Wildrose succeeds, Democracy fails.
There’s been a lot of talking heads trying to understand how the Wildrose party failed so utterly in the Alberta election that so many expected they would win. It’s easy for those of us on the left to dismiss them as crazy, free-market, ideologues; I would go so far as to say accurate. Brian Topp certainly agrees, and blames their loss on a series of “bozo moments” which they certainly have had. My favourite one was the Wildrose Bus, because it was harmless, hilarious, and blown way out of proportion. It was an example of the media and politicians having a stick up their “unmentionables” and unlike other Wildrose gaffs, it didn’t have troubling factors (such as racist or homophobic overtones.)
What people seem to be ignoring, however, is the fact that the Wildrose Party succeeded in this election in a way that is unprecedented in in their history. The fact that Wildrose was seen as a contender in this race could even be blamed for their political failure, since the wider population sees them as whackadoodle Tea-Party-North types. Strategic voting plays a huge part in modern Canadian elections, and Alberta’s Progressive Conservatives are the logical choice to block a Wildrose government. Was it that simple? No, probably not, but I don’t know a single person who would deny it has an effect.
What’s more important, though, is that the PCs got an undeserved majority. We can’t shy away from this just because the “right” team won – the people voted, and they didn’t give the Tories a majority. Alberta’s vote breakdown was close, ten-percent close:
Progressive Conservatives: 44.4%
Wildrose: 34.3%
Liberals: 10.1%
NDP: 10.1%
Alberta Party: 1%
This continues to baffle me, not only because libertarians have a good showing (the attractiveness of that particular philosophy has always confused me), but because our electorate tolerates a system so broken that it gives a majority to a party that won 44%, when another won 34%. This is even more significant when you consider that voters who might otherwise have voted NDP or Liberal will have been encouraged to vote PC to block a Wildrose victory. There are two significant and roughly equal powers here, but first-past-the-post essentially handed one the keys and threw the other under the bus.
The 2012 election should be seen as a victory for Wildrose – proof that they can succeed, in spite of being a bunch of “bozos”. Depending how you feel about the party, I’ll leave you to decide whether that’s a hopeful or terrifying prospect. More important than the narrative, however, is the dialogue that happens next: the cross-partisan discussion about how to fix our electoral system, rather than our elections.
We now have a false “Tory” majority in Edmonton and Ottawa, and while we should recognize that they are very different beasts, it’s time we all engaged together to create a more democratic Canada. If you don’t understand what’s wrong, I’d encourage you to visit Fair Vote Canada, who have some excellent resources. I’d encourage you to join, too, if you have the means.
If you’re ready to fight for a better system, write your MLA, write your MP, write your city council, and join a fair voting organization. Until we fix this, we’re all bozos.
Government is “what we do together that we cannot do alone.”
This is radical change – making government more local, and more personal. If you skipped to the commentary, go back and watch the video. It will give you hope.
I proposed last night at our executive meeting that the Nanaimo NDP constituency get ourselves onto Twitter/Facebook/Google+, and offered to help do that. I will be setting that up for us tomorrow, and I think it’s important that we do. Some of the more web-savvy elders on our council were on-board right away, and a few of them helped me to explain to the others what “the Twitters” are. It was an easy sell, especially since I offered to do the work.
Elders don’t need Facebook, and many on our council didn’t have or want it. I proposed it for my generation, the people who plan their social lives with Facebook and Google Calendar. More than that, though, I proposed it for the same reason we develop civic apps: to connect people that otherwise wouldn’t connect. I was sick of only the NDP showing up to NDP events that they heard of through NDP mailing lists.
Something else was brought up at that meeting: something much more important. We’re working towards a big-tent meeting of progressives to help the BC NDP create agendas and form ideas that will make them a more effective government in 2013. It’s still in its nascent phase, and I’m not one of the ones planning it, so I won’t get too into specifics here; but I think both this plan and the above video speak to something that people are beginning to understand at a very deep level is necessary for our society: the end of party politics.
We see that things are changing when 60-90% of progressives (depending who you ask) support some form of cooperation to defeat the Conservatives in the next election. You could use this as an argument for a two-party system, but the numbers supporting that are starkly different. The thing is: the so-called ”progressive” parties are very different beasts. The Liberals are largely free-trade and free-market where the NDP identifies as socialist. The Greens have a libertarian streak that makes both uncomfortable. The left does not want a united, generic voice, and calling all three “left” is painting with a very broad brush anyway.
What does this have to do with community apps? The differences between cities are arguably even more extreme than those between political parties. Some have heavy snows, while others require tsunami sirens. The same is true of voters, yet in Canada, we don’t even get to vote for our leaders if we choose a small-party or independent candidate. I admire the US system in that they elect leaders separately. Say what you want about the flaws of their system, they’ve taken one step towards voter freedom in this.
We need to re-imagine elections, and re-imagine government. We need apps, and surveys, and an increased commitment to direct interaction for government and citizens between elections.
Perhaps more importantly though, when elections do happen, we need the freedom to choose candidates based on their individual views and merits. Nobody benefits from a cookie-cutter NDP or Conservative candidate. We could benefit from a real, local field of talented candidates that represents the diverse views of our community.
If you’re lucky enough to have a real visionary running for your constituency, I salute you. My MP is no slouch either, and I’d vote for her regardless of party. It’s still a travesty that in the twenty-first century we allow party leaders the ability to veto our locally chosen candidates, or that not conforming to a platform can mean that some people’s voices simply aren’t heard. It starts with small acts of cooperation: adopting a fire hydrant, or helping a neighbour with a possum; but re-imagining politics means reconnecting the public service with the public at every level.
The 6% that isn’t bureaucracy controls more than just the purse strings. If we want to recreate our public services, we need new voices and new ideas to fund and to drive that change. We need to recompile the entire buggy program.
** Edit: I love Ted Talks, and I’m thinking of making Ted Tuesdays a semi-regular thing (every few weeks). I’ll probably go off on a tangent then too…
Getting behind Barack Obama’s health care reform is easy if you know what it is. A lot of Americans, across partisan lines, like most of what’s in the bill: coverage for pre-existing conditions, an exchange that allows self-employed and low-income individuals to afford insurance, the ability for youth to stay on their parents’ plans well into their twenties…
In fact, if you don’t say “Obamacare”, and actually discuss what’s in the bill, the numbers flip; they go from 47% disapproval (from a CBS/NYT poll) to between 68% to 85% approval of the various parts of the bill.
The major complaint amongst those who oppose the bill appears to be the individual mandate: the part of the bill that requires people to buy health insurance. It’s the traditional libertarian cry of “freedom” that echoes in the populist sections of the political right. And even I, as a socialist, have sympathy for their concern.
Watching American healthcare debates from the comforts of my socialized medical system is baffling: it seems a battle against one of the most blatant failures of the unregulated market in the 21st century, and yet those that would benefit most are often seen fighting on behalf of the market. Maybe it’s because socialism isn’t a swear word north of the border, but I see a very simple solution to the individual mandate issue: take private enterprise out of basic medical care.
Nobody (or at least a small minority) thinks governments providing roads for their people is a problem: roads are essential to trade, supply, travel, and so much more. Governments levy taxes and supply essential services using those tax dollars, and nobody complains. The thing is: healthcare is essential to life!
By calling basic healthcare an essential service, which it is, our US counterparts can get beyond this argument of government forcing you to buy something you don’t want, and reframe the conversation into one about targeted finance. This can be an exercise in accountability: government agrees not to endorse a third-party product they have no control over, and instead creates a public institution that provides an essential service, and exacts fees accordingly. In this way, they can guarantee the quality of the service they are asking the public to buy, and even scale fees based on income so that healthcare is affordable for every citizen. Sound familiar?
In fact, Canadian public healthcare costs less than the US market-based alternative precisely because we can control costs. There are issues, of course. In BC, our Medical Services Plan doesn’t even cover basic dental, but our government has committed to the idea that healthcare is a public right, and they’ve successfully managed to make it affordable for most (if not all) of our population.
I agree that government should not be financing a private industry where they have limited quality controls, and certainly they shouldn’t be forcing citizens to buy anything that those same citizens don’t have input into, but should the public sector be taking care of the public? Of course.
It’s time for public policy for the public good, and public enterprise for the public good. Canada has a long way to go in providing essential services in a sustainable and affordable way, but just as we can learn from other nations, other nations can learn from us.
We shouldn’t be shirking our responsibility to care for eachother, we should be doing it ourselves.
Thomas Mulcair is the leader of the NDP, and I still don’t much care for him. That doesn’t matter now, though. It took me a day or so to get over the fact that Nathan Cullen wouldn’t be the next Prime Minister of Canada, and a little longer to accept the fact that one of the two people I intentionally left off of my ballot is now running my party of choice. I still think there were better choices, but when you’re electing a leader, and not a council, I doubt it could have been done more democratically.
My own personal feelings about Tom’s rudeness and lack of charisma aside, enough people must think he has something because, in the end, he won with a large margin of the vote. That means he has enough appeal to get the job done. Perhaps he’s stronger in french, but listening to his victory speech, even I saw a glimmer of something Prime Ministerial that I certainly did not see during the debates. At times, even in the audio version, it was obvious that he was reading off of a script, but it was nice to hear a bit of emotion enter his voice. And that emotion wasn’t anger! It gave me a little hope.
Over the next few years, Thomas Mulcair will have some challenges cleaning up his image: controlling his temper, honouring the dramatically different visions of our party that had support during the leadership race, convincing people like me that he has the basic skills required to memorize a script…
One thing he won’t have a problem with, however, is social media. Much like Nathan, Tom Mulcair is easily hashtag-able. #TM4PM was on the back of his signs, and other social media plays, though late to the party, showed that Tom’s age may not be the millstone that some of us thought it might be. Perhaps the most brilliant play so far came from a conversation during convention where we were discussing the sensation that was Jack Layton’s “Trustache”. Mr. Mulcair’s equally iconic facial hair, once named by our brilliant friend, Amber, was an immediate hit amongst our group of young Nathan Cullen supporters. It also speaks to Tom’s challenge and great potential as a leader.
Those of us at the convention (and related local events) will vote NDP. That’s not a huge question. I’ve heard from a few people who said that if Tom got in, they would consider voting Liberal, but overall, we’re mostly ready to unite behind the new leader and in our new(ish) party. People like my father, however, swing voters of a particular-to-BC variety that sometimes vote NDP and sometimes Conservative, need to see a leader who is convinced of his or her own ability to manage the economy. Tom Mulcair, in my opinion, has that ability to do that. I maintain that Tom is a little boring, but so is Prime Minister Lego, and he’s won a few elections to date. Some people like boring and reliable, and I think if you ask political swingers, they’ll say Tom has that.
He also has a challenge on this front: convincing those of us on the left that he will be a reliable voice for our progressive values.
We saw some of this stepping back during the campaign. When I signed a petition regarding Mr. Mulcair’s previous positions on Israel, his campaign staff (in this case, my MLA’s office) were quick to respond with an email advising that a Thomas Mulcair leadership would remain consistent with the beliefs and principles set forth by the party. This is a challenge for any leader: representing the views of your party, even when your own position differs. Bob Rae is struggling with his party’s new position on marijuana, which he will continue to have to represent for as long as he is leader. Tom has some thinking to do there as well. It’s the same for any MP, MPP, or MLA – while they have the right to their own opinion, and even to vote with it in mind, they also have to consider the policy of their party, which is created by those members who are involved enough to pay attention to such things.
I think Thomas Mulcair can walk that line. I think he can convince NDP progressives and those outside the party that he can represent their interests in Ottawa, and I think the party can hold him to account on the important things. I will continue to fight for electoral reform, cooperation, drug law reform, alternative energy, and other things that I believe in within the party. I hope that Nash, Topp, Cullen, Singh, Ashton, and Dewar will continue to fight for the visions they put forward and that their supporters believed in. We will create the vision, we will continue to grow the party, and with the help of Old ReliaBeard, we will create a better Canada. Not just in 2015, but starting today.
Unity tomorrow.
Tonight we drink.
Thomas Mulcair is not a nice guy. I don’t like him. A lot of people don’t like him either. The missing piece of the conversation, though, seems to have been: if not Tom, then who?
If you’re a human rights and free-speech group that vehemently opposes Mulcair for his consistently pro-Israel positions, you can say your piece (like Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East or Independent Jewish Voices), you can even create flashy videos like this one:
If you’re not providing an alternative, though, all you’re really doing is stirring up a lot of free publicity for Tom Mulcair, and he can then come out and downplay your opinion. Smear ads are not enough to convince people to drop a candidate.
This Guy
Empassioned arguments aren’t enough to convince people either. A lot of people not liking you doesn’t stop you from gaining power – witness Mitt Romney. For that matter, people like This Guy would have been out on their respective asses long ago if forces opposing them were enough to do it.
Hell, This Guy thinks that he can beat Mulcair.
I think he’s right.
There are websites full of information about why Mulcair is the wrong choice for Canada. There are decades of anecdotes about his temper, and even Twitter accounts mocking it. He’s old politics, and an illustrious career also means a grab bag of fun political fodder. The Conservatives will run at him from the right. Social justice groups will run at him from the left. The NDP will be left in the dust bins of history. It’s ugly, it’s unfortunate, but it’s what I truly believe will happen if Tom Mulcair wins in this leadership race.
So if you oppose Thomas Mulcair, who should you vote for? It’s no surprise that I think the answer is Nathan Cullen, and I also think Brian Topp is the smart money for a secon-choice ballot. They’re the only other leaders who have been seen as contenders in the race, and the only two that I think have the charisma, smarts, and numbers to win against Stephen Harper.
Why do I think this?
Just follow the numbers.
Mulcair touts the number of MPs he has supporting him, but this is somewhat deceptive. Almost all NDP MPs are from Quebec, Mulcair’s home turf, but the majority of NDP members are from BC and Ontario. In BC, our home-town boy, Nathan Cullen, is doing very well; and in a one-member-one-vote system, BC matters a lot. If you want to talk MP support, though, Brian Topp is strong there as well, including support from my own MP, Jean Crowder. Jean is a very smart lady, and I respect her opinion, but Brian is second on my ballot, and with good reason:
Following the cash is also useful. Money talks, and Nathan’s fundraising momentum shows he’s a huge deal. Without the big name support enjoyed by Mulcair and Topp, Cullen has managed something remarkable. He’s a financial contender because of an impressive amount of small donors – he has more broad financial support, in part because of his incredible appeal.
As I write this, Nathan Cullen’s Facebook page has 9,100 likes, compared to 3,985 for Brian Topp and even less (3,396) for Tom Mulcair. Nash and Dewar are also out ahead of Topp/Mulcair, but they can’t compete with Cullen. Hugely unscientific, I know, but look at those numbers! Nathan has more support than the two other major contenders combined.
You want another number? Google also has something to say on the matter. 
This graph again shows Quebec’s native son doing well in Quebec. That’s Mulcair in blue (ironic, given that he’s widely thought of as too conservative), Topp in red, and Cullen in NDP orange.
Hey, I didn’t pick the colours.
BC’s home-town boy is also doing very well in BC, which, again, is where most of the votes are. Topp is doing well in all three, but he doesn’t have the passion around him that Cullen and Mulcair have in their home ridings.
Your Second Choice Matters
The other reason I think Nathan can win is the nature of the NDP vote. Your second choice matters. One fairly out-of-date study places Paul Dewar as the popular second choice for most candidates. Cullen’s momentum is much more recent, and while not a lot of numbers have come out since, anecdotally, I’ve talked to a lot of Topp, Ashton, and Nash supporters who have placed Nathan Cullen second on their ballot. This may or may not matter in the case of Topp supporters – he has a great deal of strength in his own right – but Nash and Ashton falling away could be very good for Nathan’s chances.
Topp, on the other hand, has seen some damage from the mud that supporters like Ed Broadbent have been slinging at Mulcair. He’s still the viable alternative in Quebec, where no other candidates have been able to make much in the way of inroads, but elsewhere, he has lost front-runner status.
What does this mean? Well, it means that of the two people projected to be able to beat Mulcair, Nathan is more likely to pick up votes as the race goes on. This positions him in front Topp in terms of picking up the essential 50% plus one needed to clinch the nomination. On the other hand, Topp is the only candidate who can beat Mulcair on his home turf.
Positioning matters. The sooner the opposition votes coalesce around a single candidate, the less time Thomas Mulcair has to pick up the votes he would need to win, so if you think (like I do) thatThomas Mulcair is the wrong choice, the smart money is on putting Nathan Cullen first on your ballot, as he is most likely to pick up votes as we go along.
Your second choice should probably be Brian Topp – he may not pick up as many secondary ballots, but he is uniquely positioned to be the second choice in Quebec, and has a strong showing on first ballot supporters. If Nathan Cullen drops off the ballot, it will be late in the voting. Brian Topp is likely to be the only non-Mulcair candidate left standing.
Thomas Mulsquare
The charisma factor should not be underestimated. I know some people believe Mulcair has it, but I’ve never seen it. He bored me in the debates, and frankly, Rabble was right when they called him the “leadership choice of the 1 per cent.” Every word that comes out of the man’s mouth drips with privilege. Stephen Harper is the king of boring, but when Tom’s not raging in the machine, he’s got the condescending father-figure thing down pat.
Contrast this with Nathan Cullen, who does interviews with Batman, makes seniors tear up, and has now won four elections in Conservative-heavy northern BC. He’s also an easy motto-maker: Cullen Country, #cullenmentum, and a million Twilight jokes have already surfaced.
Cullen’s campaign is by far the most web-savvy, social-media-friendly, 21st-century game in town, but even Brian Topp is better at connecting with the youth vote: he’s a heck of a kisser.
Cullen’s frank honesty and genuine passion are inspiring in a way both different from and reminiscent of Jack Layton. He means it when he says he’ll change the game, and he’s ready to fight, but he won’t get nasty.
Topp’s terrier-like fight is at once playful and deadly, and while it lacks Cullen’s je ne sais quoi, he’s the only other candidate I believe can take on Stephen Harper and win.
If Thomas Mulcair doesn’t blow a gasket, he and Stephen can bore the audience to tears with their monotonous back-and-forth. I don’t want that. We don’t want that, and we don’t have to have it.
Nathan Cullen is a clear alternative to Thomas Mulcair’s same-old politics. Vote tonight.
Another Path to a Strong Leadership: #leaveTomOff
I don’t really care for Thomas Mulcair, so when I see articles like this one from Now Toronto that pegs my guy Nathan as somehow similar or interchangeable, I laugh a little, but it also just bugs me. Now I’m not saying Tom is a bad guy; he’s certainly popular in Quebec, and there is bound to be a reason for that. I do believe, however, that Thomas Mulcair’s leadership is a clear path back to third-party status. It takes away from the hopey-changey message that served us so well and replaces it with something very different, and (I think) rather unpleasant.
If you agree (and it seems a few people do), there’s something you can do about it:
Just as the ranked ballot allows us to have a say in who we’d want if our candidate isn’t successful, it also allows us to deny that status to a candidate by leaving them off entirely. I left two candidates off of my ballot who I feel would be disasters to the success of the party: Thomas Mulcair and Martin Singh. You can too, but that’s only part of it. Let’s tell people why we’re leaving Tom off our ballot. Hopefully, they will too.
I’m not saying we should resort to mud-slinging. That’s not what the NDP is about. What we can do, though, is express our legitimate concern in a funny, polite manner, which is why I’m proposing we take to Twitter, with the hashtag #leaveTomOff. Let’s encourage people to take a look at our concerns, and if they agree, to do the same.
This Could Get Silly
And that’s great. It should get silly, because we want to be fun and upbeat, and we’re not here to insult or berate anyone. Some really funny things are still legitimate concerns. Thomas Mulcair is my dad’s age, he’s eight years from retirement age, and only four years younger than Jack was when he died. That’s a terrible thought, but if you’re one who thinks that we need a long-term path to change includes a leader (maybe you’re a Niki Ashton fan), how about this one:
#NewPolitics means not retiring after your first term. If you vote for #ndpldr, #leaveTomOff
I personally think that Tom can’t control his temper, and I know that the next leader is going to have to. Stephen Harper, the boy with the lego hair, is the epitome of a cool head, and I just don’t think that Mulcair (or Singh for that matter) has proven he can compete. Because that’s a concern for me, I might tweet something like:
@PMHarper is a robot. We need an #NDPLdr with a cool head to win the next election. #leaveTomOff
I might link to something like this, or even a positive reference to his anger issues, or I might just point to the last leadership debate. Granted, the other candidates piled on him, but he took it personally. We can’t afford a leader who is prone to knee-jerk anger.
Maybe you’re concerned (like me as well) that Thomas Mulcair is rude. When he was in Nanaimo, he interrupted the head of our constituency association who was trying to ask him a question, he was rude to several others. He’s not a very affable person, and this article from the beginning of the race shows that people have known this for a long time.
Maybe you’re concerned that Mulcair would move the party to the right. You’re not alone. Rabble and The Tyee have both posted articles talking about Tom’s business ties, and I’d be remiss if I didn’t say that
@ThomasMulcair is the Mitt Romney of the NDP. Big money and free markets do not an #NDPLdr make. #leaveTomOff
Or maybe (again, like me) you think Tom is just a boring speaker. I’ve watched every debate, and the only passion I’ve seen from the man is when he gets frustrated or angry with the other candidates who are ultimately on his side. I don’t speak French, but Google tells me that this would get my message across:
Thomas Mulcair est terne dans les deux langues. Il n’est pas le prochain #ldrnpd. #leaveTomOff
Whatever your reasons, if you’re as disturbed as I am by Tommy Boy’s media love-affair, I’d encourage you to get your message out, and tell people why you are leaving Tom Mulcair off of your ballot. Hopefully, they will too.
I just voted. Here’s how you can too.
If you’re a member of the NDP, and you joined before Feb 18, you’re entitled to vote for the next leader of our party. If you’re like me, and you didn’t receive your voter package by mail, there is still time.
If you haven’t received your voter package:
Call the NDP! As it turns out, my package was sent to an incorrect address. I found this out because a full week after WP received hers, I still hadn’t, so I made the call. The gentleman I spoke to was very polite, and quite helpful. After verifying my identity, and getting my consent, he sent me an email voter package, et voila! I voted this morning from Starbucks.
To verify what happened to your package, you can call the Federal NDP at: 1-866-525-2555
The email comes from vote2012@ndp.ca. Here is what the email package looks like, so you can verify that yours is real:
Obviously, you already know my name if you read this blog. I mostly blacked it out as a way of making clear where your name would be.
Here’s my ballot:
If you are interested, I make no bones about sharing what my ballot looks like. I’m very proud of my choices, and of all the candidates for the excellent job they’ve done in helping to shape a vision of a progressive, inclusive Canada.
1. Nathan Cullen
I’ve written treatise on my support for Nathan. I’ve recorded videos, tweeted, talked to friends, and screamed from mountain tops. His recent interest in changing the voting age just clinched it. I think that introducing the political system through the schools is a fantastic way to start off youth engagement, and I REALLY believe it’s better than allowing them to vote at 18 when they have graduation, college, moving out, and who knows what else on their minds. I believe that joint nominations are the way to go in the next election, I believe in proportional representation, I believe that a more non-partisan politics is in the best interest of all Canadians, and I think his ability to win in a Conservative landscape is well-proven by the fact he’s both won and picked up more votes in the last four elections. Nathan Cullen is awesome. Moving on.
2. Brian Topp
Topp really impressed me when he came to Nanaimo. He was my number one until I met Nathan. After Nathan, I think Brian is the only one with any form of charisma worth mentioning. He’s inspiring and funny, and he could win the next election on his own merits. He’s exceedingly intelligent and knowledgeable. I reject the idea that his not being elected is an issue. More than one previous leader of our party had to pass that hurdle, and Topp likely wouldn’t be the last.
3. Peggy Nash
My number three is Peggy Nash, and I’m actually pretty surprised to hear myself say it. When she was in Nanaimo, Peggy bored the crap out of me. She offered very little in the way of new ideas or policy, but it was quite early in the race.
I’ve since heard her on the CBC a couple of times. She can be intelligent and engaging, though she lacks the passion of a Cullen or a Topp. She’s magnetic, but not inspiring. I like Peggy when she’s talking about the things she knows something about, but when you catch her off-guard, she’s got very little to say and sounds a little like she’s reading out of the NDP Policy Manual.
4. Paul Dewar
Then there’s Paul. Paul Dewar achieves the fatherly warmth that someone like Thomas Mulcair wishes he could lay claim to, and I like that he has a plan to win more seats in the next election. Very few of the candidates have an idea beyond “grow the party,” and it’s nice to see someone other than Nathan take the issue seriously. That said, he didn’t campaign as hard in the west, and I think that speaks to his priorities. He’s on my list in part because a friend of mine feels very strongly about him. He was her MP when she was living in the east, and I trust her judgement.
5. Niki Ashton
I feel a little strange about voting for Niki because I don’t actually want her to win. If you take a look at my list, though, I think you’ll agree that there’s no chance my ballot will get to choice # 5. Cullen and Topp are both front-runners, and Nash is no slouch. I’m voting for Niki because I want to encourage her political career. She’s not much of a performer, but it pulls at my heartstrings a little to see her so fired up about the role of crown corporations. She fought hard for the Wheat Board in her own riding, and she obviously believes in government’s role in cost control, thus her idea for government manufacturing of generics. I’m an “unreformed socialist”, so I see great potential for government enterprise.
Singh and Mulcair don’t make my ballot, in part because neither has the thick skin to take on someone like Stephen Harper and stay positive. Tom acts like a victim every time someone asks him a question in debate, and Martin gets defensive and a little rude.
I didn’t get the chance to meet Mulcair in person, but I’ve tried a few times, and frankly, his followers creep me out. They’re mostly older, all wealthy, and they strike me as a bit cultish. Mulcair also has a bit of a reputation; his temper has been the subject of many tales out of Parliament Hill, and we’ve seen it flare in even the (very friendly) internal debates. He’s not someone who can build the party.
Tom Mulcair is smart, but he’s also bland and patronizing. He was rude to more than one person I know, including my partner. His past as a Liberal means very little to me since they were the only federalist party in Quebec, but Mulcair’s comments about moving the NDP to the center seem contrary to the philosophy a lot of the candidates (and myself) have of moving the center to the NDP.
It’s hard for me to get beyond my personal distaste for Martin Singh. As a bit of a rabid atheist, someone who essentially became a born-again Sikh (even changing his name) disturbs me on a very deep level. Singh’s “God bless Canada” at the end of the last debate really put me off, perhaps more than it should have. I like a few of the things he’s proposed, at least in principle (a national mentorship program, pharmacare), but Singh talks about finances in a very corporate way; he talks about reducing taxes without strings like the Conservatives do. It’s a little bit of hyperbole, but I think of Martin Singh as the only Republican in the NDP Leadership race.
And that’s that. It should be noted that when I voted, Romeo Saganash was still showing up on the online ballot. Let’s be very clear: Romeo Saganash is no longer in the race.
You should be though. If you haven’t received your ballot, call the NDP. If you have, by all means, vote! Vote online, at home, or at a coffee shop, or (quietly) at work. It’s our party, and our country. Let’s choose the next leader of both together.
I believe in Nathan Cullen. He’s perpetually described in the media as a dark horse in the NDP leadership race; sometimes he’s dismissed and sometimes he’s taken seriously, but he’s certainly not going to be ignored. In a race where your second choice can mean as much as your first, Nathan’s numbers can look even more compelling, so I’ve decided to present my case. If you’re a supporter of Niki Ashton, or Peggy Nash, or Paul Dewar, or even if you’re supporting one of the more party-line candidates, I’m encouraging you to take a look at your second choice slot and think Cullen. Here’s why:
Nathan engages youth:
I’m involved in the Cullen Campaign, so I’ve met a lot of the organizers, and I’ve noticed something really compelling: almost all of them are under 40, and the majority are under 30. By contrast, the only Mulcair supporters I’ve met (and I’ve met a lot) are old and wealthy. In a party that still has a living first generation, the aging demographic is a legitimate concern. When WP and I came out to the AGM for our local constituency, the existing members were quick to pounce on the fresh blood.
Well, if you’re concerned with getting young people involved in politics, here’s a man who is already doing it, and doing it well. He’s convinced us that joining a political party is a form of activism, and a powerful one.
Nathan Grows the Party:
On top of being the only candidate who has won four times in a very conservative riding, Nathan also has the distinction of getting broad progressive support outside of the traditional party base. I saw one tweet from a lifetime Green Party member who switched parties to vote for Nathan. The BC Green Liberal Caucusendorses him for his work on the environment. This is a man who walks the walk, and people of all political stripes flock to him because he fights for things we all believe in.
Nathan Cullen Brings Home the Bacon
Nathan’s campaign is very grass-roots, which is the polite way of saying poor. He didn’t come into the race with the fast cash of a Topp or Mulcair. If you believe the folks over at Pundit’s Guide, however, (and even if you don’t, have a look at their pretty graphs) his strategy to bring in funds is effective enough even to threaten supposed front-runners. Full disclosure, I account for a whole $25 of that money.
It’s also refreshingly candid, like this letter the campaign sent out asking for donations.
He’s About Making the System More Democratic:
If you’re a Niki Ashton supporter, listen up. You want to talk about new politics? Nathan’s ideas for democratic reform don’t end with joint nominations. He’s talked about removing the leader’s veto of the riding associations’ democratically elected candidate, meaning that local people choose a local candidate, and the party doesn’t get in the way. His website (check the link above) talks about the kind of electoral reform he wants to see, but also says he will engage Canadians to see what kind of electoral process we support.
Nathan won the Internet.
Nathan’s idea for cooperation has won support from online advocacy groups Lead Now and Avaaz. Even if you haven’t already signed on with the idea, Nathan’s campaign has engaged with the online community in ways no other campaign has. Brian Topp’s website was redone in the not too distant past, and you’ll notice it now looks a lot more like Nathan’s, with a clear policy link at the top, and an orange, rounded “Français” button.
On top of that, the Cullen Campaign has introduced tools where you can publicly pledge to vote for Nathan on the site and through social media. Everything they’ve done has been linked in effectively and easily to get the message out. Did I mention he knows Batman?!
He can win BC too!
There has been a lot of talk about Quebec in this race, but the party is still nascent there. BC and Ontario, with the bulk of the membership, will decide the next leader, and Nathan is VERY strong on his home turf in BC. A friend forwarded me an email recently that said Thomas Mulcair had picked up three endorsements from BC MLAs. My response was “that’s great, but Nathan had four in November. He was doing it before it was cool.”
Nathan Cullen is well-known in his riding and beyond, not only for his policies as leader, but also for his record as an MP. He can win BC, and very few others can.
Nathan has a Plan to Win the Next Election:
Paul Dewar is all about the “next 70 seats”. Well, Nathan Cullen has a plan that could really win them. There’s been a lot of talk about cooperation. Some, like myself, have come out in enthusiastic support for the idea. Others are concerned that it will dilute the party, force people to vote for someone they may not be 100% behind, etc. The cooperative nomination plan has been written about to death, but I’ll make a few points here:
1. Cooperative nominations would be a one time method to win, after which Nathan and others are committed to fixing our broken electoral system.
2. Many, if not all of the candidates, support some form of cooperation. Brian Top has said he would support a coalition similar to the one that was proposed and rejected years ago.
3. The math works. By not dividing the progressive vote, we can successfully defeat the Conservatives at their own game.
4. Finally, party members who worry that they will be asked to vote for someone who doesn’t share their values have to realize that this is exactly what we are asking Greens and Liberals to do every time we ask them to vote strategically for our party in a riding where theirs stands little chance. Cooperative nominations are a natural evolution of strategic voting, and strategic voting will be a reality as long as we face a united right-wing in a first-past-the-post system.
And That’s Not All…
Nathan has a well-developed set of policies: on the Arctic, on food security, on trade, on climate change, and more. If you’re a Nash supporter, or you lean towards Ashton, or you like Singh’s take on pharmacare, or even if you really believe that Paul Dewar is gonna build that moon-base, I support your choice.
You have a second choice to make as well, and I hope I’ve convinced you to look at Nathan for that spot on your ballot. He’s a smart, passionate, affable guy with the mind and the method to take on Stephen Harper. Take a look at NathanCullen.ca or watch him kick ass on YouTube. You’ll see what I mean.
Community + Theatre + Geeks = A beautiful thing.
Tonight, WP and I went to see a good friend of ours perform in a live rendition of Doctor Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, which, if you haven’t seen it, is one of the staples of modern geek culture. Yes, I have a life outside politics.
It was put on in a back room of a small building on the college campus, and even before the show started, the black liner material covering up the fluorescent lights and the Macbook centre-stage said “you thought you knew what indie theatre was, and you were wrong.” The audience trickled in; a parade of neon green plaid shirts, weather-inappropriate toques, glasses in all forms of square and rectangle, and one or two theatre students; and the play began.
It goes without saying that Geoff was brilliant in the lead role as everyone’s favourite villain. We had seen an earlier rendition of act 1 in which he did a perfect impression of the original role (it’s not hard when you’re musically talented and you’ve memorized every word), but he really made it his own. As did the gentleman who played Captain Hammer, who was a perfect sleaze with a slight (and possibly unintentionally) bisexual machismo.
There were mistakes: lighting queues were missed, sound queues were missed. Some blogger forgot the difference between the homophones queue and cue. It didn’t matter. The audience was completely engaged, as some of their own brought life to the mythology of a new generation. At one point, the cowboy chorus forgot the lyrics, and the guy playing the keyboard had to get things back on track. The next time they came on, the entire audience sang along with them in a show of camaraderie, because we knew all the words too.
The entire experience was an act of co-creation. Each trick of stagecraft got the appropriate reaction, the actors and crew and musicians supported each other and engaged with the audience, who sat in rapt anticipation, wondering how their friends were going to manage to pull off this or that element of the story they all knew perfectly.
I was impressed. Are there things I would have done differently? Perhaps. Were there glitches? Definitely. But this was something bigger than a TV show, or a webisode, or even the stuffy live theatre that other companies might put on in more polished arenas. Doctor Horrible was a human experience, a bonding experience. When the churches fall, when science and technology gradually unravel the old dogmas, this is where the human spirit will live and find solace. Community theatre, shared stories and experiences, the suspension and resumption of disbelief.
Geek culture is many things. Hollow it is not. If you’re in Nanaimo, I encourage you to come out to Geek Week.
