberals are quite capable of doing that themselves. Are you seriously suggesting that if an NDP MP found evidence that Michael Ignatieff had done something flagrantly or even possibly illegal - they should sit on the info so as not to cause the Liberals to lose votes.

Should the NDP have also turned a blind eye to the sponsorship scandal because it might make the "darling Liberals" look bad

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

Again, its not the NDP job to cover-up Liberal scandal and unethical practices.

It was a political ploy in the middle of an election campaign. I don't have time for those Liberal apologists who blame the NDP for "defeating" the government in November. But to defend the crass opportunistic antics of Wasylycia-Leis and Paul Summerville is a bit much.

Quote:
Should the NDP have also turned a blind eye to the sponsorship scandal because it might make the "darling Liberals" look bad.

Of course not. But they should have condemned Harper's cynical daycare "subsidy" as being designed to divert and destroy the fragile accord on real child care that emerged from a minority government where the NDP held significant influence. But they had no confidence that the Canadian electorate would understand the difference between a bribe (and a measly and meaningless one at that) and building a new historic social program. So, with Olivia Chow in the lead, all they did was complain about the taxability of the $100. Anyway, it's just bad memories of an incompetent and unprincipled campaign - Afghanistan, so-con positions on crime, Clarity Act, tax cuts, the whole list of horrors.

Stockholm

Blame Zaccardelli then.

WOW, a political ploy in the middle of an election campaign - well knock me over with a feather - who ever heard of such a thing!!! 

khan

I am not familiar with the concept of a weighting system for 25% of the votes for labour. Does that mean that individual members of certain unions vote ofr whoever or that certain unions will cast x amount of votes for one candidate or another. is their a list of which unions get how many votes? Is this all written down somewhere? It seems hugely important to me but nobody else seems to be paying attention to it in these threads. Have I missed something?

 

 

Lord Palmerston

Unionist wrote:
Of course not. But they should have condemned Harper's cynical daycare "subsidy" as being designed to divert and destroy the fragile accord on real child care that emerged from a minority government where the NDP held significant influence. But they had no confidence that the Canadian electorate would understand the difference between a bribe (and a measly and meaningless one at that) and building a new historic social program. So, with Olivia Chow in the lead, all they did was complain about the taxability of the $100. Anyway, it's just bad memories of an incompetent and unprincipled campaign - Afghanistan, so-con positions on crime, Clarity Act, tax cuts, the whole list of horrors.

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

Stockholm

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

Unionist

Lord Palmerston wrote:

I don't recall them only condemining the taxability of the $100 or them even saying that.  I think they took a reasonably defensible stance on childcare (i.e. argued for a national childcare program rather than a gimmick like Harper's plan). 

I recall it very well. [url=http://www.rabble.ca/comment/937301/Re-Liberal-moustache]Start reading here, for example.[/url] There were threads during the election campaign as well, but they appear to be lost in New Babble cyberspace.

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

Stockholm

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

khan

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

Unionist

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

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

Harper laughed and won.

Mojoroad1

khan wrote:

I am not familiar with the concept of a weighting system for 25% of the votes for labour. Does that mean that individual members of certain unions vote ofr whoever or that certain unions will cast x amount of votes for one candidate or another. is their a list of which unions get how many votes? Is this all written down somewhere? It seems hugely important to me but nobody else seems to be paying attention to it in these threads. Have I missed something?

 

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

 

 

 

khan

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

 

Stockholm

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

Unionist

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

Stockholm

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

Unionist

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

khan

 

 

From the ONDP website: some voting details

 

"Voting online or by phone on March 7

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

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

 

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

Unionist

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

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

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

Stockholm

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

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

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

Stockholm

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

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

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

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

Unionist

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

Stockholm

huh?

Unionist

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

Stockholm

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

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

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

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

Pages

Topic locked