NDP leadership #101

I am guessing that this is NDP Leadership 101???

I just had a phone conversation with a Topp volunteer.

I told him whatever Topp's strengths and weaknesses, not being elected is a deal-breaker for me. We have a caucus of over 100 MPs now, with fantastic talent to call on. It's not 2003. He used the fact that many leaders have come from outside the caucus line on me. I responded that the historical circumstances of those things were very different - Mulroney was chosen after the party had its dalliance with Clark, and was feeling thoroughly knocked around by Trudeau in his last hurrah.

I asked him why if getting a seat is so important to him, why didn't Topp run in TD? The volunteer's response about him not being able to run a leadership and byelection campaign at the same time rang false for me, for some reason.

He then adopted his fallback position: would I at least be able to put Topp ahead of Mulcair on my ballot?

It's clear that the Topp campaign is playing as if they're in a race with Tom, and Tom only. It's a reasonable strategy to take, but one possibly at variance with reality.

I'm referring back to the previous thread (NDP  leadership-100) to answer Unionist and to correct my statement regarding the demographics of Outremont.  In my own rather weak defense I will say that I wrote in haste and way past what should have been my bedtime. 
I meant to say consideration for a large (small-c-)conservative Jewish population in his riding can be a factor that explains  Mulcair's very cautious position on  Israel-Palestine and his response to Libby Davis's position. 

I hope you don't think this is still anti-semitic reasoning,  especially in the context of the abuse of the term "anti-semitism" by politicians and Zionist groups to attack critics of Israeli policy and supporters of Palestinian rights.

Thanks for calling me on it, Unionist. 

No I didn't. The press release did. "In the near future." And if that wasn't clear enough, how about the last paragraph: "For example, Niki Ashton, Brian Topp, Paul Dewar, Peggy Nash and Martin Singh have all publicly proclaimed support for Palestinian membership in the UN this year."

I don't think I can discuss with you when you debate in this way. You should read carefully and (sorry about this) be meticulous about telling the truth.

This is simple. Does Mulcair support Palestine's U.N. bid? The answer is no.

Mulcair says Palestine can have a state, but they need to negotiate that with Israel. Translation: When Israel gives them permission. That's what Obama says too, and Mulcair insists over and over that Obama's policy is his policy. Israel, of course, has its own state, and doesn't need to negotiate that point with anyone. Understand?

That's where Mulcair's treachery lies. You can face up to it and still favour him for leader if you want. I understood it clearly, and still worked and voted for him. But if you deny it, then how do you face yourself?

Stop accusing me of bad faith.

The press release ISN'T clear. Not only is there nothing on record about Mulcair's position on the UN bid. The press release doesn't single that out when they're talking about the near future. This is what I mean about pedantics and semantics. We're no longer discussing anything meaningful, because now we're bickering about your interpretation of my interpretation of CPJME's interpretation of Mulcair's silence.

Let's cut through the pounds of fog, and just talk directly to each other. You know, like human beings used to do.

It's funny how little we actually differ on anything of substance here.

Even though you never spend much time saying who you support, I'm going out on a limb and saying you support Peggy Nash. Me too.

I'd like Mulcair to support Palestine's UN bid, like all the other candidates, even if it amounts to the status that the Vatican has. Presumably, you do too.

I'll even go a step further and say I could do without the Mulcair's chest thumping "I'm a strong supporter" of anyone. I still prefer the more agnostic approach in the party platform. On this single issue, Mulcair is the candidate I prefer the least.

Now I found out that you held your nose and *worked* to elect Mulcair. I'm letting you know, that's how I feel if he would become leader. Right down to the holding my nose part. I take some solace in that this is a small part of a single issue, that it's the membership who decides policy, that there's an entire caucus of NDP supporters that he'd have to keep unified, and that he's been critical of Harper.

Where we disagree is now only a question of degree. I'd hold my nose because the difference on this issue isn't important enough to make me sit out an election, but maybe it's more important to you. I'm a soft supporter of Nash and I'm disappointed in her campaign, but maybe you're more committed. I think Mulcair would make a great social democratic Prime Minister, even if I don't prefer him. You might see him only as a lesser evil.

We also disagree on strategy. I don't focus on criticizing the main parties in this conflict the way you do, mostly because I think that's completely ineffective. "They need to negotiate with Israel" -- that's not a right-wing policy opinion, that's a practical reality. There isn't a single NDP MP who says that one side should act unilaterally, and for good reason: the peace process has to be a mediated negotiation. Has to.

And finally, we disagree on how far we're willing to jump to a conclusion. Mulcair has no opinion on record here, and so you extract from a "supporter of Israel" statement in 2008 that he's against Palestine's current UN bid, and he's "treacherous".

All I'm saying is that you could afford to actually ask him, before you throw your lot in with the "he's indistinguishable from Steven Harper" crowd.

Your verbal diatribe against socialdemocraticmiddle is very disappointing, unionist.

I find his/her posts to be very fair, reasoned, and well-intentioned.  For you to fly off like you have is a poor reflection on you, actually.

You are guilty of exactly what you accuse SDM of, because despite the obvious misleading statements and dare I say outright lies in the CPJME release, you will defend it because contained within that release is one statement you agree with.  That's your prerogative, sure, if you  have a position on an issue that you want to state and defend. 

But don't chide someone for pointing out the obvious inaccuracies, exaggerations, and implied smears contained within that so-called "news" release.  I've lost a ton of respect for them and their cause for the very misleading way they've conducted themselves and made the arguments.

I don't think that consideration for the jewish population in his riding explains Mulcair's position, no. Outremont is 10.2% jewish, but it's also 8.1% muslim. Saying "I represent a heavily jewish riding" is after-the-fact cherry-picking of data to justify the decision, but it can't have been the reason that led him to his position because it actually makes no sense.

Topp's CM did not say they were "leading the race" when he dropped that 28% figure. He said it was the level of their support- withiut saying or implying what that number was composed of, or that it meant anything more than 'we're doing well, thank you very much'.

That was in response to the numbers the Dewar campaign released [including some second choice numbers that are unreliable even if like me you think the first choice numbers released are a reasonable relection of reality]. Thats a classic type of response when campaigns are put in the position of being told they have no support. When you know its not true, you respond with something, but you dont get pressed into telling the 'real numbers'- no matter how good they may be for you.

So the 28% number was just put out there. But one way or the other, since the beginning of the campaign, around here whatever the Topp campaign gets trumped up into some claim that did not make.... not is it warranted that the claim is somehow implied.

Here is the transcript of part of Brian Topp's interview on The House this morning.

BT:  Well I respect Tom, he has been a good colleague and done some great work with our team in the province of Quebec, but in my view he needs to spend a little more time with our party before he leads it.  And I don’t agree with the basic direction that he wants to take us which is -- he was quite clear about when he launched his campaign -- he believes we should become a much more, quote, unquote centrist party.   So I think there are no shortcuts and no gadgets in front of us.  We can, and we will win as the NDP.  What we need to do is build on the hopeful and optimistic approach that Jack Layton gave us and then dig deep into our own governing traditions, our own NDP governing traditions of good government and then we will not only be speaking to the principles that I think Canadians agree with, but also showing them that we are the most competent alternative to run the government of Canada.

ES: But when you say a real one…are you suggesting he doesn’t have deep enough roots in the Party?

BT: Well, Tom was an important part of a very big team that has been working to breakthrough in Quebec for a very long time.  And Jack Layton was the head of that team.  My campaign manager, Raymond Guardia, managed that campaign.  Tom was our spokesperson in the media.  Lots of people worked very hard in that campaign.  I celebrate his service as I do everybody else’s.  Tom is a good colleague.  He is relatively new to our party and the direction that he wants to take us in I don’t agree with.  I don’t think that the New Democrats can win, by quote, unquote, moving to the center.

I find two things troubling, both of which he also said on Power and Politics this week.

1. The suggestion that  Mulcir has not been in the NDP long enough to lead it. Does Topp think he should drop out? That Mulcair has not earned a shot at the leadership? That there should be some mandatory apprenticeship?

2. Topp's repeated assertion that he is quoting Mulcair verbatim in saying he would move the party to the center.

I have followed the campaign closely and recall no such statement. If Topp wants to stand by his claim he should authenticate the quote unquote quotation.

I strongly suspect it is untrue and that Topp knows it is untrue.

Early in the campaign Topp said that "every so often a Brian comes out of Quebec to become Prime Minister." I am not quite prepared to say that "every so often a Brian comes out of Quebec and earns the nickname Lyin' Brian." I am waiting for Topp to furnish proof of the quotation.

I note that DSloth on the "Questions for Brain Topp 2" thread also asked, perhaps more politely than me, that Topp authenticate the quote. Topp has not yet replied to him.

There has not been one shred of evidence to suggest Topp has 28% support. Being charitable some folks have called it an outlier.

I think this is a fair statement by Topp.  Saying "I think a leader should be someone that..." is a wy of contrasting the relative strengths of other candidates and positioning yourself positively.  If a candidate were to say "I think xxx (Mulcair/Topp/Dewar/Asthon/Singh) is great, a great colleague, I just think s/he needs more ... before becoming leader," that is not a veiled call to drop out.

I think Topp's argument here is fair, and members will decide how compelling it is.  For me, I don't find it that compelling, but I think it's fair to expect a leader to have a proper contextual understanding of party history.  I think Mulcair probably does have this.  I'm trying to evaluate candidates by what they're saying about themselves, not about each other by what the others have said about them.  But I think the argument from Topp is fair.

I agree here.  I like Topp but I don't like bogus arguments, and he should know that people are paying enough attention to notice this kind of thing.

Mulcair has often been quoted as saying he would "take the centre to the ndp".  I think it's debatable as to what this might really mean, for those inclined to debate it, but it is definitely not the same quote that Topp is pushing.

Nor am I aware that Mulcair has expliictly said we needed to become more of a "centrist party".  I think he certainly has communicated, in many ways, that he absolutely does think we need to become a more centrist party.  But I don't know that I have heard of him saying it as bluntly as that.

What am I supposed to retract? Some parts are true, some parts are false. I think that's patently obvious. I'm not accusing them of lying. I'm only saying that we have Mulcair on record saying he supports the party policy, and that they're making some bold assertions that aren't really verified. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and saying "he's indistinguishable from Steven Harper" borders on absurdity when he's criticized him as such.

Not being snide or rhetorical. I've tried to be as precise and fair as possible, and I'd appreciate it if you could be more specific about any error I might have made.

That's a weird statement. He could have remained an NDP member while being in provincial politics as a Liberal. Many people have pointed out there were other NDP supporters in Charest's caucus and even, I think, in cabinet.

Has anyone asked Mulcair why he was not an NDP member before 2007, if indeed he wasn't?

Thank goodness at least Mulcair has his eye on this ball which is what will win the next election for the NDP

Chairman Harper

The prime minister’s trip wasn’t about trade, goodwill or pandas. It was about crushing his opposition at home.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/02/17/chairman-harper/

Here’s where we get at something fascinating about exporting oil to China that hasn’t been widely remarked—yet. The effect of the policy would be to increase the oil industry’s profits and make Western Canada even richer and more powerful than it was last year. Which is precisely the opposite of what Pierre Trudeau’s National Energy Program did to Alberta 30 years ago.

Trudeau sought to protect Canada against skyrocketing world oil prices by requiring Alberta oil be sold in Canada at lower than market prices. The effect, any Alberta conservative will tell you to this day, was to keep Alberta down while protecting Ontario and Quebec and fattening federal coffers. The whole thing seemed designed to subjugate “the burgeoning, politically deviant West,” Peter Brimelow wrote in The Patriot Game, a 1986 book that became a sort of user’s manual for western conservatism.

Harper has found a policy that would have the opposite effect. Its direct electoral benefits would be limited—every Alberta seat but one is already Conservative; he can’t win much more there—but its effect on his legacy would be profound. He has spent a quarter-century getting mad at Pierre Trudeau. China would help him get even.

In the meantime, he always has another election to win, and just because the next one is tentatively scheduled for 2015 does not mean it is too soon to prepare. A few Conservative political staffers in Ottawa are starting to track the NDP response to Harper’s recent moves, and they are not displeased that it amounts to a blanket rejection of everything he is doing.

Interim leader Nycole Turmel has suggested she would oppose Gateway even if it passes an environmental review. Before Harper’s trip, Windsor West MP Brian Masse warned that resource exports to China would amount to a Trojan horse. “We’re going to see, basically, Canadians have their own natural resources used as a subsidy to basically take their jobs,” Masse said.

The NDP’s opposition extends to Harper’s plan for free trade with Europe and to his plans, so far devoid of detail, to reduce the long-term cost of Old Age Security. NDP MPs advocated in Washington last year for the rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline to the U.S. Barack Obama wound up delaying a decision on that project until after this November’s presidential election.

In the 2008 and 2011 election campaigns, Harper’s Liberal and NDP opponents campaigned for the finer things in life—environmental regulation, labour standards—while he ran as an advocate of tangible economic benefits for middle-class families. He has won more seats and a tad larger share of the popular vote every time. China allows him to rack up tangible benefit at a much faster pace. A lot of NDP and Liberal voters have this much in common with Daryl Fridhandler: they depend for their livelihood on industries whose exports to China are already growing and will soon grow faster. When the time comes, Harper will remind Canadians that the NDP opposed every bit of it.

“If I have to have a battle, it’s a battle I would relish, because we’ve got, in our opinion, overwhelming facts on our side,” Joe Oliver said. “I just think the NDP position is a bit fringe, actually. I think that their base is divided on it.”

The Conservative base has its moments of doubt too. On Feb. 12, the day Harper returned from China, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s Twitter feed offered some fascinating reading. “Honoured to meet Ming Li, who spent several years in a Chinese forced labour camp for ‘subversive’ activities as a Falun Gong practitioner,” Kenney wrote, and then: “Had an excellent meeting today w/ board of Tribute to Liberty, the group working to erect the Canadian Monument to the Victims of Communism.”

Probably the timing was a coincidence. But trading with a country where human rights are still routinely trampled still rankles many Conservatives. For Joe Oliver it’s an easy choice to make. “I don’t think Canadians would want us to shun what will become the largest market for our resources in the entire world, and growing. It doesn’t achieve anything on the other side, and it would hurt us.”

Stephen Harper makes gains for his political philosophy by being forever ready to sell it down the river if he can hope for some benefit later. From 2006 to 2008, while he was enjoying splendid isolation from China, it grew from a very large market to a titanic one. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a child of Cold War East Germany whose life story makes her a kind of German monument to the victims of Communism, swallowed her pride and visited China three times before Harper had gone once. All the countries that were supposed to have their act together, the European Union and the United States, turned out to be barely more reliable than Ponzi schemes.

So Harper changed his mind. He tried using his power against China and didn’t get far. Now he will draw power from China. And there is a hell of a lot of juice in that wall socket.

I'm in the Fraser Valley in B,C, and just got the same call....looking forwards to the leaked results.