Saturday, March 17, 2012

Peggy Nash – her possible route to victory in the NDP leadership vote March 24

Why Peggy Nash could be Canada's next Opposition Leader 


By Bill Tieleman


"Favourites win about 30-35% of the time, so in about two out of three races the favourite loses."
         - Good Horse Racing
If favourites were able to win every race, it could safely be presumed that Thomas Mulcair will be the next federal New Democratic Party leader at the end of voting March 24.
But as the odds show, favourites don’t always win horse races or political party leadership contests – which make it far more challenging to predict who will come out ahead.
In this NDP leadership race seven candidates are in the running but only two have a clear path to victory – Thomas Mulcair and Peggy Nash.
My view is that the final ballot will have just those two names.
Who wins will depend on a number of factors but Nash has a real chance to become Leader of the Opposition with a come from behind finish.
I endorsed Nash some time ago after interviewing and researching the perceived frontrunners and all the other impressive candidates, so you can discount my analysis on that basis if you like.
Bill Tieleman and Peggy Nash - after Vancouver
NDP leadership debate March 11, 2012
But you might also want to check my personal track record for political leadership contest endorsements – including Jack Layton, Gregor Robertson and Adrian Dix – as well as riding nominations, and find that it’s very good.
I also want to make clear that while I think Peggy Nash is the best person to lead the NDP, I very much respect and appreciate the talents of Tom Mulcair, Brian Topp, Paul Dewar, Nathan Cullen, Niki Ashton and Martin Singh.
Whoever wins March 24 will have my support – though that support is never unconditional, as regular readers know very well!
Why Peggy Nash Could Win
Here’s why Peggy Nash could win and has an excellent chance.
All political parties work towards internal consensus, notwithstanding the inherent conflict that leadership contests and local candidate nomination battles always engender.
Once leadership is settled, the only way a party can win is through unity of message, vision and public image.
The Progressive Conservatives demonstrated the perils of ongoing disunity starting in the 1960s, while the federal Liberal Party dominated government time after time.
When the Reform Party was created and split the PCs, both sides of the right-wing family were out of power until unity was restored.
And when the Liberals turfed out a three-time winning Prime Minister Jean Chretien in a bloodless coup by Paul Martin, the party quickly spun out of power and into the ditch, where it remains today.
Peggy Nash has significant and broad support in the NDP but perhaps even more importantly, is the person most able to ensure party unity after the leadership contest ends.
The challenge is to bring people together afterwards, not polarize the party with post-ballot internal politics.
None of this is to suggest other candidates can’t or won’t do that – but of the main contenders, Nash has the best ability to bridge the gaps.
Nash also has the best skill set and experience combination to immediately become Canada’s Leader of the Opposition.
And when it comes to the key issues raised by the other NDP candidates, Nash’s positions are nearly all very complementary to theirs, with some significant shared constituencies.
Nash is strong on protecting the environment – like Cullen and Mulcair – and outspoken in opposing the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline proposal.
Nash is outspoken on her social democrat values, and with roots in the labour movement – like Topp.
Nash is committed to electoral system reform – like Cullen, but without his controversial proposal on “electoral cooperation” with other parties.
Nash is an experienced front bench Parliamentary critic – like Dewar and Mulcair.
Nash is fluent in French – like Mulcair and Topp. 
And Nash is an impressive woman – like Niki Ashton - in a political system still dominated by men.
The Other Contenders
Mulcair is an outstanding politician who overcame Brian Topp’s early lead to become frontrunner.  His experience in government as a Quebec cabinet minister and front bench NDP MP are formidable.
But the animosity between Mulcair and Topp is significant and public.
 Quebec in particular has seen a significant division between the two candidates with deep roots in that province.
And Mulcair was quick early on to publicly criticize United Steel Workers’ Canadian Director Ken Neumann – a Topp backer – in a way that shocked many in labour.
Neumann is very well regarded in both NDP and labour circles, so Mulcair’s intemperate words – and claiming Topp was “beholden” to big unions – definitely caused waves.
Topp has a lengthy and successful record at the senior levels of both provincial and federal politics, playing a major role in Jack Layton’s success, as well as that of the Roy Romanow government in Saskatchewan. 
And he has endorsements from many senior New Democrats, including Romanow and former NDP leader Ed Broadbent.
But the criticisms that Broadbent and Topp have publicly made on Mulcair in recent weeks – including questioning Mulcair’s social democratic commitment and lack of support from veteran MPs – have created a backlash with some members and especially Mulcair supporters.
Nathan Cullen has run an effective campaign and is personally engaging – but his main idea of “electoral cooperation” through joint nominating meetings with Liberals and Greens to pick a single candidate in Conservative held ridings has split the NDP and is a non-starter for many.
Some, like myself, believe that had this strategy been followed in the 2011 election, the Liberal Party would be the official opposition today – not the NDP.  And that rescuing the Liberals now from their own self-inflicted troubles can only come at the expense of the NDP’s chances to form government in 2015.
Paul Dewar has also gone after Mulcair and his alleged bad temper and attack-style politics, saying in Vancouver that Jack Layton was a “happy warrior” and that Mulcair had only gotten down the “warrior” part quite well.
Dewar himself has created a different divide – over his perceived lack of ability in French and the impact that would have in Quebec. 
Niki Ashton has acquitted herself very well – demonstrating considerable ability and knowledge, and is multilingual – but isn’t in the running this time. 
Martin Singh was a complete unknown before this contest and unfortunately, while he has performed above expectations, he has now become ensnared in controversy over his and his former key staff person’s endorsement of Mulcair as their second ballot choice.
Throughout all this, Nash has run a positive and constructive campaign and avoided creating splits in the party.
Nash has also continued to build support in all regions of the country while emphasizing the importance of a social democratic opposition movement – not just a party – that will take on the Stephen Harper Conservatives.
And Nash easily meets all the requirements to become leader: a sitting MP with experience in Parliament; bilingual; tenacious but gracious, a demonstrated commitment to progressive politics and a belief in social democracy; real-life leadership skills to bring to the role; an ability to show poise under pressure and perhaps most importantly, a willingness to listen.
I was very impressed with Peggy’s performance at the Vancouver NDP debate – and I wasn’t alone.
Globe and Mail : "Fortitude and pragmatism"
Here’s what Globe and Mail TV critic John Doyle said after that televised debate:
“Peggy Nash’s presence, measured tone and nuanced answers had the strongest resonance. There’s a fortitude and pragmatism projected in her onscreen persona that’s vivid and, memorably, she uses wit, not put-downs.”
“There’s the air of a woman who has seen and heard plenty of male bluster but knows that bluster doesn’t get the job done. Interestingly, there were seven candidates speaking and debating, and some barely registered at all.”
“A series of TV debates is a darn good idea when choosing a new leader for a party. TV is the vehicle that takes a leader to power or oblivion, in the end,” Doyle concludes.
I heartily agree.
What Will Happen at NDP Leadership Vote?
So what will happen on March 24?
On the first ballot, Mulcair will be ahead – but by how much?
And what is his growth potential after that?
If his lead over the closest contenders is not substantial, he faces an increasingly difficult road to win.
Nash likely needs to be in second or third place on that ballot.
Topp, Cullen and Dewar each hope to be second or a close third – but they can’t all be in the same position.
Singh and then Ashton will finish low and be forced out in the early rounds, with their probably relatively few votes being redistributed to their backers’ second choices without significant impact.
Then it gets very tense indeed for all involved – and harder still to predict.
Several factors are at play – not the least being the provincial distribution of membership.
Alice Funke at her Pundits’ Guide website always has fascinating data and analysis – and points out that BC and Ontario “will have the lion's share of the say over the outcome of the NDP leadership race,” according to the party’s official final membership numbers.
That means notwithstanding Mulcair’s strength in Quebec – and Topp’s – that BC with 38,735 and Ontario with 36,760 for a combined 59% of all members – will hold the deciding votes. 
The NDP now has a total of 128,351 members but history shows that nowhere near a 100% turnout will occur – meaning Get Out The Vote efforts and superior organization will maximize vote counts.
In the 2011 BC NDP leadership contest that chose Adrian Dix, the party had close to 30,000 members and obtained a 71% voter turnout.
A similar turnout would be a reasonable expectation in this federal race.
Money and Polling
Money is one indication of organization, and as Pundits’ Guide again details, while Mulcair has raised the most with $238,000 to February 18, Topp is close behind at $214,000, Dewar at $170,000, Nash at $163,000 and Cullen at $155,000.
Cullen has raised the most in February as he gained attention but nearly 75% of his funding is coming from BC, which may indicate his national appeal is less than it seems.
But the money gap between these candidates is not extreme and it does not appear any are being restricted by funding shortfalls – not if the number of home phone calls from all camps is any indication!
Internal member polling released to the media by Paul Dewar’s campaign claimed that only three candidates have a path to win – Mulcair, Nash and Dewar – but take note that the polling was:
1) conducted for one campaign and
2) now dated, since it took place February 8-9.
Nonetheless, that poll and other information seem to indicate that Topp has been dropping and Cullen rising in party support – but will that be borne out in the results?
One very different and interesting and unique attempt to track candidate success is at website ThreeHundredEight – where Eric Grenier has compiled an ongoing “endorsement ranking” list.
Grenier gives a range of different points to candidates’ endorsers – with more points for veteran MPs than rookies and union leaders’ points are based on the number of members they represent, for example.
Currently Grenier has Mulcair at 27.9% of all public endorsements, Topp at 26.9% and Nash at 23.9 %.  The ranking drops considerably after that, down to Dewar at 13.2%, Cullen at 5.2%, Ashton at 3% and Singh with none.  Grenier doesn’t claim that the results are conclusive  - just an indication of where candidates may end up on the first ballot.
Grenier states: “Having endorsements generally means a better and/or more motivated organization, and a better and/or more motivated organization will more successfully deliver votes on the metaphorical convention floor.”
First Rounds of Voting
So with these various factors weighed and considered, let’s go back to the leadership voting rounds of March 24.
Whoever is in last place after Singh and Ashton have been eliminated in earlier rounds will be dropped.
Will it be Dewar, Cullen or Topp?  I’m obviously biased toward my chosen candidate but I certainly do not see Nash placing fifth, nor have most observers.
The Dewar polling – remembering the source and timing – showed that Nash is the dominant second choice candidate for both Topp and Dewar supporters, with 30.4% of Topp’s voters going next to Nash and 27.7% of Dewar voters.
Cullen voters’ top second choice is Dewar at 24.9%, followed by Nash at 18.6% and Mulcair at 18.2%.
If this polling is still roughly accurate, and if Mulcair is not in a dominant balloting position close to the 50% plus one needed to win, then Nash will get the biggest boost with second choice votes from either Topp or Dewar dropping out.
If Cullen is dropped before Dewar, Paul would get the most boost from those second choice ballots, though Nash and Mulcair would not be far behind.
And then other factors will also come into play.
Will there be a convention voting dynamic of movement as each ballot is dramatically announced?
Could there be endorsements of remaining candidates by fallen contenders in attempts to convince their supporter to go to one of those left in the race?
Will it make a major difference?
Yes and yes – and perhaps.
It’s important to remember that over 80 per cent of NDP voters will have cast their preferential ballots by mail or online in advance – and will not be voting live.
And to date, there has been no published schedule of how live voting will take place – or what how much time will take place between rounds of voting.
Given that the roughly 2,000 delegates to the Toronto leadership convention will need to physically vote on site, it could be 2 or more hours to vote and calculate results. 
That will mean online voters dropping off due to fatigue, other pressing demands, etc.  Not everyone will spend eight or more hours at the TV or computer waiting to vote each time.
That said, if the race is very close and a few thousands votes either way will determine the winner, then online and in person voting based on who is left will indeed be decisive.
Final Rounds of Voting
So back again to the next round of voting.
Everything depends on each candidates’ position in the race and how close a winner is to the 50% plus one mark.
If Mulcair is achingly close to that, the next ballot will likely make him the winner, since he will gain some votes no matter who drops off.
But if Mulcair is still a fair ways from 50%, he becomes increasingly vulnerable to being the frontrunner that loses on the final ballot.
In my scenario for Nash to win, Dewar, Cullen and Topp will need to be dropped from the successive rounds of balloting – in whatever order – with more of their votes going to Nash or a lower placing candidate still remaining than to Mulcair.
This is not an easy road to win but it is a familiar successful scenario to anyone who has long followed leadership contests of parties in Canada and around the world.
Often a candidate has the most initial support but not a majority within their party and their early lead is insufficient to win when party voters coalesce around the most viable alternative candidate.
Is Thomas Mulcair in that position? Hard to say but it’s certainly quite possible.
But Peggy Nash is definitely the most viable alternative candidate to Mulcair, in my view.
And for that reason, Peggy Nash could well become the New Democratic Party’s next leader – and Canada’s Leader of the Opposition.
We’ll find out on March 24.
.

27 comments:

Oemissions said...

very informative
thank you for this
i suppose the guys on the right may be a little more respectful to a woman.
for those of us online, i assume that the twitter feeds will be very active and let us know the next voting round time

DPL said...

The voting will be exciting for sure. No crowning on the first ballot seems likely. and the good part is that whomever wins the job, she or he will have the other candidates working hard for the leader.

pip said...

Excellent article Bill. I just wish us online voters could change their choices if it goes to a third, fourth, fifth ballot.

bishops falls boy a man in bc said...

I like Peggy, Bill. However, I think your selling Nathan Cullen too short. He has the most donors of all the candidates. He has fewer big name endorsements. But considering many jump to their choice early that was to be expected. Glen Clark has financially contributed to Cullen's campaign and looks to be a backer. More importantly, ITS A ONE VOTE PER MEMBER CONCEPT. I n the grassroots growth of support Cullen has the momentum. Peggy is my number 2 by the way.

Ian said...

Comments like this "Niki Ashtoon...isn’t in the running this time" tend to only be true as they get repeated. It's so patronizing to keep reading media reports say how great Ashton is but how she can't win. Perhaps if the media weren't so anti-youth, my generation might actually consider voting and participating.

Anonymous said...

A bit over the top. Why retain the NDP in its Labour Union roots and not put together a bigger tent?

There won't be any first ballot or second ballots, etc. There is only one session of balloting. There are subsequent count outcomes "rounds" would be a better term to use.

The NDP is locked into appeasing Quebec largely because of the gains made by Jack Layton. That could begin a split if Mulcair doesn't come through. Mulcair has a hair trigger temper, which doesn't mean well for the voting public who wants to try the NDP for the first time.

And Bill, the PC's haven't been "split as much as you say, except for the disasterous GST that Brian Baloney brought in.

And I might add, a bit self-centred.

A peson has to be a fool to vote on the basis of another's being able to "call" easy outcomes such as Adrian Dix (who everyone knows, swamped the NDP on the very last day with 2500 memberships).

Sorry Bill, but Nash doesn't make it past the third count.

Even if she won this leadership, she would not be able to surpass the successes of Jack Layton in order to bring the NDP to government. Ed Broadbent couldn't do it but did very well in trying, as did Jack.

It's either Brian Topp or Mulcair when the deciding count begins.

Anonymous said...

I think you are underestimating Tom's potential for growth after the first ballot. Look at

1. Martin Singh. He will deliver 3-4,000 votes to Tom.

2. Dewar's Manitoba vote will largely go to Tom, as will

3. Topp's Quebec vote

4. Tom is second among Nathan Cullen's voters.

I agree that Nash has more second preferences than Tom, but not by much. The fact , as you cite, that 80% will have voted in advance will also make it difficult to consolodaye an anti-mulcair vote around Nash.

my prdiction is that Tom will get in the mid to high 50% range against any candidate on the final ballot.

Anonymous said...

I'm really tired of the same old same old BS your trying to peddle Bill.

The NDP will wallow around in the political wilderness until the Haper/Religi/Crap/Cons are exterminated.

Peggy Nash will be eaten alive by the Harperites. History has shown that the Union members have never supported the NDP in the numbers that would have put them in Government.

Harper has to go before anything else is decided.

Nathan Cullen appears to be the only one with the smarts to realize this.
Again, nothing will happen until Harper is gone!!!

CGHZD

Anonymous said...

"I'm really tired of the same old same old BS your trying to peddle Bill."

So why are you here? I find Bill
informative and entertaining.

"The NDP will wallow around in the political wilderness until the Haper/Religi/Crap/Cons are exterminated. "

News for you, bub. The NDP will wallow around in the political wilderness unless they get smart and cater to the middle of the road
in politcs. That's where the traffic is.

and dump the idiotic labels. Not all Conservatives are religous zealots.

"Peggy Nash will be eaten alive by the Harperites."

The other NDP campaigns will snack on her. There won't be anything left for the Harperites to feed on.

"History has shown that the Union members have never supported the NDP in the numbers that would have put them in Government."

Correct.

"Harper has to go before anything else is decided."

So why him? Union members have supporterd Harper. The numbers show in ridings that elect Conservative MPs.

"Nathan Cullen appears to be the only one with the smarts to realize this."

Sort of true.


"Again, nothing will happen until Harper is gone!!!"

You forgot about the federal Liberals, chump. They stand between the NDP, and Harper and Rideau Hall.

and if you don't like what Bill Tieleman writes, you don't have to visit his blog.

Oemissions said...

i'm on a town hall phone call with Peggy
she speaks so slowly i am tuning out

Oemissions said...

but she's smart and has done her homework

Anonymous said...

but she's smart and has done her homework

Obviously hasn't read the chapters beyond "Chapter 2: NDP History - Labour and the Party"

She would need to dump the emphasis on labour influences in the NDP to get much further than the 2nd count.

Adrian said...

A bit over the top. Why retain the NDP in its Labour Union roots and not put together a bigger tent?

Mulcair's plan to push out the unions and drift to the Right just shrinks the tent, as you lose your base and without their efforts and enthusiasm it's hard to win the centre or swing-voters. Like Carole James' failed approach, it narrows the appeal of your party as your people stay home and independents and swing-voters just aren't very impressed with unprincipled, wishy-washy triangulators. They prefer politicans who are principled and sincere even if they don't always agree with everything they say.

A peson has to be a fool to vote on the basis of another's being able to "call" easy outcomes such as Adrian Dix (who everyone knows, swamped the NDP on the very last day with 2500 memberships).

Um, where did Tieleman argue that because he's been right about previous races that means one should therefore vote for Nash? Total strawman (by the way the rules issued to all BCNDP campaigns before the cut-off explicitly stated that memberships could be processed afterwords as long as they arrived before 5pm). There's nothing wrong with Tieleman pointing out his Cassandra effect and track record. And he didn't even mention STV, the HST, or the James wars. Although I recall Tieleman may have guessed that Falcon would win the BC Liberal race. I thought so too, but if Tsakumis, some Falconites, and others are to be believed, Falcon did win and Clark cheated with stolen PINs and crooked membership sales.

Adrian said...

Sorry Bill, but Nash doesn't make it past the third count.

Nash should win on the fourth or fifth ballot narrowly against Mulcair. And she is the best candidate for the NDP in 2015. She'll fire up the left-wing activist and union base, win a plurality of women voters, and make major gains in Ontario and GTA where all the seats are and where we need to win to actually form government.

I think you are underestimating Tom's potential for growth after the first ballot. Look at

1. Martin Singh. He will deliver 3-4,000 votes to Tom.

2. Dewar's Manitoba vote will largely go to Tom, as will

3. Topp's Quebec vote

4. Tom is second among Nathan Cullen's voters.

I agree that Nash has more second preferences than Tom, but not by much. The fact , as you cite, that 80% will have voted in advance will also make it difficult to consolodaye an anti-mulcair vote around Nash


With Mulcair's negatives being driven up by all of the attacks, that should limit his second-choice growth potential, even if he has been disciplined throughout most of the race in refraining from attacking other candidates in order to both court second-choices and mitigate his reputation of being a hot-head and a thug.

The Singh campaign is having challenges in getting their supporters to actually vote Mulcair for second choice. The bad press and controversy over Sukh Johal's revelations has somewhat stymied their efforts. Low-information voters, those unfamiliar with the preferential ballot, and many Indo-Canadians that are independent minded and not having the stereotypical bloc vote mentality, are voting Martin as the first choice and nothing else, or maybe Topp as second given his backing by prominent Indo-Canadian New Democrats. Many of them aren't that familiar with Mulcair.

It remains to be seen how enthusiastic prairie New Democrats in the birthplace of social democratic politics are going to be about moving the Federal party to the Right after witnessing how Blairism ultimately marginalized them electorally, and led to right-wing NDP governments often indistinguishable from Liberals.

There aren't a lot of members in Quebec, but Nash should pick up some of Topp's second choices there given their first choice pick's scathing denunciations of Mulcair.

Cullen is the favourite son of BC, but a lot of CAW members in Northern BC, unionists, electoral reform minded progressives, etc.. are ranking Peggy above Mulcair because she's more Left wing, was practically endorsed by Cullen in the first English debate, and has won the acclaim of Leadnow.ca and other electoral reformists with her proportional representation proposal.

Most people will have voted before the convention, but there will be thousands of votes in play, and the margin of victory is probably going to be only a couple thousand votes.

Peggy Nash will be eaten alive by the Harperites. History has shown that the Union members have never supported the NDP in the numbers that would have put them in Government

Harper is going to have a tough time beating up on a mother of three, and Nash just won't look like much of a scary union boss to the public. Whereas Mulcair will be successfully painted as a crypto-Separatist beholden to Quebec above the West and the rest of Canada.

The NDP need more union votes if they're going to win, and Nash is clearly the best candidate to realize that potential which is so critical.

Anonymous said...

"Nash should win on the fourth or fifth ballot narrowly against Mulcair. And she is the best candidate for the NDP in 2015. "

There is only one ballot, with multiple choices based on perferences. There are elimination rounds, but no subsequent ballots.




"Cullen is the favourite son of BC, but a lot of CAW members in Northern BC, unionists, electoral reform minded progressives, etc.. are ranking Peggy above Mulcair because she's more Left wing, was practically endorsed by Cullen in the first English debate, and has won the acclaim of Leadnow.ca and other electoral reformists with her proportional representation proposal."


Doesn't square with the fact that Topp has the lion's share of more progessively thinking NDPers and Nash does not. Nash has Margaret Birrel who is very left wing.


"Harper is going to have a tough time beating up on a mother of three, and Nash just won't look like much of a scary union boss to the public."

He doesn't have to. The NDP will have erased any aspect of Nash being Leader of the Opposition. The numbers for Mulcair and Topp together exceed what capacity Nash has to bag it. Besides, she represent the Old NDP. The New NDP has to put "new" in New Democratic if the party is to grow from the benchmark put down by Jack Layton.

"The NDP need more union votes if they're going to win, and Nash is clearly the best candidate to realize that potential which is so critical."

There are many that say otherwise, and one has to look at the Labour Party in the UK to see the benfits of steering away from a labour union majority party to one that is still social democrat but caters to those who are not strictly of the union politc.

Anonymous said...

"Mulcair's plan to push out the unions and drift to the Right just shrinks the tent, as you lose your base and without their efforts and enthusiasm it's hard to win the centre or swing-voters."

In the minds of most left wing voters that isn't true, since the Unions are not the dominant force they were in the 1980s.

"Like Carole James' failed approach, it narrows the appeal of your party as your people stay home and independents and swing-voters just aren't very impressed with unprincipled, wishy-washy triangulators."

Carole James brought the party from 2 seats to 35 in just one term. Not bad. Carol James was not leader when the NDP dumped off alot of support in the late 1990s.

"They prefer politicans who are principled and sincere even if they don't always agree with everything they say."

Harcourt was wishy-washy, and James was poor on direction in many instances in Opposition, but she did grow the party.



Um, where did Tieleman argue that because he's been right about previous races that means one should therefore vote for Nash?

He was getting that across in his statments referring to his past successes.In other words "I predicted this and this, and here I predict Nash". It's an oblique message of endorsement based on accmplishment.


"Total strawman (by the way the rules issued to all BCNDP campaigns before the cut-off explicitly stated that memberships could be processed afterwords as long as they arrived before 5pm)."

The problem was not the delivery time, it was with the fact that none of those 2500 memberships had their membership fees attached to the slip as per was the rule. It was contested by other candidates, and through a decision by Jan (bertter half of Geoff Meggs who is a friend and former colleague of Dix), the memberships passed. They should not have unless there was strict adherence to the rules. The other candidates sent in their memberships with correct fee attached so why would Dix be any different in preferential treatment?

"There's nothing wrong with Tieleman pointing out his Cassandra effect and track record."

There isn't, but it is instance of a bit of self-centred.


And he didn't even mention STV, the HST, or the James wars. Although I recall Tieleman may have guessed that Falcon would win the BC Liberal race."

That was a wrong position right from the start. Even BC Liberals who have watched politics for many years knew that Christy was going to win it.

I thought so too, but if Tsakumis, some Falconites, and others are to be believed, Falcon did win and Clark cheated with stolen PINs and crooked membership sales

Falcon cheated in procedure with his proxy voting. proy voting except for when its required for people with a disability is simply not allowed. At all. Full stop.

Anonymous said...

Canada is not ready to elect a woman.

Bill Tieleman said...

That would be sad if true that Canada "isn't ready" for a woman as leader- unlike Germany, Great Britain, Brazil, India, Israel, Ireland, Norway, Argentina, Iceland, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Chile, Costa Rica, etc, etc.

But I don't believe it.

Open your eyes, open your mind!

Anonymous said...

"That would be sad if true that Canada "isn't ready" for a woman as leader- unlike Germany, Great Britain, Brazil, India, Israel, Ireland, Norway, Argentina, Iceland, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Chile, Costa Rica, etc, etc.

But I don't believe it.

Open your eyes, open your mind"

I'd rather open the resume and see where the experience lies in being
leadership material.

Electing solely on the basis of gender just doesn't quite cut it.

Angela Merkel (Germany) was not elected solely on the basis of her being female. Neither was Margaret Thatcher.

Henri said...

My money is on either Cullen or Mulcair.
But, Broadbent with his yap is casting a black cloud over this leadership race, he should shut his mouth, what did he ever achieve as their leader,to my knowledge nothing? He achieved jack sh!t. I would have thought after sailing off in the sunset with his Mulrooney appointed plum position we would never have to hear of him and his whining, wailing voice again. Not once while he led that party did I vote for them, but now with this new breed there a very likly hood I will support them. Broadbent go and support the Greens, you and Magee May would make the perfect couple. .

Anonymous said...

Complete BS who does an article on a month old data?...Cullen has almost twice the money from donators now than what you reported (over 300 k)...more than Nash, and Dewar (maybe even Topp)..He also has the most individual donators!...very misleading and terrible journalism...you should work for the Toronto Sun!

Bill Tieleman said...

Anon 5:59 pm - don't be a sorehead! I used data available at the time. Fundraising and polling are only some of the factors, not the whole thing.

Financial numbers just released and analysis can be found here: http://www.punditsguide.ca/2012/03/money-momentum-and-mudslinging-mark-final-week-of-ndp-leadership-race/

Anonymous said...

You realize Cullen and Topp have over 300 K now right (peggy is way behind as is Dewar)?...Cullen made 3X what Nash made last week and 4x what Dewar did..This article would have been fine if it were released a month ago, but you're releasing it days before the leadership race and misleading ppl into voting for your candidate..I really think the laws of ethics in journnalism need to boosted..The media has way too much control.

Adrian said...

There is only one ballot, with multiple choices based on perferences. There are elimination rounds, but no subsequent ballots.

You can call it "rounds" or "counts" too if you want, but the party is using the term "ballots" itself. This is a wee pedantic.

Doesn't square with the fact that Topp has the lion's share of more progessively thinking NDPers and Nash does not.

We'll see about that. And progressively thinking NDPers should rank Nash above Mulcair which is what counts.

He doesn't have to. The NDP will have erased any aspect of Nash being Leader of the Opposition. The numbers for Mulcair and Topp together exceed what capacity Nash has to bag it. Besides, she represent the Old NDP. The New NDP has to put "new" in New Democratic if the party is to grow from the benchmark put down by Jack Layton.

That's incorrect, the alliance is between Topp and Nash and the Anybody-But-Mulcairists who outnumber Mulcair's supporters. And Mulcair is a step backwards to the old NDP of the 90s when the party was more to the Right. It was an electoral disaster, and Layton moved the party back a little to the Left when he became leader regardless of some of his later strategic triangulations. The NPI dissolved because they accurately perceived that.

There are many that say otherwise, and one has to look at the Labour Party in the UK to see the benfits of steering away from a labour union majority party to one that is still social democrat but caters to those who are not strictly of the union politc.

You're avoiding my point, yes the NDP has struggled to win over union voters since they formed, precisely why Nash is the best choice and most suited to make gains with this demographic versus the other candidates, especially TM. The Labour party is still the Labour party even after Blair, but his rightward drift ultimately caused them to collapse and Brown couldn't do much with what he inherited. The Labour party still has an union carve-out in their leadership races which put Ed Miliband over the top.

In the minds of most left wing voters that isn't true, since the Unions are not the dominant force they were in the 1980s.

That's just not true, in "the minds of most left wing voters" the unions are an important part of the NDP and help us win elections notwithstanding their decline.

Adrian said...

Carole James brought the party from 2 seats to 35 in just one term. Not bad. Carol James was not leader when the NDP dumped off alot of support in the late 1990s.

James' overcautious and moderate approach alienated the base and cost the NDP the 2009 election, as Tieleman has compellingly written about. James' apologists looked pretty silly when they pointed to her losing the 2005 election as her greatest achievement (after she had blown a significant lead in the polls too). The plain fact is that the right-wing of the NDP has lost three elections in a row. If the NDP hadn't of fared so poorly under Dosanjh, they would have been in a better position to win in 2005 and 2009. Though it should be noted that Harcourt was a moderate but 1991 was arguably more about Social Credit imploding after the tumultuous 80s.

The problem was not the delivery time, it was with the fact that none of those 2500 memberships had their membership fees attached to the slip as per was the rule. It was contested by other candidates, and through a decision by Jan (bertter half of Geoff Meggs who is a friend and former colleague of Dix), the memberships passed. They should not have unless there was strict adherence to the rules. The other candidates sent in their memberships with correct fee attached so why would Dix be any different in preferential treatment?

No, you're repeating a myth that is just factually incorrect. The vast majority had been processed by 5pm, and all candidates had been sent a "Summary" before the deadline that explicitly told them that "if there was not enough time to process all forms on January 17, 2011, the forms would be date stamped and the canvasser would have to return the next day to complete the process.

On January 15, in response to a question from one of the campaigns, I also advised all the leadership campaigns that if the canvasser submission forms had not been filled in by 5 p.m. on January 17, all membership forms would be date stamped and the individual submitting the forms would have to return to the Provincial Office during regular hours to complete the submission of the membership forms."

http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/005728.html

Just because Farnworth through a patsy tried to cheat by disqualifying Dix's legitimate and audited sign-ups doesn't mean anything.

Falcon cheated in procedure with his proxy voting. proy voting except for when its required for people with a disability is simply not allowed. At all. Full stop.

Sounds interesting. I'm not familiar with that, could you elaborate?

PeterInEdmonton said...

As a non-ND, I don't have a horse in this race, but I am a bit puzzled by your claim, Bill, that "by the convention, 80% will have advance voted". At this writing the CBC is reporting that "The NDP will know how many people voted in advance and are expected to release that tally on Friday." I thought I heard comments on the CBC that advanced ballots were only running at about 20% but I cannot recall the source. My quote is from

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/20/pol-ndp-leadership-voting.html

As to whether there will be voter fatigue from hanging around the computer and TV, the ND web site says that votes can be made online from smartphones from anywhere. All them young 'uns they got from Quebec might very well continue to vote online while the old guard might give up.

I am an old IT guy. Your comment about the online schedule being unknown at the time you wrote the article kind of scares me. It sounds like they are scrambling to put their IT infrastructure in place and your party could wind up with major egg on its face if online voters run into server crashes, plus it could breed paranoia with voters who don't get through.

We've had an initial third placer and second placer as our last two premiers here in Alberta, so your game theory sounds reasonable.

Since you value Mr. Doyle's political opinion so much, perhaps I could ask you for your TV picks. Is Mr D worth watching? His last couple of picks from our glorious people's sitcom factory (CBC) haven't thrilled me ;)

PeterInEdmonton said...

Upate as Of 1 PM Mountain, noon Pacific:

The Globe is reporting that "Approximately 50,000 cast advanced ballots". The CBC narrows that down to 47,000. Everybody agrees, inluding Bill, that they expect a 70 to 80 % turnout. Globe reports 128,351 paid-up members. So, splitting the difference,

Total expected turnout, splitting the difference= .75*128351= 96, 263

Actual advanced turnout =

47,000/96, 263 = Approx 49% advanced turnout, not the 80% that Bill bases his analysis.

Sources:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-new-democrats-will-select-their-next-leader/article2378548/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/22/pol-ndp-convention-watch.html