Andrea Horwath’s Ontario New Democrats starting to implode?

So the Ontario provincial NDP ship sinking/imploding because of the Cheri Di Novo situation, some labour issues with staff, non-recycleable flashlights and because some member of the party from Ottawa says so?

There are some pretty shakey conclusions in there.

I don't want to discourage you because I think anyone who takes time to write about this sort of stuff (particularly internal party machinations) deserves to be commended, but if you're relying on rabble for your columns and for an impression of the party you're seeing only a very very narrow slice of the party's supporters/critics.

(PS - Flashlights are not recycleable unless there is an e-waste system to manage them.  So even if the flashlight is made with theorectically recycleable plastic, it still wouldn't be recycled due to the component electrical parts - it would get trashed even if you put it in the blue bin.  But I think there is an e-waste requirement in Ontario coming down the pike for those types of things.)

Why not write your blog under your own name? 

The title- ONDP starting to implode is definitely way overblown.

The fact this is always present from the pot stirrers is part of what makes people skeptical. IE, "I know that some of this very overblown, which I have in mind when I'm looking at thins that are said where I do not and cannot myself really know one way or another whether or not it is an accurate assessment.

Here is another consideration. Wondering where this fits in.

I am pretty sure that the real irritant here is the overall direction of the ONDP. The concern about that runs back long before the leadership campaign, and to those with the most concerns the leadership race did not encourage them. Which cannot be just chalked up to not being encouraged by the results [my/our candidate did not win], but is rooted also in the concerns about the direction of the party not appearing to motivate much of the membership.

Concerns about internal democracy are legitimate in themselves. But its utopian to not also look at what else is at stake. And frankly, actual democracy is more important to dissidents. Everybody wants their say- but the mainstream by default gets its say anyway. And quiescence works for them. There don't have to be any conspiracies for that to have a pernicious effect.

If the dissidents are people with an inclination to trump up legitimate grievances, the equally organic reaction to that is that a leadership that is used to the convenience of quiescence begins to circle the wagons and throw out little obstacles. "Little" in the sense that they are easily done, and quite often not very obvious and/or very arguable as to intent. And the kind of stuff that is done frequently looks stupid and even irrational to someone looking in from outside the bubble with an open mind and with some understanding of the processes.

It is VERY easy for just a few people in leadership to throw out obstacles that are not blatant. Whether that is happening in this case, I can't possibly know. Because it could be happening I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that it probably is.

I'm putting out the possibility that there may be a potent combination of both indefensible pot stirring, and indefensible and counteproductive closing of the gates.

If so, some cooler heads need to step up.

I'm going to go ahead and spell out what I think might be going on. Thinking that given the kind of stuff flying around, my speculation can't hurt. And could help.

You have a bloc of people who had hoped the leadership race would be the beginning of a change in direction for the ONDP. They didn't get the candidate they wanted, nor did she give them an unexpected surprise. So they were looking forward to the 2011 Convention to agitate for their agenda.

In anysection of the NDP the table officers play the guiding role. Leader, Sec, Pres, Treasurer, VPs. They have regular meetings- often weekly. Which officers are there regularly varies but are almost certain to include the Sec and Pres. The Leader may or may not directly participate. If she does not, in part its because she does not need to. Table officers are in close touch outside of meetings as well.

This is not to rig the system. It is a necessity. Even the Executive is far too big to meet as frequently and as productively as necessary. And if things aren't discussed before Exec and Council meetings, chaos that suits no one is guaranteed. The differences of opinion that will emerge at Exec or Council over main issues are pretty predictable, and the expectation is that the officers will anticipate this and prepare to have productive discussions. Some table officers are good at this, some aimless and inept, and some see no problem in actively setting up to manipulate the outcome.

One of the inherent problems is that because it is a small group, and because they will usually all be from the current mainstream of the party... dissident voices in the table officers are the exception. They will have plenty of disagreements, but they have no one speaking for minority positions. And there only might be one table officer astute enough to know what minority positions will be, how much is at stake for them, and bring this into the discussion. So even with as much good intention as could be hoped for, table officers may not do a very good job of anticipoating the various 'wills' that will be in the room, and should be made room for. And very often this limited capability shades towards what is outright manipulative.... to the degree that it is fruitless to deconstruct what 'real intent' was.

So we have a minority of some significance that is eager for Convention. And we have a leadership that obviously beyond the table officers even has been wondering whether it is wise to have a Convention on schedule. Those who have a lot of stake in Convention on schedule are going to see this as an attempt to keep them from expressing their agenda about a changed direction for the party.

Most likely this is an inflated sense of their importance and/or likelihood to sway the membership. BUT, the fact that they will be determined to have Convention on schedule, and that there will be many activists similarly disposed even if they are content with the direction the party is going... the combination virtually guarantees that there will be big kerfuffle about the timing of Convention.

And the NDP has this engrained history of avoiding intenral kerfuffles. The vocal dissidents always think its about fear of losing to them, about losing control. It never gets that far. The vast majority of people who get to leadership positions in the NDP, just don't want to go there period. They don't even think as far as whether they will come out on top. [And at least 95% of the time they would.] Having the kerfuffle itself is bad enough if its over something suffcient enough.

Counterintuitively, it does not happen most of the time over policy issues- even where there are big disagreements. But over issues like this one, its sure to be called 'divisive'. And 'we don't like divisive, we don't want to go there.'

Rather obviously there is a pattern to who the losers will be in 'lets not be divisive'... and there is a convenient blindness to the long term reinforcement of the staus quo that this engenders.

Anyway, enough of the background. Back to the case at hand.

As noted, the idea to delay Convention did not just come up. It had to be articulated at least among the table officers by the time of the full Council meeting. Not to mention they meet immediately before, as does the Exec- where they can do a priliminary sound out and vetting of questions to pose the Council.

There is something not right about the delaying of Convention being brought to an emergency vote two weeks later.

Either that is unacceptably poor planning on the part of the Table Officers- and particularly the Secretary and President. Or it was a desire to avoid a 'divisive discussion' such as could be pretty well counted on at the full Council.

If it is one of those, that should be fessed up to. I would suggest that nothing is worse than the kind of charges that are floating around now.

For myself, I would speak against any attempts at a lynching if the Table Officers were to admitt something even as bad as trying to avoid a discussion at Council. I don't take that sort of thing lightly at all. And I quit the NSNDP when I determined thatthere was no hope of ending obscenely manipulative practices. But this current ONDP leadership has not been at the helm long enough to be given up on by my standards- if they did what I am suggesting.

People in leadership positions like Pres have virtually always been around for a long time. Of course they share in responsibility for leadership before they reached the position where they make a lot of the decisions themselves, but thats when the clock starts on they indisputably wear it.

@kens

Great post!

@JasonNDP

Agreed.  I've not encountered anyone adamantly opposed to moving the convention. The reasons given were good.  What stirred the pot was the way the table officers forced the idea.  As Kens said 

"

As noted, the idea to delay Convention did not just come up. It had to be articulated at least among the table officers by the time of the full Council meeting. Not to mention they meet immediately before, as does the Exec- where they can do a priliminary sound out and vetting of questions to pose the Council.

There is something not right about the delaying of Convention being brought to an emergency vote two weeks later.

Either that is unacceptably poor planning on the part of the Table Officers- and particularly the Secretary and President. Or it was a desire to avoid a 'divisive discussion' such as could be pretty well counted on at the full Council.

If it is one of those, that should be fessed up to. I would suggest that nothing is worse than the kind of charges that are floating around now"

This is drama for no reason. The tone from the top has ensured that this procedural issue has become divisive and heated.

KenS I echo passionate gardener. For me this is all about what is right (constitutionally) and fair. I do not believe it's accurate to call this position a "minority" position. Many riding associations and even regional councils see a problem with inner-party democracy and participation. As such, they have been writing motions to address these concerns. The Road Ahead, an inner party report, is a document that I think sufficiently captures the memberships' desire to have a more participatory party.

Thank you KenS for actually trying to understand the issues at hand... ever consider running for ONDP president

I don't see anyone trying to dethrone Andrea. When I speak with Dippers I hear people comment on how well they think she's doing as leader, but no one talks about replacing her. 

Hi Tanya, welcome to babble!

However:

aka Mycroft wrote:

Tanya, the fact that both you and your sources are anonymous denies your post the weight you are trying to attribute to it. Your claims of a split are also unsupported. Are you saying several MPPs and thousands of members are going to form their own party? If so, where's the evidence? If not you need to modify your language.

^^^This.

But, perhaps we should also keep in mind this:

PoliSci Tanya wrote:

The author studies political science in Ottawa, Canada and writes an Ontario political gossip column for her student union's internal blog. This is her first attempt at forum-posti[ng]

It's an interesting tack, Tanya, but since you are not an established writer with proven pedigree you can't throw around phrases like "a source inside the Ontario NDP," etc. Also be aware that several babblers are highly partisan and might react strongly to the provocative and incendiary rhetoric you use above. Hopefully you come back and respond to some of the comments!

ETA: do you have a link to your Student Union blog?

I'll begin by telling a little annecdote from seeking the byelection nomination:

My girlfriend went down to the provincial office with my candidate nomination forms and my last four member sign-ups on the membership cutoff deadline. She entered the office and attempted to hand in the two envelopes. Our then-brand-new provincial secretary demanded to know who she was. My girlfriend introduced herself and extended her hand -- the provincial secretary stepped back a pace and refused to extend her hand or disclose her name.

She then opened the two envelopes and, finding that the four memberships were accompanied by five $20 bills to pay for them, she immediate accused Rachel, herself a member for only six weeks, of having bought the memberships herself in contravention of the party constitution and provincial law. My understanding is that the term "fraud" was even used. After lecturing her on how the party would investigate the validity of the memberships and how membership fraud was a serious offense and would be detected if it had taken place, the four memberships were reluctantly accepted.

So, although I agree that the thread title is hyperbolic, I do have to say that I think the party has a lot of work to do when it comes to being welcoming to new members. When new leadership takes charge, it is an opportunity to fling wide the doors and welcome people in or back in as the case may be. But instead I find the ONDP is just further tightening its circle.

I don't blame either our leader or our provincial secretary for this because it is a culture I see everywhere in the ONDP from the riding level on up: the party appears to be slowly entering a tailspin of insularity. The smaller it gets, the less it trusts outsiders and the less it trusts outsiders, the smaller it gets. As there are fewer newcomers on whom to focus suspicion, party members focus more and more suspicion on one another: those supporting the current regime see those with questions as deliberately or delusionally undermining the party's cause; those opposing it see the current regime not as representatives of the majority but people who have won their positions through bullying and trickery. I reject both characterizations.

What is happening is something far more worrisome than a set of naive dissidents or secret saboteurs; it is more worrisome than bullies or cheaters at the top. Those things can be fixed with personnel changes or votes. It is a cycle of suspicion, defensiveness and insularity that is gripping not specific individuals but New Democratic culture in Ontario. To explain it, we can credit Paul Summerville, Bob Rae, David Miller and others who have, to a greater or lesser degree, brought the party somewhere only to back away from it. That sting of betrayal has contaminated our culture and now, we both look for traitors under every bed and we push away new people whose loyalty we think is up for grabs.

I think you are giving the leader too much power.  No leader is going to get involved in this kind of stuff as that is what staff and officials are for.  Sure they might be consulted, but oversee and micro-manage not on your life.  If you are as long time involved as you say you are you have to or ought to now that.  Instead you choose to attack Horwath revealing.

I find it interesting that the people doing all of this attacking seemed to have signed up specifically to do so, and do not really engage in any other discussions.  Surely that suggests something doesn't it.  My guess is if these people keep up their relentless attacks (and how much do you want to bet it is really over seperate school funding) a whack of good people will simply say piss on it and leave the NDP and you will see the diehards drive the NDP out of the Legislature all together.

for some of us the real problem is that the only party we will park our vote with is the ndp. so either vote ndp or stay home

This is how I see things: a small group of people have been running the party for a long time and by running I mean running into the ground. They like their power and don't want to give it up nor do they want to admit failure. The small group drove us into financial trouble - most notability the big ass loan for our very expensive downtown Toronto office and the other big ass loan for the last election. [Sandra was president then too!] Both investments had poor returns and now the unions who co-signed those loans have even more power and control over the party. The small group of people keep trying to cut budget costs - like delaying convention - rather than focusing on growing the party. Anyone who questions what's going on is told "you're either with us or against us" rather than seeing the concerns as genuine. 

Andrea should be concerned with this internal democracy dilemma and the dissatisfaction on her own people. The troops are losing moral - how effective do you think we'll be in battle come election time. 

This party is on life support folks. If you don't believe me check out our financial report the next time your at council. 

i agree with mike

why are we letting the same group of people who helped us lose party statuts, bankrupted us and are sacring away youth, professionals and minorities still run the show!? in any other party these epople would have been sent home already

time to say thank you to sandra, penny, howard, merv, andrew, mike and all the rest. give them a nice parting gift. ask them for donations, to volunteer on elections, and to vote for us, but move on

there are too many fresh and talented members waiting in the wings to really do something with this party

Not to mention that the unions co-signing for loans does not conferr any power on them- even informal power.

[Let alone there is no information about how much they are co-signing for... and even if we had that information, the time frame for paying off the loans.. etc.]

And a note that suggesting that its time for officers to be replaced belies earlier suggestions that you want accounatability; and fits nicely into others' suggestions that it isn't about the substance of the criticisms, its about agendas to get rid of people.

Mike from Canmore wrote:

I belong to a union and am an executive member. I am not calling on the NDP to cut its ties to unions. Nor am I being 'anti-union' by questioning the ethics of our financial ties to them. Conservatives and Liberals are in-bed with big business the same way the ONDP is in-bed with labour. Both relationships impose a conflict of interest.  

 You do seem intent on sabotaging your position.

Thats your opinion that its a conflict of interest. I among others don't agree. Your opinion is your business. But you are using it as more than your opinion. You are trumping it up into being part of a problem much bigger than the ethics of relationships.

Mike from Canmore wrote:

My concern is that the same people have been at the helm for a long time and are doing a terrible job. It's hard to develop progressive policy, especially around the issue of public school funding, when you're worried about losing the support of unions (ie/ catholic school teachers union). I also question the focus in on paying back loans to unions (by budget cuts such as delaying convention) rather than trying to grow our support base. 

Loans have to be paid back in a timely manner no matter who the money is owed to. And "timely" means you have to pay down repidly during non-election years. You can question the wisdom of how much debt should have been taken on. But that is entirely seperate from the issue of paying the debt down once you have. The speed which the loans have to be paid down has nothing to do with money being owed to unions in particular. I don't care if you are a union and exec member, where you look for scapegoats says something to me. [Not that it is really relevant to the larger points- its a comment on yousaying you are not anti-union.]

Basic personnel principle in non-union as well as union workplaces:

No matter how much individuals may have been told how their practices are really bad, etc.... the clock to them possibly being disciplined, let alone threatened with termination or told their resignation is expected, does not BEGIN until they have been formally warned that their practices may lead to consequences.

In other words, people get a chance to act accordingly. The fact they 'should have known' from what people were already telling them informally, is immaterial.

That goes for managers as well as plebes.

I'll do you the favour Mike of ignoring you called me a fool.

I've put in years on party finance committees doing budgets and dealing with loans. I know all about formal and informal obligations. I also know that unions in the ONDP in particular have more influence and different influence than what you get just from reading organization charts.

But like I said, co-signing loans conferrs on them no further influence. You are entitlled to your opinion it is undue influence. But you are making of it much more than an opinion. You went so far as to say that the loans are being paid at the speed they are rather than spending money on Conventions because the unions co-signed the lines. And you showed no inclination to qualify that after I pointed out the loans would have to be repaid post-haste whoever held them.

I'm allowed to question what influences the priorities of our party. 

Ken why do you think that labour would be any less influential on the party's agenda compared to corporations? 

Mike from Canmore wrote:

I'm allowed to question what influences the priorities of our party. 

I already affirmed more than once you are entitled to your opinions, and for them to be respected.

But where I come from this isnt called "questioning:.

Mike from Canmore wrote:

Whether you like to admit it or not Ken, the fact that unions co-signed our loans compromises our relationship with them - you are a fool to think otherwise.

For the record, I favour unions and the NDP ending the formal relationship. I think its in our mutual interests- and we are moving that direction anyway. [The unions don't have the formal relationship with the US Dems- and its even stronger.]

But that doesn't change me contesting how some people portray the relationship. Even if at the same time I think that one of the benefits of ending the formal relationship would be a chance to put to rest and not be distracted by what to my mind is paranoia even amomng members and allies about the relationship.

Wait... is that Remind or Bill Murdoch?