NDP Leadership # 103

Posted in the last thread:

The change to allow Quebecers to join the NDP when they are also a member of a Quebec provincial party was made many years ago. At least 1989, if not much earlier. Does anyone know?

I don't object to the NDP electing a leader who didn't join the party until 2007. We are open to new members. But surely Mulcair expects to answer "why didn't you join the NDP before 2007?" Maybe he has already, and I missed it?

Those who are supporting Tom's candidacy   (updated)

ps: in thread 94, someone mentioned Tom joined the NDP in the 1970s, but I can't find confirmation anywhere. I'll ask him if he comes to babble for a Q&A

There may be some perfectly valid reasons not to support Mulcair for the leadership - but his number of years as a party member is not one of them. Honestly, before Mulcair joined the party in 2007, the NDP was simply not a going concern at all in Quebec - it literally had no more than a handful of members in the whole province! If we start applying a "loyalty test" to Mulcair based on him "only" having been an NDP member since 2007 - what message does that send to all the thousands of Quebecers who have recently joined the party? Are we saying that there are two classes of NDP members?

Bingo

SDM, in answer to your question, under cap and trade permits would be auctioned off (or given away) each year; not one-time.

The revenue declines eventually but as emissions are reduced, prices go up so it would a long time before total revenue went down. Not sure how long exactly, but a question of decades, not years.

Put me down as an undecided who doesn't know where best to direct his donations. In terms of how folks have positioned themselves, my sympathies lie, in alphabetical order, more with Ashton, Nash, Saganash (when he was in the race) and Topp. In terms of their abilities to handle the performative aspects of the job, Mulcair and Cullen seem to be leaving everyone else in the dust -- and Mulcair the only one able to do so in both official languages. I was really expecting a more dynamic performance from Nash, in particular. As it is, I don't know what to think.

That's what the Liberals said about John Turner as opposed to Jean Chretien (that Chretien didn't have the charisma to win).  Turner as we know lost miserably.  The fact is, people really don't know.  I don't have a crystal ball that accurately reflects the future, and presumably you don't either.

Link  En entrevue, M. Mulcair insiste sur son «background social» et sur ses activités bénévoles passées. «J'ai choisi le NPD parce que c'est le parti qui correspond à mes valeurs, à mon background. J'ai d'ailleurs pris ma première carte du NPD en 1974, dit-il. En plus, j'ai tout de suite connecté avec Jack Layton sur l'environnement.»

In case this hasn't been posted before, and apologies if it has. Nathan Cullen: An Economy for Canadians, Not the Oil Patch

Perhaps.  but I thought it a good thing that the article reported a consensus emerging among Quebec MPs that they need either Mulcair or Topp.

I second that. And I fear it will cause some bad blood in the party... especially by Topp supporters if Tom wins.

I've talked to someone in Peggy's campaign and they're not too happy with Topp right now as well.

This is a trivia point / and maybe a question.

LONG time ago some Mulcair supporter described Globe reporter Daniel Leblanc as a "friend of Topp's". I'm always skeptical of such assertions / comments, but I know nothing about him.

He's now written a lot of articles about the NDP race. And even when he first started writing I saw evidence that he was well connected. That does not imply as most people probably take it that he has been connected for a long time. A reporter can make it their business to cultivate broad connections.

If he is some kind of friend of Topp's, he hides it well. He makes points that could have come from all the different camps [as well as quoting them or referring to them directly].

Do you honestly think Mulcair is anything like John Turner? Not only would Mulcair eat Turner for breakfast, he has more principles then Turner and wouldn't get but kicked in a debate by Brian Mulorony.

Turner and Mulcair have nothing in common, Mulcair is a winner and Turner not so much.

Not very difficult to grasp, KenS... Topp has been pushing attack lines against Tom so many Topp supporters don't trust Mulcair and think he's the next Paul Martin. I've come across more Topp supporters who have said they wouldn't support a Mulcair NDP. And Topp is helping that along with how his campaign is run.

Maybe Topp should follow Jack's letter a little more closely.

HM. there's some leaps in logic and connections that just sound reasonable.

That does not make for a reasonable insinuation of stirring up bad blood- ie, something that lasts much longer than a leadership race.

You seem to forget that active NDP supporters are volunteers. People put time into things because they are worth them. There are more people for which that is condidtional than those for which it is essentially not conditional.

Yes, I've seen that quote several times, and have no reason to doubt it. And I also understand he let it lapse at some point, which is quite understandable: he was only 20 years old in 1974. He was called to the bar in 1979. In 1983 he became Director of Legal Affairs at Alliance Quebec. He probably didn't hold a card in any party, federal or Quebec, at that point. He was President of the Office des professions du Québec (1987 to 1993), again perhaps incompatible with partisan activity.

In 1994 he was recruited to run for the Quebec Liberals, and became a member of that party. I'm guessing (do we have to guess?) that he did not join any federal party from 1994 until 2007? Has he explained why?

Considering Mulcair's maternal great-grandfather was former Quebec Premier Honoré Mercier, he's hardly shy about political activity.

I doubt any of the candidates are especially polarizing to most of the members, let alone the millions of NDP voters. There may be some drawn out tough battles among people on babble, but the race itself has been extremely tame with few policy differences compared to the Liberals, let alone the past 30 years of U.S. primaries for both major parties. Even the babble spats are nothing compared to what I saw from observing the U.S. primaries.

I have zero doubt that the party will unify around the leader no matter what.*

(*Assuming that the debates don't get any tougher, which they might. And discounting the obligatory protest from the self professed socialist caucus.)

Nathan Cullen's Bid to Lead NDP Gets Social Media Boost

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/02/17/nathan-cullens-bid-to-lead-ndp-gets-s...

"Two big online advocacy organizations are giving a potentially big boost to Nathan Cullen's underdog campaign to become NDP leader. Avaaz and Leadnow.ca are promoting more cooperation among Canada's 'progressive' political forces to defeat PM Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

And now they're urging new members - almost 700,000 strong - to join federal opposition parties in a bid to influence their agendas - including their choice of leader.."

And George Soros, had much the same idea..

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/avaaz

Not talking about differences of opinion. That's fair. Have it in the debates. And we've seen it. But putting words into a candidate's mouth and saying they should be a New Democrat longer before being leader isn't about "vision". It's an underhanded attack. Jack would never have done that. Do you see other candidates doing that?

I think you're a little too supportive of Topp to see how it's not going over well.

I just figure that if you're a New Democrat, you're not filled with the same sense of entitlement that the Liberals have. Nobody joins the NDP because they expect an easy ride to a kushy government job, or even because they love power. Being a New Democrat means fighting a long hard battle, and we've never really come close to winning it in all of Canadian history. The idea that someone would blow apart the caucus because they didn't win just doesn't fit with the stage that our party is at, and the type of person we've always attracted. I could see the caucus blowing apart because of an ideological dispute, but there haven't been any major policy wedges.

Perhaps the only thing that could divide us are geographic issues: Quebec versus the ROC, or urban versus rural. But that's not going to happen in the leadership race. That's going to happen when Harper or Rae start looking for wedges.

Our unity will be fine, at least after the convention.

Making statements and 'just observations' based on one's convenient notions of what motivates people is your special department.

I think you can leave that qualifier off. Even if the rhetoric gets considerably more heated, its over when its over. There will be personal wounds to heal, and some very active volunteers will leave being active. But that is always happening, we just notice it at times like this.

There is zero chance of the kind of running internal wars the Libs have. The maximum effect will be possibly some egos so bruised and animosities that dont go away enough so that some people cannot contribute to their full potential. Someone may even leave entirely to go off and do something else. These things should be expected. You can strive and hope to do much better, but it is unrealistic to expect better than that. Its also unrealistic, or not understanding, to see that sort of thing as signs of an 'internal war' or something like that.

A Topp-Mulcair alliance?

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/02/20/ndp-leadership-toward-a-topp-mulcair-...

Damn, ninja'd by Josh ;p

The stakes are high for all of us, and whoever we support, and those of us who still do not know who we will support.

But someone it is only dissing on Mulcair that REQUIRES answers from supporters.

Well's guesses are reasonable, but they are a hash.

One big reason, is the Quebec MPs notwithstanding, and even allowing for their collective influence on the voting, I dont think the Mulcair/Topp combination is one of the biggest #1/#2 choice combinations, even though there a few on this board. But even more reason, being #2 to Mulcair does no candidate sweet fuck all. And if you are on the #1 side, thats all that matters [and keeping it that way].

I think there are other reasons that a Topp Mulcair alliance is feasible- like some of the other combinations are.

The only ways I see Topp backing Mulcair on the final ballot is if A) it looks like Dewar will be on the final ballot, Topp's not a fool B) if Quebec MPs press Topp hard and I think this is very likely.

As for the reverse, well lets be honest, we all know it won't be.

Still I think a Cullen Mulcair alliance is more likely.

The only 'alliances' between anyone and Mulcair, is with the other one dropping out.

And dont rule out Topp Cullen- perhaps more likely because it could be either of them deferring. Cullen and Mulcair being friendly in the debates is no more determining than Mulcair and Topp being virtually always pointy. But I dont think anyone dropping out to support another candidate is likely. Only possible.

The one exception I might make is that if Paul's campaign comes to agree that winning is impossible, then he might be more likely to decide to throw in his lot with someone. But even there, there are plenty of solid internal arguments against doing that. For one thing, I doubt being on the last ballot will be deemed impossible. And if you can get there....  And a lot of candidates are going to be persuaded that no matter their chances they need to say in, and/or they dont see a single other candidate that stands well above the others to them. I couldnt even guess which of this lot is most likely to be like that. The inclinations against dropping out could be especially high for a particular candidate, without it being outwardly obvious.

This is a good observation. Not that the leader sets policy, but the candidates ought to be asking the members which direction we want to go. I agree the differences between the candidates haven't been significant enough to make me say "I need to support X" let alone "I can't support Y". Which is valuable, because we ought to have a choice, and debate allows us to reveal the weaknesses in various ideas.

I also agree there's a lot of people blowing up otherwise small issues. I'm not even going to disagree that there are differences, or even that they're somewhat significant. But it keeps telling me that the differences between the candidates -- and maybe even a lot of the members -- is that of strategy and tone, not substance.

I was lead to believe that Peggy Nash's campaign has released their poll, but can't find it anywhere.  Any ideas where I can find it - sorry if it is easily detectable on a related thread (or, gasp, this one) but I'm home watching a sick little guy so my attention is not undivided.

Good news!  Cultural activist Todd Wong, aka "Toddish McWong", the founder of Gung Haggis Fat Choy (a hybrid celebration of Robbie Burns Day and Chinese New Year), is supporting Brian Topp.  Good to see that more and more people are standing behind Topp's call to restore tax fairness to make sure the top one percent pay their fair share.  The NDP will win by sticking with our principles!

I'm sure Nash has polls but it would be a silly time to release it with the deluge of the membership numbers about to fall, unless the poll will somehow allow her to spin those numbers advantageously, but I haven't heard any rumours to that effect either. 

I think a lot of Topp supporters would (holding their noses perhaps) rank Mulcair ahead of the other candidates because many of them are very strategic minded and don't want to elect a leader who would be lethal to the party in Quebec.

BTW: One thing no one has talked much about is whether some candidates might let it be known who their second choice is and invite their supporters to follow suit. Martin Singh has reported that he has signed up 6,000 members. What if Singh puts out word that he has Mulcair as is second choice? I have to believe that a lot of the people he has signed up in Sikh temples etc....will be heavily influenced by that.

I think the new members are the most easily swayed by who their candidate, or their candidates' endorsers, boost as a good second choice. That is because I am presuming these new sign-ups largely did so out of admiration/to support the candidate that they signed up for and they may also have a weaker history of attachment and thus be lesser informed vis à vis the other candidates.

As such, the candidates with the most new signups are probably the ones you want to target for down ballot support (if these candidates drop out though, it may be their supporters would not vote at all).

I think the effect of the Québec MPs saying Topp or Mulcair is an indication to (new) Québec members to rank either one first or second, and I think it will have influence. So in the event Mulcair drops, I would expect a bunch of his Québec support to swing to Topp, and in the event Topp drops probably the same could be said of his Québec support going to Mulcair. I think the main non-benefactor in all this is Peggy Nash, who clearly has some Québec presence.

Are final membership numbers going to be officially announced by the Party?

Before anyone spins this as "not a big deal," consider this: the Conservatives had 112,000 donors in 2008, the NDP needed big membership gains to even get into the ballpark in terms of competing with the CPC. The NDP is now probably in the ballpark. Can the new leader continue to grow the party and take it to a win? One thing is for sure, they will be starting from a good base.

We'll never raise funds like the other parties. We aren't beholden to huge corporate lobbyists. There's no money in being a New Democrat.

Funny, though. For all the money spent by the conservatives, they only increased their vote total by 1%. The liberals spent a ton and lost money. We spent less and gained more votes.

Fundraising is important, but it's not everything.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ontario-bc-dr...

44,000 new memberships sold. A over 50% increase in membership, that's certainly awesome.

Of course its just a start. Hopefully when the race is over another membership drive will start.

Target for that drive, 1 million members :)

Actually that is incorrect. To have voted in the BC NDP leadership contest last year, you had to have joined the party by January 10 (I think), 2011. Your membership would have lapsed and had to have been renewed in order to be part of the 38,000 BC members eligible to vote in this contest.

Really?? Someone must have forgotten to tell Christy Clark. She is a dyed in the wool federal Liberal and she HATES the NDP with a passion and prefers to work with Harper's people.

I like to watch what the Liberals and Conservatives think about the race. If only to see what they think our weaknesses are, and only to see what they're afraid of.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/ndp-...

You have to take everything Warren Kinsella says with a HUGE grain of salt, because his job is (first and foremost) to get Liberals elected. Even the far right wing ones in BC. But I've found that when he does his Liberal soul searching, he usually raises criticisms I'd agree with as a New Democrat.

He says the thing that creates the biggest problems for Liberals and Conservatives is if we can hold that "beachhead" in Quebec. I definitely felt that Quebec was important for our party. But if it's important for pissing off the other parties, that matters to me too. :)

By that token, he said Mulcair and Topp are the only logical choices. I wouldn't agree: Ashton or Nash have solid French, and even for all the complaints I have about Dewar, his French is improving. But Topp and Mulcair are definitely the only two who have much name recognition in the press *currently*. I've been hoping that anyone else would catch fire, particularly Peggy Nash.

It just hasn't happened yet, and I'm not sure how it could happen. And if it doesn't happen, Mulcair is the biggest beneficiary.

While Hunky and Ken continue to go at it, I have a question on "legitimacy" of win.

When Jack won the leadership, on the first ballot, it was pretty clearly a solid and overwhelming win.  Not that there weren't hurt feelings and bruised egos - there always are in these contests, even the nice-NDP ones - but it was hard to come up with a compelling "but for" narative to nurture an unresolved grievance upon.

I would be very surprised if this one goes in such a clear-cut manner, so the question is how big a win is needed to keep the backbiting to a minimum?  

If the front-runner on the first ballot (Mulcair) takes it on the second or third ballot without the other contenders really forming around an ABM candidate then I don't see the legitimacy issue being raised, those that are concerned about Mulcair's perceived "centrist" streak will be on watch for deviation from orthodoxy but I'm not it would be seen as much different from what we normally do.

However, what if Nash or Dewar end up building support through subsequent ballots to pass Mulcair - can it be done WITHOUT it being seen as an ABM, or worse, and anti-Quebec outcome?  If only through the eyes of the MSM that seem ready to jump on anthing that suggests we aren't ready for prime-time.  If it's Nash as opposed to Dewar - is that better?  Or worse?  Not from a "best leader" perspective but in terms of pulling the team together once we are done?

Steve Shutt has a good point.

I still maintain that the average person, even the average member, has no strong feelings on the race. Most people I talk to like multiple candidates. Outside of the actual volunteers and a few people on Babble, I haven't met anyone who says "it has to be" any candidate. When people raise concerns about other candidates, it's always "can they win?" Not any strong hatred. If they can inspire the confidence of more than half the members, that lends at least a bit of credibility to their "winningness".

It's not who wins, or even how they win. It's how the other candidates lose. If any of the candidates adopt a scorched earth tactic, like "if you vote for my rival, you won't recognize the NDP", or "your attack on me is really an attack on all the members of Quebec", it could inflame the contest and turn soft preferences into hard limits.

I don't see that happening. But you never know with the egos in politics.

Ditto.

Wow, that's almost a 30% increase in BC alone. Amazin'.

Nathan might be having a very good showing.

LOL.

You are joking, right?

I am curious about this too.  Are these "lapsed" members coming back to the fold or new to the party members?  Nathan to be sure but I wonder how many are brought in by Topp, Nash, Mulcair and Dewar - and Singh's network of supporters.  He claims some 6000 new sign-ups, impressive if true.

The next test would be turnout.  Membership sales aren't as impressive as votes at the convention.  Anyone have a link to the totals from the last conventions in terms of NDP, Liberal and Conservative votes (absolute and % of those who could).  Will be telling indicators of NDP enthusiasm.

"The BC NDP is an alliance of Federal Liberals and NDPers."

What!....tell that to Christy Clark!  Wow!

I like this headline

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/national/memberships+skyrocket+heading+...

Fundraising, organizing for elections, voting on internal party positions, nominating candiates, educating the public about issues in concert with other members, maybe focus some more of the riding associotions work on community volunteerism, and socialize/make friendships with other like minded people.

I signed up some family from PEI :)

What colour are "organs"?

:)

Interesting editorial board interview by the Toronto Star with Brian Topp. Once again, i am totally impressed with the content of what he has to say...I see that he is still going after Mulcair for wanting to move the party to the centre etc...and i would like to see Mulcair's rebuttal to that.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1134802--ndp-leadershi...