NDP Leadership #90

146 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stockholm

The fact remains, Campbell the eco-terrorist imposed a carbon tax shortly before the election, the NDP ran against it and he defended it at every opportunity (mostly for cynical reasons, its not as if eco-terrorist Campbell actually gave a hoot about global warming). If supporting a new tax is so totally deadly - Carole James should have been elected premier!

Hunky_Monkey

mark_alfred wrote:

Fascinating.  Apparently the NDP historically was a mere sloganeer incapable of "developing a tight, cogent, well-argued analysis".  And he feels Jack Layton was restricting the NDP by trying to appeal to regular working class people.  So, Mulcair is not only critical of the NDP's history, but is also even critical of Jack Layton.

Well, "Thomas Tony Blair Mulcair" has a good ring to it.

Actually old news... back in the early 1990's, polling was done which revealed Canadians of low and middle incomes didn't think of themselves as "ordinary" Canadians... or "average"... and we kept using it. It was Ed Broadbent's big theme. We finally stopped using it with Jack to some degree... and finished it off especially in Quebec when Tom arrived in Ottawa and said this crap was turning people off. Jack agreed. One reason we finally gained ground in Quebec. It's about how we reach out to voters especially those who didn't vote for us before. Sadly, a large segment of the party wants to go back to the old days.

And Stock... HUGE gains? Honestly? In 2004, we finally got back to around 15% range after the disaster years of the 1990's. It was a return to our traditional vote. We gained how many seats though? 6 seats. In 2006, we gained 10 seats and 1.8% more of the vote... gained 7 seats in 2008 and less than 1% more of the vote. Huge gains? Honestly? lol

Stockholm

...and then you conveniently forget that in 2011 we hit the jackpot. I don't think the NDP EVER used the term "ordinary Canadians" in French because it was always common knowledge that it was untranslatable into French. The messaging in French tended to be about "les familles d'aujourd'hui" - whihc I have no objection to. My recollection is quite different. I totally agree that low and middle income Canadians do NOT identify as "working class" or as workers or any of that old-fashioned Marxist lingo...but people do identity with the idea of "the little guy" or "average Canadians" or even "working families"....but the point is moot, the NDP already moved away from most of that brand of sloganeering in the last election, so again I think Tom is making perfectly valid points...if this were 2002 and not 2012! everything he says has to change in the NDP are things that Jack Layton already went about 99% of the way to changing! Its not that i disagee with most of Tom's comments, i just think that they are out of date. 

JKR

Stockholm wrote:

I would rather be explicit about who will pay more tax and who will not under an NDP government and let people either take it or leave it - then try to make pie in the sky claims that we can bring on all kinds of new social programs etc...and that its all free and that NO ONE will have to pay a dime more for it - because all the money is going to come from a few big bad polluters. It just doesn't pass the smell test.

Another important question to ask is: how progressive would Mulcair's cap and trade plan be? And if it isn't progressive, what does that say about Mulcair's overall outlook concerning social and economic inequality?

JKR

Howard wrote:

As long as he avoids stepping on toes with anything that smacks of "steal Western resource revenues and ship them east," he will be okay.

Could Mulcair's cap and trade plan be twisted by the Conservatives as being a "anti-west, back to the NEP" plan?

JKR

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Mulcair: "The question, in case you didn't hear it, was about electoral reform. First thing I have to say, the only way to achieve electoral reform is to elect a New Democratic majority. And that has to be under the current electoral system. But to answer your question... electoral reform has always been a part of the NDP platform. To get there, we would need to campaign on a clear platform that includes electoral reform, which I fully intend to do. Our platform has always been to move to a system of mixed-member proportional representation. And as to what you said... We wouldn't need to change the constitution to do that, and we could get to proportional representation with the simple passage of legislation. But we would need to change the constitution to achieve senate reform. And it IS about time that the NDP decided to get rid of that archaic institution."

...

I wish that everyone actually got off their asses and actually went to these events, and get the candidates on the record, instead of just making stuff up based on their own paranoia/biases.

I'm as worried about this stuff as you are. (I even have my own paranoia / biases.) But I'm telling you: the best approach to handling this stuff is to put the candidate on the spot.

I'm happy you asked Mulcair such a succinct question.

Mulcair's answer was excellent. I hope his position is reflected on his web site, in media articles, and in televised debates.

It's smart putting the candidate on the spot and it's important for the candidate to publicly commit to their policies to a wide audience.

JKR

Stockholm wrote:
I'm sure Stephen Harper privately thinks that a lot of the Tory grassroots are a bunch of knuckledragging narrow-minded bigots who he feels embarrassed by etc... but you never see him say anything disparaging about his own base. Instead of confronting them, he just smiles and walks around them. Mulcair shoudl never say "No, the grassroots don't like to hear that".

It's easy for Harper not to disparage the Tory grassroots because he agrees with them. Harper's just smart enough to hide that side from the public so he can win elections. I see no reason to believe Harper's right-wing outlook has changed from his NCC / Alberta firewall days.

Policywonk

Glenl wrote:
Personally I prefer a carbon tax to cap and trade, the latter will benefit bank accounts more than the environment.

That is a gross generalization. While

The Story of Cap & Trade (2009) - YouTube

is quite a devastating critique, a properly designed cap and trade system can actually work (meaning both reduce emissions and generate economic activity and employment).

http://www.analysisgroup.com/RGGI.aspx

The devil is in the details though. A properly designed cap and trade system could generate indirect tax revenue through increased employment, but that point doesn't seem to have been made.

 

KenS

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

[On Mulcair's tax policy and when it comes:] I'm saying there is still about 6 weeks to go until convention. I didn't put a date on it. Tom said in the Halifax debate he would release it shortly. I'm assuming it will be released the same as his foreign affairs one a couple days ago. So why say it won't come?

I'm not saying he will not release a formal policy paper. But the ones he has released so far are very sketchy he has said more in the media. And he has already said more about taxes than he has said about his cap and trade and climate change policy that is a news release of several paragraphs.

So he already has a tax policy out there in circulation- which he affirmed yesterday in stronger terms what he said in Halifax.

 

 

KenS

dacckon wrote:

I personally view implementing progressive taxation like certain Scandinavian countries in a balanced and Canadian way is a priority. If we simply just return to the Paul Martin status quo, then what was the point? Although of course I strongly believe the greatest priority in the short-term is winning government.

Bolded part is obviously the basis for Mulcair's campaign. But has he argued against Topp's claim that Canadians are with us on raising taxes on the wealthy- that the initiative will gain us votes?

No. He has claimed instead that any talk of raising taxes on anybody is going to lose us votes. Interview: Mulcair said even if the tax bracket was pegged at $1 million, "the only thing the voter will hear ‘is these guys want more taxes."

 

KenS

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

You don't think those who ranked Romeo as their first choice had little to say about Romeo's tax policy but shit on Mulcair for being similiar on income taxes isn't a double standard?

You have a conveniently limited memory.

What I said after the Halifax debate: Romeo makes a good political point versus Topp: why not go after the [politicaly safer] closing of loopholes first, then [in first mandate] start talking up and preparing people on the need to raise taxes.

I also said that I'm with Topp on this [essentially because in practice there isnt enough money in the loopholes we would be willing to go after, and because Topps policy is a vote gainer]... but Romeo raises a very arguable political point- unlike Mulcair, who is just standing behind what we have always done without arguing the point whether we should.

KenS

DSloth wrote:

It's just politics 101 that your primary policy plank should never, ever contain the word TAX. I love the idea of a carbon tax but it's political poison, and running a general campaign on it would be suicide, which is why no one in the Liberals or the NDP has breathed a word about it since Dion.

Exactly.

The problem is that Mulcair has torched the differences between the Liberal and NDP plans.

Using the words 'cap and trade' is not going to hide Mulcair's EXPLICIT proposal of using cap and trade as an altrenative form of general revenue raising. The Liberals got skewered for it, and they at least were not stupid enough to make the dotted lines explicit, as Mulcair has now done. The spectacular failure of the Liberals plan was not Dion's poor communication skill. I said when it first came out that they'll be crucified for it [as Babblers were mostly saying why isnt the NDP doing this].

KenS

From the beginning, the NDP climate change package has ALWAYS and very explicitly devoted ALL cap and trade revenues to green spending inititives for bringing emissions down.

As well as being a basic social democratic principle, this was also about basic political survival. Its not good enough to stay away from the evil tax word- you have to eliminate as much as possible the opportunities to portray this as a big government revenue grab.

That ALL the revenues would be devoted to green initiatives was explicitly affirmed in our election platforms.

Leaving aside that Mulcair has not acknowledged in passing that he has changed that- or even that he is aware he has- he's offering up our heads for the chopping block.

Having said it only in the debate he might have been able to back away from it. But clearly he's not interested, because he affirms in a major interview that he sees cap and trade as an alternative and superior form of general revenue generation to Topp's proposal. Ironically pointing the finger at the political weakness in that proposal.

How is that to be squared with this is the man who is to be our winner- who will reach out to those who have not voted for us yet?

By offering up his head and ours for the Conservatives?

nicky

I was also at Tom's Toronto event last nght. He gave a passionate address on penal and refugee policy before a packed room at the Madison of nearly 200.

If I can ask one thing of those of you who have doubts about Tom, go see him in person at one of his individual events, not just a debate where everything is divided by eight (or now seven). Ask yourselves if anyone else can connect with people as well as him, can persuade the doubtful voter of the merits of the NDP, can expand the party? If he is judged on these things I will be content. If he is judged on some of the misrepresentations and petty sophistries trotted out by some of his detractors who refuse to see him up close, we will have lost the most promising leadership candidate we have ever had.

One more observation. Pundits Guide recently commented on Tom's appeal to professionals. Last night the crowd was largely made up of refugee and immigration lawyers (Lorne Waldman, Mahar Arar's defender, endorsed Tom and introduced him). In December a similar sized crowd of mostly criminal lawyers attended a Toronto fundraiser for Tom organized by James Lockyer and Peter Zaduk. Tom was very well received at both.

Tom has a particular appeal to professionals. He speaks in a  way that connects with them. He doesn't talk down. He tackles complicated issues. You can expand your vocabulay by attending a Mulcair event.

I know that by saying this I will raise some hackles about the party's "traditional base", etc. But in my view, unique amongst the cndidates, Tom can appeal to the educated and professional electorate which is one of the last redoubts of the Liberal party and, I believe, a key to success in 2015.

nicky
KenS

nicky wrote:

If I can ask one thing of those of you who have doubts about Tom, go see him in person at one of his individual events, not just a debate where everything is divided by eight (or now seven).

There are different kinds of doubts.

What I raised above in post 113 could be addressed by someone asking him a question at one of his events.

But its pretty fundamental, and we should not have to wait for that to happen, if it will happen. It's up to Tom Mulcair to address any doubts he raises along the way by positions he is taking. Nor does it cut for people to say, "wait, its a work in progress." We can only go on what he or his campaign puts out there.

dacckon dacckon's picture

Is this really true?!?! I can understand leaning towards one side or another... but this extremism seems a bit much. Anyone else can verify this?

Quote:

 Declared "I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances."2

He managed to dampen down the NDP caucus's criticism of the "Cast Lead" Israeli
operation in January 2009, that left 1400 Palestinians dead, and the subsequent Israeli
attack on the Gaza aid flotilla in May 2010, in which 9 civilians were killed.6

Unionist

nicky wrote:

Tom has a particular appeal to professionals. He speaks in a  way that connects with them. He doesn't talk down. He tackles complicated issues. You can expand your vocabulay by attending a Mulcair event.

Aren't you worried about stirring up some lutulent waters by making that claim?

 

nicky

Dacckon, I have seen that "all circumstances" so-called quote propagated numerous times on Twitter by Mulcair's detractors. The reference always goes back to a particular anti-Zionist site that seems to have a special hate for Mulcair. That site makes no attribution for the quotation. You might want a more objective source before accepting this as gospel.

 

And Unionist, you are being pretty opaque using a word like lutulent.

Geoff OB

Given that Mulcair has been a strong supporter of Israel in the past, how will he fare with pro-Palestinian voters from both the Muslim and non-Muslim community?  Also, how will he do with pro-Israeli supporters who remain comfortable with either the Liberals or the Conservatives?  His stand on the Middle East is giving me pause in making my decision on who to support.

DSloth

Geoff OB wrote:

Given that Mulcair has been a strong supporter of Israel in the past, how will he fare with pro-Palestinian voters from both the Muslim and non-Muslim community? 

 Mulcair has always supported the New Democratic Party's position on Israel.  He also happens to have a very large Jewish community in his riding so those looking for a holy war have plenty of old outreach interviews to innacurately quote from.    

NorthReport

So they did poll NDP voters for those stats.

 

Quote:
The Forum poll found Quebec MP Thomas Mulcair the clear choice among NDP voters, at 35% support. Peggy Nash, the former labour leader and Ontario MP, was a distant second, at 17%.

Ontario MP Paul Dewar drew 14% support, narrowly out-polling former NDP president Brian Topp, at 12%. Niki Ashton, Nathan Cullen, Romeo Saganash and Martin Singh rounded out the NDP list.

“There’s no one who has really broken out as the alternative to Mulcair,” Mr. Bozinoff said.

 

Unionist

DSloth wrote:

Geoff OB wrote:

Given that Mulcair has been a strong supporter of Israel in the past, how will he fare with pro-Palestinian voters from both the Muslim and non-Muslim community? 

 Mulcair has always supported the New Democratic Party's position on Israel.  He also happens to have a very large Jewish community in his riding so those looking for a holy war have plenty of old outreach interviews to innacurately quote from.    

Kindly stop connecting Jews with Israel, even if it is in an electoral thread where any kind of crap goes as long as it's depicted as predictions, condescension to the ignorant voting masses, etc.

As for your "very large Jewish community", here are the facts:

Quote:
46.6% Catholic, 10.2% Jewish, 8.1% Muslim, 7.0% Christian Orthodox, 4.9% Protestant, 3.0% Hindu, 1.9% Buddhist, 1.6% Other Christian, 16.1% No religion

I realize Jews like me living in Outremont take up loads of space, but please don't flatter me by making me equal to almost 5 Catholics.

I hope my comment has been clear. If not, expect the next one to be ratcheted up several degrees.

After all, there is a very large Jewish community on babble.

 

socialdemocrati...

dacckon wrote:

Is this really true?!?! I can understand leaning towards one side or another... but this extremism seems a bit much. Anyone else can verify this?

Quote:

 Declared "I am an ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances."2

He managed to dampen down the NDP caucus's criticism of the "Cast Lead" Israeli
operation in January 2009, that left 1400 Palestinians dead, and the subsequent Israeli
attack on the Gaza aid flotilla in May 2010, in which 9 civilians were killed.6

I call BS.

He's repeatedly endorsed the NDP platform and a two-state solution.

At last night's Toronto event, he pointed out the complete and utter shame that Canada basically lost its seat on the UN Security Council.

But again, if you want a clear answer, put him on the spot and ask. Don't do the coward thing and assemble a conspiracy out of misquotes.

For what it's worth, I think the tax issue raises more serious questions, and I hope people ratchet up the pressure for him to produce a tax plan.

I know the Topp campaign reads this. Maybe Brian can raise the issue at the next debate.

DSloth

Unionist wrote:

Kindly stop connecting Jews with Israel, even if it is in an electoral thread where any kind of crap goes as long as it's depicted as predictions, condescension to the ignorant voting masses, etc.

???

For the record, I wasn't connecting Jews with Israel I was connecting having a Jewish constitutency 10 times the national average with an increased number of outreach interviews with the Jewish press. 

Howard

I don't like the way Mulcair behaved over BDS. I also don't like that Libby apologised. What has Mulcair said about the blockade on Gaza? I presume he stands by the NDP position that it should be lifted and that that be the official position of the Canadian government. At the end of the day though, one has to decide if that will be the only issue driving their vote. Even then, what is the difference between the stated policies of Mulcair and those of any of the other candidates? How long until we are splitting hairs about words in statements when really the discussion is about intent?

mark_alfred

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

Fascinating.  Apparently the NDP historically was a mere sloganeer incapable of "developing a tight, cogent, well-argued analysis".  And he feels Jack Layton was restricting the NDP by trying to appeal to regular working class people.  So, Mulcair is not only critical of the NDP's history, but is also even critical of Jack Layton.

Actually old news... back in the early 1990's, polling was done which revealed Canadians of low and middle incomes didn't think of themselves as "ordinary" Canadians... or "average"... and we kept using it. It was Ed Broadbent's big theme.

While the actual words used may have changed, the basic messaging was still the same, I feel.  For instance, the idea of distinguishing regular/ordinary people from executives was put in terms of "families" at the "kitchen table" (rather than the board room table).  And the idea of collective action was still in play, with phrases such as "together we can do this".  Granted, this is on the surface different from "mice" versus "cats" or "working class" versus "capitalists", but it's still the same idea.  Rightly or wrongly, my gut reaction to the Star article is that Mulcair is not merely arguing for an update of the phrasing of the NDP's message, but for an overhaul of the very ideas behind the NDP's basic message itself.  The tone of the article does not sit well with me. 

Fortunately there are other candidates whose tone does jive with me more (that being Nash and Topp).  Good to have distinct choices, I figure.

NorthReport

Unionist

Aren't you comments a bit misleading as the Jewish population in Outremont is about about 10 times what the national average is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population

 

 

DSloth beat me to it I see.

NorthReport

Change is sometimes difficult and uncomfortable, but we do need to grow to win the next election which is the purpose of the exercise isn't it?

And if you don't win, you don't get to change very much.

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:

Change is sometimes difficult and uncomfortable, but we do need to grow to win the next election which is the purpose of the exercise isn't it?

And if you don't win, you don't get to change very much.

I don't feel that campaigning for social democracy is a losing proposition.

socialdemocrati...

I'm still a social democrat. I hope/think the platform will still say we're social democrats.

Jack Layton tried to get rid of the language of "democratic socialism", which may seem like a small difference, but has much heavier baggage.

Unionist

DSloth wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Kindly stop connecting Jews with Israel, even if it is in an electoral thread where any kind of crap goes as long as it's depicted as predictions, condescension to the ignorant voting masses, etc.

???

For the record, I wasn't connecting Jews with Israel I was connecting having a Jewish constitutency 10 times the national average with an increased number of outreach interviews with the Jewish press. 

Bullshit. (I warned you.) Here was your full comment, in case you've forgotten it:

DSloth wrote:
Mulcair has always supported the New Democratic Party's position on Israel.  He also happens to have a very large Jewish community in his riding so those looking for a holy war have plenty of old outreach interviews to innacurately quote from.

So, do you want to "explain" that post, or retract it, or shall we just move on? What holy war were you referring to?

 

doofy

mark_alfred,

Did you follow the QC campaign in 2011? It was not based on "mice versus cats", b/c that kind of rhetoric does not tend to produce electoral gains. In North America, people don't see themselves as "ordinary" or "working class". The NDP has been trying to instill "class consciousness" in Canadians since 1961, and, as Mulcair said, it has rarely passed 17%.

Faced with this reality, Mulcair is not suggesting that any NDP economic policy from 2011 be changed. (If I am missing something, could you please point it out?) He can, however, present our ideas in a way that voters won't find frightening.

 

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

Unionist

Aren't you comments a bit misleading as the Jewish population in Outremont is about about 10 times what the national average is?

Which of my comments were misleading? Quote my misleading comments. DSloth said there was a "very large Jewish community" in my riding. He connected that with the issue of Israel and Palestine (although he seems to be denying that now). My objection was to making that connection, because frankly, I think it's anti-semitic to suggest that Jews support war criminals. So which of my comments were misleading, NorthReport? Did I suggest there aren't very many Jews in Outremont? Or that there were fewer than the national average? What's your exact point here?

DSloth

Unionist wrote:

DSloth wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Kindly stop connecting Jews with Israel, even if it is in an electoral thread where any kind of crap goes as long as it's depicted as predictions, condescension to the ignorant voting masses, etc.

???

For the record, I wasn't connecting Jews with Israel I was connecting having a Jewish constitutency 10 times the national average with an increased number of outreach interviews with the Jewish press. 

Bullshit. (I warned you.) Here was your full comment, in case you've forgotten it:

DSloth wrote:
Mulcair has always supported the New Democratic Party's position on Israel.  He also happens to have a very large Jewish community in his riding so those looking for a holy war have plenty of old outreach interviews to innacurately quote from.

So, do you want to "explain" that post, or retract it, or shall we just move on? What holy war were you referring to?

 

I really, really don't know what  the nature of the bee in your bonnet is. For the record Mulcair has a large enough Jewish constituency that he's done a number of outreach interviews with the Jewish press, someone with an axe to grind has misquoted (and apparently tanslated) something from one of those interviews. I have no idea whatever else you're taking from that statement.  By "looking for a holy a war" I clearly meant the persons who would innacurately quote Mr. Mulcair's position to make him appear more antagonistic to the Palestinians, obviously that was not being applied to the Jewish residents of Outrement or indeed any Jewish person. 

If you really think I said something offensive in that post, there is a flag button which I'd invite you to use. 

 

NorthReport

Yes Unionist I think you could have been interpreted as suggesting there were not a lot of Jewish people in Outremont, and according to Wikipedia there is a very large Jewish population in Outremont compared to other ridings, approximately 10 times the national average. That is the only point I was making.

DSloth

Unionist wrote:

 I think it's anti-semitic to suggest that Jews support war criminals.

So do I, of course I have no idea how you got to there from anything I've ever posted. 

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

Yes Unionist I think you could have been interpreted as suggesting there were not a lot of Jewish people in Outremont, and according to Wikipedia there is a very large jewish population in Outremont compared to other ridings, approximately 10 times the national average. That is the only point I was making.

You think I was trying to fool people here into thinking there aren't very many Jews in Outremont. That's a great point, NorthReport. Carry on pointing out deception wherever it rears its head.

 

Unionist

Please stop connecting Jewish communities with Israel. Maybe we should say that there's a higher probability of finding anti-abortion anti-birth control woman-hating quotes from Mulcair in the Catholic press here, because 46% of the population is Catholic? Are you starting to get the pure offensive nature of your comment? Actually, I don't think you get it. Please reflect some more and I'll try to find more examples to make it clear to you. I don't want to flag your posts as "offensive", because unfortunately there are a whole lot of people who share your confusion on this point, and a whole lot of discussion is needed to explain that Jews are not pro-Zionist pro-Israel by birth.

 

Howard

Unionist wrote:

I think it's anti-semitic to suggest that Jews support war criminals.

Great line Laughing

DSloth

 

Unionist wrote:

Maybe we should say that there's a higher probability of finding anti-abortion anti-birth control woman-hating quotes from Mulcair in the Catholic press here, because 46% of the population is Catholic?

The percentage of the population that is Catholic and the percentage of Catholics who are anti abortion has nothing to do with the likelihood of the topic of abortion coming up in an interview about Catholic issues.  Most Catholics in Canada are actually far to the left of their Church on the topics of abortion and contraception, yet in any interview where the topic of religion comes up a Catholic politican will always be asked about abortion. 

Likewise the percentage of the population that is Jewish and the percentage of Jewish persons who are militantly pro-Israel has nothing to do with the likelihood of the topic of Israel coming up in an interview about Jewish issues.  The only reason I pointed out the larger than average Jewish population in Outrement was to explain why Mulcair had done outreach interviews with the Jewish press. 

 

 

Unionist wrote:
Please reflect some more and I'll try to find more examples to make it clear to you. I don't want to flag your posts as "offensive", because unfortunately there are a whole lot of people who share your confusion on this point, and a whole lot of discussion is needed to explain that Jews are not pro-Zionist pro-Israel by birth.

Actually no discussion is needed to explain to me that Jews are not pro-Zionist pro-Israel by birth, since I don't believe that and would never suggest it any way.

DSloth

In retrospect I can see how there might have been some ambiguity in my original post that set off this derail, particularly the use of the pronoun "those". Those could be referring to anyone but I suppose one could assume I meant those [amongst the Jewish population of Outrement], of course I only meant those [who would innacurately quote from an old interview]. For the record I have no reason to believe the persons responsible for the misquote were Jewish and I certainly do not attribute their views to be representitve of any community.

I regret any offense this ambiguity may have cause and hopefully we can end the derail there, I for one am certainly not going to continue it into the new thread.

Unionist

Thanks for your clarification. My comments were addressed more to the words you used than to any intent you may have had. I'm convinced you didn't in any way intend any offence.

 

Hunky_Monkey

mark_alfred wrote:

Rightly or wrongly, my gut reaction to the Star article is that Mulcair is not merely arguing for an update of the phrasing of the NDP's message, but for an overhaul of the very ideas behind the NDP's basic message itself.  The tone of the article does not sit well with me. 

I'll go with wrongly :)

Hunky_Monkey

Stockholm wrote:

...and then you conveniently forget that in 2011 we hit the jackpot. I don't think the NDP EVER used the term "ordinary Canadians" in French because it was always common knowledge that it was untranslatable into French. The messaging in French tended to be about "les familles d'aujourd'hui" - whihc I have no objection to. My recollection is quite different. I totally agree that low and middle income Canadians do NOT identify as "working class" or as workers or any of that old-fashioned Marxist lingo...but people do identity with the idea of "the little guy" or "average Canadians" or even "working families"....but the point is moot, the NDP already moved away from most of that brand of sloganeering in the last election, so again I think Tom is making perfectly valid points...if this were 2002 and not 2012! everything he says has to change in the NDP are things that Jack Layton already went about 99% of the way to changing! Its not that i disagee with most of Tom's comments, i just think that they are out of date. 

Issue is that Tom worked with Jack to change some of that... but there are candidates and New Democrats who want to go back to the "old" days... where we'd end up with 18% of the vote again and 30 some seats.

Pages

Topic locked