If this were a scientific poll of public opinion, the results would be definitive.

Of course, it was not a scientific poll but rather a straw poll of the small subset of actively involved young progressive Canadians. Not exactly a representative sample. But I won’t quibble with the results other than to emphasize that all this shows is what Leadnow members think, not all progressives or Canadians.

Yet, this is still urging some to argue that Nathan Cullen’s plan is on the right track to unseat Harper and replace him with something better. A friend linked me to this post on Praxis Theatre by Michael Wheeler where he argues that we need to work outside partisan lines to defeat Harper. Specifically he uses the Leadnow poll and some comments by EKOS pollster Frank Graves to defend his position.

The Graves article is on iPolitics (which requires registration to view, so I can only quote the conclusions Wheeler posted) and claims several things:

• First that Canadians have strong negative views of political parties.
• Second, that only 44% of people disagree that political parties have outlived their usefulness, which means nothing when phrased as a double negative. Further, this number is isolated from the other options – how many people have no opinion or think parties are out-dated – which means that political party supporters may still be the plurality.
• Third, he concludes that NDP supporters are less supportive of the party system than Liberals and Conservatives. This doesn’t bode well for those hoping to get the Liberals to buy-in to any cooperation scheme though. It also likely reflects the fact that the NDP base has been only 10-15%, and it was only last year that Jack Layton brought the vote up to 30%. All this proves to me is that the NDP vote is softer than the (larger) Conservative vote or the (smaller) Liberal vote.
• Finally, Graves states that young, non-voting Canadians have less trust in the government. It’s not clear to me how joint nomination deals will improve trust in government, as this seems to be taken on faith.

Wheeler’s conclusion sounds noble too:

Moving beyond their own self-interest to that of the country may ironically be their best chance for electoral success. Increasingly, progressive Canadians seem to be demanding cooperation from their political opposition that will allow them to vote FOR and not AGAINST something, through  a serious and credible movement to form a government that represents the majority of Canadians.

Yet, as I said back in October when I first considered Cullen’s joint nomination suggestions, this amounts to little more than uniting AGAINST something. The only reason people seem to be suggesting any cooperation is so that they can vote against the Harper Conservatives. It makes absolutely no sense to me how joint nominations somehow present a candidate you can vote for when  each of those candidates could simply run in the general election.

Here’s a scenario: Imagine you get three progressive visions for Canada coming to the joint nomination meeting in a Conservative held riding. The first argues that inequality is the issue of the day and that we must raise taxes on the 1%, lift seniors out of poverty, and reduce tuition fees. The second argues that the environment is the biggest issue. We should review the Enbridge pipeline, invest in Green Energy, and offer more investment to green energy, while not hampering the economy with unnecessarily high taxes. The third candidate wants to see a balanced approach of fiscal responsibility with social liberties. The government should implement smarter solutions to today’s problems while also seeking to reduce the deficit. Each candidate agrees on electoral reform as the first priority and that Stephen Harper’s Conservatives have done untold damage to our country.

Because of the supporters who show up to vote (or who cast their ballot online or by mail) one of these people becomes the riding’s “progressive” candidate. It turns out during the campaign though that this candidate is actually against abortion, leaving many progressive pro-choice voters in the riding with a dilemma. Do they support a candidate who may roll back women’s rights (imagine that the despite the electoral cooperation, Harper still wins another government and one of his MPs brings forward a private member’s bill against abortion) or do they stay home on election day and protest the situation?

While this example is extreme, there are a number of sitting Liberal MPs who are pro-life, and similar issues will be just as passionate for voters in any riding. Some right-Liberals strongly oppose the NDP as neo-Communists, while some New Democrats see the Liberals as Conservative-light. Some Greens have left-wing economics, while others are quite right-wing – the only thing truly uniting their party is a concern for the environment.

In every riding will exist partisans who will not vote for one party or another. Many will switch to the Conservatives before they vote for a different party as well. Progressive votes are not transferable.

By reducing the number of options on a ballot, we necessarily reduce our democracy, and force strategic voting against someone rather than for someone.

The implementation issues

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

And as Denny Holmwood points out, even if Cullen wins the NDP leadership, he may not be able to implement the policy in his own party. It may be necessary for him to actually ask the members of the party for a constitutional amendment for this. Whether such a motion would pass is an open question as delegates to last year’s convention defeated a resolution to “reject any proposals to merge with the Liberal Party.”

Finally, Alice at Pundit’s Guide dissected the nitty gritty of what would actually happen if there was buy in from the NDP and the Liberals. She remains very sceptical of the entire situation. I strongly suggest reading her post, as she does the most thorough take-down of the entire proposal.

Conclusions

This post is already too long at over 1000 words. In a coming post I’ll try to lay out a defense of partisanship and the role that political parties have in our democracy.

I want to see Harper lose but there are no shortcuts to progressive victory. We have to actually get ready to do some real work to earn people’s votes.

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)

Go to the website and register today, it’s only $10 or $1 if you’re under 26 or un(der)employed.

I don’t really care who you vote for, or even if you tear your membership the day after the vote so you can go be a Liberal supporter in the fall. There’s a lot of great candidates (eight) and this is the one chance we ever really get in Canada to pick our leaders.

Sure, some of us are. Many others are attempting to bring in more of their peers through vote mobs and other social media pressures, yet to date the evidence is that these efforts have been a disappointing flop.

The occupy movements were a brief glimmer of hope, but it remains unclear whether these protests have truly engaged the disaffected youth or just tapped into those who were already involved.

Progressive parties know that the next generations shares their values of equality and inclusiveness, yet they have failed to date to truly connect.

Two recent stories only further the disenfranchisement.

This weekend the Liberal Party of Canada held their Renewal conference in Ottawa. The conference is meant to reverse the tide of bad luck that has befallen the party over the past decade.

While some big ideas were put forward to revolutionize the internal structure of the party, the policy resolutions mostly avoided discussing real issues in favour of commitments to form committees to study issues. As an example, the environment was absent from the proposed resolutions, while a plan to develop a national food strategy was passed.

One of the failed resolutions was to study whether Canada should seek to abolish the monarchy and replace it with an elected Canadian head of state. This motion was put forward by the party’s youth wing and Liberal Youth Vice-President Sean Southerland argued vociferously in support of the motion

“No Canadian can ever aspire to hold the position,” argued Liberal youth vice-president Sean Sutherland, who presented the motion. He urged delegates to be bold as they were Saturday night when they adopted opening up the party to a new class of “supporters”.

“Instead it has been historically held by an unelected monarch who lives an ocean away,” said Mr. Sutherland.

He noted that Liberals are not strangers to controversial positions, saying that in the 1990s their debates about legalizing same-sex marriage were dismissed as not important as this monarchy resolution is being today.

“That didn’t stop young Liberals then. This won’t stop us now,” vowed Mr. Sutherland.

62 per cent of delegates ended up voting against the youth-led initiative. While many argued either in favour of Canada’s historical ties or that the issue was too divisive, the most worrying issue was the following:

But what received the most applause and support were the delegate’s statements, who accused Liberal youth leaders of betraying the trust of other young Liberals.

Instead of talking about what is important to them and what truly affects their lives – “shrinking jobs,” post-secondary education and increase of aboriginal Canadians in jail – they chose this motion that can “only bring harm and ridicule to our party,” [delegate Ryan] Barber said.

There is nothing quite like the party elders talking down to the younger generation. Clearly the young Liberals are mistaken about what issues their supposed to be representing.

Imagine the controversy if people applauded when the chair of a women’s or First Nation’s caucus was chastised for not properly representing their constituents. If young people in the Liberal Party are dissatisfied with their current leadership or the resolutions put forward, I’m assuming the party has democratic means for them to be replaced.

But by approving of this attitude that young people should know their place, the Liberal delegates have shown their hands as intolerant and untrusting of younger people and their ideas.

The next story comes from Alberta NDP member Denny Holmwood who has accused the federal NDP of discriminating against young and unwaged party members.

The controversy comes from the registration process for the coming leadership convention. While all members will be able to vote for the next leader, many will want to attend the conference in person. The fees are set at $299 until the end of January and $349 afterward. These costs are prohibitive to many and the NDP has a long history of offering discounts to those who can’t afford them – typically the young and unemployed.

However, to reduce the number of potentially fraudulent registrations, the party is requiring youth and unwaged delegates to call a 1-866 number, which may only be available during Ontario business hours (9am  to 5pm in Ontario is 6am to 2pm Vancouver).

With today’s connected youth, do we really want to be adding additional hurdles to their full participation? Conventions are a great chance to build connections and to rally new members into the party. The NDP should be seeking to encourage more young people to be attending the conference, not impeding their ability.

Please sign Denny’s petition to get the NDP to change their position.

I would rather see more people sneak in at a discounted rate than anyone be turned away by difficulties.

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

I wasn’t the first convention-virgin there, although a couple people in attendance had attended the first BC NDP convention back in 1961.

You can read my play-by-play thoughts on my Twitter stream under #bcndp50. I can be seen tweeting from the convention #tweetup at the right of the picture.

I won’t give a report on everything that went down, but I’ll offer some observations on the key themes that arose between Friday evening and Sunday afternoon.

Unity

The BC NDP leadership, including party leader Adrian Dix and the party executive, tried – and generally succeeded – at presenting the BC NDP as a united force after the bitter divisions that led to the resignation of Carole James last year. The (few) resolutions that were debated were nearly all accepted unanimously and the only opposition came from those who wanted to see some measures go farther.

The federal leadership town-hall was similarly presented in a non-confrontational way, with questions being asked to three candidates at a time with no inter-candidate sparring.

Even the phenomenal keynote speaker (and former Obama advisor) Van Jones (pictured on right) emphasized the need to keep supporting our progressive parties even after they win. He was disappointed that progressives haven’t been as organized as the Tea Party activists in the USA (until the Occupy movement).

This unity theme was most apparent in the party executive elections acclamations. Under rules that are somewhat obscure, the nominees were registered prior to convention as the Unity slate, and no nominations were held from the floor. Things are going well though, so the otherwise contrarian members of the party stayed seated.

The success of the unity theme was clearly demonstrated when members voted 98% against holding a leadership election next year. Less than 2% of members opposed Adrian Dix’s leadership. This is a good sign going into the 2013 election.

Equity

The biggest and really only real debate came this morning when the equity committee tabled their recommendations to provincial council which would:

• reserve constituencies where an incumbent NDP MLA to step down for women and equity seeking groups;
• promote nominating women in 25 target seats;
• develop an internal organization to facilitate this action;
• offer financial incentives to constituency associations which nominate women or members of an equity seeking group; and
• to review the program after the 2013 election.

Several men and women stood to oppose the quota system, preferring more outreach rather than direct affirmative action. The report even anticipates these concerns and offers an essay by Swedish Political Science professor Drude Dahlerup and also summarizes some pros and cons for quotas (but ironically gives twice as many cons as pros).

In the end, there were at least twice as many people standing to speak in favour as against, and when the vote was called, a large majority (likely greater than 2/3s by my estimate) supported the recommendations.

I personally voted in favour because while one speaker argued that such a system may have prevented leaders like Jack Layton or former BC NDP premier Dave Barrett from participating, without action to bring equitable representation to our democracy, we will never know what amazing women’s voices have been silenced by systemic sexism.

The (Edited) Past

The theme of the convention was the 50th anniversary, so it was natural for a large focus to be on the history of the BC NDP.

Adrian Dix’s speech was based on past leaders speaking to the convention and a 50-year tribute recognized the highlights of the history of the party. Notable omissions included past leaders Bob Skelly, Dan Miller, and Ujjal Dosanjh. But it was a celebration, so you can forgive a party that’s celebrating being up 9 points over the Liberals.

Former premier Glen Clark even dropped in during the tribute to give a brief recollection.

There was a YND 50s themed party and a 50th Celebration on Friday and Saturday nights respectively, but I missed them both after having a late night after my successful thesis defense on Thursday.

The Orange Wave

Friday kicked off with a panel discussion on NDP electoral success with representatives from the Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and Ontario NDP. Despite their recent elections, I guess the Saskatchewan and Yukon NDP weren’t invited (or couldn’t make it). The representative from Manitoba had a slightly different message about how they had to frame change as risky since they were pursuing their fourth consecutive majority government, while Ontario and Nova Scotia pushed positive change messages. Each emphasized the need to research and identify messaging to reach out to voters in specific target ridings. Despite this advice, Adrian Dix promised to pursue an 85-seat strategy in 2013.

Nycole Turmel (pictured) gave the main keynote this morning. Based on the number of standing ovations, it was one of the less riveting speeches.

All nine candidates for the federal leadership of the NDP were also in town and attended a town hall on Saturday afternoon. I’ll save my discussions of that for a follow-up post though.

Science and nonsense

The NDP can be a mixed bag when it comes to science, but it remains better than the Green Party.

On the plus side, recently re-elected Vancouver City Councillor and biologist Heather Deal earned cheers when she talked about the need for science in the BC NDP environment policy and MLA John Horgan called for a science based approach to fracking.

It was less promising to see science and evidence missing from the policy principles designed to guide policy development into 2013. Similarly, the pillar of the BC NDP’s environmental policy Sustainable BC includes a reference to the precautionary principle but also omits science and reason.

I was also disappointed to see a resolution complaining about potential health effects due to smart meters, but luckily it was too low in priority to make it to the floor.

Finally, in the absurd category falls the Vancouver Medicinal Cannabis Dispensary who were advertising for snake oil at their booth. Checking their website, Snake Oil is $65 for 10mL and is “Quadruple strength Hugz Hemp Oil. Good for absolutely EVERYTHING! Contains 80 mg/ml Honey Oil.” It’s listed under Elixirs.

Other notable notes

Fresh off their own successful civic election Vision Vancouver had a strong presence at the conference. Mayor Gregor Robertson gave one of the opening speeches and I was lucky enough to meet councillors Heather Deal (who hung out at our Point Grey table when she could) and Geoff Meggs. They both also hung out at Niki Ashton’s “pub” night for a bit. It was great talking with Heather about the need for more science and more scientists in politics.

The cutest moment happened early on when Musequeam representative Wade Grant’s son kicked off the convention with an animal dance (pictured).

But the busy life won’t end this afternoon.

This weekend I will be one of the Vancouver-Point Grey delegates to the BC NDP’s 50th Anniversary Convention. I won’t be live-blogging it, but I will try to tweet updates. There’s a federal leadership townhall on Saturday from 4:30-6 PM, so those tweets will be under #ndpldr while general convention tweets will be under #bcndp50. I’ll try to make it to one of Brian Topp’s meet-and-greets at The Lion’s Pub (either Friday or Saturday night) and we’ll see if I can find any other leaders.

After the convention I will have my corrections and then holiday parties begin. Then I head to Alberta for Christmas, but will be back in Vancouver by New Years.

In other words, I will try to get some blogging in next week, but otherwise it might be quiet around here until January.

His first idea to hold joint nomination meetings quickly moved him to the bottom of a number of peoples ballots, but I’m reconsidering him given his latest statement

Hold a plebiscite on the future of the monarchy in conjunction with a referendum on voting reform. This would be the first time citizens have been asked about whether the monarchy plays a valuable role in 21st Century Canada.  It’s hoped the results would guide Parliament and legislatures on Constitutional changes, should Canadians indicate a desire for change.

Wow, I didn’t know Cullen was a republican, although he ironically referred to himself as a democrat in an interview with The Tyee. Anyone who says the monarchy “irks” them is good in my books.

He does note that the monarchy issue is a “distracting” debate and that there are more pressing issues that he’d deal with.

See also: The Globe and Mail.

It was to my surprise then that one of the first emails I read this morning was a reply from John Horgan. He actually responded to me before I posted this letter!

Anyways, his response displays honesty and a respect for democracy. I think the skeptics can feel safe with the BC NDP for now.

Good morning Ian, thanks for the e-mail.

I have been monitoring the smart meter program since it was announced in 2007.  I have significant concerns about the cost of the initiative and the absence of an independent assessment of the benefits or possible impacts of the technology.  In addition, I do not believe time of use metering will have much impact on conservation.  Our water based system is not as sensitive to hourly price spikes as thermal based utilities.  Our conservation activities should be focused on reducing overall consumption, not just peak times as the smart meters plan proposes.

I am not a physician nor a physicist. I have received over 5000 e-mails from people that profess an intolerance to wireless radiation.  I have no concern about impacts to my health, but they most certainly do.  I was asked to table a petition as is my right and responsibility as a Member of the Legislature and that is what I did last Thursday -  15,528 signatures.

Evidence will always guide my personal activity. I do not fear monger. If you have issues with the StopSmartmeters website, I suggest you contact them.

Regards

John Horgan

While Dewar’s event was held in a large condo meeting room, a slightly larger crowd packed into the small backroom of the Railway Club (where Skeptics in the Pub downtown meets) to meet Nash. While Dewar’s event had pop, chips, veggies, cookies, and some leftover Halloween candy, Nash’s event had veggies and mini-sandwiches – a happy sight since I hadn’t had time to find dinner. Sadly it was still a cash bar, but I wouldn’t hold that against any candidate.

Venues and snacks aside, I still didn’t walk away from Nash’s event as impressed as I was with Dewar. I met a friend there and we were both a little underwhelmed with the buzz and feel-good fluff that composed most of her speech.

I re-listened to it again this morning and I think the above characterization is a bit harsh, but listen yourself:

Peggy Nash speech

I think she planned on taking more questions later in the evening, but I was getting a bit tired and the room was hot, noisy, and crowded, so I snuck off, had a beer, and went home.

Her speech focussed a lot on what we need to differently than Harper, specifically focussing on the economy, becoming the greenest country, and working together as a country. Proposals may come later, but after witnessing the winning policy-heavy campaigns of Naheed Nenshi and Alison Redford, it makes me long for something more substantive.

The final thing I’ll say about her event is that while she attracted an enthusiastic crowd of all ages, it was a very heterogeneous crowd – predominantly Caucasian. Perhaps this was due to the venue and location difference, but it was a bit striking.

Regardless, I haven’t written her off after last night, but I was much more impressed with Paul Dewar last night.