NDP denies Andrea Horwath set to resign as leader

Frozen Snowshoe, let's suppose you're 100% correct and Andrea needs to go. What happens if the next leader ends up doing the exact same thing? How do you deal with the internal party processes to ensure that Horwath or any other leader is accountable to the membership?

It is tempting to want to remove a leader who is underperforming, but if you look at the transition of the Saskatchewan NDP from Roy Romanow to Lorne Calvert or the BC NDP from Adrian Dix to John Horgan, changing figureheads at the top without looking at structual issues does not work. How do you fix the structural issues?

terrytowel wrote:

There is now a petition on change.org demanding that Andrea step down as NDP leader

NDP Socialist Caucus is leading the charge headed up by Barry Weisleder

So far it has 100 signatures, with a goal of 200 signatures.

Will you sign the petition?

https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/ontario-new-democratic-party-andr...

Unfortunately, I expect that Barry's association with it will deter a lot of people who might otherwise sign on to something like this. By making it a Socialist Caucus initiative, many people will refuse simply because they don't want to seen as supporting the SC. 

I have already communicated my feelings about the current leadership, in writing, through a member of the executive I know will carry the message forward, even if she/he disagrees with it. I will be attending convention and voting for a leadership review.

My knowledge of the waffle movement is limited, but from a couple of stories I am left with the impression that the waffle movement was very critical of David Lewis and his co-operation with the minority Liberal government.  Now the left is out for the head of anyone who doesn't bow down to the Liberal gods.

Edited to add: this is in reference to the petition not Frozen Snowshoe's post of which I find much to agree with.

Pogo wrote:

My knowledge of the waffle movement is limited, but from a couple of stories I am left with the impression that the waffle movement was very critical of David Lewis and his co-operation with the minority Liberal government.

I agree fully with the first 8 words of your post. The rest - never happened.

Quote:

Now the left is out for the head of anyone who doesn't bow down to the Liberal gods.

Yup, you're right. "The left" are a bunch of hypocritical fickle crazies. I'm surprised we even allow them to post here.

Wiki actually has a pretty good summary of those years. I got involved with the federal party in 1972 with the Corporate Welfare Bums campaign after David Lewis had beat Laxer. It was the first election I was eligible to vote in and I supported the socialist message of the NDP.  In Ontario Stephen Lewis ran his fiefdom with a heavy hand with the help of the card caring Liberal leaders of the major Ontario trade unions. I left the NDP for a decade because of Lewis' anti-democratic streak and his kowtowing to the union power brokers.

Quote:

The next year Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis, David's son, accused the Waffle of being "an encumbrance around my neck".[10] On June 24, 1972, at the party's Provincial Council held in Orillia, Lewis was able to successfully shepherd a resolution ordering the Waffle to either disband or leave the NDP.[10] Debate on the motion lasted for three hours, with labour leaders leading the charge to expel the Waffle.[10] Finally, the council approved the motion to disband the Waffle with a 217 to 86 vote, thereby ending months of public feuding.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Waffle

Stephen IMO is a sycophant who sold out the left wing of Ontario and achieved no electoral success. The current Ont NDP is merely carrying on the same forty year old tradition of losing elections by moving to the center. Stephen's run to the middle is a good indication of what awaits the federal NDP with its liberal leader.

Quote:

A radical left wing group nicknamed The Waffle had gained prominence, with one of its leaders, James Laxer winning one-third of the vote when he ran to be leader of the federal NDP in 1971. Lewis felt that The Waffle was threatening the credibility and stability of the party and supported a movement against the group in June 1972 on the basis that it was a party within a party.[10]

Lewis led a strong campaign during the 1975 election with his oratory and passion bringing new supporters to the party. The NDP highlighted issues such as rent control and workplace safety. Each day, Lewis told the story of a different Ontarian in trouble, making a case that this was because of the lack of adequate legislation. Polls showed the NDP surging and the incumbent Ontario Progressive Conservative Party in freefall and in the course of the campaign Premier William Davis was forced to commit his party to bringing in rent control and other progressive reforms in order to retain power. When the ballots were counted the Tories were reduced to a minority government. Lewis' NDP had doubled its seats from 19 to 38, surpassing the Ontario Liberal Party to become the Official Opposition. To some it appeared that it was only a matter of time before the NDP would form the government.

The next election, in 1977, proved to be a disappointment. The growth of support for the NDP stalled, and while the Tories were kept to a minority, the NDP failed to make any gains. The party was reduced to 33 seats and lost its status as Official Opposition to the Liberals. In 1978, a frustrated Lewis stepped down as party leader and as a Member of Provincial Parliament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Lewis

You have to remember that most leftists in the early '70's still thought the Liberals were the flip side of the Conservatives.  Like many people I was attracted to their socialist words and the principled stand many NDP MP's took against the War Measures Act.  The problem with the party today is its elected memebers are not allowed to take principled stands, only leader approved stands.

Personally I have always thought that the NDP should run candidates in all ridings and be open to any arrangement after an election that leads to progressive laws being enacted. If you don't even have a paper candidate on the ballot you can't't even get a germ of a message out.

I was not promoting leadership change in part because I agree with the fear that a leadership change could put us back where we are. A leadership change that happens after an acknowledgement of what went wrong has a better chance of putting us in a better position.

I do agree that the NDP speaks of greater democracy but leans on a top-down hierarchy to its detriment. That's not my only focus.

I don't think the issue is all about being too right or not being left enough. I don't associate being left or right as necessarily being more or less activist or promoting policies that make a greater difference. The nature of the policies defines what is right or left not their impact.

In many respects the NDP displays less of a movement left or right than it displays risk-adverse, timid policies with an unwillingness to do anything controversial. It is that tendency that makes them look and become more right than any desire to actually move the party anywhere. The NDP has put forward policies that while left were not far reaching and so timid as to be in-effectual, unimaginative and less worthy of attention or support. As well this risk-adverse tendency has led some policies to be an actual shift to the right. In other words the apparent shift to the right is not the product of any conscious ideology change but an unwillingness to engage voters with matters of substance, to lead, or to express a vision lest someone not like it. Before you argue about the hidden gems in the platform closet I am talking about what the party campaigns on and talks about not the election planks the leader is too timid to proclaim.

The problem is when you take out everything someone may not like you have also taken out anything that attracts. What is left is a bunch of interesting second-tier policies that may not be bad in themselves but overall lack a vision, direction, courage and purpose. If you also bungle the campaign in terms of communication, replace expressing any direction with negative campaigning and generic meaningless platitudes, you get the campaign we just witnessed.

The party has to stop aiming for its vision of an average person that in fact does not exist with policies so average as to be unremarkable. Instead staking out policies and defending them is a way to go. You don’t have to be so far left that you “lose the centre” but they have to be remarkable, imaginative, workable, and most important life-changing for people. Many people will dislike some policies but appreciate the direction of the whole which is better than having no negative feelings but thinking the whole is listless. How can you blame people for saying they are all the same and my vote does not make a difference when a party presents a savings of 8% tax on heating bills that have doubled as any kind of a solution?

The NDP has to stop selling its policies on selfish lines. Don't imagine as the Conservatives do that all voters are motivated just by what they get for themselves. The NDP's potential voters are motivated by more than that. Most of the policies I argue are the most important would have little impact on me financially right now but reflect the kind of government I want and address the greatest problems in the province, many of which I am fortunate enough not to suffer from. I am aware that I may face these problems in the future and I have nothing good to look forward to when I am older. Don't pander to me with policies of pennies. I am not alone.

The party leader should keep the conversation in proportion. This is missing entirely. Liberal corruption is a problem but it is not affecting people’s lives to the degree that Liberal neglect of other issues' priorities is. But Liberal corruption is a safe conversation and the needed changes are not - so we chatter on about Liberal corruption until people can’t tell if we are Conservative or NDP but they are pretty sure that we don’t mean much. And when a message is heard you move on to the next one. People believed the Liberals were corrupt but since the NDP did not move much beyond that they took the NDP's words in a cynical way. People had moved past much of the specific corruption issues like McGuinty and gas plants.

The savings of a couple hundred dollars by taking the 8% provincial part of the HST off hydro and heat is safe, certainly, but it is almost meaningless when people have seen energy bills almost double. A meaningful comprehensive discussion on affordable housing, living wages, income support for people without an income are considered too risky so the NDP puts up policies that acknowledge some of what is wrong but do so little about it that people become more discouraged than inspired. The result is I was left with the impression that Horwath thinks things are basically okay in Ontario except for a bit of tinkering as that is all she proposed to do.

If you turn to Québec perhaps you might want to look not to QS for advice but to the most successful parties in the province. Consider this: parties that wanted separation often did best not when they were being untrue but when they acknowledged what their objectives were while limiting what of those they would deliver in the immediate. Separatist parties got elected even when their separatist nature was unpopular but could be respected. The NDP should not be afraid to say it is a left of centre party or to rush to be a centre party. It can say- this is the direction we would like – this is who we are. We know we don’t have a consensus to go the full distance that we want but we will talk about it. In the meantime here is a program that really will make a difference in some key areas that we think you will like and support and we will get that done. This appeals to the centre without pretending to be centre. It creates an opportunity to lead and educate and move people. Pretending you are centre when you are left will do nothing to move people to your visions it will only sell out that vision and move you away from it as well. If a party of the left claims to side with the people who are struggling but propose only minor extremely limited policies to help them, voters will stay home.

In the last election the most progressive policy proposed was the pension plan that does have a chance to affect people by far more than 8% on energy. That policy was championed by the Liberals and not the party that used to be the only one that would argue for it. The unions who have been arguing with massive campaigns for retirement security were aghast to see the NDP oppose the policy. Why was there surprise that that unions did not come out for the NDP? The Liberals said we will do something to help retirement security and the NDP said we will help you with a few bucks on energy taxes and the Liberals are corrupt. How would you predict that would play out?

The NDP did have other good policies but they barely talked about them and the Liberals had other faults than corruption but they were too controversial for the NDP to engage so a few bucks on energy and corruption vs pension plan. Pension plan won.

Lesson for the NDP: show some guts, present, stand by and promote the bigger policies and you might even win. Look like a rabbit and run from anything big and people will forget you were ever there.

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/top-aides-to-leave-ontario-... aides to leave Ontario NDP ranks over the summer[/url]

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

How can you blame people for saying they are all the same and my vote does not make a difference when a party presents a savings of 8% tax on heating bills that have doubled as any kind of a solution?

The NDP has to stop selling its policies on selfish lines. Don't imagine as the Conservatives do that all voters are motivated just by what they get for themselves. The NDP's potential voters are motivated by more than that. Most of the policies I argue are the most important would have little impact on me financially right now but reflect the kind of government I want and address the greatest problems in the province, many of which I am fortunate enough not to suffer from. I am aware that I may face these problems in the future and I have nothing good to look forward to when I am older. Don't pander to me with policies of pennies. I am not alone.

The party leader should keep the conversation in proportion. This is missing entirely. Liberal corruption is a problem but it is not affecting people’s lives to the degree that Liberal neglect of other issues' priorities is. But Liberal corruption is a safe conversation and the needed changes are not - so we chatter on about Liberal corruption until people can’t tell if we are Conservative or NDP but they are pretty sure that we don’t mean much. And when a message is heard you move on to the next one. People believed the Liberals were corrupt but since the NDP did not move much beyond that they took the NDP's words in a cynical way. People had moved past much of the specific corruption issues like McGuinty and gas plants.

The savings of a couple hundred dollars by taking the 8% provincial part of the HST off hydro and heat is safe, certainly, but it is almost meaningless when people have seen energy bills almost double. A meaningful comprehensive discussion on affordable housing, living wages, income support for people without an income are considered too risky so the NDP puts up policies that acknowledge some of what is wrong but do so little about it that people become more discouraged than inspired. The result is I was left with the impression that Horwath thinks things are basically okay in Ontario except for a bit of tinkering as that is all she proposed to do.

Like.

Rokossovsky wrote:

Quote:

Mr. Schein contends that, despite his loss, Ms. Horwath has done a good job broadening the party’s support in non-traditional NDP constituencies. The party gained seats in Sudbury, Oshawa and Windsor, and largely supplanted the Liberals as the dominant centre-left force in the province’s southwest.

“We have to make sure we’re speaking to a broad audience,” he said.

Bringing the grand total of defeated ONDP incumbents who are taking out their loss on Horwath overtly to a big fat zero.

Current and former MPPs will take the high road when discussing leadership issues.  I would not expect Mr. Schein or other defeated MPPs to say anything negative about Andrea Horwath.  It remains to be seen if the rank-and-file members remain silent on Ms. Horwath's leadership.

The Star's torquing of that poll is quite amusing. maybe Horwath should stay and maybe she should go - but what the general public thinks two weeks after she lost an election is pretty irrelevant - though it is notable that in the same poll NDP supporters (and Horwath's fate will be decided by delegates at an NDP convention) want her to stay 78% to 16%.

About the only thing that makes me want Andrea Horwath to STAY is the fact that the Star has such a vicious personal vendetta against her. Its not enough that they won an election for their beloved Kathleen Wynne - they won't be hapy until they have Andrea Horwath's head impaled on a stick and Martin Regg Cohn and Robert Benzie can dance the watusi waving it around!

Stockholm wrote:

The Star's torquing of that poll is quite amusing. maybe Horwath should stay and maybe she should go - but what the general public thinks two weeks after she lost an election is pretty irrelevant - though it is notable that in the same poll NDP supporters (and Horwath's fate will be decided by delegates at an NDP convention) want her to stay 78% to 16%.

About the only thing that makes me want Andrea Horwath to STAY is the fact that the Star has such a vicious personal vendetta against her. Its not enough that they won an election for their beloved Kathleen Wynne - they won't be hapy until they have Andrea Horwath's head impaled on a stick and Martin Regg Cohn and Robert Benzie can dance the watusi waving it around!

I know. I became much more supportive of Horwath in the light of the smear campaign conducted against her by the local media. I have never seen anything like it in my life, except in the 2010 mayor race. The Star can be reasonable generally, up until the point that someone threatens the hegemony of the Liberal Party, and then they reduce themselves to Sue Ann Levy journalism.

The fact that the Liberal establishment put so much effort into trouncing Horwath's reputation, said much more about their fear of Horwath than it did about Horwath.

Getting back to The star, people forget how viciously negative they were towards David Miller. For some reason The star HATED him and they went on such a crazy anti-Miller vendetta and whipped up so much anti government sentiment that it paved the way for Ford to become mayor.

Frozen Snowshoe wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

Quote:

Mr. Schein contends that, despite his loss, Ms. Horwath has done a good job broadening the party’s support in non-traditional NDP constituencies. The party gained seats in Sudbury, Oshawa and Windsor, and largely supplanted the Liberals as the dominant centre-left force in the province’s southwest.

“We have to make sure we’re speaking to a broad audience,” he said.

Bringing the grand total of defeated ONDP incumbents who are taking out their loss on Horwath overtly to a big fat zero.

Jonah is a nice guy who lost his seat unnecessarily because the party is run by incompetents. I guess he is to be commended for sucking it up, putting his team first and behaving in an unselfish manner that his leader will never exhibit. I feel badly for the guy. If you manage to get a recorder into a private meeting with Michael Prue, I'd be really interest in hearing if he's as collegial as that.

I don't agree with that analysis of these two seats. There was no mass defection of the NDP in Davenport. Jonah got 200 less votes than he did in that last election, which would not have been enough to win in 2011.

Prue on the other hand likely lost his seat because of the way the election unfolded. Sorry. I don't agree that the NDP has to be some sort of superforce that can predict all outcomes, defeat all contestants, and win.

The Toronto media was viciously anti-NDP and would have been regardless of what Horwath said, or did.

That doesn't mean that there were not numerous organizational problems, and systemic problems as well. But, I just don't buy the view that Rosario and Schein lost their seats because of the ONDP "line". Many of these problems of organization simply were not in view in terms of these incumbent seats.

The idea seems to be that the Liberals were going to not fight for these ridings.

If we're going to debate whether or not the NDP needs a change in leadership, the obvious follow-up question is about who should replace her.  Is there anyone in the new caucus that dissatisfied New Democrats see as the obvious choice to take over the reigns of the party?  Who would you trust to make the changes that many have expressed in this thread? 

Listening to people in Toronto complain that the mdia is biased against the NDP is fucking hilarious. Well DOH!!

It reminds me of people who move to the Wet Coast and after a year or so here constantly complain about the rain. I just tell them that there is a reason that their surroundings are called a rain forest.  All the MSM in Canada including the CBC exist in an corporatist world where any attack on the vested rights of the 0.1% is treated as being either akin to treason or naive.

Get over it, the media is capitalist and biased and will always be so no matter how many times the NDP goes to the Business Counsel or the Chamber and tells them they have nothing to fear because they have become a party of the centre.

Unionist wrote:

Geoff wrote:

Is there anyone in the new caucus that dissatisfied New Democrats see as the obvious choice to take over the reigns of the party? 

Why does the new leader have to be someone from the caucus? Some of the best people have just been defeated.

In that case, let me rephrase my question.  For those who think we should replace the leader, who would you suggest, whether s/he is from caucus, from the federal party, or from anywhere else in the province?  If we are dissatisfied with Andrea, who's the alternative? 

When it comes to potential new ONDP leaders, the names i hear most frequently bandied about include:

Catherine Fife

Taras Natyshak

Jagmeet Singh

...nothing wrong with a federal MP in theory but i can't think of any who would fit the bill