Manitoba NDP leadership

79 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
They were standing in areas(Texas and Papineau)where the parties they are allied to never do badly.

They both went "national" where both of their parties have, from time to time, done badly.

Quote:
There's really no point in belaboring this.  If Layton's kid ever gets into federal politics(which is what I suspect your thinking of, and it may not be for years, if ever), we'll deal with it then.  

If he ever does then I suppose I might have thoughts.  But FWIW, I wasn't setting up Mike as my "next shot" at all.  Wasn't even thinking about him.

Aristotleded24

Ken Burch wrote:
I hope you aren't arguing that, in order to be consistent, people who made issues out of dynastic politics should be be insisting that Niki should leave the federal NDP leadership contest-a withdrawal that could only have sad results.  If anyone should withdraw, it should be Steve, a man who has no good reason to be seeking the Manitoba NDP leadership, proved by losing a seat the MNDP should never lose that he has nothing to offer in terms of electoral appeal, and who has to know that he is hurting his own daughter's chances by doing this.

It's clearly not the fault of Niki or her supporters that her dad has made this pointless, reactionary choice(a choice he was most likely pushed into by the "we can't let ANYTHING change" wing of the party).  He's only going to win votes from the sort of Manitoba Dipper who was glad the last MNDP government refused to pass anti-scab legislation-i.e., the sort who doesn't want the MNDP ever to stand for anything again.

It's a bit more complicated than that, Ken. If there's anyone the Manitoba NDP establishment does not want as leader, it's Steve Ashton, and some have even speculated that the move away from OMOV leadership races was motivated specifically by the desire to block Ashton's chances. During his first leadership campaign, Ashton advocated for anti-scab legislation, and during this one, he has advocated raising the minimum wage to $15/hour in the first year of an NDP mandate. Kinew has proposed to get it there by the end of the NDP's first term. Ashton has also led the charge for the NDP to return to OMOV leadership races.

I'm not sure if I'll have the chance to ask the leadership candidates what's really on my mind. In any case, I may end up supporting Ashton just to send a message to the party establishment, even though it probably won't do any good. I expect Kinew to win the race handily, and I also expect him take my constituency handily.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..here you can find all the man leadership debates.  i believe kinew is the way forward. 

Leadership Forums

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:
I hope you aren't arguing that, in order to be consistent, people who made issues out of dynastic politics should be be insisting that Niki should leave the federal NDP leadership contest-a withdrawal that could only have sad results.  If anyone should withdraw, it should be Steve, a man who has no good reason to be seeking the Manitoba NDP leadership, proved by losing a seat the MNDP should never lose that he has nothing to offer in terms of electoral appeal, and who has to know that he is hurting his own daughter's chances by doing this.

It's clearly not the fault of Niki or her supporters that her dad has made this pointless, reactionary choice(a choice he was most likely pushed into by the "we can't let ANYTHING change" wing of the party).  He's only going to win votes from the sort of Manitoba Dipper who was glad the last MNDP government refused to pass anti-scab legislation-i.e., the sort who doesn't want the MNDP ever to stand for anything again.

It's a bit more complicated than that, Ken. If there's anyone the Manitoba NDP establishment does not want as leader, it's Steve Ashton, and some have even speculated that the move away from OMOV leadership races was motivated specifically by the desire to block Ashton's chances. During his first leadership campaign, Ashton advocated for anti-scab legislation, and during this one, he has advocated raising the minimum wage to $15/hour in the first year of an NDP mandate. Kinew has proposed to get it there by the end of the NDP's first term. Ashton has also led the charge for the NDP to return to OMOV leadership races.

I'm not sure if I'll have the chance to ask the leadership candidates what's really on my mind. In any case, I may end up supporting Ashton just to send a message to the party establishment, even though it probably won't do any good. I expect Kinew to win the race handily, and I also expect him take my constituency handily.

I stand corrected, and deeply appreciate the additional info.  Thanks, Aristotle.

Aristotleded24

More questions aobut Kinew's past:

Quote:

The Fort Rouge MLA told CBC News Friday he felt he needed to set the record straight after several anonymous emails were sent to media in the past two weeks. They included a copy of past criminal charges and allegations he was hiding information about his criminal background.

Included in the emails were two charges of domestic assault from 2003 that were stayed by the Crown in 2004.

"That never happened,"Kinew said of the 2003 charge. "The matter was investigated and the charges were dropped. I wanted to address [the emails]. Some of these emails have half-truths in them and there are questions being asked."

Kinew said he didn't want to go into details about the 2003 charge in order to protect the identity of the people involved.

I always got the sense that rather than do the hard work required to rebuild the party that the party brass wants to find a Messiah who will bring the NDP back to the Promised Land of Governing and they have decided that Kinew is their man. Of course there are some questions about the legitimacy of these charges in the first place, however this is exactly why I have a huge issue with "star politics." Stars burn out and fade.

Hunky_Monkey

I have to say that Ashton is a nasty a-hole for using this to try to score political points.  Happens when you're losing.

NorthReport

My goodness, what is really going on here?

Ashton accuses Kinew of downplaying domestic violence charges during Manitoba NDP leadership race

http://globalnews.ca/news/3689179/ashton-accuses-kinew-of-downplaying-do...

Aristotleded24

What a gong show.

I see no valid reason why the party can't send me a (digital or paper) ballot where I can simply mark my choices for leader. Instead, we have this complicated delegate voting system which because I have a life I haven't been able to figure out. I'm also very angry that the Manitoba Federation of Labour, which claims to speak for the working class of this province, championed a voting system which makes it more difficult for working class people and those who aren't party insiders to participate. If I'm disillusioned with it, I can only imagine how people who aren't political junkies feel about such a system. For that reason I've essentially ignored this race. I supported Ashton both times before, but for me his campaign jumped the shark with the release of his tax forms and comparing Pallister to Donald Trump. As far as I know, releasing of tax forms is an American tradition, and I see no need to import that into Canadian politics. As for his raising of these charges against Kinew, he's been in politics long enough to know that party rifts from the kind of personal attacks he's engaged in do not heal very easily, if at all. I suspect he may feel frustrated knowing that he will never lead the Manitoba NDP and is trying to do as much damage to the organization as he possibly can, maybe in revenge for losing the last leadership race which in my view he would have won under fair rules. I just hope his nonsense doesn't damage Niki's campaign, and I find it quite concerning that almost no prominent politicians from Manitoba have endorsed her.

As for the allegations against Kinew? It's a tough one. I can understand his reluctance to talk about it because a) as he said, he's not the only person involved and the other person's privacy deserves respect, and b) how exactly do you talk about something like that? True, the charges were eventually dropped, however the courts do not always respond well to victims of domestic violence. I think he can make a clear and credible case that says, if you're following down a path of bad behaviour, you can turn your life around and do good with it, I'm proof of that. The problem is if these revelations come up during an election campaign, shifting the focus from Pallister's cuts to questions about Kinew's character do not help the NDP. There was also a comment he made during a leadership race in Brandon (hopefully I can find and post it here in this thread some time). On the issue of connecting with young people, he said if you don't know what a selfie is then you cannot connect with them. I found that cringeworthy. In the first place, does he imagine that the only thing on young people's minds is taking selfies, and that practical issues like unemployment, low wages, or lack of public transit don't matter? It remindes me of Hillary Clinton's cringeworthy pokeomon-go-to-the-polls comment. In the second place, Ashton has a daughter who can teach him everything he needs to know about using social media to connect.

The challenges for the NDP go beyond this leadership race. The Liberals still have to choose their leader, and the Greens will be looking to build in Wolseley following their strong showing last time around. Both parties will be going after the same votes as the NDP, and unlike the NDP, neither party has 17 year record of failure on the issue of poverty in this province. While there was some positive movement on this file when Selinger became Premier, the fact is that poverty in Manitoba was very high under the watch of the party that should have been looking out for them, and Pallister used this against the NDP very effectively last year. An entire generation of kids grew up under NDP poverty, along with issues of child welfare that were never properly addressed, so when the NDP reaches out to these people to say they will fight for them, many will angrily reject the NDP.

Aristotleded24

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
I have to say that Ashton is a nasty a-hole for using this to try to score political points.  Happens when you're losing.

It certainly is very different from his 2 previous runs where he prided himself and built his campaign around the idea of discussing ideas and not attacking the other people in the race.

NorthReport
Aristotleded24

And thanks to this issue hitting the papers the spotlight is all of a sudden off Pallister's proposal to bring in health premiums.

Congratulations NDP. By annointing a star candidate and not changing the processes that give the party establishment a large amount of sway (if not outright veto power) over the leadership process, you have allowed the stage to be set for these kinds of distractions to take away attention from Pallister's plans that he never told anyone about.

Only the Manitoba NDP could allow someone like Pallister to be elected with one of the largest majorities in the province's history. Pallister may very well win a second term, and the only question we may be asking in Manitoba in 2020 is which party is best suited to challenge him as the Official Opposition.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Ashton said court records show there were several hearings on the matter before it was dropped. He called that a sign that there must have been some basis for the charges.

Wow.  Funny that the fact that the charges were dropped means less to him than the fact that there were charges in the first place.

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Ashton said court records show there were several hearings on the matter before it was dropped. He called that a sign that there must have been some basis for the charges.

Wow.  Funny that the fact that the charges were dropped means less to him than the fact that there were charges in the first place.

You've been around this community long enough to know that the courts aren't always capable of effectively dealing with domestic violence issues.

When a charge is dropped, it doesn't necessarily mean that the crime did not happen. It simply means that the prosecution lacked the evidence required to guarntee a conviction.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:

You've been around this community long enough to know that the courts aren't always capable of effectively dealing with domestic violence issues.

When a charge is dropped, it doesn't necessarily mean that the crime did not happen. It simply means that the prosecution lacked the evidence required to guarntee a conviction.

Then we should just assume that anyone accused of such a crime must be guilty of it.

Or else what?  If being found guilty means you're guilty, and being exonerated means you're guilty, why shouldn't we just say so?  Under what conditions would a person NOT be guilty??

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:

You've been around this community long enough to know that the courts aren't always capable of effectively dealing with domestic violence issues.

When a charge is dropped, it doesn't necessarily mean that the crime did not happen. It simply means that the prosecution lacked the evidence required to guarntee a conviction.

Then we should just assume that anyone accused of such a crime must be guilty of it.

Or else what?  If being found guilty means you're guilty, and being exonerated means you're guilty, why shouldn't we just say so?  Under what conditions would a person NOT be guilty??

In the first place, in most cases you cannot prove a negative. One of the things that makes domestic violence very difficult to prosecute and prove either way is that often the evidence come down to the word of the accuser versus the word of the accused. If one party is claiming to have been hit and the other says I did not hit, who do you believe? How do you decide that?

This is not to say I'm interested in re-prosecuting this particular case, and if Kinew has  moved from a destructive to a constructive life path, all the more power to him.  The main point is that when charges are dropped in cases of domestic violence, it doesn't always mean that nothing happened and that's where the story ends.

Aristotleded24

So while Nahanni Fontaine reaffirmed her support, there is one aspect of her defense that I find very disappointing:

Quote:
"I have witnessed firsthand his change and his growth, certainly as an MLA but also as a community member and certainly as a husband and a father," she said.

One of the things that makes domestic violence very difficult to deal with is that families affected by it very often have a nice public face they put on, but the dark behaviour goes on out of sight. As an activist on these issues, Fontaine should know this better than most people.

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Was it a one vote per member process and could you vote from home?

Hunky_Monkey

Thankfully, the Manitoba NDP dodged a bullet with Steve Ashton.  Now let's hope the federal party does the same with Niki Ashton.

Aristotleded24

NorthReport wrote:
Was it a one vote per member process and could you vote from home?

No. There was some crazy process where you voted for delegates that I was not able to figure out because I have pressing things that need to be done in real life.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If one party is claiming to have been hit and the other says I did not hit, who do you believe? How do you decide that?

It's not our job to.

Quote:
The main point is that when charges are dropped in cases of domestic violence, it doesn't always mean that nothing happened and that's where the story ends.

I totally get the first part of that.  But if the story doesn't end there, where can it possibly end?

Do we just say that "where there's smoke, there's fire" and assume that even after acquittal or dismissal, an accused "probably, likely, almost surely" actually did it?

That's my problem with this.  There seems to be no differentiator between someone who is acquitted (or has their charges dismissed) because they didn't do it, and someone who is acquitted (or has their charges dismissed) even though they did.

To continue to assume they're guilty (and even more Kafka-esque, to demand that they 'account for what they did') flies in the face of "better than a guilty man go free..."

And honestly, even more to the point (and even more disgusting):  Ashton had a pretty clear and obvious horse in this race.  To bring up a dismissed court case in the eleventh hour, in the hope of smearing his opponent and winning, is gross.  Just gross.  I don't live in Manitoba, but I can't deny being kind of happy to see his plan backfire.

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:
That's my problem with this.  There seems to be no differentiator between someone who is acquitted (or has their charges dismissed) because they didn't do it, and someone who is acquitted (or has their charges dismissed) even though they did.

Someone else with more background knowledge of the law can speak to this in greater detail than me, but I think what you said is essentially correct.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If one party is claiming to have been hit and the other says I did not hit, who do you believe? How do you decide that?

It's not our job to.

Quote:
To continue to assume they're guilty (and even more Kafka-esque, to demand that they 'account for what they did') flies in the face of "better than a guilty man go free..."

I agree. Even if we assume that the worst of these allegations is true, I don't know if there would have been a good way for Kinew to talk about that.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
And honestly, even more to the point (and even more disgusting):  Ashton had a pretty clear and obvious horse in this race.  To bring up a dismissed court case in the eleventh hour, in the hope of smearing his opponent and winning, is gross.  Just gross.  I don't live in Manitoba, but I can't deny being kind of happy to see his plan backfire.

True to a point. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think Ashton uncovered anything about Kinew that wouldn't have been uncovered anyways. Both other main parties would have wanted to use this for political gain. The PCs would use this to play into racist notions of the associations between Aboriginal people and crime. The Liberals would use this to say that the NDP can't be trusted to walk the walk when it comes to protecting women and children.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If one party is claiming to have been hit and the other says I did not hit, who do you believe? How do you decide that?

It's not our job to.

On the one hand you believe the victim. You accept her/his story unless it is proven wrong. On the other, when it comes to an accused, you believe her/his story unless it is proven wrong.

This is not a contradiction at all because if you are not the judge or a member of the jury, you do not have to reconcile these things. If you are a judge or on a jury then you have to make that final determination and one would hope that you have enough evidence to be certain.

People feel a need to decide things they cannot determine. They feel a compulsion to resolve conflicts and uncertanties even if there is not a real means to do so -- prejudice completes the action and all-to-often this prejudice has acted against women. Knowing the unknowable is the cause of mythology.

It is fair to let the evidence bring you as far as it can and leave the gap as unresolved rather than to make up that difference out of a personal compulsion to resolve all information conflicts.

The fact that women normally tell the truth about assaults and rarely report them when they occur (often due to not being believed) means believing them is just even if we are left with conflicts.

If you feel that you always need to just believe one side or another, where it is not your role to do so, ask yourself why.

Aristotleded24

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Thankfully, the Manitoba NDP dodged a bullet with Steve Ashton.  Now let's hope the federal party does the same with Niki Ashton.

What exactly did the Ashton family ever do to you to deserve your hatred and contempt?

And the man just chosen to lead the Manitoba NDP was charged with domestic violence in the past. Do you think that doesn't have the potential to damage the party's chances electorally? Even if Ashton wasn't the one who dug them up, do you not think the PCs and Liberals wouldn't have?

I did agree with you upthread that this tactic was underhanded. Setting that aside, Ashton has done tremendous service to the NDP and that is nothing to sneeze at. Despite media portrayals, Ashton is more popular and respected in the NDP than you would believe. In the 2014-2015 leadership race, he waited until the leadership race was officially underway before officially declaring, rather than holding a press conference and go for a blatant power grab, as was the case with Oswald. He won the constituency delegates, and I'm convinced on that basis that had the NDP used a one-member-one-vote system, Ashton would have won. During the recent renewal discussions that the NDP had, one of the items on the agenda was to move from a delegate system to one-member-one-vote. Do you know who led that charge? Steve Ashton, not Wab Kinew. And having participated in some of the events, it doesn't feel to me like the NDP actually did any listening. Rather, it feels very much to me like the NDP wanted to annoint the next Gary Doer who will lead the party back to the Promised Land of governing, rather than do any of the hard work of rebuilding and listening. You may think the NDP dodged a bullet, but believe me, forming government in 2020 is not guaranteed, and even losing seats is a very realistic possibility.

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
If you feel that you always need to just believe one side or another, where it is not your role to do so, ask yourself why.

I don't have a particular stake in this particular conflict on a personal level, although I do struggle with wondering how I would react to these charges if the exact same scenario were playing out against a member of a party I oppose. In terms of the politics, there is an issue of perception that people are going to have, especially coming from a party that claims to be for women's rights. Many victims of domestic and family violence are not going to support the NDP in Manitoba simply because while they hear from outside that their abusers are "nice," they experience a dark side of these people that is hidden to the rest of the world, and nothing Kinew says or does will convince them otherwise. It also feeds into the general perception that politicians lie to advance their personal agendas.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Thankfully, the Manitoba NDP dodged a bullet with Steve Ashton.  Now let's hope the federal party does the same with Niki Ashton.

OK...so you just hate anybody with the last name of Ashton?  

It's not as thought the NDP can only do well(or will even do better at all)by telling people on the left to go to hell.  The left wing of the party has never been to blame for any of its problems.   

You sound like David Lewis ranting about communists in the Sixties and Seventies, when large-C Communism was already extinct in Canada.

What did the Left do that you are so vindictively enraged about?  And where is the NDP if those people are continually disregarded?  It's not like the party ever stands for anything distinguishable from the old parties when the Left loses.

Aristotleded24

Ken Burch wrote:
It's not like the party ever stands for anything distinguishable from the old parties when the Left loses.

Just take a look at the record of utter NDP failure on the issue of poverty and children in care in this province, or the fact that the ridings with the lowest turnout in the last election were low-income safe NDP seats in Winnipeg and the North. How can the NDP claim to speak for the people when they can't even motivate their own base to come out and support them? Even the PCs in rural seats that are safe for their party are generally elected on much higher turnouts.

Pages