ONDP leadership V (plus Ginger)

Mojoroad1 wrote:

the grey wrote:

That you clearly don't understand how the executive, council and party work doesn't make Michael's statements asinine.

Um. No offence TG....  Re: JMasse,  I say this -leadership squabbles aside- that his understanding of the NDP executive is excellent. He is very well informed, to say the least. If you knew him, his work, and background you'd know that too.

-Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.....

 

Agreed Mojoroad....  that's the correct interpretation of the current executive step up. JMasse has got it right there.

York South Weston, Parkdale High Park, Hamilton East: all wins. Did Layton, a Southern guy from Toronto Danforth, manage that, even when there was a weakened Liberal leader?

Beaches was retained.

The northern breakthrough did not happen overnight. It was years in the making. The feds were able to ride on that work. If you look at the 2007 provincial results, evidence of that work is there. 

While Tabuns leadership campaign began the day after the 2007 election, a move seen by many as disrespectful, others did not commence campaigning until there was a leadership post open. Some context for the "riding visit" statistics.

 

scout1 wrote:

The northern breakthrough did not happen overnight. It was years in the making. The feds were able to ride on that work. If you look at the 2007 provincial results, evidence of that work is there. 

Close is only good in Horseshoes. Converts man, we need converts getting to the finish line and losing the race doesn't mean that you are a winner. Jack certainly helped push that over the hill, certainly all the training and prep was there for those ridings but certainly there has to be something said about how well the federal party ran that campaign, it was almost magical.

scout1 wrote:

While Tabuns leadership campaign began the day after the 2007 election, a move seen by many as disrespectful, others did not commence campaigning until there was a leadership post open. Some context for the "riding visit" statistics.

I still find it funny that Peter gets the bad rap for this, I can remember when Paul was a newly elected MPP he visited Kingston and helped us organize a couple of events. Not to mention Peter was asked by caucus to do his work on the New Energy Economy. I guess the party didn't think he would be so successful, I will also note that it was so successful that Denis Bevington for Western Artic is now doing the same work nationwide. Much like Peter Julian is doing with the SPP and NAFTA talks all thanks to the leadership of one Peter Tabuns and his desire to talk and work with the ridings, all of the ridings.

Parkdale sure was Howard's win, just as it was everyone elses. Are you trying to tell me that Provincial Office and the whole party wasn't throwing the kitchen sink at that one??? Come on. Yes Peggy did great work there, but let's not downplay the other side of this.

As for the North, we're lucky to have multiple advocats that are capable and hard workers, like both Mr. Bisson and Mr. Martel, but I know that even Eli would tell you that Mr. Bisson and his work has been extremely important to the growth of the party in the entire North.

Also, I would point out that there are many ways to help ridings out. By building the party membership and fundraising base, like Mr. Bisson and other northern members/activists have, they have contributed resources and funds to help fund all ridings in this province to some degree or another. So I would then say that you should have an affinity for Mr. Bisson to some degree after all

Did Peter come to Kingston AGMs , riding events during his first term?
Paul did, Peter nil. The former is evidence of 'showing up'. And while Peter had months more under his belt, and very effective staff ensuring his success from the moment he got elected, Paul had to build his infrastructure. But Paul still found time to come to Kingston to lend a hand.

Peter's work on the new energy eonomy is taken from the 2007 climate change plan and electricity plan, which was the product of many hands. Moreover, Howard has been talking about these issues for a very long time.

Re: the comment close is not good enough. The work of organizing is to bridge the gap in votes. Howard did that, and the feds were able to take advantage of it.

 

 

scout1 wrote:

But there was how many years between the last time an NDPer held that seat and the byelection win?

  

3

scout1 wrote:

The Liberals provincially had to make the Windsor liberals cabinet ministers to keep those seats.

 

I don't actually believe thats why, being a former Windsorite, I know that we have not been able to attract a candidate that can take down those two. Certainly Dwight is going to be a lot harder to beat then Sandra, but Sandra was on her last leg and people were really interested in going in a different direction. We got 25% with a no name candidate, had Howard's team been able to attract a more viable candidate that would have changed the fate of at least Windsor West.

scout1 wrote:

And again, showing up when you have decided that you are running for leader before a race has even been declared, in a bid to get a head start on others, is not the same as showing up.

I still go back to the fact that the caucus asked him to do it, and then damned him afterwords. Peter was doing exactly what every riding needed him to do. He has been the only one actively attempting to go to the ridings and getting important work done.

northwestern_lad wrote:

Parkdale sure was Howard's win, just as it was everyone elses. Are you trying to tell me that Provincial Office and the whole party wasn't throwing the kitchen sink at that one??? Come on. Yes Peggy did great work there, but let's not downplay the other side of this.

 Yeah I will give credit to the entire team on this one, that and the Smear campaign that the liberals attempted on Cheri. Certainly had a major effect on winning that race.

 

northwestern_lad wrote:

Also, I would point out that there are many ways to help ridings out. By building the party membership and fundraising base, like Mr. Bisson and other northern members/activists have, they have contributed resources and funds to help fund all ridings in this province to some degree or another. So I would then say that you should have an affinity for Mr. Bisson to some degree after all

I dont know if the personal success of individuals has any bearing on the ability to donate money to candidates across the province. Certainly there has been a degree of organizing work that has been crucial to the develop of this province. Why right here in Kingston, we are using the Elie Martel model of membership organization. It has worked wonders as we have increased our membership by almost 150 from this time last year.  But thats not Gilles success entirely, that the benefit of the whole team. And that continues to be my point, we haven't been developing ridings in the southern half of the province like they have been doing in the northern. Certainly there is a lot of learn from the north, this is one of the reasons why Kingston and the Islands will be reviving Eastern Council this year on April 17 - 19th. However with that cheap pop aside, Peter Tabuns has been helping us develop our riding associations in the south empowering us through his leadership to take bold steps to improve the membership and vitality of our riding. This is certianly one of the many reasons why I am supporting Peter.

For more information about Eastern Council visit http://www.ndpkingston.org

 

 

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

The Leader is not the ONLY democratically elected member of the Executive.  They are all democractically elected at Convention, or in the case of a vacancy at Provicial Council.

Actualy there are a number of different  ways persons can end up on the ONDP executive and there are concerns about the process, roles, rules  and accountability..

1) The leader of the ONDP is a member of the executive. In the "old days" the leader was elected by the delegates at convention and there could be an election any convention,same as for any other execuive position.  That position is now to be filled by an OMOV vote with labour carve out with limited rights of recall or accoutability.  The next leader could go ten or tweny years without ever facing another election. And we ned to consider how much say the leader and caucus have in policy or the direction of the party. Will the membership set policy at the convention or will the leader, caucus, EPC?

2)   The position of provincail secretary, CEO of the ONDP, used to be filled by election by delegates at  each convention .Now the positon is filled by appointment, subject to ratification by provincial council, Theoretically the person hired by the executive to replece Dennis could be provincial secretaty for ten or tweny years without facing any more selection process than one hiring interview. What say does the memberhsip of the party have in tghe adminsitration of the pary?

3) Many positions on the ONDP  are elected by the delegates to the convention  at  plenary sessions- President, 3 vice presidents male, 3 vice presidents female, a  treasurer, 3 members at large male, 3 members at large female. Often there is a slate offered by the "establishment", with  a full list of candidates for each of the positions elected.  Different individualls  or  groups may be cosnidered entitled to representation or a say on the slate. The individual  members of the slate and the groups they "represent" are expecfted to back each other for election and usuallly successfully persuade the convention  to elect the full slate.  If you don't make it on the slate it's unlikely you will be elected..  I have seen former members of the executivie I would consider loyal "right, wing"" establishment", elected to the executive as part of the slate last convention, dropped from the slate next  convention and thefore defeated in a bid for re-election. Normally i run againt the slate as part of the Socialist Caucus slate and get crushed. Anybody care to join me this convention?

 3) There  are positions on the executive  filled by different caucuses in different ways . For example those delegates to the convention who self-identify as LGBT can attend a LGBT caucus and vote or run for a postion on the executive as a LGBT rep.  Once the convention is over, there is no LGBT group  they report to or are accoutable to.  There are regional caucuses,  so the delegates to the convention from the diferent regions select their reps to the executive, but after the convention there is limited means of reporting or accoutablility to the regions or to the overall party membership.  There is ONDY, disabled,  women, labour caucues etc.  which elect reps to the executive in different ways with llittle means of reporting or accountablitly to their constituency or the overall party membership.

5.  Then there are diferent committees and staff positions which get filled in diferent ways. Anybody know who is  the CEO of the leadership race, who organized or is organizing the different leadership debates, who is on the consitution commitee,  who will sit on the resolution committee at convention, who got paid to do membership work over the last year and how these positions are filled? How much say did the membrship  have or will have in the different decisons involved?

As to provincial council, the governing body betwen conventions, it used to meet four times a year. This was cut to three times a year and the "leadership" tried to reduce it to twice a year. There are econcerns about how much Provincial Council ( and convention itself) get to set policy or directionor oversee the adminsitration of the party. The membership itself has little direct say or even much  indirect say.. 

What this leads to is a mish mash of mandates for the "leadership" fo the ONDP with concerns about reporting ot accountability, a lot of adhoccerry..  Basicxally there are people who are considered to be in the loop for different decisons or roles,  with no clear rules as to who is in what loop. The system is not completely broken but it needs a lot of repair.

 

York South Weston was created in 1999. It was held by a liberal till 2003 = more than 3 years.
York South was Donald MacDonald's seat.

It comes across as strategic timing for Mr.Tabuns to arrive in Kingston and other ridings promoting policies that were part of the NDP platform of 2007 and before then. Caucus members have tours all the time that aim to build the party. A tour of this kind, if it was to help the party, would have been timely the year ealier.

Re: Windsor. The Liberals named those two as cabinet ministers for a reason.  And unlike other cabinet members, they get their fair share of air time, and are at the inner table.

scout1: You've come a long way baby! In barely one week you've metamorphosed from disillusioned troll aghast at the presence of spin on this board to newly minted rabble rouser outslinging even the worst mudslingers. Congratulations, you're one of us. But perhaps there are lines even I wouldn't cross.

A drive by smear of a caucus member who's not even a candidate for the leadership fuelled completely on innuendo. (how do you know of this supposed Liberal whispering campaign at the door and the affect it had on the results).  Your attack is not only baseless it insults both Cheri DiNovo and Peggy Nash (who incidentally has herself resoundingly discredited any such inferences). Nash and DiNovo are great friends, and no one worked harder campaigning for Peggy Nash than did Cheri DiNovo. Even in the moments leading up to the closing of the polls, they could seen together diligently pulling the vote.

One last thing about my MPP, Cheri DiNovo. I also had attended her church. I wasn't there, but I have heard that the victory party when DiNovo survived the Liberal smear campaign and won the by-election was one of the most electric, effusive celebrations that many could remember; one punctuated by joy and tears and dancing and rousing speeches... The NDP (Hampton, other caucus members, Peggy Nash, staffers, and volunteers) should all be very proud of having won PHP from a Liberal cabinet minister who garnered nearly 60 % of the vote. Since 2003, the percentage of vote share for the NDP has risen by over 30%. However, to not give Cheri DiNovo (a high profile candidate, a loved and respected reverend and academic who had devoted her life to social justice) any credit for this, is deeply offensive and, frankly, stupefying if it is meant as real analysis. In fact, anyone who know this riding, knows all too well that the high number of swing voters will often vote on the basis of personality and high visibility of candidates over political ideology (as long as it's not conservative).

I suspect that if DiNovo can endure an assault commandeered by the entire Ontario Liberal Party, she'll endure the smears from embittered resentful dippers. Although I suspect it must hurt more when it comes from within your ranks than from without.  

To add to an already personal account. The only reason IMHO there's even a contested race for the leadership is because DiNovo decided not to throw her hat in the ring.

Oh, I dont know how I would know that Liberals were able to raise in the last federal election that Cheri treated her staff horribly:

i.it was publiclly reported followed by

ii. liberals calling the phone with some news, verified by the public record

Cheri had so many people rooting for her. Her actions have left so many dissapointed. Smear campaign? The LIberals were wrong to smear Cheri in 2006.. Cheri's action of this past year that again have been reported in the public record demonstrate how she has conducted herself poorly. You are not doing her any favours by characterizing it as attack on Cheri part 2.

 

Oh, I dont know how I would know that Liberals were able to raise in the last federal election that Cheri treated her staff horribly:

i.it was publiclly reported followed by

ii. liberals calling the phone with some news, verified by the public record

Cheri had so many people rooting for her. Her actions have left so many dissapointed. Smear campaign? The LIberals were wrong to smear Cheri in 2006.. Cheri's action of this past year that again have been reported in the public record demonstrate how she has conducted herself poorly. You are not doing her any favours by characterizing it as attack on Cheri part 2.

 

Mojoroad1 wrote:

the grey wrote:

That you clearly don't understand how the executive, council and party work doesn't make Michael's statements asinine.

Um. No offence TG....  Re: JMasse,  I say this -leadership squabbles aside- that his understanding of the NDP executive is excellent. He is very well informed, to say the least. If you knew him, his work, and background you'd know that too.

-Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.....

 

I know JMasse and his background.  I'd expected that he'd have a better understanding of how the executive works.  The idea he presents that the leader is irrelevant to executive is indeed asinine, and demonstrates a lack of understanding.

 

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

The Leader is not the ONLY democratically elected member of the Executive.  They are all democractically elected at Convention, or in the case of a vacancy at Provicial Council.

 

But the Leader IS the ONLY one elected by the whole membership, which was my point.  The rest are elected by delegates to convention, or at a regional or other caucus.

Scout1: Perhaps rather than being in such haste to respond that you end up triple posting, you could take the time to 1) carefully read the posts your responding to 2) make your own posts more coherent (I can't figure out at all what your #2 point is.

I never contested that a story leaked to a Queens Park reporter, about an internal labour relations issue, exists on public record. I, as has Peggy Nash, and anyone I've talked to in PHP, took issue with your sleazy and groundless insinuation that the story cost Peggy Nash the election.

What I did contest was how you knew it was being used as a Liberal talking point, and what effect it would have if it were? Perhaps I should have added that you not only insult Cheri and Peggy, but also the electorate, with your inferences, since you must assume that the voters would somehow hold Peggy responsible for what DiNovo does or does not do. 

Secondly, I take issue with your judgment to post that here. You're entitled to feel despondent over Cheri's performance or actions. However, how is that relevant in any way on this thread? Are you further insinuating that Tabuns is somehow responsible? Is he implicated by association. Should we now start casting aspersions on all associates, acquaintances and supporters of the candidates in the hopes that they will stick to the candidates? 

btw as far as the story you're alluding reporter Graham Murray from "Inside Queen's Park" was a complete dupe and fell straight into the trap sprung by whoever leaked it. Aside from the reported story there are other stories worthy of being told. The story could have focused on the leak and what might have motivated the leak (certainly not an ONDP leadership race). Second, Murray could have focused on the appalling lack of organized/unionized labour at Queens Park. Only NDP staffers are protected by a union. Poor treatment/ firing of staff, I assume happens as routinely at Queens Park as any other workplace. If you're a Liberal or Conservative staffer, shamefully you simply put up with it and have no recourse. Lastly, I think there's an element of latent sexism in responses to the story. If she were a he, it might have been shrugged off as boys being boys. You can't convince me that there haven't been other serious incidents of labour strife in the NDP caucus. My suspicion is that certain members get a free pass on such things, not to mention that there's not always a leadership convention on the horizon.  Whatever the case, I'm sure the aggrieved workers have been well supported and due process has been followed.

 

(Edited to add that this in reference to Bookish Agrarian's original post in this thread regarding party processes, resolutions and special interests.  Not sure why the quote feature didn't show this.)

Agreed.  Excellent post, as usual.

(To add -- I have been reading this board for a long time, and I must say you are consistently one of the most level headed posters on here.  I remember reading comments on rabble that you should have run for the leadership.  I don't know you or your status, but judging from the input you've put on this board in the last few years, I must say I concur with those calls!)

JMasse wrote:

Michael Lewis endorses Peter Tabuns

Is this news? The Lewis clan has been pushing Tabuns for quite some time.

God bless em but I think we're long past the era where everyone takes their marching orders from them. I think they're wrong on this one.

the grey wrote:

 I know JMasse and his background.  I'd expected that he'd have a better understanding of how the executive works.  The idea he presents that the leader is irrelevant to executive is indeed asinine, and demonstrates a lack of understanding.

The following will illustrate my point.

Ontario NDP Constitution wrote:

ARTICLE 9:  PROVINCIAL OFFICERS

9.01 (1) (a) The Officers of the Provincial Party elected by the Convention shall consist of: Leader; President; Six Vice-Presidents (3 female and 3 male); and Treasurer

•  
  1. With the exception of the Leader, and the Secretary, the Officers shall be elected by Convention.
  2. The Leader shall be elected by a vote of the membership of the Party.

(2) The Provincial Executive shall hire the Provincial Secretary. The Provincial Secretary shall be an Officer of the Party. The Executive’s decision to hire must be ratified by Provincial Council.

(3)A member of the Federal Parliament or the Provincial Legislature may not be President or Secretary except that a President or Secretary who is elected to the House of Commons or the Legislative Assembly during his/her term of office may complete that term.

 

(4) When the Leader is unable to attend meetings of Executive or of any committee of Executive to which the Leader belongs, the Leader shall have the authority to appoint a Designate to act in her/his absence. This Designate shall be counted for quorum purposes and have the same authority as the Leader to participate in decisions, except that the Designate shall not vote.”

1.  
   1. (a) Every member is entitled to cast a ballot for the election of the Leader.

•  
  1. The ballots cast by Party members shall be weighted to a total of 75% of the votes counted in a Leadership election, and the balance, 25% of the votes counted in a Leadership election, shall be allocated among the affiliated members.
  2. At every regular convention that is not a leadership convention, a secret ballot vote will be held to determine whether or not a leadership election should be called.  If a majority of the voting delegates supports the calling of a leadership election, such an election will be held within one year of the convention vote.
  3. The Leader will be chosen by secret ballot.  Candidates for the leadership with the fewest number of weighted votes will drop off the ballot in subsequent rounds until one candidate receives a majority of the total weighted votes cast in that round.  Other leadership selection procedures will be determined by Provincial Council.

 

ARTICLE 10:  PROVINCIAL EXECUTIVE

10.01 The Provincial Executive shall consist of:

(1) Provincial Officers.

(2) Nine women and nine men, no more than five of whom shall be Members of Parliament or Members of the Legislative Assembly at the time of their nomination to the Provincial Executive. Of the nine women and nine men, six women and six men shall be elected on a regional basis. The Provincial Council may determine the boundaries of the regions.

(3) One woman and one man, representing the ONDY, one of whom will serve as the Federal Council Youth Delegate from Ontario.

(4) Two women, representing the ONDP Women’s Committee.

(5) One woman and one man, representing the Ethnic Committees.

1. One woman and one man representing the ONDP Lesbian, Gay and Trans-identified Committee.

 

1. One man and one woman representing the Disability Rights Committee

 

1. One man and one woman representing the Aboriginal Section.

 

10.02   a) Provincial Officers  and Members-at-Large shall be elected by Convention and vacancies shall be filled by Provincial Council with the exception of Provincial Leader.

       

          b)  Regional caucuses,  the ONDY, the ONDP Women's Committee, Disability Rights Committee, Ethnic  Committees, and the ONDP Lesbian, Gay and Trans-identified Committee, and the Aboriginal Section shall choose their own representatives to Provincial Executive and shall  fill vacancies as they arise.

(2) (a) When the position of Leader is vacant, or when the Leader has announced his or her intention to resign as Leader, the Provincial Council may elect an Interim Leader.

       (b) When the Provincial Executive chooses to nominate a person for Interim Leader, it must first consult with the Party's Caucus in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Nominations from the floor of Provincial Council shall also be accepted.

       (c) An Interim Leader may attend and speak at all meetings of the Provincial Executive and Provincial Council but is not entitled to a vote.

10.03 Any member absenting himself/herself from three consecutive meetings of the Executive without a reason- able excuse shall be deemed to have vacated his/her office.

10.04 A quorum of the Provincial Executive shall be one-third of its members.

 That point that I was trying to make is that a leader only has one vote on the executive of the Ontario Party (should they choose to use it). One vote on an executive of 33 executive members (or 3% of the vote) is a very small amount. 

adma wrote:

Why would Dwight necessarily be harder to beat?  Remember that his seat actually has the stronger provincial NDP history (it encompasses Dave Cooke's old fiefdom, after all)

Well I think its a number of things, first about Dave Cooke, the elementary Teachers still haven't forgiven Cooke for his legislation. It will be interesting to see if he runs for mayor as I have heard he is thinking of doing.

As far as Dwight goes, I think its more of the riding demographics now, a lot more retired people with generally old fashion progressive conservative tendencies combined with a very high immigration rate. Particularly middle-class Muslims, and the development of the Waterfront Condominium projects in Windsor Tecumseh have been a constant worry as more upper middle and top CEO's and lawyers all flocking to the area. It would be a lot harder for an NDPer to win in that area, not impossible but a lot harder.

When it comes to Windsor West, it has always been a lot more progressive in nature, more activist and individuals on the left, I think that to do somewhat with the university and the demographics on the city's west side. In the past couple years there has been a clamour developing against Sandra, unlike with Dwight and its a lot easier to capitalize on that movement. I gotta tell you every time that Sandra stands up and speaks about the jobs affecting Windsor and the manufacturing sector I cringe because I know that she is full of it and hasn't done enough for her constituency to make a positive difference with her high-profile cabinet post.

Your going to have enlighten me peter.... I am really not sure what you are talking about at this point.

JMasse wrote:

Sandra was on her last leg and people were really interested in going in a different direction. We got 25% with a no name candidate, had Howard's team been able to attract a more viable candidate that would have changed the fate of at least Windsor West.

It's pretty well known that Councillor Ron Jones was lined up to be the candidate in Windsor West. He was even spotted at an NDP candidate school in 2007 before he ultimately begged out for health reasons.

Now, JMasse, ignoring for a second the theory that Peter Tabuns would have more success in recruiting star candidates in car town, and ignoring the (equally funny) concept that Sandra Pupatello is shaking in her boots at the prospect of an NDP led by a wonkish Torontonian in his 60s, let me pose a question.

It's pretty common knowledge that Ron Jones was planning to run in Windsor West in 2007 (I live nowhere near Windsor and I heard about this star candidate that Masse had recruited) so, if that's the case either:

a) You weren't really that involved

b) You're being deliberately misleading

 

I never actually claimed to be involved in Windsor West at the time, I was born in Windsor but havent lived there for 3 years now. I was working on a different election at the time. However, I ceratinly did know that Ron Jones was planning on running.

I do think that your statement actually adds on to my original point, it wasnt Howards team that picked up Jones it was Federal NDP member Brian Masse, part of Jack's team. So perhaps a 58 year old from Toronto (noting that Jack is what 59?) could be beneficial.

I dont know whats misleading about thinking that public presence of your leader plays a role in the kinds of candidates you attract. Case'em point Brian Masse, I dont think its a coinsidence that Brian is a former city councillor and Jack is a former city coucillor. Howard didnt have that same type of presence. I mean when you go to the door canvassing, no one is talking about Howard when you mention the NDP. They are talking about Jack. As far as Windsor West goes, I actually do think that provinically we could win there, and could have won there, and once again it does go hand in hand with what type of candidates you attact, and I do think that has to do something with your leader. But perhaps thats just me.

JMasse wrote:

Your going to have enlighten me peter.... I am really not sure what you are talking about at this point.

 

 

Sure. Let's start with your attack on Michae Prue for wanting to have more debate in the party on policy.  You state that its not up to him or the leader, but up to the executive what policy is debated at convention and. how much time will be spent on policy.

 ." The executive appoints the resolutions committee, who in turn appoint a priority committee to rank policies, its the power that executive has by our constitution, not the leader. Michael and make grandiose statements like I want to debate policies 50% of the time, but in the end it's not up to him, its up to the executive.

This is why more people have to be at convention to elect our executive."

Now the reality is that while the execuive does , through some indirect channels,  propose an agenda to the convention, with time allowed for certain business, (e..g  for an extremely relevant example -debate on education resolutions will be from 1:00 to 2:00 PM Saturday), the convention delegates set the agenda  adopting or amending what is proposed at the start of conventkon and at various times  throughout the convention.  I guarantee you that, when the time comes,  if the majority of delegates want to spend more than an hour debating education resolutions they can do it.

Now the next question is what resolutiions will be debated in the different slots-  again for our extremely relevant example in the hour or so devoted to education resolutions.  It is correct  that there is a resolutions commitee, that is proposed in some indirect way by the executive, that gets to create  a priority list.  So the resolution commitee may recommedn that the first resolution to be debated in the one hour education time slot be one on restoring grade 13, second the debate should be on a resolution for raising the salaries of board of ed trustees, third the debate should be on and so on.. unitl we get to the 15th resoluton to be scheduled for debate in the one hour time  a resolution calling for  one school system. Of course with only one hour devoted to education resolutions, the chances are slim resolution 15 on one school system would get to the floor.

But what wou are missing is the commitee that deals with appeals of the prioriization and the fact that the  delegates will have the chance to vote on the priorities.  iIguarantee you that if a resolution on one school system or similar drift is not given high priority, there will be an appeal and the delegates will vote on whether or not it gets higher priority.

The long and short of it is that in this party the delegates have the right to debate policy, including deciding  what policy will be debated Your argument denying that right is wrong in fact and law. . Michael Prue has made strengthening that right a keystone of his campaign includiing  calling for more time to  debare policy, and a mechanism for setting debate priorities.  Which is why I and the Socialist caucus are supporting him

And you were  digging the hole deeper  by saying that, as the leader has only one vote on the executive,  he or she has little say in policy. We all know that is wrong  .

 Clearer?

 

 

foxymoron wrote:

Hat wrote: 

Peter seems like a nice guy - but I don't see potential candidates flocking to his animal magnetism .

 It's weird. Every so often, he shows up at an event with a squirrel stuck to his forehead.

Maybe the squirrel is the architect of his Green Plan.

Yikes, long thread. Closing. Please start a part 6 if you wish.