NDP Leadership 78

quote: "And as far as I can tell, the candidates who have been talking about a different approach to the economy have been Nash (who has the support of many of the country's most notable progressive political economists) and to a lesser extent, Topp. Certainly not Mulcair, who seems to accept the more orthodox approaches to economic management and public administraton" --------------- The "notable progressive political economists," like Nash and Topp, understand the historical need for social democrats to carve out some support for the welfare state, but folks on Mainstreet today are expecting some answer to the need for growth of the pie, not just its distribution. They are becoming more protective of their portion, out of fear, and they respond to the siren song of the right. We have to reassure them that social democrats are about more than re-distribution. Three people have made excellent arguments for this in this thread. They are all calling for a better understanding of the economics of growth than New Democrats have offered in the past. And recognition of the dual nature of the Canadian economy and making proposals for dealing with that, as Mulcair has done. does not fit any "orthodox" economic model that I know of. In fact it can only make old "firewall Steve" very uncomfortable. :)

You seem to have some characture of me as some frothing ideologue.  I'm not in anyway knocking Mulcair's experience in public administration. Far from it.  I'm saying his *approach* to public management is orthodox (boasting about trimming bureaucracy and cutting the budget of his ministry 15%, etc.)  

Now you say, it's unfair to call his approach "orthodox" and his pension and environmental plans are evidence of that.  And to that I say, maybe you're right.  I'll look at them tomorrow.

"I’m never going to be beholden to anybody other than the people who voted me there, which will be the membership of the party,” Mr. Mulcair said.

He will, I hope, be beholden (accountable) to the party. The idea that the caucus can defy the Federal Council is what gave us trouble over the Clarity Act. (And in Ontario it gave us the Rae Days.)

Federal Council:

http://www.ndp.ca/federal-council

And the leader is also accountable to the convention, which sets party policy.

The Convention includes many delegates from affiliates, and from the CLC, two from each provincial federation of labour, and two from each local Labour Council. That's a lot of delegates.

"I’m never going to be beholden to anybody other than the people who voted me there, which will be the membership of the party." In Ontario, that sounds like an anti-labour statement. Wayne Samuelson has concluded he didn't really mean it. In that case, I wish he would stop saying it.

Clearly Hunky_Monkey loves Mulcair.  Well, gotta respect such unquestioning devotion. 

In fact, after the Toronto debate, I met Mulcair at Duffy's, and he seemed a cool guy.  Likewise, I met Topp at Bar Neon, who also seemed a cool guy.

The choice is do we feel it's better to soft-sell social democracy to "bring the centre to the left" or do we feel it's better to present a clear social democratic alternative to the right-winged Liberal and Conservative Parties in the next election.  It's as simple as that, I feel.

"Withstanding a negative Harper attack campaign best" tends to be treated as if it is some set of personal characteristics and public presentation skills.

Success at withstanding attacks comes from all around political skills. Mulcair has never demonstrated that he has those skills beyond presenting himself in public. Neither have a lot of the other candidates either. But Mulcair has given ample reason to question his political judgement. 

Being well spoken and obviously having more political sense than Dion and Ignatieff is not sufficient.

 

Note that this is making an interpretation of what he reads in a VERY thin news release on cap and trade into an asseration. And its a faulty interpretation. But we've been round and round this.

The pension proposal was discussed here at some length. Leaving aside the criticisms, a voluntary add on retirement savings plan to CPP which is entirely payed for by the recipient is hardly a profound reform.

Almost no one calls Mulcair 'anti-union'. The issue has been taken is both the nature of the cheap shot, and maybe questioning of political judgement, in his campaigning opening 'I'll stand up to unions' positioning.

While that was the beginning of my questioning of what Mulcair is about- even for me, its a long time ago now.

And the point was made that if you can have it both ways of insulating yourself from the usual attacks on the NDP as being too pro-union, AND get a lot of trade unionist support, you must be doing something right. [FWIW, it surprises me not at all. Mulcair the pragmatist is going to naturally appeal to a big swath of trade unionists active in the NDP.... who very often set aside their hats as trade unionists being the primary thing in politics.] I would add the cynical point that I dont think that Mulcair was just showing he can insulated himself. A lot of NDP members are wary of unions period, let alone the role played in the NDP. I think he was deliberately speaking to them. But all fair game. And the point still stands that he is managing to have it both ways, which if nothing else, I think puts an effective end to this.

As to the possibility of him giving up his French citizenship. Even if you would never like it, dont prejudge how the optics would appear- even to you. Tom Mulcair can easily take care of any perception that he is backing down to bullying. It can be presented as a a grand gesture.

I absolutely agree with that statement Unionist!

 

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

This. All of it. Layton was 100% wrong when he said what he said about Dion, and I too said so at the time. I totally believe Mulcair when he says now that Jack told him once that he wished he hadn't said that, by the way, too. Not only is it inconsistent with other things Jack believed, but it was widely criticized at the time.

I sincerely hope that Mulcair comes out swinging, and doesn't give in. I'm a dual citizen myself, and it would be awfully hard not to see it as a betrayal of the Canadian ideals I chose if he gave up his French citizenship.

But he hasn't been repeating that. He has repeated the line about "let the membership" decide. that is the same language used whenever someone supports OMOV over a delegated system whether the delegated system involves affiliates like unions or just party insiders like the Liberals system.

Bill Siksay former MP for Burnaby Douglas announced he is supporting Brian Topp at today's townhall in Burnaby.

http://www.briantopp.ca/news/former-bc-mp-bill-siksay-backs-topp-lead-ndp

This is confusing; please close this old thread.