NDP Leadership #97

Perhaps the Mulcair team has been the only ones successful at all in signing up members any numbers in Quebcec?

I don't think he was that negative. I don't have a quote handy, but my recollection is that he was saying that he wanted the party to wait before adopting a tax platform, not ruling out the possibility of it including a top tax bracket increase. Am I wrong?

I assume they are lowering expectations, so they can claim success when the number is over 10,000. But we need to get it up to 25,000 if we plan to hold those seats and win a couple more. I hope we are more than half-way there.

Let's have a little faith baby!

I vote for Michael Hollett as our next Communications person who is so refreshing compared to the usual claptrap "woe is me" attitude which is too frequently expressed.

Don’t swallow the defeatist gruel served by mainstream media eager to right a Jack Layton-led wrong so they can reinstall their preferred Liberal party as the government-in-waiting. Funny how the traditional press has had no problem using alleged interim Liberal leader Bob Rae as the default voice of the Opposition these last six months rather than the true Opposition’s own interim leader, Nycole Turmel.

It doesn’t help that many of the eight good candidates for NDP leadership have lost their shadow portfolios for the duration of the contest, not a recipe for putting the best people and ideas in front of media microphones. 

But the political stasis that has gripped the real Opposition is about to end, and during these next weeks the candidates should be grabbing significant airtime to speak about big issues in the process of defining themselves.

Hell, the race is finally veering from polite disagreement to a taste of the rough stuff, with candidates beating up on Peggy Nash at the last leadership debate for apparently waffling on whether Quebec has the right to buck the national guarantee of public, not private, health care. 

And Paul Dewar has been taking shots for picking French-challenged (some would say unilingual) Charlie Angus as his deputy leader should he win.

The party has mustered a good collection of candidates, some of them great and a few of whom I’d be happy to see as prime minster.

It’s essential that NDPers realize this leadership race is unlike any other. The Dippers are not selecting yet another quality person to lead a well-intentioned political grouping sitting safely on the edges of power, fated to act as a conscience but never in control.

A majority of voters do want change, despite the electoral system failings that allow a minority party to govern as if it ruled with more than 50 per cent. And at this moment of change, Canadians have been fleeing the Liberal party and flocking to the NDP. 

Jack Layton died; the NDP didn’t, despite the desperate desire of conservative politicians and their media pals. The country, like the party, is waiting for the next act. Everything changes March 24.

Interesting idea, except it could be a recipe for an exodus of our health professionals to the USA.

He had been minister of the environment with the Quebec Liberals, but then was demoted by Charest to a lesser post (I can't recall what post exactly.)  Anyway, annoyed, he quit.  Later he ran for the NDP.

There are a number of Quebec MPs back people other than Mulcair, such as Topp, Nash and Ashton (zero for Dewar for some strange reason) and I assume that they are all trying to sign up people in their ridings to vote for their favourite candidates.

I'm sure they are, but I also know that Marie-Claude Morin and Francois Lapointe who are leading Mulcair's Québec membership drive have been touring all around the province, assisting all MPs (even those supporting other candidates) in signing up new members.

Link

Another Link

Ok...I thought there were a few factors in the orange wave.  Not in any particular order here, just trying to get a basic list

1. Quebecers trusted Jack.

2. The NDP addressed the national question in a satisfactory way

3. Quebecers were tiring of the streategy of voting Bloc, and felt it didn't have much to offer in terms of changing the Harper agenda

4. Quebecers believed that the NDP had a shot to win government

5. The NDP ran an optimistic campaign, focussing on hope rather than fear

I can see how number 5 is influenced by campaign language.  For the rest of it, I'm not so sure.

Can you explain a bit what you mean about talking to voters in a new and inclusive way?  What exactly is this model?

And how much of it came from Jack, how much came from Mulcair, and even, to what extent is Topp all over this too?  I can understand the boilerplate criticism applied to Nash, but I think Topp has a keen sense of messaging.

How elitist!

"He supports childcare, pharmacare, cap and trade"--great!  I support those things too.  But that actually tells people very little about what to expect.  Has Mulcair put out a pharmacare plan?  Or mentioned anywhere that he'd put in pharmacare?  It's like a listing of buzzwords.

So what does that mean, pushing Canada into a more value added economy?  What steps would he take to do that?

How would he support fair trade?  What does he think we need to change about NAFTA to protet the environment, workers rights, and human rights?  If he's not willing to renegotiate NAFTA, are there other ways to make gains in these areas?

A financial transaction tax sounds great?  How would it work?  What would it look like?  Has Mulcair ever mentioned it before the last debate?  Has he mentioned it since?

So no...I don't think he's made things very clear at all.

I'm fully aware that Mulcair decided to support the NDP rather than the Liberals or the Conservatives.  So what?  That by no means is sufficient to show that he is deeply commited to the values of the social democratic movement in Canada.

After all, 30% of voters chose to support the NDP in the last election.  Do I think that 30% of voters are profoundly commited to a social democratic philosophy?  Of course not.

The fact that one's beliefs are closer to the New Democratic Party's positions than to the Liberal Party's positions or the Conservative Party's position does not show that one really believes in a social democratic philosophy—much less that one is strongly commited to that philosophy and to the principles and values that define it.