Joe Comartin - The Same Old Stuff, Only Louder ?

October 1, 2002

Joe Comartin's campaign thus far is best summed up by this comment from an informed observer - "great MP but why is he running for leader?" Indeed, on the surface, Comartin's main claim to leadership fame seems to be chutzpah - it's certainly not a compelling new vision for the party.

News scans bring up little on the Comartin leadership campaign, except, unfortunately, two early gaffes. In an inauspicious start to his campaign, Comartin released an ill-advised attack on Lorne Nystrom after an erroneous news report suggested that Nystrom was launching his campaign the same day as Comartin. A few days later Comartin's son attended a leadership forum on behalf of his father, generating a spate of news reports criticizing the substitution and obscuring what, if anything, happened of substance at the debate. On the positive side, there have been a number of news articles referring to Comartin's activities as environment critic - a testament to his energetic performance as an MP, if not to his leadership potential.

A scan of the Comartin leadership website won't bring any cheer to advocates of change within the NDP. Apparently feeling that current NDP policies just need to be communicated more often and more loudly (a common feeling among NDP leadership candidates), Comartin promises a "bold and aggressive campaign" and says he will "take risks" so the NDP is not simply the "left rump" of the Liberal Party. (editor's note - does anyone actually believe the NDP is the "left rump" of the Liberal Party?)

Comartin is clearly staking out the "NDP is not left enough" ground, pitting him against those who hope for change in the modern social democratic vein. Fair enough, but Comartin also seems to be "winging it" on policy. Take, for example, his assertion in his "peace statement" issued September 9, that 600,000 Iraqi children have starved to death as a result of UN sanctions. Comartin must be getting his statistics from the Iraqi Bureau of Propaganda because there is not a single credible source of information to back his statement up. Iraq, even under the sanctions regime, has a higher per capita income than most of Africa and much of the Middle East. Even before the oil for food program, Iraq's economy still functioned well enough to provide for basic needs, although Saddam Hussein and his allies siphon off obscene amounts of money for corrupt purposes. There is absolutely no evidence of widespread death as a result of starvation, and, if Comartin would stop to think about it, he would realize what a spectacularly silly assertion he has made. Comartin also talks of the "slaughter of thousands of innocent men women and children", without explaining exactly how and why these people might be "slaughtered".

Other than Comartin's unfortunate peace statement, there is little stated policy that would lead one to hope for change in a Comartin NDP. He promises "full employment" and that protecting health and safety will come before profits. He promises that Canadians won't have to pay for health care out of pocket. He also promises that people won't go to jail "because of the colour of their skin or their country of origin". These supposedly radical stands lead one to wonder which of the candidates for the NDP leadership doesn't believe in full employment, workplace safety and health and publicly funded health care? Which candidate believes that people should be jailed because of their skin colour? Comartin, typical of the old left within the NDP, is largely flailing at shadows - knocking down straw men rather than proposing anything genuinely new.

Remarkably, for someone proposing to "change the NDP", Comartin has said almost nothing on the record to explain how he would implement that change. Would he reform NDP/labour ties? Would he form a separate federal NDP? Would he look at outlawing union political contributions? Would be undertake a thorough review of NDP policy or would he, as indicated by his campaign so far, say the same thing, only louder?