babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
NDP Leadership # 103
February 20, 2012 - 1:57pm
Now?
Posted in the last thread:
The change to allow Quebecers to join the NDP when they are also a member of a Quebec provincial party was made many years ago. At least 1989, if not much earlier. Does anyone know?
I don't object to the NDP electing a leader who didn't join the party until 2007. We are open to new members. But surely Mulcair expects to answer "why didn't you join the NDP before 2007?" Maybe he has already, and I missed it?
Those who are supporting Tom's candidacy (updated)
ps: in thread 94, someone mentioned Tom joined the NDP in the 1970s, but I can't find confirmation anywhere. I'll ask him if he comes to babble for a Q&A
Cullen released a tax plan that is described in the Globe article NDP's Cullen pitches higher taxes for rich Canadians, oil companies. It's similar to Topp's tax plan, though a bit more moderate. Still, it's very good. In spite of his open-nomination policy, I may raise him up in my choices (Topp still occupies the top spot, but Cullen is showing some promise, I feel).
There may be some perfectly valid reasons not to support Mulcair for the leadership - but his number of years as a party member is not one of them. Honestly, before Mulcair joined the party in 2007, the NDP was simply not a going concern at all in Quebec - it literally had no more than a handful of members in the whole province! If we start applying a "loyalty test" to Mulcair based on him "only" having been an NDP member since 2007 - what message does that send to all the thousands of Quebecers who have recently joined the party? Are we saying that there are two classes of NDP members?
Sobering words a couple of weeks ago. For the record, I have donated at least $25 to all of the candidates in this race. For the NDP to ever win, it is going to have to galvanise more financial support from its base just like the Conservatives seem able to do.
Ah, I get that now. But this revenue source is designed to decline, right?
Hmm. Seems simple enough. I still maintian that Mulcair is going to have a hard time selling the consequences on this if he focuses on it as his main source of revenue. People are going to say it's either (a) taxing everyone indirectly, or (b) not enough revenue, so there will be a huge budget catastrophe or huge taxes. The best response is to promise to raise a few billion from taxing corporations and wealthy individuals. That's just my armchair quarterback opinoin, though, and not something that would disqualify Mulcair.
Put me down as an undecided who doesn't know where best to direct his donations. In terms of how folks have positioned themselves, my sympathies lie, in alphabetical order, more with Ashton, Nash, Saganash (when he was in the race) and Topp. In terms of their abilities to handle the performative aspects of the job, Mulcair and Cullen seem to be leaving everyone else in the dust -- and Mulcair the only one able to do so in both official languages. I was really expecting a more dynamic performance from Nash, in particular. As it is, I don't know what to think.
That's what the Liberals said about John Turner as opposed to Jean Chretien (that Chretien didn't have the charisma to win). Turner as we know lost miserably. The fact is, people really don't know. I don't have a crystal ball that accurately reflects the future, and presumably you don't either.
I know it doesn't really matter, but for the record, I've heard Thomas Mulcair talk about buying his first membership card in 1974, from a future colleague in the Charest cabinet. I forget the name. Incidentally , a cursory search of google confirms this
Translated, from October 16 article in La Presse:
In an interview, Mr. Mulcair insisted on his "social background" and his past volunteer activities. "I chose the NDP because it is the party that represents my values, my background. I actually took my first card of the NDP in 1974, he said. In addition, I immediately connected with Jack Layton on the environment. "
Just for the record.
Link En entrevue, M. Mulcair insiste sur son «background social» et sur ses activités bénévoles passées. «J'ai choisi le NPD parce que c'est le parti qui correspond à mes valeurs, à mon background. J'ai d'ailleurs pris ma première carte du NPD en 1974, dit-il. En plus, j'ai tout de suite connecté avec Jack Layton sur l'environnement.»
Thanks, mtm!Mulcair has the support of 41 NDP MPs. That's more NDP MPs than even existed in 2008. Times change.
In case this hasn't been posted before, and apologies if it has. Nathan Cullen: An Economy for Canadians, Not the Oil Patch
Perhaps. but I thought it a good thing that the article reported a consensus emerging among Quebec MPs that they need either Mulcair or Topp.
Thanks for the link, AnonymousMouse. That was an interesting story. Seems the race is going into the final push -- kind of exciting, actually.
What surprised me was the impression the article gave of the Quebec caucus, in that they want either Topp or Mulcair and no one else due to them being "fully bilingual" (regardless of whether they're backing Mulcair or Topp). What about Nash? I've heard elsewhere that her French is fine. Mind you, the article offered the evidence of a mere two Quebec MPs who have that view, so perhaps the idea that this a view of most of Quebec's caucus can be taken with a grain of salt.
Anyway, will be interesting to see if either Chisolm or Saganash endorse anyone. It will also be interesting to see if anyone drops out or not. Seems like crunch time.
Who said this race was boring?
This is a trivia point / and maybe a question.
LONG time ago some Mulcair supporter described Globe reporter Daniel Leblanc as a "friend of Topp's". I'm always skeptical of such assertions / comments, but I know nothing about him.
He's now written a lot of articles about the NDP race. And even when he first started writing I saw evidence that he was well connected. That does not imply as most people probably take it that he has been connected for a long time. A reporter can make it their business to cultivate broad connections.
If he is some kind of friend of Topp's, he hides it well. He makes points that could have come from all the different camps [as well as quoting them or referring to them directly].
Care to explain that? I literally do not get how it is supposed to 'work'.
I'm going to strengthen that. If you do not explain it as something else, it comes across as a drive-by insinuation ostensibly phrased as 'just a passing obervation'.
Topp vs. Mulcair supporters on Sun:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/search/all/ndp-voters-make-their-pick...