NDP Leadership 83

157 posts / 0 new
Last post
Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

From Romeo Saganash: Watch me face off with fellow leadership hopeful Thomas Mulcair, tonight at 8:30 on This Hour Has 22 Minutes!

mark_alfred

nicky wrote:

And in response to Mark -A, i don't presume to know the intricacies of capital gains tax but I have been paying it on and off for decades. I think it has always been taxed at 50%

Thanks for getting back to me nicky.  I've done a bit more reading on this, and I think it's not actually taxed at 50%.  Rather, it seems the profits on capital are taxed at whatever your income rate is, and then that is slashed by half.  Previously it was slashed by a quarter (multiplied by 75%), then back in 2000 or 2001 Chretien increased the tax-free portion of profits from one quarter to one half (50%).

This tax cut by the Liberals was supported by both the Alliance and the Conservatives, not the NDP.  What I've read suggests it disproportionately benefits the wealthiest in society.  So, if anyone can say why Mulcair feels otherwise, I'm certainly willing to be enlightened.  Until then, I'm with Topp on this one.

mark_alfred

Gaian wrote:
ma: "Anyway, if any of Mulcair's fans here like Hunky Monkey or nicky or doofy could clarify Mulcair's stance on this, I'd appreciate it." He said in Halifax that he was putting a tax scheme forward next month. And I believe this is the second or third time that's been mentioned.

Yes, I'll be curious to read that.  However, he did clearly rule out restoring the capital gains tax to its previous level, suggesting in the debate that the cut had not disproportionately benefitted the wealthy.  The fact that he'll be releasing more details in the future should not prevent people from listening to and asking questions about stands he actually takes in the debate, should it?

KenS

mark_alfred wrote:

Mulcair suggested this was not the case, giving (I think) the example of an average income person inheriting a cottage (would this even be considered a capital gain?  and if so, would the actual saving on taxes if preserving the 50% tax amount in such a circumstance be significant?).  Mulcair said that other changes in tax law would be better, since he did not feel that the cut to capital gains tax primarily benefitted the wealthy.  In searching this, I've found plenty of evidence to support Topp's claim, and none to support Mulcair's claim.

This is the stuff of debates, so its all fair game. But these points of Mulcairs are bunk and that would have emerged if the debate was continued. We're lucky tyo get 2 rounds from the candidates- but its easy to deflect the argument whan numbers are tossed around and there is a time limit.

Anyway:

I dont know if Mulcair said inherit a cottage of sell one. The former is different, I think he said the latter. Topp's policy exempts farms and businesses. You can check the website about cottages, I dont remember. If they werent also exempted, changing that is a detail.

I also do not remember whether or not Mulcair denied capital gains cuts primarily benefited the wealthy. But if he did, that is definitely bunk.

You could get into splitting hairs on that. I'm lower income, and have benefited from lowered capital gains. But it VERY disproportionately benefits the wealthy and higher income brackets.

writer writer's picture

Quote:

Too many "goods?" :)

(Not so many francophones. ;0])

clambake

Brian Topp email:

Quote:

 

I hope that you got the chance to tune into the NDP Leadership Debate Sunday afternoon in Halifax.

The theme was "giving families a break." And we had a spirited discussion about how to make life easier for families from coast to coast to coast.

 

Two things struck me:

 

First, I am continually impressed with the quality of the other candidates and the determination we all share to form a NDP government. I look forward to working constructively with all of them come March 25.

 

And second, there are some key differences emerging between the candidates on the direction our party and our country should take.

That difference was highlighted in an exchange I had with Thomas Mulcair. Tom and I agree on many things, but it's becoming clear that we don't agree on how to make our tax system more fair.

I believe that we should roll back the Liberals' cuts to the tax rate on capital gains, and create an income tax system is fair and sustainable. To accept the status quo isn't good enough. If we want to form an effective NDP government we will need bold policies that can build a better Canada; we can't be tied to an outdated system that benefits only a select few. Tom doesn't agree.

 

I have made my opinion clear: we need a system that is progressive, sustainable and can build a stronger tomorrow. My experience with progressive NDP governments has taught me that we need to be able to pay for the promises we make. We owe it to families, kids, seniors and everyday people across the country.

Tom and I have a legitimate difference of opinion. It's important to have this discussion with members so that you can best decide on the right direction for our party. You have a choice. As Canadians and as New Democrats we cannot be afraid to have this debate.

 

I encourage every member to engage in this debate about how our party moves forward to create a more equal Canada.

The strength of our party is in our people. I look forward to working with veteran activists and new members alike. New Democrats are the only party that can create the sort of positive change that will create a better Canada. Join my team as a volunteer or help by making a donation. Please pass this email along to your family and friends. Let's encourage people who have never joined a political party to join us to create real change.

 

I believe in a Canada that is caring. I believe in a Canada that treats its citizens fairly and with respect. I believe in a Canada that asks people to do their fair share and in exchange makes them proud of the way we look after each other.

 

I believe the NDP is the party to do that. Join me. Together, let's get the job done.

 

All the best,

-Brian

 

doofy

Perhaps SD is right that it wouldn't matter if we fell to 20% in the polls after we spruned Mulcair during the leadership race, as the new leader would have 3.5 years to make up ground....

On the other hand, you never get a 2nd chance to make a 1st impression. There are many historical precedents for QC political parties ending their honeymoons and never being able to recover.  I'm not sure I want us to take the risk...

 

 

writer writer's picture

NDP leadership hopeful Nathan Cullen says there’s nothing wrong with making a buck

"Cullen also seemed to disagree with the NDP policy that Quebec would be able to separate from the rest of Canada with a vote of 50 per cent plus one, suggesting instead realistically that would only begin the debate."

Unionist

If Cullen doesn't get with program, I may just be the "plus one"...

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Well, Cullen is now off my shortlist.

socialdemocrati...

doofy wrote:
Perhaps SD is right that it wouldn't matter if we fell to 20% in the polls after we spruned Mulcair during the leadership race, as the new leader would have 3.5 years to make up ground....

I don't think you're catching my argument. I'm saying that Quebec wouldn't feel spurned in the first place.

Most people don't care about politics to the degree we care on Rabble. We're here analyzing minor details for game changers. I'm saying the actual game changer hasn't arrived yet. Again, the average Canadian isn't paying attention. There are things that have far more immediate impact in their lives.

If there is no game changer, Tom Mulcair is more than likely our best pick.

But there's two months left. A few candidates (including but not limited to Tom Mulcair himself) could land on a message that resonates with voters across the country. If they can do that in French, they can hold our position in Quebec. If they can do that in English, they can grow the party in the rest of Canada.

That's my argument. It's very simple.

AnonymousMouse

mark_alfred wrote:

I was curious about the exchange between Mulcair and Topp on capital gains taxes.  It's something I didn't know much about, so I've done a bit of searching.  Topp suggested that the Chretien Liberals had cut the capital gains tax to 50% (apparently it had been higher -- perhaps 66% or 75% previously), and he suggested this was a regressive cut that primarily benefitted the wealthiest in society, and should be undone.  Mulcair suggested this was not the case, giving (I think) the example of an average income person inheriting a cottage (would this even be considered a capital gain?  and if so, would the actual saving on taxes if preserving the 50% tax amount in such a circumstance be significant?).  Mulcair said that other changes in tax law would be better, since he did not feel that the cut to capital gains tax primarily benefitted the wealthy.  In searching this, I've found plenty of evidence to support Topp's claim, and none to support Mulcair's claim.  Apparently, during the time that Chretien's Libs cut this tax, they were being supported to do so by both the Canadian Alliance and the Conservatives, and not the NDP. 

Anyway, if any of Mulcair's fans here like Hunky Monkey or nicky or doofy could clarify Mulcair's stance on this, I'd appreciate it.

No, Mulcair said some forms of capital gains disproportionately benefit the wealthy and shouldn't not get a special rate--the most obvious being sotck options--but that other forms like the small gain on selling a cottage should be treated differently.

wage zombie

writer wrote:

"Cullen also seemed to disagree with the NDP policy that Quebec would be able to separate from the rest of Canada with a vote of 50 per cent plus one, suggesting instead realistically that would only begin the debate."

Cullen's charismatic enough the I would've been willing to overlook his joint nomination plan but this is what's taken him off my list (his comments a few weeks ago actually).  I don't think he currently understands Quebec and I'm not willing to take the risk that he'll develop that understanding.

wage zombie

doofy wrote:

I agree with you: the next leader must inspire Canadians in both languages. This leadership campaign was supposed to test whether they have that capability. So far, none of them have been very inspirational, at least not in QC. The general public's perceptions are the same as when the race: began: "Mulcair is the best candidate, fighting against a hostile English Canadian NDP estbalishment".  That's NOT because Mulcair is from QC, but he is the only one who was already well-known and trusted. I agree: QCers are not any different from people elsewhere. They tend to inentify with a leader who they are comfortable with, not with a compeltely unknown quanity. So far, all the candidates, except Mulcair, fit into this latter category.

Is Mulcair really fighting against a hostile English Canadian NDP establishment?  I don't see the hostility.

JeffWells

The story is even more cringe-inducing than the headline:

Quote:
“Yeah, I am a pro-business New Democrat. I don’t know if you have a lot of those at your table here,” the lone B.C. MP in the contest told the Toronto Star’s editorial board Tuesday.

“I unabashedly believe in the private sector’s capacity to innovate and create the kind of wealth we need to pay for the social programs that we deserve,” he said.... Cullen told the editorial board that “I may the least partisan person that you folks are going to see” ...

No thanks, Nathan. Next!

writer writer's picture

It made me feel really bad for Martin Singh. The guy drops the word business like he's announcing a firesale at Honest Eds on a tight repeat loop, and he still doesn't get any acknowledgement that he's in the room.

doofy

Social Democrat--

The NDP is trending down in the polls and may well end up at (or around) 20% before March 24. People are following closely enough for thre to be continued decline in NDP support.  At that point, we would need a "game changer" to turn the current media narrative in QC on its head. A Mulcair victory would do that, but I'm less than sure about any of the other candidates.

 

Bärlüer

writer wrote:

NDP leadership hopeful Nathan Cullen says there’s nothing wrong with making a buck

"Cullen also seemed to disagree with the NDP policy that Quebec would be able to separate from the rest of Canada with a vote of 50 per cent plus one, suggesting instead realistically that would only begin the debate."

So Cullen now appears to be the second candidate to (publicly) take his distances with that aspect of the Sherbrooke Declaration (the first one being Saganash). At least we're discovering that before the election...

shoredup

doofy wrote:

Social Democrat--

The NDP is trending down in the polls and may well end up at (or around) 20% before March 24. People are following closely enough for thre to be continued decline in NDP support.  At that point, we would need a "game changer" to turn the current media narrative in QC on its head. A Mulcair victory would do that, but I'm less than sure about any of the other candidates.

 

 

No, we haven't been trending down. We've been flat-lining. We've been stable in the polls since the election. In the last few months we have consistently been polling at 28-29% in the polls, within the margin of error of where we were on May 2nd under Jack. Only Nanos has polled us below this average, and their polls lately have been outliers, which leads me to suspect that they are experimenting with methodology.

While we remain stable, the Liberals and Conservatives are flucuating wildly. Sometimes this brings the Libs up into the mid 20's, but that's not at the expense of the NDP nationally, because we aren't losing points. 

Yes, there is a measured decline in the polls in Quebec, but because of strong numbers outside of Quebec, we've been able to hold our own. And we are still relatively strong in Quebec.

Saying that we are trending to 20% in 2 months time is hyperbolic nonsense.  Not backed up by the data.

Hunky_Monkey

Quote:

While commentators have talked at length about various candidates’ alleged Achilles' heels – personality quirks, fluency in French, and so on – Topp as party leader would be the Achilles' heel of the NDP itself.

As my kids would say: “Get real.” In May 2011, the NDP made a historic breakthrough, the greatest since the party was founded in 1961. We’re on a roll. This is no time to be talking of suicide.

http://www.themarknews.com/articles/8104-topp-ling-the-hope-for-victory

socialdemocrati...

doofy wrote:
Social Democrat--

The NDP is trending down in the polls and may well end up at (or around) 20% before March 24. People are following closely enough for thre to be continued decline in NDP support.  At that point, we would need a "game changer" to turn the current media narrative in QC on its head. A Mulcair victory would do that, but I'm less than sure about any of the other candidates.

If there's a legitimate downward trend, it's because there's nothing about the NDP to follow. The race is boring. No major issues. Our heavy hitters aren't in Parliament. The big headlines belong to Bob Rae, or no one. (Certainly not the Bloc.)

The polls are very soft and no one has actually done anything of note to steal NDP support. I doubt we will hit 20%. What ground we've lost, we will rebound quickly -- if only partially -- just by having our best people back in Parliament, and by having any competent leader at all.

Despite your panic (which is overblown, IMO), we can't pick our leader right now. It's two more months with no leader.

Today, I agree with you: when it comes to winning Quebec, I'm less sure about anyone who's not Mulcair.

But we have two months. Whether we like it or not. I'd rather wait and see than make assumptions.

writer writer's picture

Bärlüer, not surprised to see you write that, but do think it is a misrepresentation. This has been discussed before. I do hope Saganash comes out with a statement that is more satisfying (and straightforward).

doofy

Just to clarify: I meant 20% NDP support in QC, which is where we are trending according to all the polls.

My guess is the NDP has strong national numbers because the BC NDP is doing very well provincially. (as an aside, isn't it funny that nobody in the media is mentioning the national NDP's growth in BC??? I wonder why?!)

It's good that SD acknowledges that "when it comes to winning Quebec, I'm less sure about anyone who's not Mulcair". If/when SD is ready to make the case for another candidate, we should talk again...Wink

Finally,  let's not delude ourselves that having all the critics back in the House of Commons would change all that much. Our politics is so leader-centric, nowdays, that bench strength hardly matters. Even now, the NDP has a strong front bench; people like Boivin, Boulerice, Angus, Leslie, Harris, Christopherson, Julian. Has the media taken notice? Do they giive any Liberal, apart from Bob Rae, any air time? It's very unfortunate that it has come to this, but our politics is essentially contested between the party leaders; the rest of the caucuses are "nobodies".

Brian Glennie

wage zombie wrote:

writer wrote:

"Cullen also seemed to disagree with the NDP policy that Quebec would be able to separate from the rest of Canada with a vote of 50 per cent plus one, suggesting instead realistically that would only begin the debate."

Cullen's charismatic enough the I would've been willing to overlook his joint nomination plan but this is what's taken him off my list (his comments a few weeks ago actually).  I don't think he currently understands Quebec and I'm not willing to take the risk that he'll develop that understanding.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of NDP members disagree with the 50% plus one formula. I bet most Canadians disagree with it, too.

R.E.Wood

Brian Glennie wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

writer wrote:

"Cullen also seemed to disagree with the NDP policy that Quebec would be able to separate from the rest of Canada with a vote of 50 per cent plus one, suggesting instead realistically that would only begin the debate."

Cullen's charismatic enough the I would've been willing to overlook his joint nomination plan but this is what's taken him off my list (his comments a few weeks ago actually).  I don't think he currently understands Quebec and I'm not willing to take the risk that he'll develop that understanding.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of NDP members disagree with the 50% plus one formula. I bet most Canadians disagree with it, too.

 

I absolutely disagree with 50% + 1 as a formula for breaking up this country. Nathan Cullen is right to say that a 50% + 1 vote would just be the start of the discussion. And his point of view is undoubtedly that of the very vast majority of Canadians (and I am sure, Quebec residents as well, apart from the adamant seperatists). 

dacckon dacckon's picture

http://www.themarknews.com/articles/8104-topp-ling-the-hope-for-victory

This article is disgusting. Its based on fear and nothing more. I could point out so many examples in Canadian policitcal history proving this article wrong, but it is not worth my damned time.

If anything, Topp running in QC is a good thing. Yes its a challange, but we can reinforce the connection we have and prove the pundits wrong yet again.

Please, let us post better arguments that are not based on primal emotions such as fear :)

wage zombie

R.E.Wood wrote:

Brian Glennie wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

writer wrote:

"Cullen also seemed to disagree with the NDP policy that Quebec would be able to separate from the rest of Canada with a vote of 50 per cent plus one, suggesting instead realistically that would only begin the debate."

Cullen's charismatic enough the I would've been willing to overlook his joint nomination plan but this is what's taken him off my list (his comments a few weeks ago actually).  I don't think he currently understands Quebec and I'm not willing to take the risk that he'll develop that understanding.

I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of NDP members disagree with the 50% plus one formula. I bet most Canadians disagree with it, too.

I absolutely disagree with 50% + 1 as a formula for breaking up this country. Nathan Cullen is right to say that a 50% + 1 vote would just be the start of the discussion. And his point of view is undoubtedly that of the very vast majority of Canadians (and I am sure, Quebec residents as well, apart from the adamant seperatists). 

Philosophically I think super majority requirements are about the establishment trying to prevent the democratic enactment of the will of the people.  I think this is also the case in this specific case.

You may well be right--that most Canadians as well as most NDP members may not recognise as 50%+1 as adequate.  I would say that most Canadians (and potentially most NDP members) do not understand Quebec.  This should be no surprise, as most Canadians have never been to Quebec and do not pay any attention to Quebec media.

Because over half of our seats are now in Quebec, understanding Quebec is a necessary qualification in my eyes.  Maybe Cullen can develop a better understanding over the next few years, but that's a risk I'd rather not take.

wage zombie

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Quote:

While commentators have talked at length about various candidates’ alleged Achilles' heels – personality quirks, fluency in French, and so on – Topp as party leader would be the Achilles' heel of the NDP itself. As my kids would say: “Get real.” In May 2011, the NDP made a historic breakthrough, the greatest since the party was founded in 1961. We’re on a roll. This is no time to be talking of suicide.

">http://www.themarknews.com/articles/8104-topp-ling-the-hope-for-victory[...

All this article is solely about Topp not currently having a seat.  That's it.

And it is a bit rich that a Dewar supporter is ranting about picking another candidate being "suicide".

Fidel

R.E.Wood wrote:
I absolutely disagree with 50% + 1 as a formula for breaking up this country.

I know of two provincial governments in Ontario and B.C. that would insist on double 60% threshold barriers for any decision by referendum. And the party name rhymes with mineral.

flight from kamakura

definitely disagree with the ndp raising any issue with 50%+1 in quebec.  that issue is just totally settled in quebec, and it would be inflammatory in the extreme even to raise it, definitely definitely will not help the ndp or the stability of the canadian federation if this comes up in english canada again.

on bench strength - this is far more important that seems obvious.  essentially, really skilled critics make a huge difference in highlighting government failings, and weak critics do a poor job.  the leader drives the narrative, but her/his lieutenants carry out the attacks.  it's super important that we get our best critics (nash, topp whenever he gets there, cullen) back into the trenches.

on topp, i'd say that it's essential that he takes a seat in quebec, but we'd hope that he doesn't have to wait 3.5 more years.  something in the whole lsd defection story makes me feel that she knew that she wasn't carrying her weight, and she feared that people were working against her within the caucus.  i've tried to confirm that with people i know, but noone seems willing to dish.  there's just this "oh, there was a reason..." sort of suggesting that she was just kind of daffy and difficult.  anyway, if she flames out or croaks or whatever, that would be the ideal seat for topp to take a run at (otherwise, i love him in ahunstic or papineau, in one of those deeply progressive ethnic cocktail ridings that the lpc took for granted for all those years).

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Oh, Christ, are we debating "50% + 1" all over again???

wage zombie

It's hard to say if Cullen is wanting to debate it or if that is the interpretation of the reporter.  I guess we will find out at the French debate.

For all his amazing strengths Cullen seems a bit tone deaf.

socialdemocrati...

Yeah, I think Dewar would be political suicide. No chance of holding Quebec based on where his French is at. His message is all over the place and is pretty tone deaf sometimes. And based on his demeanor and debate performances, I can't imagine him doing a very good job against the Conservatives, Liberals, or Bloc. I'm ready to cross him off my list entirely, if not for the faint hope that he might show something different at the Francophone debate.

I'm also disappointed with Cullen. Good speaker, but wrong message.

KenS

Yes, I'm willing to wait and see what Nathan actually said.

But my guess is that he did say something like that, and is not going to back away from it. Given how central it is, and how clear party policy is- let alone the should be apparent realities of our situation in Quebec- not explicitly backing away from what the story says amounts to him affirming he said it.

Hopefully, he only screws himself in Quebec, and doesnt give the media a circus to feed on.

As is evident not only in this thread- there are plenty of New Democrats who will not agree with the Sherbrooke Declaration when they become aware of exactly what it says.... so there's fertile ground if Nathan wants to play with fire.

I can see him blithely and almost obliviously playing wedge politics in the party.

 

And to be precise Boom Boom, we didnt debate 50% + 1. A few of us talked about its implictations at length. Most people apparently do not want to.

Tick, tick, tick...

Stockholm

Bärlüer wrote:

writer wrote:

NDP leadership hopeful Nathan Cullen says there’s nothing wrong with making a buck

"Cullen also seemed to disagree with the NDP policy that Quebec would be able to separate from the rest of Canada with a vote of 50 per cent plus one, suggesting instead realistically that would only begin the debate."

So Cullen now appears to be the second candidate to (publicly) take his distances with that aspect of the Sherbrooke Declaration (the first one being Saganash). At least we're discovering that before the election...

I think that what Cullen said was technically correct, but he opened a can of worms by saying it the way he said it. I for one agree with the principle of 50%+1, but the fact of the matter is that regardless of whether Quebec voted YES by 50.0001% or by 80% i think everyone knows that it's not as if Quebec votes Yes to some refendum question and then PRESTO the next morning the maple leave gets lowered across Quebec and the fleur de lys goes up and border posts get set up. If Quebec voted YES by ANY margin it would set of a process of negotiations for Quebec and Canad to become two separate countries. O can be sure that  like in any divorce, the negotiations would be very contentious and ugly and there would be some very tough issues to resolve that would involve some very fine points of international law.

R.E.Wood

Daily Brief host David Akin audio interview with NDP Leadership candidate Nathan Cullen:

http://audioboo.fm/boos/648204-daily-brief-audio-ndp-leadership-candidat...

KenS

Bärlüer wrote:

So Cullen now appears to be the second candidate to (publicly) take his distances with that aspect of the Sherbrooke Declaration (the first one being Saganash). At least we're discovering that before the election...

writer wrote:

Bärlüer, not surprised to see you write that, but do think it is a misrepresentation. This has been discussed before. I do hope Saganash comes out with a statement that is more satisfying (and straightforward).

I made a big stink when Romeo stuck his foot in that. I also said that his follow-up on it was good- and I did not expect that.

I do not think Romeo was just grudginly saying that he stands by party policy. And I think that his error was in being the policy wonk and expert on self determination musing when he should not have.

But he does not seem to have put this to bed. And it would probably be a good idea if he did before the Quebec debate so that it is that much less of a distraction for the party, and not a distraction for him. I dont think a media interview is required. Whatever statement, or even bettwe some kind of interchange, that he releases will get circulated... and he can spare himself grief by referring to it at the debate.

Howard

-

KenS

On reading what was attributed to Cullen again, I think Stock is likely correct: that Cullen was musing about the practical realities rather than what the NDP's stand is or should be. Which is pretty much the same mistake that Romeo made.

But its up to Nathan to clarify now.

Bärlüer

Stockholm wrote:

If Quebec voted YES by ANY margin it would set of a process of negotiations for Quebec and Canad to become two separate countries. O can be sure that  like in any divorce, the negotiations would be very contentious and ugly and there would be some very tough issues to resolve that would involve some very fine points of international law.

Of course there would be negotiations. But Quebec would still "be able" to separate with a 50% + 1 majority, contrary to what is implied in the article. And as you say, the required margin has nothing to do with the process after the referendum.

Bärlüer

[double post]

writer writer's picture

I'll simply point out that, for me, Cullen's latest comments are to be put beside the ones about cooperation with Liberals and Greens across the country, and letting ridings decide what kind of arrangements they might want to consider. Except in Quebec. Where the Bloc is out to, in his words, destroy the country. So our party members and MPs, so newly rooted there, cannot be trusted with driving any kind of on-the-ground arrangements. But everywhere else? Sure, why not?

I'm not from Quebec. I am not a francophone. But I cringe to think what message is being received by the province that gave us this historic position.

Brian Glennie

KenS wrote:

Yes, I'm willing to wait and see what Nathan actually said.

But my guess is that he did say something like that, and is not going to back away from it. Given how central it is, and how clear party policy is- let alone the should be apparent realities of our situation in Quebec- not explicitly backing away from what the story says amounts to him affirming he said it.

Hopefully, he only screws himself in Quebec, and doesnt give the media a circus to feed on.

As is evident not only in this thread- there are plenty of New Democrats who will not agree with the Sherbrooke Declaration when they become aware of exactly what it says.... so there's fertile ground if Nathan wants to play with fire.

I can see him blithely and almost obliviously playing wedge politics in the party.

 

And to be precise Boom Boom, we didnt debate 50% + 1. A few of us talked about its implictations at length. Most people apparently do not want to.

Tick, tick, tick...

 

Where do you get "blithely", KenS? Nathan has won more elections and has served longer as an NDP MP than any of our excellent leadership candidates.

If you think he's just making this up as he goes along, you're wrong.

KenS

When I said that about Nathan I was reading the attribution to him differently than I am now.

That said, how many elections he has won as an MP is irrelevant. There is a different bar for potential leader. I came into this thinking highly of Nathan. I spent several hours with him in meetings with local environmentalists a few years ago.

And his performance in the debates has been a pleasant surprise. He connects well.

But I'm not going to apologise for what I think is a well grounded suspicion that for a leadership prospect he's a bit of a loose cannon. That may be going too far. But one thing I am sure of: he does not listen. Thats a serious deficiency to say the least.

 

FWIW, I don't think he's making this up as he goes along. Not at all. But that doesnt reassure me.

Skeena13

KenS wrote:

But one thing I am sure of: he does not listen. Thats a serious deficiency to say the least.

 

KenS, I'm going to have to disagree on this point. You may not agree with Nathan's perspective, but that doesn't mean he isn't listening to you and others who share your opinion. As one of his constituents, I can say with certainty that he is a man of principle, that he listens to his consituents and that he acts both on his principles and the will of his constituents. The long gun registry is a great example of Nathan listening to his constituents, despite the obvious party pressures he felt.

I think he'll bring that same sense of duty to the position of party leader and listen to the party as a whole. Right now, however, he is seeking a mandate to execute his plan to fulfill his vision for the party and the country. If he succeeds, that's not him 'not listening'; that's him leading.

socialdemocrati...

I think Nathan has a genuine difference of opinion as to how the NDP can win a majority. But it's one I disagree with. If we pitched ourselves as Liberal collaborators in Quebec, we never would have stolen so much Bloc support. I respect that he's trying to grow the party, but it's not a strategy I agree with, or believe in.

It's too bad, because I think he's great at connecting to people on a human level, and cutting through the political jargon and BS.

Unionist

Brian Glennie wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of NDP members disagree with the 50% plus one formula. I bet most Canadians disagree with it, too.

I'll bet a lot of people would vote to divvy up your assets and leave you with nothing.

Luckily for you, they don't get to decide. You do.

So it is with Québec. The majority of NDP members, like the majority of Canadians, have no say over whether we decide to leave Canada. That's what the NDP said in the Sherbrooke Declaration. If it turns out that you are correct, then the NDP will return to the 78-year wilderness from which it briefly emerged on May 2, 2011. And no one here will mourn its passing.

Anyway, carry on with your debates.

 

Unionist

R.E.Wood wrote:

I absolutely disagree with 50% + 1 as a formula for breaking up this country.

Anybody know which country s/he's talking about?

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I was waiting for you, Unionist. Thanks for that. Smile

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

I was waiting for you, Unionist. Thanks for that. Smile

You know, Boom Boom, when Cullen (and Saganash - I hope he didn't mean it) say what they do - like a few others in this thread - about the 50%+1, it's not just a denial of the right of Québec, like any other nation in the world, to self-determination. Having adopted and flogged the Sherbrooke Declaration, it says that the NDP are liars. I don't believe that to be the case. That's why it's important that people get with the program. It took 73 years (starting from the Regina Manifesto) to get there. Don't get derailed six years later.

 

Pages

Topic locked