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

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.

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

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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!!! 

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.

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][color=red]Start reading here, for example.[/color][/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.

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!

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. 

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".

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

Sigh. I posted on this issue ever since the 2005-6 campaign. I did not say that the $100 goes [size=20]ONLY[/size] to stay-at-homes. I said my problem was that it does go to stay-at-homes. If they handed out $100 [b]CHILD-CARE CREDITS[/b] 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.