You can hear the audio and the Q&A below in MP3 format.

Cullen emphasizes the need to reach beyond partisan politics. Noting that more people are members of Mountain Equipment Coop than all political parties in Canada. He defends his joint nomination meeting as a way to work to rectify this issue and put progressive politics back on the agenda. His emphasis is on the local associations making the decision to enact this process and that it is a one-time offer to get electoral reform on the agenda.

He also warns that Harper will gerrymander the new seats - despite the fact that Canada's electoral boundaries are drawn by arm-lengths committees of Elections Canada.

He mentions that he is a secularist who "believes in the separation of church and state", while also a supporter of the progressive church run aid organization KAIROS. This follows his call for putting the monarchy to a vote.

He notes his tendency to commit "exager-Nathans" with regards to his tendency to inflate crowds while saying he did get over 100 new members for the NDP at his Northern Gateway meeting at the Roundhouse that attracted 500 people without pitching for memberships.

He also talks about how the Conservatives walked into the Ethics Committee and demanded that the CBC be their key investigation. He opposed the Conservatives call to drag a judge before the committee, breaking the unspoken separation between the judiciary and legislature. Cullen, as chair of the committee was forced to right the subpoena, but left an out for the judge.

He finishes with an interesting exercise in psychology to note how when we shift patterns things become uncomfortable but we slowly adapt until what was once awkward becomes the norm. He relates this to politics by noticing that we need to recognize the discomfort that shifts in thinking require, but that they are possible.

Overall, a good speech, up to par with the expectations he's been setting. I haven't finished listening to the Q&A yet, so I don't have any comments to add on that audio.

Nathan Cullen speech

Nathan Cullen Q&A (quieter)

Since every leadership candidate was in town for the town-hall, most were sure to be as ever-present at the convention as possible. Outside of the debate though, only BC MP Nathan Cullen had access to the convention floor (pictured on right).

I briefly dropped in on Brian Topp’s event at The Lion’s Pub on Friday (he held a second on Saturday). He said hi, was quite approachable, and seemed more genuine then the media portrait of the backroom operative. He mentioned how he hoped to push the NDP to adopt stronger policies like his tax-the-rich scheme. Overall I was impressed. Unfortunately he didn’t come off well to many during the town hall and many were unimpressed when he exceeded his intro time – which was only 30 seconds.

Nathan Cullen’s remarks and approachability throughout the convention really impressed me. He was one of the most sincere speakers during the town hall, making sure to reference his young twins and getting some memorable jabs in – Harper’s $100/month childcare program is a “slap in the face” and the “racist Indian Act” needs to be ripped up. I stopped him briefly on the floor and said I was glad he was willing to question the monarchy. He commented how striking it was that Canadians have never been asked if this is the system we want. On the joint nomination issue he reiterated that he would leave the decision of whether to run one to local constituency associations to decide. His commitment to democracy and grassroots was quite refreshing. Finally, he mentioned to me (without my prompting) how he “hates ideology”. He mentioned he was raised Irish-Catholic during the speeches but I’ll have to find out how well that upbringing stuck (I’ll try to probe each of the candidates beliefs before the vote).

The only other candidate I talked with was Niki Ashton. I first said hi at her both during the early part of the convention, but I also attended her hotel-room (all the bars were booked by other candidates and Christmas parties) “New Politics Pub” party until the hotel managers shut it down. Many are rightly noting how impressive of a speaker she when contrasted to the other candidates, a person sitting next to me commented how she was the only one to fit a bit of policy into her 30 second introduction. She also is one of the most friendly and approachable candidates. She is smart and open. She’s quickly working her way to the top of my ballot.

During the town hall I wasn’t really impressed with Robert Chisholm (other then the fact he kind of looked like he should be a James Bond actor). While his ideas were in the right place (they all are), he definitely didn’t stand out. Similarly, I found Romeo Saganash to be an impressive and intelligent person, but wasn’t won over on his speaking (although Twitter seemed to suggest he had a cold). I could see Saganash being a great diplomat or cabinet minister. Thomas Mulcair spoke pretty slowly – likely as a way to get his point across – but he still felt insincere to me.

Paul Dewar did fine at the speeches, again emphasizing support for the grassroots but also discussing the need to get away from a paternalistic view that women need protected and move toward building respect and rights for women. His latest promise is to restore the public party subsidy, but to tie the level of support to the number of women nominated for office.

Peggy Nash had the most vocal (almost to the point of being obnoxious) supporters, all wearing “Team Nash” t-shirts. She didn’t stand out during the town hall but she still held her own. She again emphasized the need for a strong, stable economy based on social justice and the environment. During the convention she also released her LGBTQ policy. I wasn’t overly impressed with her the first time I saw her but it’s good to see her releasing some substance.

FInally, Martin Singh actually really impressed me while on stage. He is a confident and commanding speaker. Unfortunately his position can be summed up by pharmacare and being business friendly. I also maintain a distance due to his involvement with the Faith and Social Justice Committee and his desire to use the race to showcase his religion.

So, based on some experience with most of the candidates, my potential ranking (in tiers, but roughly in order) is:

Tier One: Niki Ashton, Paul Dewar, Brian Topp

Tier Two: Peggy Nash, Nathan Cullen, Romeo Saganash

Tier Three: Thomas Mulcair, Martin Singh, Robert Chisholm

A lot has already been written about the Vancouver election, and I just thought I’d summarize my thoughts here quickly in a feature of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

The Good

The best news for me was the Burnaby Citizen’s Association’s sweep of everything. Derek Corrigan seems to know how to run a progressive city and has a competent team. While I wouldn’t normally be too concerned with how Burnaby was being run, it was very heartening to see Parents’ Voice and their homophobia be soundly rejected by the city. Good job.

Gregor Robertson soundly defeated Suzanne Anton. While there are legitimate criticisms of Robertson, Anton’s “common sense” platform was anything but. Furthermore, Robertson’s first moves after the election were to continue on his commitment to ending homelessness with the announcement of more homeless shelters.

It was also good to see a progressive majority. Vision handily won every seat they contested and will have little difficulty doing whatever they want in the next three years, which is generally positive for the city. The Vancouver School Board is definitely in good hands.

I was happy to see Adriane Carr make it in as Vancouver’s lone Green councillor. I won’t agree with everything she says, but her voice will provide a strong balance if Vision gets away from its roots.

Finally, it was good to see a strong showing by Sandy Garossino and Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver. While not close to winning, they did well for being outside the establishment, and represent a glimmer of hope for some progressive alternatives in the next election.

The Bad

COPE was badly defeated. We lost almost everything except for Alan Wong’s seat on the School Board. It’s not clear to me if we lost many votes or if more people just turned out and only voted for Vision. Clearly the COPE-Vision coalition will need to be questioned. This story is likely far from over.

Voter turnout, despite a slight increase, is still embarrassingly low. Two-in-three people don’t care about how their city is being run, and that’s sad.

The Ugly

The finger pointing started within hours of the election results.

Sean Bickerton criticized his party, the NPA, for running a nasty and bitter campaign. Others said they needed more bitterness.

Tim Louis quickly blamed the coalition deal and COPE’s leadership. David Cadman blamed Tim Louis for knocking him off the ballot. Others blamed the leadership for blocking Tim Louis with RJ Aquino. Some suggestions were made that Vision didn’t promote COPE enough (despite evidence to the contrary and the fact that it’s not their job). Almost no one has been willing to take any responsibility on their own. For my own part, I didn’t canvass nearly as much as I’d hoped. People need to start setting aside their egos and begin work figuring out the goals of COPE and how to accomplish them.

Before I state who I’ll be voting for in Vancouver, I want to highlight a couple other worthy candidates in the Lower Mainland.

I’m not too familiar with Burnaby’s politics, but Derek Corrigan’s Burnaby Citizens’ Association has kept Burnaby as one of the best run cities in Canada according to Maclean’s magazine. More importantly though, I strongly urge everyone in Burnaby to vote for the BCA slate for School Board to block any religious homophobic candidates from Parents’ Voice from getting elected. The anti-homophobic bullying policy they recently passed needs a strong voice to continue its implementation to ensure that LGBTQ students feel safe in their schools.

In New Westminster, Humanist Canada’s 2011 Humanist of the Year Lorrie Williams is standing for re-election to council. Vote for her.

Now, on to the main show.

Most endorsement pages are starting with mayor, council, then parks, and school board. Some even omit the school board (I’m looking at you Georgia Straight). To highlight the importance of these other positions, I’m going to reverse this order. Also, make sure to check out the City of Vancouver’s website for full candidate profiles.

Vancouver School Board

Education is key to me, and I think it’s difficult to argue with the results of the progressive Vision-COPE majority on the Vancouver School Board. I will be voting for this entire slate, and hoping that a few new voices make it on to continue defending our public education system. With NPA not running a full slate for VSB, there shouldn’t be many upsets here.

From COPE: Al Blakey, Jane Bouey, Gwen Giesbrecht, Alan Wong.

From Vision Vancouver: Patti Bacchus, Ken Clement, Mike Lombardi, Cherie Payne, Rob Wynen.

Vancouver Parks Board

The past few years saw some precarious times for the Parks board. Budget cuts have threatened the Bloedel Conservatory and the Stanley Park Petting Zoo. Fees have increased and service has stalled or declined. While I still support a strong progressive majority, a few independent voices can keep the board more accountable.

From COPE: Brent Granby, Donalda Greenwell-Baker

From Vision: Constance Barnes, Aaron Jasper, Niki Sharma

From Green: Stuart Mackinnon

From IDEA: Jamie Lee Hamilton

Vancouver City Council

Looking back at my experience since moving to Vancouver, I am mostly proud of the direction this city is headed in. The focus on environmentalism and social justice is important, and there is more work to be done as the Vision radio ads repeat. However, I agree entirely with the Georgia Straight’s recommendations that no democracy is served by overwhelming majorities. Vision Vancouver has had a tendency to muzzle its bureaucrats and avoid community engagement. I also have a personal preference for the underdogs, so I want to see independent voices.

First, I support the entire COPE slate: RJ Aquino, Tim Louis, Ellen Woodsworth. These three individuals will be strong advocates for direct democracy, social justice, and keeping Vancouver as the most progressive city in Canada. COPE was quick to stand in solidarity with Occupy Vancouver and will fight any attempt to send the police in. Ellen’s track record speaks for itself and Tim is an impressive politician.

Next, there are many strong progressive voices in the Vision caucus. Among those who are on my list are there for issues I care about: Kerry Jang for social justice and the homeless, Geoff Meggs for transit issues, and Andrea Reimer for environmentalism. I also appreciate the strong science academic credentials of Deal and Jang.

Finally, to add some independent voices to council, I will be voting for Marie Kerchum and Tim Martin from the Neighbourhoods for a Sustainable Vancouver slate, Adriane Carr from the Greens, and Sandy Garossino the independent. I flipped around a few times on the NSV slate, but settled on these two based on their responses to the Georgia Straight’s questionnaire. While I will likely disagree with some of these candidates on an issue here or there, they each have the momentum and strength to have a good chance of bringing independent voices to council. I did hesitate on Terry Martin as I found it a bit opportunistic that he sought the NSV nomination after losing his bid for the COPE council nomination.

Overall, we have a great line-up of candidates for council and it’s actually tough to choose which ones to support and who doesn’t quite make the cut. If I could add more, Heather Deal, Raymond Louie and Tim Stevenson are all strong voices in the Vision caucus. I would also support fellow engineer Tony Tang, also on the Vision slate, but I can’t add them all. I also see some utility in having a voice like Chris Shaw’s with De-Growth Vancouver on council. I also respect Lauren Gill for her spirited campaign and solidarity with the Occupy movement. Even some of the NPA candidates warrant a look, but based on Suzanne Anton’s positions and their preference for market solutions, I can’t endorse any of them. Most of my decisions were influence by the Straight’s candidate questionnaire and ample use of red and green pencil crayons. Unfortunately the Vision candidates responded in unison, which is disappointing.

Mayor

While I was tempted at times to consider Randy Helten with NSV, I think Vancouver is better off with Gregor Robertson, and I can’t let Suzanne Anton win.

Anton’s plans are short-sighted and dangerous. While I like streetcars, her proposal runs counter to Translink’s process and the P3 is risky. Her promise to return surpluses to tax-payers is also short-sighted and forces the city into debt in tough times or when we want to undertake capital expenses (like rapid transit on the Broadway corridor or a downtown streetcar). Her early ads mocking the backyard chicken and wheat field policies are also wrong, and her opposition to bike lanes is counter to the kind of city I want to live in. Finally, her position on Occupy Vancouver is more unreasonable than Rob Ford’s, and that alone should give us pause. If Anton becomes mayor, she will have a riot on her hands when she tries to forcibly shut down the tent city.

Gregor on the other hand has had his issues over the past few years, but overall he is a qualified moderate progressive mayor. While arrogant on a few issues in the past term, he is generally on the right side of the issues and his heart is in the right place.

Conclusions

I didn’t vote in the advance polls, so these picks aren’t set in stone. If you have good arguments why I should switch one way or the other, please suggest them below.

Regardless of how you vote, make sure you do. And then stay involved.

Edited to add:

I forgot that there’s also 3 capital plan referenda on the ballot. They seem procedural and I’m probably going to vote for them unless someone has a good argument why the city shouldn’t have the money it needs to operate.

After meeting Thomas Mulcair last week, last night I raced around Vancouver and got to meet NDP leadership candidates Paul Dewar and Peggy Nash. Last night was a busy evening as I ran from SFU in Burnaby to King Edward Village (at Knight and Kingsway) for a meeting with Paul Dewar to the Railway Club downtown for Peggy Nash’s event.

My best advice is that you shouldn’t try to do this. After each of these events I like time to sit and collect my thoughts and impressions about the candidate, but this time I was running from one event to the other and only just made it in time for Nash’s speech. Luckily, I grabbed a video of Dewar and the audio of Nash (the lighting in pubs is too poor for good video) so you and I can review their speeches today.

My initial impressions though are that Paul Dewar quite exceeded my expectations, while Peggy Nash was a bit underwhelming. Since I have quite a bit to say, I’ll cover Paul Dewar first and post about Peggy Nash’s event in a subsequent post.

This is perhaps mostly because I wasn’t sure what to expect from Dewar. I’ve never really heard him speak, and I had partially written him off after being disappointed by his religious views. Yet last night he came off smart, articulate, friendly, and focussed on issues. Unlike Thomas Mulcair who cruised the bar quickly, shaking hands but failing to really connect with anyone, Dewar seemed genuinely interested in everyone he spoke to.

When he spoke to issues about how to promote social democratic values, he talked about the need to promote positive policies that will prove that social democracy is good for the economy. His example, dear to my heart as a masters of science student, was our current (and arguably failing) approach of giving research tax credits to industry. He says we should instead be looking to places with better success, like the German model of investing in public research institutions.

He also suggested establishing a national green energy grid to get renewable electricity efficiently across the country. I could see some federal-provincial conflict here, but I think it’s better to be too visionary than too cautious here.

In the question and answers he was also asked about the Israel-Palestine issue. As foreign affairs critic, Dewar had little trouble establishing a firm and respectable position. He fully supports a two-state solution established peacefully. Canada’s role, he argued, was to start doing our parts again, and to act as a leader to other countries. By getting each country to do a little bit, he says the peace process will get moving again. Specifically, our part involves reinvesting in the UNRWA who help out on the ground in Palestine and by supporting refugee programs – both things Canada used to do.

He was also asked about growing the party, to which he didn’t just give platitudes about the grassroots, but called for more on the ground organizers, and constituency associations in every riding.

The event organizers basically had to cut him off from taking more questions, but he also answered a question about the Occupy protests. He says New Democrats get the protests and should fight not just for tax fairness, but tax justice. He ruled out any sales tax increases and promised to recover money from tax havens. He was also asked about his position on unions in the NDP, to which he said they are an important part as unions helped form the NDP, but that union values are also NDP values and that the NDP needs to fight for those rights (pensions, labour laws, etc.) for everyone. Finally, federal NDP candidate Meena Wong asked about how to increase diversity in the party, to which Dewar responded that we need to keep reaching out in the same way that Jack Layton and Olivia Chow reached out to her.

Also in the audience was Sheryl Palm, wife of MP Don Davies (who was in the air during the meeting). She said she hadn’t made up her mind, but lived so close to the event that it was worth checking out.

I will finally mention that the event had a very diverse audience with young and old, and a mix of ethnicities. It may have just been partially a function of the area, but it was definitely a promising mix.

Paul Dewar will be back in Vancouver on November 20th and will be speaking for my riding, Vancouver-Quadra at the NDP constituency association AGM.

Here’s the video of his speech:

The quick question I want to consider this morning is this standard media narrative that whoever wins the NDP leadership must appease Quebec first and foremost.

The standard line of thought is that since the NDP elected 59 MPs in Quebec in May, that they will need a leader who is popular in Quebec and will win over the francophone vote to hold Fortress Layton. The argument is not without merit, the Quebec caucus counts for over half of the total NDP seats, but I still think it is misguided.

Poll numbers and Threehundredeight’s seat projections are starting to suggest that the NDP has reached a ceiling in Quebec. It’s possible that they may squeak a bit higher, but even the Conservatives have trouble breaking 60% in Alberta. Sure 60% will give you all but one seat, but there’s only 75 seats in Quebec. A gain of 15% in Quebec would translate to 10-12 more seats in total while potentially risking seats in BC and Alberta to Western isolationism.

In the next election there will be 30 new MPs. 3 of these MPs will come from Quebec while 27 will be scattered across BC, Alberta, and Ontario. If the NDP wants to form the next government, they need to win these provinces. Ontario alone will account for over 1/3 of the seats in the country.

The NDP currently has no seats in Saskatchewan despite winning 32% of the vote there. Meanwhile they only have 35 seats in BC, Alberta, and Ontario combined (minus one vacated by Jack Layton, RIP). In 2014 these four provinces will total 211 seats.

Whoever wants to be the next prime minister doesn’t need to win Quebec. He or she needs to be able to hold the majority of those seats, but also needs to reach out strongly to the West.

The NDP was born in the West, now it’s time to take it back.

I just found the Facebook event for Paul Dewar’s planned appearance at King Edward Village (Knight and Kingsway) at 5:30 PM.

This event is scheduled to wrap up just before Peggy Nash makes her appearance at the Railway Club downtown at 7:00 PM.

Nash has been tweeting from Occupy Vancouver and the CUPE meeting in town. I wonder if Dewar will be around either of those events.

Even more interesting would be to see Nash attend Dewar’s event and vice-versa. The relative attendance at each event ought to be a good early indicator of their support levels.

I’ll definitely attend Nash’s event (since I heard of it first and her campaign interests me more), but if I can make it work, I may try to attend both events. You can look forward to some updates on Friday.

She’ll be meeting up with people at the Railway Club downtown (Seymour and Dunsmuir) and I’ll try to get a recording of any speech she might give.

More details are available on Facebook.

At the COPE nomination meeting last month, there was an almost obvious tension between the COPE executive and Tim Louis’ supporters. Louis ended up bumping off incumbent councillor David Cadman, and has long been critical of the electoral alliance with Vision Vancouver.

Now, with NSV endorsing the COPE slate, those who have been disappointed with Gregor Robertson over the past few years have alternates for council and mayor, without endangering any COPE candidates. This even helps Adrienne Carr and the Greens, who are also likely to get an endorsement.

What complicates this even further is that NPA isn’t even running a full slate for Park or School Board (6/7 and 5/10 respectively), and NSV is only running for Council and Mayor. The Greens are only running one candidate for each of those positions.

A poll released last week suggests that almost anything could happen. The poll doesn’t include NSV or their mayoral candidate Randy Helten, so mayoral support splits 66-32 for Vision. The results for council are less clear, especially since they found 19% support for the Greens, while only 11% for COPE. The poll doesn’t list its sample size or margin of error, so it’s worth questioning some of the numbers.

It should be an interesting election.

Mar was a powerful minister in Ralph Klein’s cabinet and had hoped to used that connection to his advantage. Nearly the entire PC caucus had endorsed Mar.

But similar to how Christy Clark won the leadership of the BC Liberals earlier this year, Redford became the anti-establishment candidate, rallying the votes needed to win.

Mar’s concession speech subtly highlights the issues Redford may now face as leader

"I know that I am leaving this province in very good hands. We have a very good team and a strong group of Progressive Conservative supporters," [Mar] said. "And I say 'progressive' conservative supporters, that's very important."

Redford was seen as the more moderate candidate, one who would keep hospitals and schools open, while Mar had openly mused about more health care privatization – a cause he championed for Klein as health minister. By electing Redford as leader, the PCs now risk losing a few more right-wing members to the extremist Wildrose – a party that had been stalled in the polls recently.

This move also threatens newly-minted Alberta Liberal leader Raj Sherman’s ability to offer a stark alternative to the PC dynasty that has ruled Alberta for more than four decades. Sherman had joined the Liberals after being kicked out of the PC caucus. It may also put the brakes on the  Alberta Party, created as a grassroots centrist option.

Redford’s come-from-behind win is likely to make some PCs recall Ed Stelmach’s unlikely win in the last leadership convention. As the compromise candidate between the more right-wing Ted Morton and more progressive Jim Dinning, Stelmach offered little offensive to party members, and correspondingly offered little of substance as premier. Perhaps we’ll see a revolt against preferential ballots in the party.

In my personal opinion, Redford was the best choice for the PCs, her win symbolically ends the “old boys club” that has dominated Alberta’s political scene for decades and sets up for an election pitting her against the media darling Danielle Smith.