A call for the NDP to withdraw from the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group

A call for the NDP to withdraw from the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group

The undersigned are appalled by the recent deaths in Gaza. At least 110 Palestinians have been killed and thousands injured by sniper fire and noxious gas used by the Israeli military. The recent violence takes place alongside ongoing land theft, destruction of olive groves, construction of Jewish-only roads, imprisonment without due process and a blockade of Gaza. During its 70-year history Israel has been as unjust towards Palestinians as the white-ruled apartheid state was to Black South Africans.

We are concerned that members of parliament would seek to strengthen relations with a country systematically violating Palestinian rights.

In particular, we are dismayed that NDP justice critic Murray Rankin and NDP defence critic Randall Garrison serve as executive members of the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group. NDP MPs Peter Julian and Gord Johns are also members of that organization. The Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group promotes “greater friendship” between Canadian MPs and members of the Israeli Knesset and has organized events with other pro-Israel lobby organizations.

It is wholly inconsistent with the avowed principles of the NDP for the party to be working for “greater friendship” with a country that is killing and maiming thousands of overwhelmingly non-violent protestors, many of them children, as well as journalists and doctors, while systematically violating international law and human rights standards with regard to all Palestinians.

Accordingly, we call on NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, MPs Garrison, Rankin, Julian, and Johns, and the parliamentary caucus to immediately disassociate themselves from the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group.


List of individuals and groups endorsing statement:

Roger Waters, co-founder Pink Floyd
Noam Chomsky, professor
Linda McQuaig, author, NDP candidate
Maher Arar, 2007 Time Magazine 100 most influential people in the world
Amir Khadir, Québec Solidaire, member National Assembly of Quebec
Sid Ryan, former president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, NDP member since 1981
Mike Palecek, President Canadian Union of Postal Workers
Chris Hedges, author
Steve Ashton, long-serving NDP member of the Manitoba legislature and cabinet minister
Monia Mazigh, academic, author and former NDP candidate
Jim Manly, former NDP MP 1980-88
Richard Falk, Professor of International Law, Emeritus, Princeton University
Norman Finkelstein, author
Antonia Zerbisias, CBC-TV and Toronto Star veteran journalist, NDP member
Medea Benjamin, co-founder CodePink
El Jones, activist, educator, journalist and poet
Gordon Laxer, Professor Emeritus University of Alberta, NDP member since 1963
Jean Swanson, author, Vancouver housing and poverty activist, NDP member
Murray Dobbin, journalist, broadcaster and author
Azeezah Kanji, (JD, LLM) legal analyst and writer
Stephen von Sychowski, President, Vancouver & District Labour Council
Mike Bocking, former Unifor Local 2000 president and federal NDP candidate in 2004, 2006 and 2008
Sheelah McLean, Co-founder of Idle No More, NDP member
Alain Deneault, author, Directeur de programme, Collège international de philosophie
Ramzy Baroud, editor Palestine Chronicle, author My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story
Sana Hassainia, former NDP MP
Will Prosper, filmmaker and civil rights activist
Charles Demers, writer/comedian, NDP member
Rob Lyons, Former NDP Member of Saskatchewan Legislature (Regina Rosemont)
Saron Gebresellassi, Human Rights Lawyer and Activist
Clayton Thomas-Müller Stop-it-at-the-Source Campaigner - 350.org, NDP member Manitoba
Leon Rosselson, Songwriter & children’s author
Cy Gonick, former Manitoba NDP MLA and founding editor of Canadian Dimension
Propagandhi: Jord Samolesky, Chris Hannah, Todd Kowalski and Sulynn Hago
Andrea Harden, climate justice organizer and NDP member
Sam Gindin, Retired, Unifor Research Director and Retired, Packer Chair in Social Justice, York
Trevor Herriot, author and naturalist
Harsha Walia, activist and writer
Sandy Hudson, activist and writer
Ellen Woodsworth, writer, organizer and former Vancouver City councillor
Judi Rever, author
Candace Savage, author of two-dozen books, NDP member
Aziz Fall, president Centre Internationaliste Ryerson Fondation Aubin
Corey Balsam, National Coordinator, Independent Jewish Voices Canada
Gary Porter, FCPA, FCGA, CA, executive member Saanich Gulf Islands, NDP EDA
Sibel Epi Ataoğul, Labour and human rights lawyer and lecturer at the University of Montreal, founding member of the Association des juristes progressistes, former NDP member
Terry Engler, President I.L.W.U. Local 400
Hossein Fazeli, writter and film director, winner of 37 awards
Martin Duckworth, documentary film-maker, winner of le Prix du Québec 2015
Dara Culhane, Professor of Anthropology at Simon Fraser University, winner 2018 Weaver Tremblay award of the Canadian Association of Anthropology
Gary Kinsman, gay liberation and social justice activist, co-author of The Canadian War on Queers
Ernest Tate, former vice-president of CUPE, Local One
Jess MacKenzie, long time NDP activist
Herman Rosenfeld, retired Canadian Auto Workers national staff person, former NDP member
Mohammad Fadel, Associate Professor of Law University of Toronto Faculty of Law
Chris Huxley, Professor Emeritus, Trent University, long-time NDP member
Charlene Gannage, Associate Professor Emerita, University of Windsor, long-time NDP member
Samir Gandesha, Associate Prof and Director of the Institute for the Humanities, SFU
Reem Bahdi, Associate Professor of Law
Faisal Kutty, Lawyer and Professor of Law
Natalie Zemon Davis, Professor of History
Tyler Shipley, Professor of Culture, Society and Commerce, Humber College
Joseph G. Debanné, former Chair of the Middle East Discussion Group
Yavar Hameed, Human Rights Lawyer, Former NDP Member
Robert Massoud, Beit Zatoun
Faisal Bhabha, Associate Professor Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, NDP Member
Emily Carasco, Professor Emeritus
Martin Lukacs, writer
Jason Woods, Vice-President I.L.W.U. Local 400
Leslie Miller, retired Sociology professor  at the University of Calgary, NDP supporter
Suzanne Weiss, Palestinian rights activist and Holocaust survivor
John Riddell, author and editor, NDP member
John Orrett, President Thornhill NDP Federal Riding Association
Richard Fidler, writer, translator, Ontario Bar
Maria Páez Victor Chair, Canadian, Latin American and Caribbean Policy Centre
Marion Pollack, retired Canadian Union of Postal Workers representative, NDP donor
Marv Gandall, former journalist and trade unionist
Yves Engler, author, NDP member
Art Young, Palestine solidarity activist, Canadian political prisoner, Quebec 1970
Andrea Glickman, NDP member, Vancouver
Nick Fillmore, news editor and producer with the CBC for more than 20 years
Conrad Alexandrowicz, theatre artist, scholar, instructor at University of Victoria, NDP member
Nadia Abu-Zahra, Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, NDP donor and long-time member
David Rifat, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto
Tim McCaskell, author, Queer Progress
Larry Hannant, writer, historian and NDP donor
Richard Sanders, researcher, writer, antiwar activist 
Cara-Lee Malange, peace activist
Larry Wartels, born Jewish, NDP Member Victoria BC
Randy Janzen, College Instructor:  Peace and Justice Studies
Fred Jones, former president Dawson Teachers’ Union, NDP member
Ali Mallah, Federal NDP Candidate Election 2000, Former Vice President Ontario NDP
Grahame Russell, director Rights Action
Peter Eglin, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Wilfrid Laurier University, long-time NDP member
Michael A. Lebowitz, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Simon Fraser University
Hassan Husseini, labour negotiator and activist, Member of Unifor and Labour for Palestine
John Price, Professor of History, University of Victoria, longtime NDP supporter
Greg AlboDepartment of Politics, York University, Centre for Social Justice
William S. Geimer, Professor of Law Emeritus, member of Vancouver Island Peace and Disarmament Network
Anthony Fenton, researcher PhD Candidate at York U
Arnold August, author
Steve Heeren, Professor, Convener, Palestine Study Group
Katherine Nastovski, Associate - Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition, McMaster University and Labour for Palestine
Evert Hoogers, Labour researcher, retired CUPW National Union Representative
David Bernans, union leader, NDP candidate and current NDP member
Eva Manly, retired filmmaker, activist, lifelong NDP, now Green
Robert Mahood, Family Physician, member of NDP Socialist Caucus
Kevin Neish, Mavi Marmara massacre survivor
Sid Shniad, Research Director, Telecommunications Workers Union (retired), Member, national steering committee, Independent Jewish Voices Canada
Ken Hiebert, Palestine solidarity activist and retired trade unionist
Chris Cook, Managing Editor and Broadcaster Pacific Free Press/Gorilla Radio
Howard Breen, Executive Director Urgent Climate and Ocean Rapid Response, Unifor 433
Tareq Ismael, professor
Kimball Cariou, editor of People's Voice newspaper
Debbie Hubbard, Member of Amnesty International Kelowna, Palestine Study Group Vernon, NDP member
Mark Golden, professor emeritus of Classics, University of Winnipeg, longtime NDP donor and campaign worker
Kevin Skerrett, trade union researcher
Randy Caravaggio, Sculptor
Al Engler, retired trade unionist and long-time NDP member
Tsiporah Grignon, awakened citizen, Gabriola Island, BC
Mazin Qumsiyeh, director of the Palestine Museum of Natural History at the Palestine Institute of Biodiversity and Sustainability at Bethlehem University
Lia Tarachansky, Israeli-Canadian journalist and documentary filmmaker
Charlotte Kates, International Coordinator, Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network
Walid Chahal, Continuing Lecturer, Lakehead University; co-chair Diversity Thunder Bay, former NDP member
Phil Little, retired teacher from Ontario Ladysmith, B.C.
Taina Maki Chahal, Contract Lecturer, Lakehead University, former NDP member
Karen Rodman, Reverend, NDP member
Morgan McGuigan, ESL Teacher
Jean Rands, retired trade unionist and long-time NDP member
Joan Russow, Global Compliance Research Project
Laura Westra, Professor Emerita (Philosophy)
Jason Kunin, Toronto teacher and writer
Henry Evans-Tenbrinke, Human Rights, Labour and Pro Palestine activist
Julius Arscott Executive Board Member of OPSEU and member of NDP Socialist Caucus
Ken Stone, Hamilton Mountain NDP member for 35 years
Ian Angus, editor Climate & Capitalism
Erika Shaker, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives director of the Education Project, NDP member
Amy Miller, documentary filmmaker, NDP member
Alroy Fonseca, Federal NDP member
Bob Chandler, COPE 343 member, Toronto Danforth NDP member
Paul Tetrault, Cupe Staff Lawyer (retired), longtime NDP member
Eva Bartlett, activist and independent journalist who lived three years in Gaza
DimitriLascaris,lawyer, journalist and activist, NDP member
Kevin MacKay, author, professor at Mohawk College of Applied Arts and Technology, labour and co-op activist
Reuben Roth, Associate Professor, Labour Studies Program Laurentian University, NDP activist in Oshawa riding since 1984
Aminah Sheikh, union organizer, worked on numerous NDP campaigns
Eric Martin, professor of philosophy, Edouard-Montpetit CEGEP
Byron Rempel-Burkholder, member of Mennonite Church Manitoba working group on Palestine and Israel
Krishna Lalbiharie, Member Canada-Palestine Support Network, President St. Johns NDP Constituency (Manitoba)
Michael J. Carpenter, Postdoctoral fellow, University of Victoria
Mark Etkin, MD FRCPC
Ed Lehman, NDP member, Cupar, Saskatchewan
Bianca Mugyenyi, activist and author
Rana Bose, Engineer, author and playwright, NDP member NDG borough
Norman Nawrocki, Author, musician, actor, part-time faculty Concordia
Rachel Engler-Stringer, Associate Professor, Community Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, NDP member
Joe Emersberger, Unifor member, writer
David Weller, retired teacher and IJV member
Eric Shragge, retired professor
Gary Engler retired union officer with Unifor Local 2000 in Vancouver, NDP member
Monira kitmitto, Canadian Palestinian activist and NDP member
David Kattenburg, science educator, web publisher and social activist
Stephen Ellis, lawyer and activist
Barry Weisleder, Chairperson NDP Socialist Caucus, delegate to most NDP federal and provincial conventions since 1971
David Heap,Associate Professor, UWO, human rights & peace advocate, NDP member
Avrum Rosner, Retired union president, son of Holocaust survivors, joined Manitoba NDP in 1969
Diane Field, PhD Candidate at University of Calgary
David Lethbridge, professor of psychology, retired
Ray Zimmermann mariner captain
Sharon Hazelwood: political musician, long-time NDP activist
Chris Black, lawyer, former NDP member
Hani A. Faris, Ph.D. Professor of Political science
Freda Knott, Raging Granny, NDP member, Independent Jewish Voices Victoria
Cory Greenlees, Victoria Peace Coalition
SL Rifat, Neuroepidemiologist
Geneviève Nevin, organizer Independent Jewish Voices Canada-Victoria, NDP activist and member
Gavin Fridell, Canada Research Chair in International Development, NDP member
Justin Podur, Associate Professor, York University
Rana Abdulla, CPA Palestinian Activist and fights for what's right Human Rights Award Recipient 2014
Georgina Kirkman, member of Independent Jewish Voicesand Amnesty International, Victoria
Mostafa Henaway,organizer at Immigrant Workers Centre
Bruce Katz, organizer Palestinian and Jewish Unity, former NDP member
Malcolm Guy, filmmaker, Montréal
Jooneed Khan, writer, journalist, Human rights activist, former NDP member
Annette Lengyel, Human rights and social justice advocate, NDP member Calgary Nose Hill
Theresa Wolfwood, Barnard-Boecker Centre Foundation
Dan Freeman-Maloy, postdoctoral fellow, Université du Québec à Montréal
Sheryl Nestel, PhD, NDP member
Alan Sears, Professor, Ryerson University
David Camfield, labour activist and educator
Freda Guttman, Artist/Activist, member of Tadamon
Virginia Daniel, Victoria Raging Granny, CAIA member, NDP member
Judith Deutsch, psychoanalyst
Ron Dart, Department of Political Science/Philosophy/Religious Studies University of the Fraser Valley
Susan Clarke, non-partisan peace activist, Sooke BC
Kevin MacKay, former Campaigns Officer at Ontario Public Service Employees Union
Dru Oja Jay, co-founder of the Media Co-op, Friends of Public Services and Courage
Edwin E. Daniel, WWII veteran, scientist and peace activist
Antonio Artuso, activist, translator and interpreter - Communist Reconstruction Canada
Derrick O'Keefe, Vancouver-based organizer and editor with Ricochet Media
Henry Veltmeyer, professor Emeritus of Development Studies at Saint Mary's University
Jerome Klassen, UMASS Boston, author of several books on Canadian foreign policy
Suha Jarrar, Policy Researcher at Al-Haq human rights organization in Ramallah, Palestine
Ismail Zayid M.D. President, Canada Palestine Association
William K. Carroll, Professor and Co-director of the Corporate Mapping Project Sociology Department University of Victoria
Mohammad Ali, the Socialist Vocalist, Artist
Yazan Khader, former member of Nova Scotia NDP Provincial Council
Andrew Mitrovica, writer and former executive assistant to NDP MPs Pauline Jewett and Simon de Jong

Groups:
Independent Jewish Voices Canada
Canada Palestine Support Network (CanPalNet)
Victoria Peace Coalition
NDP Socialist Caucus
Canadian BDS Coalition
Palestinian and Jewish Unity
Toronto BDS Action
United for Palestine Toronto/GTA
People For Peace London, Ontario
Socialist Action / Ligue pour l'Action socialiste
Palestine Solidarity Network - Edmonton
Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid Victoria
Mid-Islanders for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
Barnard-Boecker Centre Foundation
Canada Palestine Association
Canadian Peace Congress

Do you have a left point-of-view or opinion, event, open letter or petition, a recipe or a story you want to share?

Send them to The Left Chapter via theleftchapter@outlook.com

Saskatoon NDP debate sees testy exchanges and a strong outing from Angus

And then there were four.

With the withdrawal of Peter Julian from the NDP leadership race the remaining candidates met for the fifth official debate (there was one "unofficial" one held in Toronto) Tuesday night in Saskatoon. While for the most part it was a fairly tepid affair (perhaps due to the reversion to the bizarre format that does not allow applause or audience feedback until the very end) it did have some lively moments notably when both Charlie Angus and Guy Caron sparred with Jagmeet Singh over the 'universality' of Old Age Security.

This was certainly a moment where some very real division emerged as Angus rather combatively and directly questioned what he saw as Singh's abandonment of the NDP's commitment to the principle of universality for social programs like OAS which Singh wants to see made means-tested to focus benefits more towards those who most need them. Singh, whatever one thinks of his position, certainly held his own by telling Angus that he needed to "do his research" as OAS is already means-tested to a degree as it is clawed back on those who make over $70,000 a year. He also said he found it "offensive" that millionaires would receive benefits that poorer and middle-class seniors need so much more. Caron countered that while OAS was not universal it should be and that the principle of universality was an important one that the NDP has fought for and that is party policy.

It was a memorable exchange.

Otherwise there was not much that was new in terms of differentiating the candidates other than rhetorical and policy lines that had been drawn before.

Angus, in fact, had a very strong night overall. He reflected the populist "person of the people" image he has been striving for more effectively than he has to date. He easily had the line of the night early on when he said of Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall's opposition to a national carbon price that he was like "the man violently defending the future of the typewriter when everyone else has moved to cellphones."

He was also very effective when he spoke of the need for a housing strategy that would put billions of dollars to better use than Liberal "rubber duckies" and military interventions, with lines like how he would not "carry the plates for the Liberal dinner" when talking of a potential future NDP-Liberal minority government, and had his most humanizing moment of the debates so far when  he spoke passionately of how he faced excommunication and threats from the pulpit when he stood up for marriage equality rights in spite of his faith and how he would always stand for secular, civil rights principles.

Singh also had a solid outing and not just when he defended against Angus. He presented himself as the "growth" candidate while talking about the need for strong principles to achieve real results on issues like poverty. Even when playing the old pragmatist card about how it really was about getting power he did so eloquently. He also very forcefully spoke to the consequences of systemic racism in policing, something that he noted he alone of the candidates understood first hand.

While Ashton did not have the night she did in Toronto she was was still focused and very well-spoken with no real missteps, though her evoking of Manitoba as an example of principles leading to power may not have been the wisest one given the rather lackluster and ineffective record of the provincial NDP government there achieving anything remotely akin to fundamental change of the kind she has sought to embrace.

She did, however, stay on her message of the need for a shift to the left both within the party and society more broadly, speaking of how she wants to create a politics to believe in, see a "socialist vision in our country" and build an NDP that "does not seek power for its own sake but to change Canada and the world". Ashton was also willing to speak in strong terms about how religious beliefs have, at times, been used to marginalize and oppress people.

Caron had the fewest highlights perhaps in part due to his singular fixation on the policy plank of a basic income that does often leave him sounding one note. In fact, Ashton hit back well on this policy fixation during an exchange in which she noted that basic income is in itself not a policy solution to the problem of precarious work (which it is not). He did have a couple of moments though as when he challenged Angus in French on how Angus would work to recapture the NDP's 2011 strength in Quebec (intentionally or otherwise highlighting Angus' relatively poor French) or when he told the audience "don't let the socks fools you" calling out Trudeau as a "Bay St., big business lackey", a point as well stated as it is true.

The next debate is August 2 in Victoria.

You can watch a recording of the debate on CPAC.

See also: Ashton strong in lively Toronto NDP leadership debate

See also: Fourth NDP leadership debate sees some actual debate bucking the tedious trend

Ashton strong in lively Toronto NDP leadership debate

Last night the NDP leadership candidates met in Toronto at what was an '"unofficial" debate organized by the United Steelworkers. Perhaps due to this the debate was the liveliest and most interesting to date with telling exchanges and real energy in the room.

In part this was directly attributable to the fact that the organizers lifted the idiotic and deadening "no applause" rule of all the official debates. This allowed candidates to see when their lines or messages were resonating and to, in some cases, feed off of this. Hopefully the NDP's debate brain trust will take note and nix this silly prohibition.

The debate format also allowed for more actual interaction between the candidates and produced some notable moments. While the debate was still dominated by platitudes and rhetorical flourishes (some less successful than others) it also saw differentiation around specifics or the lack thereof.

Two of the clearest instances of this put Jagmeet Singh on the defensive both times. In the first Guy Caron noted that Singh's poverty reduction plan for seniors included the elimination of universality for the Old Age Security (OAS) benefit. Caron correctly stated that this was a repudiation of the NDP's historic commitment to universality, would open the door to the "stigmatization" of those receiving it if it became means tested, and would be something that the party would absolutely oppose if proposed by the Liberals or Conservatives. It was the highlight of an otherwise quite weak outing for Caron.

Singh countered that his plan would use focused and targeted programs to eliminate poverty among seniors and did not in anyway back down on his proposal which certainly puts him at odds with traditional positions on this issue within the left.

In the second case Ashton questioned whether Singh's plans for more progressive taxation went far enough. She contrasted her commitment to taxing capital gains at the same rate as income with his proposal to raise the capital gains rate to 75% while also stating that his idea of introducing new and higher personal tax rates on those making $350,000 and up was too high a bar that left out a great number of very wealthy people. Singh was left to state that he was open to other ideas on the matter and also highlighted his call for a tax on estates valued at over $4 million, though without noting that this valuation would exclude principal residences making it a tax that would apply to only a very tiny number of them.

Similarly, Peter Julian went at Charlie Angus for the lack of any numbers or specifics in Angus' proposal for a hard carbon cap. Angus answered with the non-answer of saying that it would all be decided by a future committee of scientists. Angus generally turned in a rather forgettable and paint-by-numbers performance that seemed tired and neither built on nor offered anything new versus the past outings.

Singh on the other hand, despite the two moments above, was quite dynamic with considerable support from the crowd while displaying his genuine charisma and oratorical skills. He had powerful points as when he said the NDP had to resist and oppose any attempts to privatize public infrastructure projects and came out with solid proposals such as creating a comprehensive urban agenda (he was the only candidate to really show an understanding of the importance of this and of having specific polices centred on cities like Toronto) and banning the practice of carding by the RCMP across Canada.

Likewise Julian rebounded from his lackluster St. John's appearance. He was charming, likable and at times even rousing getting one of the biggest rounds of applause when saying that if temporary foreign workers are "good enough to work" in Canada they are also good enough to live in Canada. On policy Julian stuck to his themes emphasizing such things as environmental issues and free tuition plans to good effect.

The night, however, was truly Ashton's night. She was focused and on point with her message throughout delivering not just her strongest debate so far, but the strongest outing of anyone in any of the contests yet. From the first question to last she had nary a misstep while working to clearly differentiate herself from the rest of the candidates, and while hammering away at the Liberals, neo-liberalism and issues from precarious work to pensions. Even when the questions were those that produced considerable consensus her responses stood out.

This led to a closing statement in which she directly positioned herself as the champion of the left by saying that she was the only candidate calling for "fundamental change", that incremental change "won't cut it", and by referencing and drawing inspiration from Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn.

It was a fitting end to a debate that will have no doubt fired up her supporters.

See also: Fourth NDP leadership debate sees some actual debate bucking the tedious trend

See also: The winner of the Sudbury NDP debate was the terrible format

Fourth NDP leadership debate sees some actual debate bucking the tedious trend

The fourth NDP leadership debate held Sunday in Newfoundland was the only one yet to actually approach something like what one anticipates and wants from a real debate. For the first time we saw a format that in a couple of very brief parts allowed the candidates to confront and question each other on differing polices and priorities.

Again, however, most of the "open debate" questions posed by the organizers were questions on which there was likely to be (and was) broad consensus somewhat defeating the point of the open debate sessions at all. They also continued with the bizarre "no applause" policy that truly sucks all the energy out of the room and makes the debaters seem unnaturally formal and stiff.

A new section was added where at two relatively short points the candidates were allowed to directly question each other (called straightforwardly a "Question  Period") and here we finally had some intensity as they sparred on a number of important issues.

For this contest five were present with the short-lived candidacy of "The Colonel" happily having become what will be a fairly bizarre Canadian political footnote.

Jagmeet Singh was significantly stronger during the first parts of the debate than he was at any point in the last one and showed some of the oratory and charisma that many anticipated he would bring to the table. He also talked up the fairly comprehensive (though flawed) Income Security Agenda that he had just released -- a policy platform that we will be looking at more closely in a future piece. He needed this strong first part, as it turned out, as the second half did not go nearly as well.

Guy Caron opened by directly questioning the other candidates in various ways, as almost a foreshadowing of things to come, in what was likely his high point of the whole affair.

During most of the open debates there was little that stood out in part for the reason above. During the "debate" on healthcare funding, for example, Caron noted that they all basically agreed! The non-debate Q & As where each candidate had a minute to answer were similarly not terribly lively or newly enlightening.

The emphases were different though in ways that are becoming more pronounced and expected as the candidates push their agendas and overall campaign tones and with recurring references to their campaign themes and slogans.  We saw this, for example, when they were asked what their first action would be if they became Prime Minister with Niki Ashton emphasizing economic justice, Charlie Angus justice for indigenous peoples, Singh his income act and Caron electoral reform.

Peter Julian seemed somewhat off his game at times though he had his moments especially towards the end. In fact, his answer to the rather light question as to what the candidates would want to be doing as a job if they were no longer politicians was one of the highlights of his debates to date. His answer was very human and heartfelt, clearly deeply meant and likable as he looked back at his times at a brewery, teaching, and working with the disabled for which he showed his great passion.

A low for almost all of the candidates came during their "open debate" on what lessons could be learned from the UK election. This had a darkly, humorously high level of hypocrisy and bullshit running through it. It was hard to watch folks like Singh, a veteran of the reactionary ONDP 2014 provincial campaign, or the others who all went quietly along with Mulcair's explicitly centrist and Third Way debacle in the lead up to and during the 2015 federal election disaster, during this part. Ashton alone (and she has at least been very critical, after the fact, of the 2015 campaign) seemed to "get it" not just given the overall message she has been running on but when she noted that Corbyn had fought not only the establishment in the UK generally but also the establishment within his own Labour Party. She had also been campaigning with more rhetorically left polices even before Corbyn's unexpected reversal of fortune. Otherwise it was pretty clear that everyone else had really not learned much of anything.

In the "question periods" is where this debate became at least slightly memorable. These were Singh's weakest moments by far as he evaded questions posed by Ashton, Julian and Angus. When Ashton and Julian asked him to state clearly his position on Kinder Morgan he outright refused to with a silly song-and-dance about how he would make an announcement on it after talking with Horgan in BC and Notley in Alberta and trying to spin this as displaying leadership though one would have thought that anyone wanting to lead the federal NDP (whose federal caucus opposes Kinder Morgan) would have taken the time to look into and form an opinion on such a critical issue already. He also deflected Angus' question about whether he would run for a federal seat even if he lost the leadership vote by seeming to claim that his pledge to continue to campaign for the NDP both provincially and federally was a straight answer, which it was not.

Likewise Angus was really bad when Julian questioned him about free tuition and "pragmatism" coming off as smug and condescending while trying to give an unconvincing mini-lecture on what "aspirational' means. When Julian raised some numbers that have been floated for helping to finance it Angus was left looking like his answer had been little more than an ill-advised verbal cop-out.

Caron and Ashton had a notable exchange after Caron asked her why she was not backing his basic income plan. Ashton responded that the idea of a basic income was often supported by the right and while Caron then countered that his plan would be fundamentally different Ashton was very effective when she said that the better alternative was to fight for the broad expansion of the social safety net.

The closing statements were a return to theme, generally were unsurprising and, perhaps as a result, not terribly inspiring.

Ashton was good here giving a strong statement centred around the idea that "progressive politics based on principle and policies rather than polling and public relations is also good electoral politics" -- a point that seems to have been largely lost on the NDP for some time -- and forcefully conveying her sense that the party needed to shift left.

The fourth debate was the most interesting and informative to date and Ashton would seem to have been the most consistent and on message throughout it. It remained hampered again, though, by the continuing, clear pattern of raising debate questions that seem tailored to minimize debate.

See also: The winner of the Sudbury NDP debate was the terrible format

See also: NDP's second debate a more lively affair with stronger performances

The winner of the Sudbury NDP debate was the terrible format

If anyone can be said to have truly won the flat and very boring third NDP leadership debate in Sudbury this past Sunday it must surely be the debate organizers who delivered the dreary and dismally deadening format which produced a contest that would be a sure cure for insomnia.

Many questions were either peripheral or almost certain to lead to what would be more-or-less a consensus with softballs around Liberal ethics and how to handle the Trump administration as opposed to a set focused on the very real fault lines on important issues that exist between the candidates.

Equally awful is the insistence that the audience refrain from applause at any point until the end. This is fundamentally misguided. It kills any sense of excitement or enthusiasm, lessens the impact of a good or emotional line, makes it very hard for a candidate to create momentum in the debate, and also makes it difficult for either them or us to gauge audience reaction. It truly makes no sense at all and is detrimental to the purpose of a debate which is showing that a potential leader can create energy among people.

The whole affair had only a handful of moments or points to it.

One of them would have to be that those thinking that the entry of Jagmeet Singh into the race would bring some pizzazz or "excitement" to the contest must have been left disappointed. Given the high bar of expectations set, Singh clearly failed to deliver in this outing. His opening and closing statements were no more or less compelling than those of the other candidates and he seemed to lack an overarching theme or policy agenda to present other than beating the Liberals, a goal to which I think it likely that all the candidates can be said to aspire.

Even when asked (somewhat indirectly) by Niki Ashton to state where he stood on the Kinder Morgan pipeline he followed by talking about something else. His narrative was driven largely by platitudes.

Ashton's outing was not her best of the three debates though she stuck to her key themes, remained solidly on the left of the field, tried to challenge the other candidates on particulars at times and had a strong opening.

Perhaps in part due to the format the two more technocratic candidates, Guy Caron and Peter Julian, seemed at their strongest to date, though this is more relative than impressive. Julian also stuck to his principled stance against any pipeline expansion while Caron kept much focus on his central basic income plank.

Charlie Angus was very good at points, though his overly folksy pitch continues to grate as trying too hard for authenticity which ironically renders it inauthentic. Still, when he spoke of how the NDP had to make it clear it was not a part of the political establishment and to reach out to and include its base more, saying that people don't trust the party either, he was compelling. He was, as well, articulate and powerful on issues around native rights and his rhetorical focus of having the backs of the people came into its own and registered, perhaps through months of repetition, more forcefully.

Pat Stogran had the best line of the afternoon when he spoke of his mother's advice to“spit in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up first", a genuinely funny moment that stood out all the more in contrast to the general tone.

Otherwise, though, Stogran's first debate was something of a train wreck with him flubbing questions or not really answering them, basically admitting at one point that he did not have a solid grasp on social policy, thanking everyone for their patience after saying he had a lot to learn (endearing honesty perhaps, but unwise) and delivering the debate's low moment when claiming that millennials had been closed out of permanent jobs due to the labour movement which is an absurd and anti-union contention.

At any rate, after a second debate that was fairly lively this was a return to the doldrums that will likely leave many hoping that there will be something to wake them up when September comes.

See also: NDP's second debate a more lively affair with stronger performances

See also: The NDP's leadership debate begins not with a bang but a miserable whimper

NDP's second debate a more lively affair with stronger performances

The second debate in the NDP's leadership campaign was, thankfully, a more spirited affair than the first one, although it really had nowhere to go but up.

While the format was still constricting and many of the questions tended towards issues on which all of the candidates would largely agree, in this instance they far more clearly strove to differentiate themselves from each other. All were also significantly stronger in their delivery.

This debate, held in Montreal, was intended to be centered around youth issues and was for the most part successful in this. There was a lot of discussion around student debt, precarious work, social movements and issues likely perceived as being of greater significance to younger New Democrats and voters such as the legalization of marijuana (although how accurate this assumption is could be open to some debate as well).

On that issue there was little discord with every candidate supporting the liberalization of laws and decrying the lack of movement to date on the part of the Trudeau government on its election promises. Guy Caron still managed to play the policy wonk stiff by emphasizing the economic benefits of ending prohibition while Charlie Angus likely scored some points with his more lighthearted and humorous comments about having been in a band and the clouds of smoke that were evidently a regular feature of that.

But while some obvious and predictable areas of concurrence remained, the constant attempts to pat each other on the back and to be the first to say how much they agreed with everyone else that ran through the previous engagement were, mercifully, dispensed with.

On taxation they all seemed rather muddled with musings about lowering the small business tax rate (not a good idea), raising corporate taxes (far less effective on its own than many social democrats seem to think) and that old catchall of "closing loopholes". But not a single one of them touched on the idea of raising personal income taxes even on the wealthy. This is a serious oversight that deeply undermines any commitment to fighting the growth in inequality which has been directly fueled by a generation of personal income tax cuts that have overwhelmingly benefited the well-to-do the most.

In some areas clear battlelines are being drawn. The most obvious of these is on pipelines. In the section of the debate centered around climate change Peter Julian, as he has from the start, took a clear stance against them while Niki Ashton strengthened her line and seemed to essentially rule out new pipelines as well. Angus used the climate change section to praise the NDP Notley Alberta government's record (without, of course, pointing out Notley's very harmonious relationship with Justin Trudeau on pipelines) which would seem to indicate, as he has previously, that he is staking out the most pro-Alberta, pro-pipeline, pro-resource economy position. Caron, meanwhile, had one of the more unexpected ideas of the afternoon when proposing that the government possibly get into the business of developing electric cars.

Caron, oddly, seemed often to lack policy depth as when he kept hearkening back to his universal basic income proposal as some kind of panacea even when this was silly or fanciful. Caron's notion that a basic income would help young people to seriously confront student debt loads or with housing issues is a real stretch. A basic waged income certainly does not do that for working people now and basic income schemes are not a substitute for debt relief or a plan to eliminate tuition fees.

Angus came out more forcefully than in the first debate and remained so throughout. He has recently pledged to make First Nations issues central to his campaign and was at his best when hammering at the Trudeau government for having not just failed to live up to their promises to First Nations but for continuing with corporate giveaways while young people in First Nations communities face severe systemic injustices. When he spoke of how the NDP's role was not to be the conscience of the Liberals but rather to win power to deliver a government that would have the people's "back" it was almost stirring.

Overall though Angus continues to appear to be depending on his personality and the notion among many that he is a fighter to pull him through. How long he can bank on this without a coherent overarching narrative to his campaign remains to be seen, and he did have some notably weak moments such as when the debate turned to deficits and stimulus spending and in his odd answer on electoral reform.

Julian was something of a surprise and adopted a tone notably more to the left than he has in the past. His opening and closing statements were well delivered as was his call for the NDP to be a clear and bold left alternative and movement. This rhetorical shift may reflect a sense that, given his pipeline stance, his campaign feels it may be competing more for the votes of those who might be inclined to support Ashton (or Sid Ryan) than was originally anticipated.

Ahston delivered an all round solid performance both within the terms of the debate and in keeping to her message. She spoke of how this generation of youth is the first that risks being worse off than their parents and of the importance of turning the tide on neo-liberalism by fighting against privatization and for an expansion of social programs in areas like pharmacare and dental care.

When the question turned to social movements like Idle No More and Black Lives Matter Ashton talked of the need for genuine engagement, solidarity and respect and, again, of how fundamental they were to her perspective. Given that she has been the target of some rather unfair and reactionary criticism on this front of late, this showed resolve and principle.

She had another very strong moment when speaking of the need for democratic reform and greater diversity within the party itself, of how disappointed she was to see candidates in the last election having their nominations revoked over issues like the Israel - Palestine conflict, and of the NDP's "need to be proud to be a left party".

While there were still a couple of silly distractions like asking what the candidates views on pineapple on pizza were (and, disappointingly, not a single one of them was willing to take the proper position that there is no place for pineapple on pizza outside of the worst food philistinism, but I digress) this was a more compelling and interesting debate while still lacking in any real back-and-forth.

Overall, Ashton seemed the likely winner both in her delivery and by presenting a consistently coherent campaign narrative, though both Angus and Julian had their moments and were in better form versus the first go-round.

See also: The NDP's leadership debate begins not with a bang but a miserable whimper

See also: No, it is not a good thing if 4 NDP MPs all pat themselves and the party on the back in a leadership "debate"

No, it is not a good thing if 4 NDP MPs all pat themselves and the party on the back in a leadership "debate"

In the wake of the almost unbearably boring opening 'debate' in the campaign for the NDP leadership a number of narratives emerged from those seeking to somehow cast this descent into the doldrums in a positive light.


These articles/posts were along the lines that it was a good thing for the debate to be "civil" and that this contrasts positively with the Conservative leadership debates, that trying to work together to build consensus is a part of 'movement' or 'party building', and that it was all about "introducing" the candidates anyway. These were usually accompanied by a variation or another of 'no matter who wins the party will be in good hands'.

What total nonsense.

First, while it is important for debates to be respectful, that only applies when they still remain meaningful debates. Disagreement and some level of division and contention is inherent to debate and is not a negative. To point to the Conservative's low level of gutter debate and imply the two alternatives are this and what passed for debate at the first NDP contest is absurd. Simply communicating vague talking points with slightly different emphasis and laying out a scant number of ill-defined policies all while frequently saying how much everyone agrees with everyone else is not a debate.

Even when Caron appeared to say that the NDP had been mistaken in opposing the push on the part of some politicians in Quebec for a niqab ban none of the other candidates challenged him on the point.

Serious debate is fundamentally important to democracy and that is as true within parties as it is generally. In fact, nowhere is it more necessary than within the NDP which has a very long history of stifling it -- a history which has basically made its convention membership policy resolutions meaningless and that goes as far back as kicking out the Waffle. 

This is even more important to point out given that the NDP just came off of a disastrous, highly centralized, profoundly undemocratic (see purges of candidates and 'Fred Checkers') and centrist campaign and that none of these four candidates who were MPs at the time had anything critical to say about it when it might have mattered to the outcome.  After the surprise of Mulcair's ouster, the party also went out of its way to make sure the type of candidates and voices who would be there to be heard in the campaign for a new leader would be limited to a certain type through the imposition of an undemocratic and steep leadership entry fee. 

When they were asked what the NDP could do to increase diversity in the party and in who represents it and gets a public voice within it, a candidate serious about changing things might have pointed to this obviously exclusionary act.

The trouble with 'consensus' within the NDP right now is that it is always the consensus of the party establishment and its sycophants. The idea that it is a positive thing after the 2015 debacle for the leadership candidates -- who are all very well paid MPs who appeared to have no issue with the Mulcair/Layton centrist, centralized strategy when they thought it might mean they could get to be part of a government -- to be patting each other and the party on the back and trying to minimize internal disagreements/debates is totally wrongheaded. While it is perfectly obvious why they might want to avoid opening the can of worms that is their complicity with the party being where it is now, failing to do so is just more of the same and more of the problem

It also has nothing to do with any 'movement' building (the NDP is not a movement at all, it is very much a parliamentary, hierarchical, top-down political party) nor even party building as presumably that would include trying to connect with activists outside the party who have been troubled by its direction and internal culture.

Round one was an 'introduction' that showed four candidates who cannot yet to be taken seriously on shedding the party's recent past. The only one at this point who seems at all willing to take the party in a truly different direction is Ashton. Angus' populist rhetoric is shaping up as only a change in tone (at least until we see some actual polices from him) while Julian and Caron would be a reversion to an earnest pseudo-social democracy that is long on good intentions and generally short on everything else.

The NDP is at a moment, yet again, where it needs to engage in critical self-examination and it should be entirely obvious that this is the case. It also needs to have honest, lively, democratic and real debate internally as to its direction, past and ideology and that is going to be divisive at times as that is the way a healthy democratic debate works.

So far things do not initially bode well that this is going to occur.

See also: The NDP's leadership debate begins not with a bang but a miserable whimper

The NDP's leadership debate begins not with a bang but a miserable whimper

It was a "debate" that seemed altogether too much to be framed by the party faithful and for the party faithful.

In a 90 minute session that you can watch at your leisure on CPAC, the four announced contestants in the NDP leadership campaign spent what turned out to be an almost unbearably slow session trying to say how much they loved each other and the NDP while making soaring rhetorical statements that were seldom backed up by policy.

Anyone hoping to hear any kind of real debate or contrition from four MPs who went along uncritically with the catastrophe that was the NDP's centrist campaign in 2015 would have had little to feel good about except for one brief moment.

Backed into the corner, as they are, of being insiders that enabled disaster they were unable to truly debate each other as one might have hoped as they had all been players in the same game.

As a result we were treated to an exceptionally tepid affair that failed to lay out any compelling vision of any coherence.

While this was the first of several debates, if this were the one that anyone potentially interested in renewing a membership or seeing serious self-criticism within the party watched they would have come away profoundly disappointed.

The sole slight exception was Niki Ashton who, briefly, admitted that the NDP had been outmaneuvered on the left by the Liberals in 2015 and called on them to collectively "be that left party" in one of the debate's very few highlights.

Admittedly the format was terrible and seemed designed to prevent any serious discord, something which the party always appears very keen to avoid in some bizarre unwillingness to be critical of powerful or leadership supporting colleagues who are, one might note, exceptionally well paid parliamentarians who really neither need nor deserve the kid gloves.

Guy Caron, as expected, was the policy wonk and tried to represent continuity. He, not entirely incorrectly, said that fighting inequality and climate change required a serious policy framework, but other than a pledge to fight for a basic income scheme he did not offer one. He did say that his vision of basic income would be different from that that many liberals and conservatives offer though he failed to say how outside of platitudes.

Caron also, in one of the debate's low moments, seemed to imply that the niqab debate in Quebec not only hurt the party (an absurd ongoing claim given that the Liberals took the same position) but that the position should be reexamined. When asked about expanding inclusion in the party he fumbled it terribly by saying of the NDP that it is "here you will find the answers to your problems" which is not just dismissive of the question but seems to imply that the lack of diversity in the NDP can be solved by people simply supporting the NDP!

Peter Julian spent much of the debate telling everyone how much he agreed with everyone else, which is sweet but hardly conducive to an interesting discourse. When he got around to saying anything real he was actually the only candidate that had a real policy framework however loosely drawn. He took the strongest stand against pipelines, was good on trade deals and generally came off as knowledgeable and also as a very likable person that you would love to have come in to guest teach your grade ten civics class.

Still. with shout outs to Rush and talk of driving through Quebec in a Lada he had brief moments where he might have connected with those of us whose hearts remain in 1988.

Charlie Angus tried very, very hard to play the "man of the people" card. He even spoke of going to the bar to watch hockey and having the bartender demanding of him "what happened to you guys" a carefully played nugget of "I am with the people" meaninglessness. One should not try too hard to connect with people too broadly, as the trying often highlights a lack of connection.

He was, however, willing to use the term working class and did so right at the very start. At moments he was also quite compelling to listen to.

At the same time he also framed trade agreements in very nationalist terms and pipelines in a way which seems calculated to appeal to a resource economy wing of workers. He seems to be placing himself in some alignment with the Alberta wing of the party on this front which will make his position problematic to Leap Manifesto supporters and environmentalists.

His low moment likely also came when asked about how the party might increase diversity when he replied "There are 3 principles for me...NDP" which, despite him attempting to draw a narrative around it was like with Caron was both dismissive of the question and mindlessly partisan in a way that one would expect but that is also disappointing.

Niki Ashton struck out from the left from her opening statement on but did so with a continually very nebulous notion of how she would get the country and party there.

She talked very forcefully of turning back the "neo-liberal agenda" and brought back her powerful slogan  "You privatize it, we nationalize it. You deregulate it, we regulate it." She was at her strongest when she talked about the need to reconnect with the grassroots of the party and to look beyond winning the 2019 election and towards building a leftist party and movement. She was at her weakest when she came out against pipelines but in a sneaky and equivocal way that clearly implies that if she thought they were somehow environmentally acceptable and acceptable to indigenous people then they would be ok, which is either obfuscation or absurd as any pipeline of any length and meaning will never meet these criteria.

But while her performance was far stronger than in 2012 and had its moments, it was not as strong as might be needed for those who wonder why she did not distance herself from the fray earlier.

The pathetic unwillingness to seriously debate on the part of all candidates as if doing so will somehow be nasty made this both a boring and totally uncompelling affair if the NDP is truly trying to excite new people to join and vote. They might next also want to dispense with the lightweight "human interest questions" that ate up a lot of time with nonsense that was completely unenlightening.

Overall it was likely won by a small nose by Ashton vs Angus (her main competitor) and by Julian against Caron (his main competitor).

But it was exceedingly dull and uneventful and if the NDP and the leadership candidates actually want to engage people they had best kick it up a notch as this was an utterly sad start.

See also: Niki Ashton launches her campaign from the left as NDP race heats up

See also: New directions or continuity? -- The NDP leadership race begins in earnest

New directions or continuity? -- The NDP leadership race begins in earnest

After a long period in which it almost seemed no one wanted the job, the NDP leadership campaign has begun in earnest with three candidates -- Peter Julian, Guy Caron and Charlie Angus -- having thrown their hats into the proverbial ring.


The delay is hardly surprising given that the party placed a steep monetary barrier in the way of running (presumably to keep out the radicals and the riff-riff and to limit the field only to the kinds of "serious" candidates that the party elite want to see) and that the new leader will face some real challenges in the wake of the party having squandered an historic opportunity under the leadership of Tom Mulcair.

The delay went on for so long that some in the party actually started organizing to try to persuade Tom Mulcair to try to return to the post, an inane idea from a strategic standpoint that, were it to come to pass, would relegate the NDP to total irrelevance.

That seems to have gone nowhere, but "modernizers" Layton and Mulcair have left a legacy that a new leader must confront. Intoxicated by the whiff and potential of power they took the party further towards than the center than it has ever gone. While those who wish to canonize Layton are loathe to admit this, the centrist strategy was one that he somewhat unexpectedly but entirely wholeheartedly embraced (Mulcair's rise in the NDP, it must be remembered, occurred in no small part because of Layton) and while it appeared to be vindicated in 2011 when the NDP became the Official Opposition for the first time in its history, it came crashing down when the party was dealt a devastating defeat in 2015 that ended with it back to its 'traditional' third-party role.

As we have noted at some length in several previous articles by different writers on The Left Chapter, Mulcair's strategy allowed the party to be outmaneuvered rhetorically on the "left" (one must use the term rather loosely here) by the Trudeau Liberals. [ See: "The follies of the NDP running a right wing populist campaign", "Delusion continues to rule the day in Mulcair NDP",  "Game Over -- Turns out Mulcair is simply wrong about even today's NDP and deficits", "The NDP's phony “credit card” analogy: a neoliberal conception of the public household" and "Catastrophe: The NDP lost because it deserved to" among many others ]. The slow-motion catastrophe of the NDP's 2015 campaign was one we chronicled as it unfolded, correctly warning that it was both foolhardy and was likely to end badly.

In the end the Layton/Mulcair goal of trying to squeeze out the Liberals led to the reverse and it was the NDP that was squeezed out. The inherent danger when your approach is lacking in principle or depth is that another approach that appears to have more of those two things, however cynical, can easily derail yours.

The Layton/Mulcair strategy's failure not only means that the contenders are no longer vying for the leadership of a party that appears to be on the cusp of power, but also that clearly a new direction and tone is in order and they will have to decide to what degree to embrace this reality and what this new direction will look like. For the first three open contenders they will also have to do this somewhat cautiously as they all were loyal members of Mulcair's caucus and (at least publicly) were uncritical supporters of the strategy in the lead up to the 2015 debacle.

For the first time since the 90s the party is back to having to try to understand and to some extent to justify why it even exists. Some will insist that the party can do this simply by holding the Liberal's feet to the fire over predictable broken promises or the fact that any progress that has occurred under them has been more rhetorical than actual. But somehow it seems unlikely that trying to present one-selves as the more honest, efficient and 'progressive' liberals will be enough to fire the imaginations of Canadians and to make the NDP a contender or, at the very least, to make what it is fighting for inspiring and important.

On can anticipate that many of the candidates will tack left and attempt to distance themselves from the past approach.

Of the three candidates who have so far come forward it would seem that BC MP Peter Julian has the longest road to travel on this front should he wish to. Julian was a Mulcair loyalist even after the election and has in the past come off as cautious and moderate. He launched his campaign by promising to fight to eliminate all tuition fees for post-secondary education and took a stance on pipelines that, on that issue at least, would place him on the party's left. His website, while at this stage short on particulars, has pages like "Climate Change is Real", "We are the 99%" and "On Native Land" that are obviously trying to frame his bid in certain terms.

Caron can be anticipated to present himself as the candidate to preserve what is left of and to recapture the party's dramatic inroads in Quebec that were made in 2011. He launched with a promise to work for a universal basic minimum income as his central plank, a policy that is increasingly embraced by liberals and even old-style conservatives and that is hardly radical anymore. He also at his launch emphasized the importance of being "credible" on economics which has long been code among social democrats for avoiding anything terribly left-wing! His website frames him as a policy wonk (it even says at one point "Opposition must come with rigorous proposition"!) and experienced. It is likely that he will try to represent some of the forces of continuity within the party.

Angus, on the other hand, came out of the gate trying to capture some of the alleged political populism that is supposedly in the air and talked about how politicians like Trump and O'Leary can only successfully channel populist narratives when parties like the NDP "fail in our job to stand up for working class people.” Despite having been in parliament for well over a decade, Angus in an interview with The Canadian Press also tried to emphasize the populist theme by saying he eschewed the "fancy functions" in Ottawa and "I come from a real place, I speak about real issues and I stay out of all the silly stuff.'" According to the Toronto Star "Indigenous issues will also be central to his leadership campaign" and there is no reason to doubt this given his impressive record and passionate advocacy of this critical front.

At the same time, however, he signaled that he would not call for a pipeline moratorium saying "We don’t throw a generation of workers under the bus to make a political point" which was perhaps unfortunately phrased as there is a lot more at stake in the struggle to shift our society away from fossil fuel consumption and to combat the incredible and even existential peril we face from climate change than simply a "political point".

His "Got Your Back" slogan is a clever mix of the folksy with a leftist tone. Angus, at least on some level, seems to wish to be seen as Canada's "Bernie Sanders" (he re-tweeted an Huffington Post article from late last year saying that he could be this just a couple of days ago) though presumably a Bernie Sanders who delivers a different outcome given that Sanders actually lost.

There are at least a couple more candidates who may yet emerge.

It is increasingly certain that Niki Ashton will enter the race as soon as next week and I think it likely she will adopt a left tone and stance within the field. Some leftists within the NDP have been waging a very public campaign (they even posted a website that was kind enough to outline what his platform could be if he steps forward!) to recruit former OFL leader Sid Ryan to run. While Ryan has only flirted with the idea to date, he has at least mused about the possibility. He would presumably add an explicitly anti-capitalist voice to the contest. Ontario MPP Jagmeet Singh is also considered a possible candidate and is widely regarded as an immediate front-runner if he chooses to run.

It seems the lines of battle are finally being drawn up and that the issues and themes that the campaign will be fought around will be coming into clearer focus very shortly.

Stay tuned.

See also: NDP Minister Brian Mason and Libertarian Party Leader Tim Moen agree! Jane Fonda is the problem, not climate change.

See also: Cardy, Smokey and a serving of New Year's whine -- Right wing 'progressives' ring in 2017 on a sour note