Election 2015

[ModlrMike]

The "night of the long knives" is yet to pass for the NDP. Just the same, I hear the sharpening stones ringing. This issue with Quebec is going to be interesting indeed.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And, as if the Dippers don't have enough trouble, the Tories are making more according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Tories+accuse+violating+Elections/5352634/story.html

Conservatives accuse NDP of violating Elections Act

By Carmen Chai, Postmedia News

September 4, 2011

OTTAWA — The Tories are urging Canada's Chief Electoral Officer to investigate whether the NDP broke the Elections Act after they obtained photos that suggest the official Opposition party received funding from unions.

In a letter sent to Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand, the Conservatives' lawyer, Arthur Hamilton accuses the NDP of breaking Elections Canada rules for receiving "contributions" from several unions and businesses at the party's summer convention held in Vancouver from June 17th to the 19th.

"During this convention, signage prominently displayed at (the event) identified the fact that sponsorships were being provided by both unions and certain incorporated entities," Hamilton wrote.

Attached to the letter are photos of NDP convention signs used at the three-day event including a "Thank you to our sponsors" with about half a dozen unions' logos below. They include large national unions such as the United Steelworkers, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, CUPE and the United Food and Commercial Workers. Other photos of signage show a dinnertime reception with small union logos on the bottom corner.

Unions and corporate companies cannot make contributions to political parties, candidates, or leadership contenders under Section 404 of Canada Elections Act.

It is unclear whether a "thank you to sponsors" indicates that the unions were funding the federal party.

"As you will appreciate, questions surrounding contributions to registered parties by unions or incorporated entities and the interpretation of the material provisions of the Elections Act are of significant interest to all registered parties," Hamilton wrote, insisting that he should receive a response to his call for an investigation.

Reports suggest the NDP is on the verge of scrapping the labour movement's special voting rights at party leadership conventions.

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

Running conventions is a costly endeavour; big conference centres and all that food and drink cost real money. My guess, but it is an educated guess because, in my second career, I had to run several conferences and symposia, is that running a pretty good conference - without sponsors - means each delegate must pay about $350 - $500 per day.

I have no idea about the laws and regulations regarding political party funding but I'm guessing that it might not be too hard for convention organizers to run afoul of the political donation regulations. the NDP might be in a bit of trouble; part of their reputation involves being squeaky clean.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Interesting. The NDP and its union movement integration likely constitutes a good topic for another thread.
Can you imagine the hysteria that would erupt if oilsands companies from Alberta paid for food, drink and costs of a convention for the Conservatives and then were also granted up to X% of the vote to pick a leader of the CPC? 
 

 

[canada94]

Interesting. The NDP and its union movement integration likely constitutes a good topic for another thread.
Can you imagine the hysteria that would erupt if oilsands companies from Alberta paid for food, drink and costs of a convention for the Conservatives and then were also granted up to X% of the vote to pick a leader of the CPC? 

I could only imagine what the state broadcaster would have to say about that..

 

[AJFitzpatrick]

Any idea if 'contributions' as defined by the Election Act covers 'goods-in-kind' or volunteered services ?

 

[Old Sweat]

It seems to me from what I know have worked on several federal campaigns that only individuals are allowed to contribute and then, only within strictly proscribed limits. Two campaigns ago I was with our CPC candidate when we went into a local establishment for lunch. The owner tried to pick up the tab and he politely informed him that this was not allowed.

I would suspect that any donation of cash, goods or services for a convention would fall within the $1100.00 annual individual contribtution limit, unless there is some way to get around the intent of the law by donating/providing the same to the organization such as a hotel or convention centre that is hosting the event. That seems really dodgy to me, but the ability of people to create loopholes is truly amazing.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And things spill out into the open, according to this article,  reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-solidarity-cracks-over-role-of-unions-in-picking-leader/article2153405/

NDP solidarity cracks over role of unions in picking leader

DANIEL LEBLANC
Ottawa— From Monday's Globe and Mail

Published Sunday, Sep. 04, 2011

The first clean split among federal New Democrats since Jack Layton passed away last month rests on an issue that strikes at the historical heart of the party: the role of union members in choosing the next leader.

The matter is the first in what promises to be a number of sharp policy debates among the various candidates and factions that Mr. Layton managed to hold together during his time as NDP leader.

The party set aside 25 per cent of the vote for organized labour at its last leadership convention in 2003, but NDP MP and House Leader Thomas Mulcair is calling for the abolition of union privileges this time around.

President Brian Topp – executive director of ACTRA (the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists) – argues that the party's historic link with labour must be preserved, and that affiliated unions should get a set percentage of the vote at next year's leadership convention.

A final decision will be made by the NDP federal council on Friday.

The internal tussle comes as the Conservative Party is accusing the NDP of breaking fundraising rules at its party convention in Vancouver by accepting union sponsorships. The governing Conservatives and the opposition NDP have already faced off over major labour disputes this year, which shows the importance of the next NDP leader's position on the role of organized labour in the party and the economy.

Mr. Mulcair, who comes from the provincial Liberal party in Quebec, is stating that union members should be treated like everyone else at the convention. His statement signals a desire to expand the NDP’s reach beyond its traditional allies in the labour movement and into other progressive elements of Canadian society.

“Why unions and not environmental groups?” Mr. Mulcair asked about the leadership rules. “If [unions] want to help sell cards to their members, that’s fine, but I don’t think there should be a reserved number of delegates for unions.”

On the other hand, Mr. Topp called for tradition to be respected by the federal council, which will choose the date and location of the convention, in addition to setting spending limits and other rules.

Mr. Topp said he will walk with his union in Monday’s Labour Day parade in Toronto, which will be dedicated to Mr. Layton.

“The details of how our party’s affiliates play a role in our party can always be updated and improved,” Mr. Topp said. “But I flatly and emphatically reject the idea that the labour movement should be excluded from our party.”

Mr. Topp added that many social-democratic parties around the world have benefited from their ties to unions, and that the NDP’s “partnership with working people and their labour movement is part of our DNA.”

Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Topp, as well as a number of NDP caucus members, are waiting for the convention rules to be established by the federal council to determine whether to officially enter the race. A key question is the length of the race, with Mr. Mulcair arguing for a vote in April or May to allow candidates to sell memberships and increase their profile.

“Even though I’m the House Leader and one of the better known faces on the front bench of the NDP, it’s true that all of us will stand to be better known as the race rolls out,” he said in an interview. “I’d love to see us have the ability, over a seven- or eight- month race, to communicate some of those ideas and connect with all of the people across Canada.”

Mr. Topp has called for the vote to be held slightly earlier, in February or March. He said his campaign would try to build on Mr. Layton’s efforts to focus on issues that unite New Democrats. His goal, he said, would be to “build unity and solidarity in our party.”

The Conservative Party and the NDP are likely to clash in the future on the role and power of unions in Canadian society, with the Conservative Party trying to lower the influence of organized labour in the economy.

In a recent letter, the Conservative Party asked Elections Canada to investigate whether the NDP broke political financing laws during its spring convention.

The Tories say that signs were posted during the NDP's policy convention last June that indicated unions were sponsoring various events. The Canada Elections Act prohibits unions from making contributions of any kind in the Canadian political system.

Heather Wilson, the NDP's director of fundraising and membership, said that advertisements and sponsorships at “fair market value” are allowed by law.

“All rules and regulations have been followed by the NDP. And unlike the Conservatives, we stay within both the spirit and letter of the law,” she said.

With files from Canadian Press

The relationship with Big Labour was troublesome when the CCF (J.S. Woodworth, Tommy Douglas, M.J. Caldwell and all those folks) merged with the Canadian Labour Congress (David Lewis et al) to for the NDP. In the main the 'working class' votes with its wallets ~ and, therefore formerly good labour ridings like Whitby-Oshawa now elect Tories like Jim Flaherty. But Topp is Big Labour's man and Mulcair might have the caucus - and the media.

 

[ModlrMike]

...working people and their labour movement...

This contention that only those who belong to unions are "working people" is repellant. I work damned hard, and I don't belong to a union. Don't tell me I'm not "working people"!

 

[Edward Campbell]

This contention that only those who belong to unions are "working people" is repellant. I work damned hard, and I don't belong to a union. Don't tell me I'm not "working people"!

In the 1950s and into the '60s (at least) Big Labour could deliver as many as six or eight seats - back when parliament only had 200+. The CLC was a political force with which to recon; unions were big and powerful. A lot has changed in 50 years.

 

[a_majoor]

Elections Canada is investigating the NDP? Will they relentlessly persue this the same way they have gone after Liberal leadership hopefulls who still have tens of thousands of dollars worth of illegal contributions dating back to 2006?

 

[mariomike]

The CLC was a political force with which to recon; unions were big and powerful. A lot has changed in 50 years.

Not sure if it was posted here. But, for what it is worth regarding those changes:
The Globe and Mail (  July 18, 2011 ) reports a "... a precipitous drop in Canadian private-sector unionization rates, down to 16 per cent. In contrast, public-sector unionization rates have grown steadily to 71 per cent."

From the same article, regarding the power of "government unions":
"Taxpayer-financed monopoly status has empowered government unions to extract ever more extravagant wages, benefits and even “no contracting out” clauses that block competition. Strike-fearing governments have repeatedly capitulated to these demands."

 

[Edward Campbell]

The NDP leadership contest is germane, maybe crucial, to the 2015 election ~ the NDP leader may well shape Canadians' choice for second place.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the National Post, is more on the internal politics of Saint Jack's party:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/05/don-macpherson-ndp-leadership-drama-is-worthy-of-shakespeare/

NDP leadership drama is worthy of Shakespeare

Postmedia News

Last Updated: Sep 6, 2011

By Don Macpherson

MONTREAL — The New Democratic Party should hold its leadership convention in Stratford, Ont., because the drama surrounding the succession of Jack Layton has been positively Shakespearean.

Consider the cast of characters: The dying leader. His wife. His advisors. His heir apparent. And the enemies plotting against the heir apparent — who may include the other main characters, including the dying leader.

The plot so far: The day of Layton’s death, his widow, Olivia Chow, published a letter written by Layton with her help and that of his closest advisers and dated two days before his death.


It was his political will, and it included his recommendation that the NDP elect his successor “as early as possible in the New Year, on approximately the same timelines as in 2003,” referring to the party’s last leadership election.

At the time, it appeared that his Quebec lieutenant, Thomas Mulcair, was his natural successor. But a surprise potential rival soon emerged from within Layton’s inner circle.

The day after his death, Canadian Press reported that party president Brian Topp was being encouraged by influential New Democrats to run for the leadership.

The CP story noted that, like Mulcair, Topp is a fluently bilingual native of Quebec who played a key role in the NDP’s rise to official-Opposition status in the federal election last May 2.

Unlike Mulcair, who joined the party only four years ago, Topp was described as a longtime New Democrat with “deep roots” in the party, especially in Ontario and the West, and in the labour movement.

And the story suggested that where Layton had been a conciliator, Mulcair was divisive, sometimes turning his well-known combativeness toward adversaries on members of his own party.

When Topp declined to take himself out of consideration, it looked as though the story had been planted to make influential New Democrats pause before committing themselves early to Mulcair in order to ingratiate themselves with the presumed next leader.

And the story was only the beginning of a whispering campaign against Mulcair from within his party.

The week after Layton’s death, an Ottawa-based newsweekly quoted an unnamed New Democrat “who was close to Mr. Layton and his top circle of advisers” saying that members of Layton’s inner circle “loathe” Mulcair.

What’s more, the story in the Hill Times hinted that Layton himself might have wanted to deny Mulcair the succession.

It said the suggestion in Layton’s letter that the leadership election be held “early in the New Year” was “a timetable that could dampen Mr. Mulcair’s hopes.”

The NDP chooses its leaders by a vote of its card-carrying members. Mulcair’s base is in Quebec, and even though 58 per cent of the New Democratic MPs are from this province, no more than five per cent of party members currently are.

The earlier the election, the less time Mulcair, a newcomer to the party, would have to win over existing members in the rest of the country and sign up new ones in Quebec.

Last week, Mulcair addressed the suggestion that Layton’s entourage, and perhaps Layton himself, didn’t want him to be leader. He spoke of his close association with Layton, and the confidence Layton had shown in him by appointing him House leader after the May 2 election.

But he said he would not decide whether to run for the leadership until after the party’s federal council sets the rules for the election on Friday.

If Mulcair does run, his fate could fall into the hands of the executor of Layton’s political will, his widow.

New Democrats showed great affection for Chow, and some urged her, an MP herself, to run.

She lacks the essential qualification of fluency in French, and has told CBC News she will not run. But her influence with New Democrats could make her the kingmaker.

And if she chose against Mulcair, it would be clear to New Democrats that the heir apparent was not the choice of the dying leader, either.

Such an ending would be Shakespearean, too.

It needs to be remembered that Jack Layton herded the NDP cats towards the political centre - thereby making them more and more acceptable to more and more Canadians. Simultaneously, he, himself, made his party into an acceptable alternative to Gilles Duceppe and the BQ for left wing nationalists in Québec and he was able to expand the breach Mulcair had made earlier.

Mulcair appears, to me, to be of a similar political centre as Lyton was - or appeared to be, but ever since Milcair arrived there have been rumours about his ambitions and Layton's distaste for the man and his ambitions - think Chrétien/Martin.

Whoever started this very public display of the Dippers' dirty laundry has done the party a disservice; sooner, rather than later, Canadians will see that the NDP is just a party, comme les autres, more interested in politics than in principles.

 

[GAP]

And the CBC is keeping all it's options open, starting with a syrupy interview with Olivia.....she tearfully disclaimed any interest other than present grief, but the whole interview had that feeling of "more to come"....

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the National Post is Lawrence Martin's take on it:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/firebrand-mulcair-is-the-best-bet-to-take-on-harper/article2152485/

Firebrand Mulcair is the best bet to take on Harper

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Last updated Tuesday, Sep. 06, 2011

Early in a conversation with Thomas Mulcair the heavy lumber is rolled out.

You have the reputation of being “too tough to get along with, an abrasive bastard,” he is told. “How do you respond to that?”

“I am a very determined guy,” replies the potential candidate for the leadership of the NDP. What has led to the harsh criticisms, he explains, is his pushing hard to get results. “My job was to build the party in Quebec. I think that actions speak louder than words. We delivered.”

Leaks to the media have suggested Mr. Mulcair didn’t get along with Jack Layton’s staff as well as many caucus members. The Layton entourage hasn’t exactly been running to the forefront to squelch the impression. They’re just anonymous sources, says Mr. Mulcair, and “those same anonymous sources are saying all sorts of things. I’ll let you come to your own determination about people like that.”

There are quite a few people “like that” around. They say that the MP from Outremont has a volcanic temper and an exploding ego. For good measure they add that he’s domineering and overly ambitious. They would like to undermine his leadership chances before the race has even begun.

But they might wish to cool their heels. Their take on the former Quebec cabinet minister may indeed have some basis in fact. The hothead Mulcair does seem to possess a brand of arrogance particular to Quebec elites that rubs many the wrong way.

But there’s that old saying in politics that nice guys finish last. It is doubly true if the adversary is one as tough as Stephen Harper. From this perspective, Thomas Mulcair’s weaknesses may in fact be his strengths. The last thing the NDP wants to put up against this Prime Minister is someone mild of manner, someone who can’t take a punch or throw a bunch of them.

Mr. Mulcair comes from an Irish-French background and a family of 10 kids. He learned his politics in the rough ward of Quebec City. One of the first lessons, he says, is that the Marquess of Queensberry rules do not apply. But he rejects the notion that he can’t build bridges. “After five years with Jack Layton you learn the fine art of looking for compromise. Constantly.”

On the NDP benches, Mr. Mulcair is the most articulate in the two official languages and the most forceful debater. He is near the top of the heap, as well, in terms of political experience, having already served in cabinet at the provincial level. Most importantly, he is the Quebec strongman. With 59 seats in that province, Quebec is now the NDP base and it is Mr. Mulcair who is indispensable to maintaining it. He is the one who, along with Jack Layton, built it.

By comparison, other potential leadership candidates don’t stack up. Olivia Chow doesn’t have the force of personality and doesn’t speak good French. Given Quebec’s importance, anyone not highly proficient in the language should not even apply for leadership consideration. Party president Brian Topp is bilingual and is shrewd, but has no active political experience, no Commons seat and is charisma-challenged. Paul Dewar is highly intelligent, a politician of integrity, but lacks brass and would be vulnerable to Mr. Harper in the same way as a Stéphane Dion.

Mr. Mulcair wants the leadership, but there is a good chance that he won’t run. The anti-Mulcair forces want a quick leadership convention, perhaps as early as January, to stop him. “If we precipitate this,” says Mr. Mulcair speaking of the convention timetable, “we would be hobbled. The process is going to be a determining factor in our decision.”

For the party to hobble the most highly qualified candidate would make no sense. The New Democrats are in the big leagues now and if they want to stay there they need a big leaguer – whether they like him or not.

Now, Lawrence Martin, as we all know, is quite Churchillian in that he would find something nice to say about the devil if he thought it might help defeat Hitler Harper (Martin gets the two confused). But in this case I agree with him. I have faith in the Liberals' ability to pick the wrong leader:

Denis Coderre

I also have confidence in Québec's ability to remain in a political cloud cookoo land and void its votes.

That means, I think, that only the NDP has even a remote chance of beatuing Harper - not likely in 2015 but, if they get an effective leader, maybe in 2019.

 

[ModlrMike]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the National Post is Lawrence Martin's take on it:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/firebrand-mulcair-is-the-best-bet-to-take-on-harper/article2152485/

Now, Lawrence Martin, as we all know, is quite Churchillian in that he would find something nice to say about the devil if he thought it might help defeat Hitler Harper (Martin gets the two confused). But in this case I agree with him. I have faith in the Liberals' ability to pick the wrong leader:

Your assessment of Mr Martin is spot on.
Denis Coderre and Thomas Muclair could be the best things to happen to the Conservatives in a long time.

I also have confidence in Québec's ability to remain in a political cloud cookoo land and void its votes.

WRT Quebec, it will matter less and less as seat redistribution takes effect.

That means, I think, that only the NDP has even a remote chance of beating Harper - not likely in 2015 but, if they get an effective leader, maybe in 2019.

I don't know that Mr Harper will run in 2019, but neither do I think the NDP has a shot at forming the government by then. It will be many, many years before the NDP is ready for prime-time.

 

[Rifleman62]

After the Obama socialist dictator mess in the USA, who would vote NDP?

You could also add McDinky to that as a Lieliberal.

 

[Journeyman]

After the Obama socialist dictator mess in the USA, who would vote NDP?

Most likely the same ones who believe that any problems Obama and the US economy face are completely the responsibility of the right-wing, obstructionist Congress....for the same blindly ideological reason they believe that everything wrong with this country is because of the evil right-wing Conservatives.

You imply that voters actually research and think through options before voting, rather than merely stumbling from cliche, to diatribe, to the discourse of "oh,....oh ya?!."

[/cynicism]

 

[GAP]

oh,....oh ya?!

 

[RangerRay]

After the Obama socialist dictator mess in the USA, who would vote NDP?

The common thing that I hear from most non-political people is that Obama is hobbled by cleaning up Dubya's mess.  They haven't tied the current problems in the US to the Obama Administration.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The common thing that I hear from most non-political people is that Obama is hobbled by cleaning up Dubya's mess.  They haven't tied the current problems in the US to the Obama Administration.

I'm Stateside quite often and I find quite the opposite. Bush hardly rates mention anymore. He's almost relegated to a footnote. Most don't perceive of him as having left a mess.

When politics, or just the general state of the country, state, city, housing, jobs, things in general, etc, gets mentioned, almost invariably the first words spoken are "That f***ing Obama".

His 'jesus' status has definitely worn off over there.