Can’t they all just get along?

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 3:47 PM - 0 Comments

Ian Bushfield takes a whack at Nathan Cullen’s plan for joint nominations.

In every riding will exist partisans who will not vote for one party or another. Many will switch to the Conservatives before they vote for a different party as well. Progressive votes are not transferable. By reducing the number of options on a ballot, we necessarily reduce our democracy, and force strategic voting against someone rather than for someone.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that joint nominations won’t work if they happen, let’s also recognize that they probably won’t even be able to happen. The entire idea rests on getting each party to agree to allow these meetings. While a local riding association may choose to hold this meeting with their rivals, there is no guarantee that the parties will respect this decision. Each party has the ability to parachute candidates, so unless there is agreement from the leadership of each party, this idea is dead before it lifts off. To date, only one NDP leadership candidate has expressed any support for this idea and no one from the Liberals has agreed to it.

Counter argument here.

Q&A: Nathan Cullen

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 12:40 PM - 0 Comments

As part of our coverage of the NDP leadership race, we’ll be running interviews with the contenders. First up, Nathan Cullen. We chatted last week.

Q. So I wanted to start with something you said after the debate on Sunday. You made some comment about “doubling down” on your joint nomination proposal … What did you mean by that?

A. Especially early on in this race, there were a number of New Democrats that said, ‘Boy, I like you a lot, but this joint nomination thing is hard for me to get around, you know, I might be interested, but it’s just hard to comprehend.’ Can you nuance it, essentially. Can you soften it? And so over Christmas, we had a couple days and I thought about it. And I can’t. I believe in the policy, I think it’s a good one, it’s certainly worth consideration. And, increasingly, those same folks that expressed hesitation are saying, ‘You know what, the more bad things Harper does, the more it confirms the need to put everything on the table.’ So this is one of those things on the table. So I’m noticing a shift just within the body politic and I also don’t want to be a weathervane politician, trying to bend and guess where the voters are going to be and guess what the people want to hear. Continue…

The futures market

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 10:34 AM - 0 Comments

Alice Funke considers the possible predictive value of yesterday’s NDP fundraising numbers.

If the 2003 NDP leadership race is anything to go by, a candidate’s share of the overall funds being raised for the contest could predict his or her first ballot vote-share to within 1.5 percentage points … That being the case, roughly half-way through the 2011-2012 NDP leadership race, Brian Topp and Thomas Mulcair are leading the pack. With 23.6% and 20.4% of the total take respectively, the two early front-runners represent 44% of all the funds raised to December 31, 2011 between them.

Peggy Nash, Paul Dewar and Nathan Cullen are behind with 15.1%, 13.1% and 12.0% (representing another 40% of all the leadership fundraising to the end of 2011), while the other four registered candidates trail below 7%.

The measure of the race

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 8:53 PM - 0 Comments

As part of its latest filing with Elections Canada, the NDP has tabled fundraising data for its leadership race through Dec. 31, 2011. Alice Funke has the headline totals.

Q4$: Topp $157K | Mulcair $146K | Nash $108K | Dewar $94K | Cullen $86K | Singh $49K | Chisholm $35K | Saganash $17.5K | Ashton $10K

Contrib count to #ndpldr‘s: Mulcair 621 | Dewar 456 | Cullen 442 | Nash 347 | Topp 278 | Singh 110 | Saganash 87 | Chisholm  64 | Ashton 58

Glen McGregor has graphed the numbers between September and December to show the trend over the first few months of the campaign.

The Dewar campaign boasts that it is now up to 721 contributors. The Cullen campaign claimed last week to be over $135,000.

‘The approach I bring to politics is a deeply pragmatic one’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

Nathan Cullen talks to the Toronto Star editorial board.

I don’t think the counterpoint to Stephen Harper is more Stephen Harper but from the left. I think you have to undermine his argument at its base and at its core. I think just yelling more is not going to accomplish it and I don’t think turning red in the face is going to show Canadians. I think you absolutely have to show Canadians the contrast both in policies but also in approach.

Separately, Mr. Cullen also chats with Chris Selley.

The power of Tolkien and a good cup of coffee

By Mitchel Raphael - Monday, January 30, 2012 at 10:35 AM - 0 Comments

Photography by Mitchel Raphael

Conservatives watching every word

During a 2006 Liberal leadership debate, Michael Ignatieff told Stéphane Dion he “didn’t get the job done.” The phrase was picked up as a Conservative attack repeated so often in the House that even Tory cabinet ministers grew sick of saying it, which prompted Stephen Harper to remind them that it was only when they were sick of saying it was it actually penetrating into the general public. These days, Nathan Cullen is thinking a lot about the single wrong phrase that could hang over the heads of NDP leadership hopefuls. “You want to be careful, but at the same time, if you are not ready for sound-bite politics you are not ready for the big time,” he says.

One of the lessons he’s learned from his campaign so far has been the importance of how “you have to focus and not allow drama to enter your inner team.” It was something he read in a book Jack Layton gave him, The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama’s Historic Victory by David Plouffe. These days, Cullen is tackling The Lord of the Rings in French. He has read the books several times in English and says one of the best ways to improve language skills is to read familiar books. Some of the characters’ names have been changed a bit in French. Cullen adds that if during one of the NDP debates there is a Lord of the Rings question in French then he has the leadership “in the bag.” (Or is that Baggins?)

Continue…

Halifax reaction

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, January 30, 2012 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

The Star, Post, iPolitics, Canadian Press, Globe and CBC review the proceedings.

Nathan Cullen says he’s not backing down.

“In fact, we’re doubling down on it,” he told reporters, though he added he is not “married to the details.” ”The particulars of how this thing happens — it can happen in many different ways.”

Brian Topp says he stands by his tax proposals.

After the debate, Mr. Topp said that Canada’s tax system is blatantly unfair and that he will continue to encourage the party to move leftward and go after Bay St. millionaires. “I think he is wrong,” Mr. Topp said about Mr. Mulcair’s views. “His answers show we have a bit of a disagreement here about the direction our party should go in.”

Greg Fingas updates his rankings. The Rabble crowd considers.

Live-blogging the NDP Halifax debate

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 12:49 PM - 0 Comments

2:16pm. Candidates get 90 seconds for closing statements. They should get five.

Mr. Mulcair name drops Alexa McDonough, Darrell Dexter and Robert Chisholm. He says the NDP must present a “credible” alternative, move “forwards not backwards” (and always twirling, twirling?) and “reach out to those who haven’t supported us in the past.”

Mr. Dewar quotes Tommy Douglas, says the party must “go to the next level” and “build up the grassroots” so that it can “take on the next 70 seats.” He pitches unity and harmony, to realize “Tommy’s dream” and form a government that champions taking “better care of each other.”

Ms. Nash asks “who is the person to bring all this together?” “We need someone with real world experience,” she says, detailing her work at the bargaining table, negotiating child care and same-sex benefits. Says the party needs “real world builder,” referencing the NDP’s success in Toronto and a “proven builder,” referencing her time as party president.

Mr. Topp describes himself as a “bilingual Quebecer who has worked across this country,” who worked closely with Jack Layton as the party built over the last seven years and who worked at the heart of a fiscally responsible NDP government that was reelected four times (he doesn’t say so, but he means Saskatchewan). He says New Democrats don’t have to be Liberals, that, as New Democrats, they can defeat Stephen Harper and, as New Democrats, they can get the job done.

And that’s that. Much better show than the first outing in Ottawa. More discussion to be had on finances, still a bit short on specifics and serious debates (picking on Mr. Cullen is a bit too easy), but this sets up an interesting two months. Continue…

NDP leadership debate in Toronto

By Mitchel Raphael - Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 10:00 AM - 0 Comments

All the NDP leadership candidates gathered in Toronto to a  packed house.

The candidates.

The crowd.

Continue…

Topp on centrism, paying the bills, cooperating with Liberals, fighting the Conservatives and Norway

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, January 27, 2012 at 2:32 PM - 0 Comments

As vaguely promised a few days ago, here are several excerpts from my conversation with Brian Topp. My brief survey of his candidacy is on newsstands now and if you’d like to follow along with all our coverage, you can bookmark the tag “NDP leadership.”

These first three excerpts follow from a question I asked about whether there would be more debate as the leadership race proceeded. The fourth excerpt comes from a question about the inevitable attacks his tax proposals would attract. The fifth excerpt follows a question about international models the NDP might look to.

On whether the party should move to the centre. ”I think faced with a choice between two Liberal parties on the opposition benches in the next election that the electorate will pick the real one. So I don’t support the idea of morphing our party into a more quote-unquote ‘centrist’ political party that resembles the Liberal party. Which I assert Tom was essentially talking about in the early days of his leadership and that is consistent with his background as a cabinet minister in a Liberal government. I think we can win and we should win by remaining true to our principles and our values and sticking to the hopeful and optimistic approach that Jack Layton offered because it’s such a notable contrast from what is available from Mr. Harper and we need to marry it to the deep traditions of competent government that we have in our provincial sections … I think if we offer the people of Canada that combination I think we will be very competitive indeed and we will do so in a way that when we win we won’t be defeating ourselves even as we’re winning by adopting the agendas of our opponents.” Continue…

On marijuana

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 10:38 AM - 0 Comments

Six of the eight NDP leadership candidates respond to a survey on drug policy. All six seem to support some kind of decriminalization around marijuana and three (Niki Ashton, Peggy Nash and Romeo Saganash) seem open to pursuing a regulatory approach. Here is how Mr. Saganash explains his position.

A proposition in California suggested that it is time to look at full legalization, regulation and taxation. Medical authorities have recently made the same recommendation. This deserves serious study. Marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol, and unlike alcohol, it is non-addictive. The criminalization of marijuana creates ties to other crime, just as prohibition did with alcohol. Criminalization creates an enormous cost for the justice system, the penal system, and for society as a whole when we incarcerate tens of thousands of our young people. In the interim, decriminalization is the least we can do toward reducing the harm inflicted by our current legislation.

The endorsements

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 1:50 PM - 0 Comments

Nathan Cullen wins the blessings of Fin Donnelly and Alex Atamanenko.

Atamanenko, a three-term MP first elected in 2006, said Cullen’s support for voting reform and openness to doing politics differently were key factors. He also said Cullen’s ideas on rural issues, including food security and the Canadian Wheat Board, helped. “The fact is that to defeat Stephen Harper, we’re going to have to win Conservative seats outside big cities,” he said. “Nathan Cullen’s record of bringing urban and rural people together is a big plus.”

Messrs Donnelly and Atamanenko are Mr. Cullen’s first two endorsements from the NDP caucus. Excluding Olivia Chow and interim leader Nycole Turmel, who will remain neutral, that leaves 31 NDP MPs unaligned.

Crowd pleaser

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, January 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM - 0 Comments

Seven of the eight candidates for NDP leader debate matters in Montreal.

The only candidate to trigger a “bravo” from the audience was Cullen. The MP for Skeena-Bulkley Valley in B.C. apologized for the NDP’s support of the nomination of justice Michael J. Moldaver to the Supreme Court of Canada. Moldaver does not speak French.

Talk of a cross-Canada plan to alleviate poverty and homelessness gave Mulcair pause and resulted in the only moment in which one candidate took a position different from the others.

The path to Stornoway

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, December 12, 2011 at 2:40 PM - 0 Comments

Alice Funke assesses the NDP leadership campaign so far and where it might go from here.

Suppose Mulcair dominates in Quebec, and shows well in various pockets across the country. Combined with Cullen, Ashton, and perhaps even Singh, that would be a reasonable path for him to win on.

Suppose Topp maintains strength in BC, and benefits from sign-ups and a base of support amongst the private sector unions, from artists, and from his contacts in greater Montreal. That’s a base of support that would be well complemented by either Nash’s public sector union and activist base or Dewar’s regional bases, though many supporters of those other two candidates made their choices after mentally ruling out the supposed top two. If the positions were reversed, on the other hand, Topp could play a decisive role in choosing the final winner as between the two of them. Dewar and Nash could also team up, but would likely need significant support from BC (either themselves or through for example Singh or Cullen) to assemble a winning tally.

First impressions

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, December 5, 2011 at 1:23 PM - 0 Comments

Greg Fingas finds in Nathan Cullen’s favour.

I’ve been careful to avoid docking candidates too many points for having some room to improve in a second language. But in order to win the benefit of the doubt, a candidate does need to sound compelling in his or her more familiar language. And on that point, Paul Dewar suffered in comparison to Nathan Cullen – who seemed more comfortable than any contender other than Mulcair, sounding more confident even in his entirely improvised lines than Dewar did in presenting his own policies. That made Cullen the candidate who gained the most from yesterday’s debate – even if it’s an open question whether any amount of personal appeal can overcome his strategic choice to make cooperation with the Liberals the centrepiece of his campaign. But Cullen’s ease in front of an audience may end up serving as the dividing line between the NDP’s serious contenders and its also-rans – and yesterday, Dewar fell short of the standard. 

Progressive Proselytizing sees a top three. Continue…

NDP debate 1: an embarrassment of riches

By Paul Wells - Monday, December 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM - 0 Comments

Paul Dewar, Brian Topp and Thomas Mulcair (L-R) (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)

“There were only two candidates on that stage who were ready for prime time,” a guy who works for Tom Mulcair’s NDP leadership campaign told me. “And one of them will never be prime minister.”

I smiled knowingly and nodded. Mulcair Guy, quickly sensing that I had no idea what he was talking about, filled in the blanks. “Nathan was on fire today. If it was maybe 10 years later…”

Ah-ha. This is how you know you’re in a leadership race: every whispered confidence comes with a healthy dose of spin. Continue…

This is the week that was

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, December 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM - 0 Comments

We tried to save the House of Commons.

Brian Topp pitched higher taxes (and considered equality). Nathan Cullen pitched democratic reform. Martin Singh pitched a national pharmacare plan. Paul Dewar prioritized. Robert Chisholm talked leadership.

Elections Canada tried to figure out kids these days. The Department of National Defence tried to keep the cost of its new headquarters quiet. The NDP bought billboard space. The omnibus crime bill went unaccounted for. The House voted to keep curtailing debate. The Harperization of Canada was confirmed. The Conservatives peddled rumours and defended their right to do so. Tony Clement explained his verbal typo. And the Speaker ruled John Williamson and Geoff Regan out of order. Continue…

Revolution by referendum

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 30, 2011 at 2:30 PM - 0 Comments

Nathan Cullen puts democratic reform on the agenda.

As Prime Minister, Nathan Cullen would: Work to improve how our democracy reflects the will of voters, by making voting reform a priority.  Proportional representation is already used in more than 75 democracies around the world, putting Canada in the minority.

Hold a national referendum on voting reform, asking Canadians if they a) want to change the voting system; and b) which new model they prefer.  Nathan supports mixed-member proportional representation based on the German, Scottish and New Zealand models, which: Ensures every riding has a local MP, elected as they currently are, while ensuring the total composition of the House reflects each party’s share of the national vote; Avoids instability and fragmentation by requiring parties receive broad support—five per cent—before being awarded proportional seats.

Also: abolish the Senate, restore public financing for political parties and hold a plebiscite on the monarchy.

This is the week that was

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, November 26, 2011 at 12:11 PM - 0 Comments

The long-gun registry split the NDP leadership contenders. Paul Dewar talked medical infrastructure. Nathan Cullen pitched energy policy. And Romeo Saganash explained how the NDP can grow.

Charlie Angus brought attention to Attawapiskat. Justin Trudeau quizzed Peter Kent, who spoke of treachery and dismissed himself. Rob Anders napped. Bob Rae was named parliamentarian of the year. Rob Merrifield and John Weston were dutiful partisans. Two New Democrats tried to sing along. Patrick Brown allowed that all MPs love Canada. Rick Dykstra segued. The NDP turned up new emails in the G8 Legacy Fund affair and Tony Clement pleaded his innocence. Jason Kenney brought props. And MPs debated disturbances in the House.

Continue…

Parliamentarians of the Year Awards party

By Mitchel Raphael - Friday, November 25, 2011 at 3:11 PM - 0 Comments

Maclean’s 5^th annual Parliamentarians of the Year Awards ceremony at the Fairmont Château Laurier.  See winners here.

Immigration MInister Jason Kenney (left) and Ken Whyte, President of Rogers Publishing Limited

Liberal MP Rodger Cuzner (left) and NDP MP Pat Martin.

NDP MP Peter Stoffer accepts his award.

Stephen Harper’s communications director Angelo Persichilli and CBC’s Julie Van Dusen.

Continue…

Future-proofing

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, November 25, 2011 at 11:30 AM - 0 Comments

Nathan Cullen has released his energy policy platform.

Among the items on his agenda: interest-free retrofit loans for low income households, high speed rail between Windsor and Quebec City, east-west power transmission, retro-fitting federal buildings, investments in clean energy technologies, the elimination of subsidies for the oil and gas sector, the elimination of subsidies for the nuclear industry, stopping the export of raw bitumen, pricing carbon through cap-and-trade and appointing a Minister of Energy Security.

This is the week that was

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, November 12, 2011 at 3:30 PM - 0 Comments

One part of the In-and-Out scandal came to an end with the Conservatives pleading guilty and claiming victory.

Romeo Saganash clarified himself and touted his skill. Niki Ashton asserted herself. Nathan Cullen continued to pitch cooperation. Paul Dewar set out his arts agenda. Peggy Nash won the endorsement of Alexa McDonough.

The Prime Minister, the Governor General, Nycole Turmel and Bob Rae remembered.

Continue…

‘Focus on what unites us’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 9, 2011 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

Nathan Cullen continues to pitch his proposal for joint nominations.

Some worry about the implications of my proposal. The root of many of these fears is a belief that my party can win on its own. I understand that sentiment. Indeed, I agree with it: We can out-organize another party in a joint nomination—resembling a U.S. primary—and go on from there to beat a sitting Conservative. Others say it’s not realistic, that parties would need common platforms to make it happen; or that vested interests wound not allow it.

In response, I ask them whether the differences among progressive Canadians are really so great that we can’t find ways to co-operate before the next election? They can’t be that large. If other candidates can imagine and plan to co-operate after an election, surely we can democratically co-operate before one, too.

This is the week that was

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, November 6, 2011 at 4:15 PM - 0 Comments

Brian Topp won the endorsement of Charmaine Borg. Paul Dewar sided with Robin Hood, swore off sales taxes and set his sights on pushing your buttons. Nathan Cullen broadened his horizon. And Romeo Saganash considered secession.

The Prime Minister brushed aside concerns about the manner of Moammar Gadhafi’s death. Another death in Afghanistan raised questions about risk. John Baird promised to hold Libya’s new government to account. Daryl Kramp took on date confusion. Mathieu Ravignat took on floor crossing. Vic Toews took on defence lawyers (however much he may have needed one in the past). Quebec and Ontario took a stand on crime. The Harper government took a stand against UNESCO. The New Democrats and Conservatives questioned each other’s math, while the Conservatives voted together to defeat an NDP motion on asbestos.

Continue…