NDP leadership race 2

711 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

Quote:
I'm hearing it may already be a wrap for Peter Julian

I'm curious what makes you say that.  Where are you hearing this from?  I feel he'd be fine.  He already is House Leader.

Geoff

mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:
I'm hearing it may already be a wrap for Peter Julian

I'm curious what makes you say that.  Where are you hearing this from?  I feel he'd be fine.  He already is House Leader.

It's a positive development if people are hearing that candidates are starting to make noises about running. I will be interested to hear their stand on the party's handling of the Leap riding discussions. Setting September 30 (i.e. last month) as the deadline suggests they want to dispense with any serious discussion and bury the issue. If there's some other explanation, I'd love to hear it.

R.E.Wood
Geoff

R.E.Wood wrote:

A nice new article on Jagmeet Singh:

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/10/08/leaderless-ndp-looks-...

 

Good profile of Singh, although, of course, Cohn gets his digs in at the NDP for being 'moribund'. Oh well, can't blame him for being loyal to his party.

mark_alfred

Here are the latest results from the various fansites of potential candidates (last updated on Sept 29).  If anyone is aware of new fansites for different candidates, do share.  Note, none of the candidates have any connection to these sites.  They are run by fans not connected to the candidates.

 

  1. Bring Back Tom Mulcair (now 3336, up from 3010 likes) --> Mulcair has said he's not running.
  2. Draft Jagmeet Singh for NDP Leader (now 1585, up from 1549 likes) --> seems open to the idea of running.  There also is a link to a petition on this page, but the petition doesn't indicate how many have signed on.
  3. Draft Niki Ashton for NDP leader (now 321, up from 294 likes) --> hasn't ruled out running.
  4. Ruth Ellen Brosseau: NDP Leader (now 295, up from being a group page with 294 members) --> hasn't ruled out running.
  5. Recruit Sid Ryan for NDP Leader (now 208, up from 201 likes) --> unknown if he's interested (or if he speaks French)
  6. Avi Lewis: run for NDP leader! (unchanged from last time at 147 members) --> it's a group page so it's members rather than likes; contains a petition with 58 signatures, which is unchanged from last time --> Lewis says he's not running.
  7. Draft Charlie Angus (unchanged from last time at 99 likes) --> hasn't ruled out running.
  8. Draft Megan Leslie for NDP Leader (unchanged at 94 likes) --> Leslie says she's not running.
  9. Appuyons Guy Caron à la chefferie - Let's support Guy Caron 4LDR (now 25, up from 6 likes) --> Caron has not ruled out running.
  10. DRAFT Rebecca Blaikie for NDP Leader (now 2, up from zero likes) --> Blaikie has not ruled out running.

Unionist

11. [url=https://www.facebook.com/groups/CheriDiNovoForNDPleader/]Friends of Cheri DiNovo for NDP Leader[/url] (67 likes). Cheri has said she would run as an unofficial candidate, then she said she would run as an official candidate, then she said she wouldn't run... There's lots of time yet!

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

But not any new options for her, unless she intends to "unofficially" not run or whatever.

mark_alfred

She claimed she was ill (strokes or something) and had to withdraw to look after her health.  So, seemed best to not include her.  I think the fans of Dinovo have moved over to Ryan.

R.E.Wood

More promotion for Jagmeet Singh to run for leader from The Star...

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/10/13/how-jagmeet-singh-cou...

mark_alfred

The federal scene is a lost cause right now.  I think Singh should stick around Ontario and prepare himself to take over the reigns there.  Federally I hope someone smart like Guy Caron takes over.  Sure, he'd never win -- no one right now will -- but at least there would be some good ideas put forth.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

The federal scene is a lost cause right now.  I think Singh should stick around Ontario and prepare himself to take over the reigns there.  Federally I hope someone smart like Guy Caron takes over.  Sure, he'd never win -- no one right now will -- but at least there would be some good ideas put forth.

That's defeatist and dangerous. Too many people in the NDP saying shit like this and the Liberals will take that blank cheque right to the bank.

We need a person to attack the Liberals on their retreats from all the nice talk they showered Canada with last year. We need a strong opposition now. and we need to not have it just about partisan advantage but also fighting for what Canadians need.

What a joke NDP supporters are here -- paranoid accusations in one thread over whether I am working for the Liberals for demanding attacks to be of better quality backed by evidence and now here, a desire to concede the field.

Garbage. The NDP's first step is not to concede the field to the Liberals and put up a strong prinicpled opposition. It is not a lost cause becuase the Liberals are providing many good reasons to challenge them. Broken promises will not bring attention to themselves. You need a party to fight hard and never consider a future election lost.

The NDP could learn from the Liberals on this point: The Liberals were worse off than the NDP is now but they did not concede -- and guess what happened.

I want a leader prepared to be competative in the next election. Even if all the NDP could get is balance of power to force some issues this is better than rolling over. I think it is a long shot but the only elections that are a lost cause are the ones that are over.

Seems to me a few Canadians are already seeing that the Liberals sold them out.

But what the fuck -- you guys think I am a Liberal.

R.E.Wood

FWIW, Sean I think you're consistently and historically one of the absolutely strongest posters on Babble, and I have no doubt about your intentions being in the best interests of the NDP.

Haters gonna hate, hate, hate.... Jack pointed to optimism and hope, and look how high it took the NDP! Justin's sunny ways leapt the Liberals from 3rd to 1st. What the NDP needs is optimism, exciting proposals, positive vision, and not a self-defeating negativism.

ETA: Maybe that's Singh?

R.E.Wood

A very interesting & lengthy article on the leadership race in the Hill Times, includes these snippets:

Five names of likely candidates are currently floating around, including NDP MPs Niki Ashton (Churchill-Keewatinook-Aski, Man.), Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay, Ont.), Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette-Témiscouata-Les Basuqes, Que.), and Peter Julian (New Westminster-Burnaby, B.C.), as well as Ontario NDP deputy leader Jagmeet Singh, the MPP for Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Ont. ...

“I’m expecting people to announce and membership are expecting people to announce soon. The fiscal year is closing, so in terms of taping into the donor base and the support base, there’s only two months and a half left for 2016,” said the insider, adding right now there’s “a bit of a cat-and-mouse game going on with the leadership candidates … a bit of wait-and-see approach.” ...

The source close to the NDP said many were expecting Mr. Mulcair to make plans to step down as leader by the end of the year, as it’s “tricky” holding a leadership contest with“implicit or explicit” criticisms of the outgoing guard while they’re still in place. This person said a lack of timeline for Mr. Mulcair’s exit is part of the reason for the delay in candidates. ...

During the fall caucus retreat, there were “huge rumblings” with “more than a dozen caucus members who spoke out strongly in that discussion about trying to find a way forward that didn’t involve either Tom having to leave immediately or staying until next summer, and he just turned them down.” ...

Link:  http://www.hilltimes.com/2016/10/17/ndp-race-slow-start-five-names-float...

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

R.E.Wood wrote:

A very interesting & lengthy article on the leadership race in the Hill Times, includes these snippets:

 

The source close to the NDP said many were expecting Mr. Mulcair to make plans to step down as leader by the end of the year, as it’s “tricky” holding a leadership contest with“implicit or explicit” criticisms of the outgoing guard while they’re still in place. This person said a lack of timeline for Mr. Mulcair’s exit is part of the reason for the delay in candidates. ...

I hadn't thought of it in those terms but it does seem to make a lot of sense. 

CanadaApple

I think Niki Ashton looks like she is testing the waters for a run. 

Brian Glennie

kropotkin1951 wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

A very interesting & lengthy article on the leadership race in the Hill Times, includes these snippets:

 

The source close to the NDP said many were expecting Mr. Mulcair to make plans to step down as leader by the end of the year, as it’s “tricky” holding a leadership contest with“implicit or explicit” criticisms of the outgoing guard while they’re still in place. This person said a lack of timeline for Mr. Mulcair’s exit is part of the reason for the delay in candidates. ...

I hadn't thought of it in those terms but it does seem to make a lot of sense. 

By hook or by crook Tom's going to get his pension money.

josh

NDP House leader Peter Julian is dropping his role as NDP House leader, suggesting the B.C. MP is gearing up for a leadership bid. 

 

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/10/19/peter-julian-dropping-critic-role/ 

Unionist

CanadaApple wrote:

I think Niki Ashton looks like she is testing the waters for a run. 

Why? Planning to take a dive?

lagatta

Hasn't Mulcair sat for long enough already to get his MP's pension?

R.E.Wood

Peggy Nash published a piece in the NP yesterday... Slamming the 2015 NDP campaign (again), dissing Mulcair (Quote: "NDP Leader Tom Mulcair projected an image eerily similar to that of Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper"), obviously wanting him to leave (Quote: "Having told the old leader to leave, but allowing him to stay, has created a paralysis..."), and generally criticizing the current focus of the NDP caucus (Quote: "These are just some of the issues available to opposition parties. Most of them are red meat for New Democrats, yet we are failing to punch through the rosy glow around our PM")

I still wonder if she might be tempted to make another run for the leadership.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/peggy-nash-a-year-later-the-nd...

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Brian Glennie wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

A very interesting & lengthy article on the leadership race in the Hill Times, includes these snippets:

 

The source close to the NDP said many were expecting Mr. Mulcair to make plans to step down as leader by the end of the year, as it’s “tricky” holding a leadership contest with“implicit or explicit” criticisms of the outgoing guard while they’re still in place. This person said a lack of timeline for Mr. Mulcair’s exit is part of the reason for the delay in candidates. ...

I hadn't thought of it in those terms but it does seem to make a lot of sense. 

By hook or by crook Tom's going to get his pension money.

So? Why is this bad? Why shouldn't he. OK with the 135K Sheila Copps get every year?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..from r.e.wood's post. this is very close to what believe happened last election.

quote:

The NDP campaign seemed to say: elect us, it’s our turn. Not a very compelling message. But what voters wanted, overwhelmingly, was to defeat the governing Conservatives, and they were looking for the best way to do that. They also wanted a new government that was not like the old one. The NDP seemed tone-deaf and we were punished for it.

The Conservatives had a mixed message in the 2015 campaign. They tried to reassure Canadians that they were the best stewards of the economy, but warned of all kinds of perils: the niqab, refugees and deficits. Too many people seemed fed up with the fear-mongering approach and wanted a more positive message.

The only party leader who was literally born in the seat of power, 24 Sussex Drive, who grew up in the public eye, ironically, became the leader of “Real Change.” Justin Trudeau was pitched as the underdog, underestimated and underappreciated, who became the little engine that could. He tapped most effectively into Canadians’ desire for change, and to feel good about themselves, with historic results. When expectations for the NDP were so high, our failure to convince Canadians we were the right agents of change was an epic disappointment.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..and this. but other than that there is no vision how to get there. i believe there is a need to make closer links to community struggles. the ndp is begining to respond along the bc coast and i apprieciate that. i'm suggesting that needs to be expanded.

quote:

There is room for an effective opposition, especially an effective NDP opposition. Just consider some of the issues that have arisen in recent months: cozy relations and arms deals with countries that abuse human rights; health-care funding and climate change targets identical to those of Harper’s Conservatives; approval of the high greenhouse gas-emitting Petronas liquefied natural gas project; status quo on the security law, Bill C-51, and marijuana laws; increased refugee deportations and citizenship revocations; failure to ban asbestos; broken promises on First Nations funding; and no strategy for infrastructure spending, while the economy remains stagnant.

These are just some of the issues available to opposition parties. Most of them are red meat for New Democrats, yet we are failing to punch through the rosy glow around our PM.

Unionist

lagatta wrote:

Hasn't Mulcair sat for long enough already to get his MP's pension?

Yes of course he has. Please let's not honour these pathetic innuendos with a response. Or next, they'll dig up a glass of orange juice he expensed for $8.95.

But while I'm at it, it's the NDP convention delegates who voted to delay any challenge to Tom's leadership until 2017. They could have called for a much earlier convention. Also, they never voted "non-confidence" in his leadership. So the unmitigated contempt for Tom (by some of the same folks who demanded unmitigated loyalty before) is, at best, misplaced.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

josh wrote:

NDP House leader Peter Julian is dropping his role as NDP House leader, suggesting the B.C. MP is gearing up for a leadership bid. 

 

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/10/19/peter-julian-dropping-critic-role/ 

Peter Julian wrote:

Today I resigned as NDP House Leader to explore the possibility of a leadership bid. Over the past few months, I have had many exciting conversations about the future of our party. I am now looking forward to the opportunity to continue those conversations with colleagues and Canadians across the country about their vision for our party and our country.

In the months ahead, my hardworking caucus colleagues deserve a House Leader who is able to focus full-time on our important work in the House. Thank you to our Leader, Tom, and our fantastic caucus for the tremendous honour of serving as NDP House Leader for the past two and a half years, and to my staff in the NDP House Leader’s office for their incredible work. It has been a privilege and a pleasure.

Good to see him taking a real step towards having at least one candidate running.  He is a potential winner.

sherpa-finn

And not just fluently bilingual, - he actually ran for the NPD-Q one provincial election, when that was a thing.  

R.E.Wood

These words from Ian Capstick are exactly what makes me leery of potential leadership candidates who were/are too close to Mulcair in political outlook (such as Peter Julian):

"This is not a job for somebody who believes that they are walking into 24 Sussex," says Capstick. "This is a job for a builder.… Our leader needs to be a lot more like Jack Layton than Tom Mulcair."

Link:

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/10/20/what-conservatives-ndp-need-...

 

mark_alfred

Here's a new leadership page trying to recruit Cindy Blackstock:  https://www.facebook.com/Draft-Cindy-Blackstock-for-NDP-Leader-Recruter-...

Rev Pesky

A new leader for the NDP will change nothing. First, the NDP needs a set of policies, then a leader that enthusiastically supports those policies. The clear statement of policy has to come first.

I mentioned earlier (perhaps on the other NDP thread) that I was reading " Building the Orange Wave" by Brad Lavigne. One of the things that the book made very clear was that the NDP abandoned policy and stressed their leader (during the 2011 election). That may have been a good idea at the time, but it only works when you have a leader that has that sort of popularity.

The book was written before the 2015 election, and should be required reading for everybody who supports the NDP. It show how seductive the 'leadership' focus is. Which worked fine with Layton (and a variety of other factors), but didn't work at all with Mulcair.

I am sorry to say, but after reading the book I have decided to never vote NDP again. Building the orange wave consisted of taking one person and turning them into the party, completely abandoning policy, and democracy, in the effort.

If that is what the NDP is now, then I'm sorry, but I cannot continue to support them. All the chatter over who would make the best leader, when it's clear the party has no direction in terms of policy, is just a waste of time. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Rev, to have a party that meets your criteria ever elect an MP, you're going to have to embrace P.R. Without it, all parties who seriously want to win seats are inevitably sucked into the cynical, anti-democratic behaviour you find so upsetting.

R.E.Wood

I see the leadership campaign as a big, broad discussion about the future policy direction of the party. Do we want a leader who wants to follow the centrist-Liberal politics of Mulcair? Or do we want a leader who has a Leap agenda? Or do we want a leader who sees another different path forward for the NDP?

The campaign will be that discussion, and it can engage all party members across the country, in a much broader way than just having policy set at a convention, where only those in attendance can vote.

It's a democratic and exciting process. Well, at least I hope it will be... but that will depend on who enters the race, and what policies and direction they propose, and the ensuing discussion the campaign sparks.

Geoff

R.E.Wood wrote:

I see the leadership campaign as a big, broad discussion about the future policy direction of the party. Do we want a leader who wants to follow the centrist-Liberal politics of Mulcair? Or do we want a leader who has a Leap agenda? Or do we want a leader who sees another different path forward for the NDP?

The campaign will be that discussion, and it can engage all party members across the country, in a much broader way than just having policy set at a convention, where only those in attendance can vote.

It's a democratic and exciting process. Well, at least I hope it will be... but that will depend on who enters the race, and what policies and direction they propose, and the ensuing discussion the campaign sparks.

According to its "Leap" Discussion Guide, the party imposed a September 30 deadline for submissions from riding associations on the Manifesto, only 5 1/2 months after Convention voted to hold the discussions. Taking into account the summer months, when there are fewer people around to participate in such events, there was very little time allowed to organize the meetings.

Consequently, I think we can safely say the party hierarchy has no interest in talking about the LM, let alone adopting any version of "a Leap agenda". Avi Lewis and company have been told to take a flying leap, as far as I can tell. 

mark_alfred

The Leap has the aspirational target of a completely clean economy by 2050.  But the Leap's actual target is the same as what the NDP advocated last election, that being 80% reduction of GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2050.  The interim target also corresponds to what the NDP advocated (in fact, it was even less ambitious).  See the backgrounder to the Leap (pg 6) and compare it to the last proposed NDP Climate Change Accountability Act from 2014.

Geoff

mark_alfred wrote:

The Leap has the aspirational target of a completely clean economy by 2050.  But the Leap's actual target is the same as what the NDP advocated last election, that being 80% reduction of GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2050.  The interim target also corresponds to what the NDP advocated (in fact, it was even less ambitious).  See the backgrounder to the Leap (pg 6) and compare it to the last proposed NDP Climate Change Accountability Act from 2014.

I'm impressed with what's here, but I don't recall hearing about these policies during the election. They didn't appear to be a priority for the 'framers' of the campaign. The focus was on the balanced budget; at least we let the media remain focused on that one platform policy.

I'm still perplexed about the party's decision to limit party members', input with the September 30 submission deadline. I don't even know ehn the Discussion Guide, along with the deadline, was made available. No one in the party that I've talked to knew anything about the document or the deadline.

mark_alfred

Mulcair had been talking about it since 2012 and continued up to and during the election.  The end target was as I previously mentioned, and the interim target was "34 per cent below 1990 levels by 2025-2030" (from the Star) compared to the LibCon target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, or compared to the Leap backgrounder target of "2025 target of a 26-28% reduction in GHG emissions relative to our 2005 levels," -- the end target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 was the same for the Leap and NDP (again, the actual Leap target from the backgrounder rather than the aspirational target -- also note that I've yet to hear the Liberals state what the target for 2050 is).  Anyway, Mulcair had been talking about this for years using the example of reducing acid rain as a comparison.  Regarding the renewal process, I found it difficult.  So, I'm not weeping over its end.  It went on more than long enough for me.  Anyway, the useful thing about it for me was truly discovering how difficult it is for people to come to consensus on issues.  Online, you can have a spat, and then move on to another topic or go search the internet to find some other place where your ideas are better reflected.  In real life, the option of finding agreement at the click of a mouse doesn't exist.  It's a tough haul coming together on an election program that strives to simultaneously win and challenge the status quo.  Other parties that simply look to keep the corporate power structure in place have it easy.  People interested in better government should ease up on the NDP, IMO.  The Liberals already have enough allies in the corporate sector.  No need for regular people interested in a better Canada to also be their allies by joining in and attacking the NDP.

Rev Pesky

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Rev, to have a party that meets your criteria ever elect an MP, you're going to have to embrace P.R. Without it, all parties who seriously want to win seats are inevitably sucked into the cynical, anti-democratic behaviour you find so upsetting.

That's not exactly true. What the party has to do is try and sell policy instead of leader. The process is really no different. They're both 'products'.

I really would suggest reading the book (Building The Orange Wave). You may not have the same reaction I did, but it certainly shows how the focus transferred from policy to leader.

Geoff

mark_alfred wrote:

Mulcair had been talking about it since 2012 and continued up to and during the election.  The end target was as I previously mentioned, and the interim target was "34 per cent below 1990 levels by 2025-2030" (from the Star) compared to the LibCon target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, or compared to the Leap backgrounder target of "2025 target of a 26-28% reduction in GHG emissions relative to our 2005 levels," -- the end target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 was the same for the Leap and NDP (again, the actual Leap target from the backgrounder rather than the aspirational target -- also note that I've yet to hear the Liberals state what the target for 2050 is).  Anyway, Mulcair had been talking about this for years using the example of reducing acid rain as a comparison.  Regarding the renewal process, I found it difficult.  So, I'm not weeping over its end.  It went on more than long enough for me.  Anyway, the useful thing about it for me was truly discovering how difficult it is for people to come to consensus on issues.  Online, you can have a spat, and then move on to another topic or go search the internet to find some other place where your ideas are better reflected.  In real life, the option of finding agreement at the click of a mouse doesn't exist.  It's a tough haul coming together on an election program that strives to simultaneously win and challenge the status quo.  Other parties that simply look to keep the corporate power structure in place have it easy.  People interested in better government should ease up on the NDP, IMO.  The Liberals already have enough allies in the corporate sector.  No need for regular people interested in a better Canada to also be their allies by joining in and attacking the NDP.

I'm not sure what renewal process you're referring to. At Convention we voted to hold meetings to discuss whether or not there was anything in the LM that we should include in the party's policies. That process, apparently, lasted four or five months, including the summer months when folks are not as likely to be available, so I'm not sure what there is to be "tired of".

What happens now? Does the party prepare a report, based on whatever input it might have received? Was the report written before the submissions so that the authors of could plug in a few quotes that supported the conclusion the party had already reached? The LM isn't the issue. The issue is how the party communicates with the membership and the extent to which the party hierarchy respects the will of Convention.

Maybe the deadline in the Discussion Guide is an error, so maybe there's some other deadline. In that case, perhaps there's no problem - I don't know. However, if people truly are "interested in better government", as you suggest, don't the actions of the party give some indication of how it would govern? Sorry to pee in your cornflakes (there's an image for you), but I'm just looking for some kind of clarification of how the resolution, passed at convention, is being implemented.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..the way forward lies with democracy. and i don’t say this to attack the ndp. but i don't understand why the ndp isn't more clear about where it stands. why the leadership chooses to believe they can negotiate a good deal for canada under the present trade regime. trade deals are written in back rooms with brass knuckles. not with skill, fortitude and the correct policy.

CETA has bigger problems than not-so-'tiny'-after-all Wallonia

quote:

"Democracy has prevailed and the agenda to boost corporate rights is in tatters," says Maude Barlow, the Council's national chairperson. "This isn't about internal Belgian politics. Millions of people across Europe and Canada have rejected this deal, including many Members of European Parliament, unions, environmental groups and farmers."

Green Party leader Elizabeth May is almost as pleased.

"I applaud the Wallonian regional parliament for standing firmly against this bad deal. In its current form, [the agreement] will increase pharmaceutical costs and hurt farmers, manufacturing sectors, and Canadian sovereignty."

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is unhappy, to put it mildly. It believes the collapse of talks between Canada and the EU represents a "serious set-back for efforts to restore economic growth."

"It would be hard to find two partners that are better-suited to building an economic alliance, so it's incredibly disappointing to see the agreement fall short of the finish line by a few inches," says a chagrined Perrin Beatty, the Chamber's CEO.

The Official Opposition Conservatives are also, officially, disappointed.

But their tears seem, perhaps, a bit crocodilian.

Conservatives point out that for most of their tenure in office they kept the talks going, productively. Now, they are not unhappy to hang what looks like failure at the eleventh hour around the neck of the Liberals.

"It's unfortunate," intoned Conservative trade critic Gerry Ritz, "To see all the work that we did, the blood, sweat and tears over the last seven, eight years now going down the drain."

As for the New Democrats, well they are profoundly ambivalent, as they have been throughout these trade negotiations.

"I'm not about to blame people," explained New Democratic MP Murray Rankin, "We have to examine all trade deals from the perspective of what's in the interests of Canada ... this government basically inherited a deal ... and they had a problem with one part of Europe that didn't think that it addressed their needs. Now the issue is: Can Canada address this issue and determine whether it's in our interest?"

mark_alfred

Quote:
I'm not sure what renewal process you're referring to. At Convention we voted to hold meetings to discuss whether or not there was anything in the LM that we should include in the party's policies. That process, apparently, lasted four or five months, including the summer months when folks are not as likely to be available, so I'm not sure what there is to be "tired of".

I was referring to the same process that you were.  I was answering your post.  Regarding your assertion that people are less available for volunteer activities during the summer than they are during the winter, I find that a bizarre statement.  School's out, businesses generally wrap down during summer, which allows greater time for volunteering for such things as EDA activities.  And five months was more than sufficient to allow EDAs to do this.  The NDP need time to process this feedback, along with preparing for the leadership contest and the convention, and then the next election.  As I said, my experience with it was an eye opener in how difficult achieving consensus can be.  There's as many different opinions as there are people, it seems.  The attempt the NDP is making in reaching out to the EDAs in this way is great, I feel.  Coming together on a consensus from the ground up and moving forward is not an easy task, but at least they're making the effort.  And again, the GHG reduction targets the NDP advocated were pretty well identical to the targets that Leap advocated (actual target rather than aspirational target), and the program for achieving it (national cap and trade with binding legally enforced targets) was often discussed by the NDP as I pointed out in post #436.

josh
Unionist

R.E.Wood wrote:

I see the leadership campaign as a big, broad discussion about the future policy direction of the party. Do we want a leader who wants to follow the centrist-Liberal politics of Mulcair? Or do we want a leader who has a Leap agenda? Or do we want a leader who sees another different path forward for the NDP?

Just out of curiosity - did you actually follow the last leadership race? Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the policy differences between Mulcair and any of the others (except of course that pharmacist dude who wanted the party to embrace small business owners).

Please refresh my memory.

The NDP should consider eliminating the "leader" role, and adopting a system like that of Québec Solidaire. Unless of course we geniuses think the masses are so stupid that they will only ever vote for a shiny-faced star. In which case, drop the policy pretence and get on with the beauty contest.

 

mark_alfred

The differences I recall were:  Cullen and Topp favoured an increase in taxes on the very wealthy, and the rest opposed, and Cullen favoured the idea of joint nominations between Libs and NDP in Con ridings in the next election to make it possible to beat the presumed to be unbeatable Cons, while the rest opposed.  And Martin Singh strongly advocated pharmacare to help both Canadians and his burgeoning pharmacy business.

sherpa-finn

Rev Pevsky wrote: "What the party has to do is try and sell policy instead of leader. The process is really no different. They're both 'products'."

That argument would be a whole lot more compelling if there was a shred of evidence to support the thesis that a policy-driven approach to election campaigning is more effective than a leader driven approach.  The 2015 campaign would seem to suggest very much the contrary, as would the NDP wave in 2011, even though the Rev cites it himself.

In both cases, voters seemed to make choices based on perceptions about leaders - their style, their trustworthiness, their credibility, etc - more than anything significant or substantive policy-wise. Indeed I cannot remember a substantive policy / issue driven election since the 1988 NAFTA campaign.   

On reflection, maybe Kim Campbell had a point .... 

 

josh
R.E.Wood

Unionist wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

I see the leadership campaign as a big, broad discussion about the future policy direction of the party. Do we want a leader who wants to follow the centrist-Liberal politics of Mulcair? Or do we want a leader who has a Leap agenda? Or do we want a leader who sees another different path forward for the NDP?

Just out of curiosity - did you actually follow the last leadership race? Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the policy differences between Mulcair and any of the others (except of course that pharmacist dude who wanted the party to embrace small business owners).

Please refresh my memory.

The NDP should consider eliminating the "leader" role, and adopting a system like that of Québec Solidaire. Unless of course we geniuses think the masses are so stupid that they will only ever vote for a shiny-faced star. In which case, drop the policy pretence and get on with the beauty contest.

I don't recall all the policies of that leadership campaign, no. I didn't realize you'd be giving a quiz about it in 2016, or I might have studied harder. Wink Your frequently-repeated hope that the party not elect a single leader is simply not going to happen in our system at this time.

But I stand by my aspirational hopes for the current leadership campaign, and the results it may bring once some interesting people are in the running.

Geoff

mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:
I'm not sure what renewal process you're referring to. At Convention we voted to hold meetings to discuss whether or not there was anything in the LM that we should include in the party's policies. That process, apparently, lasted four or five months, including the summer months when folks are not as likely to be available, so I'm not sure what there is to be "tired of".

I was referring to the same process that you were.  I was answering your post.  Regarding your assertion that people are less available for volunteer activities during the summer than they are during the winter, I find that a bizarre statement.  School's out, businesses generally wrap down during summer, which allows greater time for volunteering for such things as EDA activities.  And five months was more than sufficient to allow EDAs to do this.  The NDP need time to process this feedback, along with preparing for the leadership contest and the convention, and then the next election.  As I said, my experience with it was an eye opener in how difficult achieving consensus can be.  There's as many different opinions as there are people, it seems.  The attempt the NDP is making in reaching out to the EDAs in this way is great, I feel.  Coming together on a consensus from the ground up and moving forward is not an easy task, but at least they're making the effort.  And again, the GHG reduction targets the NDP advocated were pretty well identical to the targets that Leap advocated (actual target rather than aspirational target), and the program for achieving it (national cap and trade with binding legally enforced targets) was often discussed by the NDP as I pointed out in post #436.

Many riding associations don't meet in the summer. It's not business as usual. As for the document,

  • no one seems to know when it was sent out
  • no one I've contacted in the party admits they know of its existence
  • some riding associations never received it

I think if the party was serious about adhering to the resolution passed at Convention, the powers that be would have set a realistic deadline. As it stands, the whole process looks more like an attempt to stifle debate, rather than encourage it. 

If you have more inside knowledge of what's going on, please let us in on the secret:

  1. When did the party announce the deadline?
  2. When did the Discussion Guide come out?
  3. When was it sent to the riding associations?
  4. What was the rationale behind such allowing only a short period of time for riding associations to organize and hold their meetings when the leadership vote is still a year away, and the election is three years away? What's the rush?

mark-alfred, I'm not interested in arguing about it; I'm merely looking for some kind of explanation that makes sense. I think members are entitled to at least that much.

 

Brian Glennie

Unionist wrote:

lagatta wrote:

Hasn't Mulcair sat for long enough already to get his MP's pension?

Yes of course he has. Please let's not honour these pathetic innuendos with a response. Or next, they'll dig up a glass of orange juice he expensed for $8.95.

But while I'm at it, it's the NDP convention delegates who voted to delay any challenge to Tom's leadership until 2017. They could have called for a much earlier convention. Also, they never voted "non-confidence" in his leadership. So the unmitigated contempt for Tom (by some of the same folks who demanded unmitigated loyalty before) is, at best, misplaced.

Tom is going to decimate the NDP. Fundraising is in the toilet and he continues to run abysmal byelection campaigns.

He should have stepped aside by now. Instead he'll lead the party over the coming year which is good for Tom because he gets paid to be a Leader in the House of Commons and that bumps up his MP pension but it's bad for anybody who cares about the NDP.

Tom's got both feet in the trough and it'll be good to see him step down and hopefully soon.

 

mark_alfred

Geoff, beyond what I've said I've no other insights on the renewal process.

I think the NDP organizing and devoting 4 or 5 or whatever months to getting feedback on policy from EDAs is a good thing.  It was a pretty detailed and extensive process.  I'm certainly not aware of other mainstream parties like the Libs or Cons ever doing something similar. 

Geoff

Mark_alfred, it might have been a detailed process, but they seem to have forgotten to let at least some riding associations in on those details, including the deadline, since the Discussion Guide got lost on its way to the ridings.

It's hard not to conclude that the party didn't go out of its way to solicit input from members. Sadly, this process appears to be business as usual for the NDP. The apparatchiks do a backroom deal that marginalizes dissenting points of view. I've seen this movie too many times.

If the party is not careful, it will drive members to 'greener' pastures.

mark_alfred

I dunno.  Those in charge at my EDA took the initiative and did the work on it.  I can't comment on what happened at your EDA or others.  Perhaps if you have questions, you should direct them to the President of your EDA or to whoever your EDA delegated as chair of the review committee (assuming your EDA took the initiative on it, that is).

Pages

Topic locked