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 Race #111
February 28, 2012 - 12:15pm
;;
http://www.melfortjournal.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3485424
“Melfort represents exactly the type of community we’ve been visiting on the second phase of our campaign. We’ve gotten into places like Kamloops and Merritt and Prince George in B.C. We’ve gotten into smaller towns like Timmins in Ontario. It’s important to hear the voices of people who are talking to me about issues that I don’t hear a lot in the larger centres. If the campaign is about talking to people, it’s most important that you listen to people and today I got to discuss a lot issues with people here and that’s going to help give shift to my campaign. It’s going to give me a lot of ideas for the last four weeks of this campaign,” Mulcair said.
“I think one of the things that we’ve always been about is making sure it’s a more prosperous country but more prosperous for everyone.”
Let's make Jack's dream a reality next election in his memory and his honour.Don’t tell us it’s not a class war
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/gerald-capla...
To reply to KenS's intelligent posts from the previous thread... I want to be clear I'm singling out a very specific kind of criticism of Mulcair, and not all criticism. I do think Topp's/Cullen's tax plan is more bold, more progressive, better policy, and better politics. I do think that Saganash's tax plan, even if it's the same as Mulcair's in spirit, is far more detailed in substance -- which is important for both feasibility and accountability. On policy, I prefer Topp. On trust, I prefer Nash or Ashton.
But the discussion that you and I are having is a far cry from "he's indistinguishable from Steven Harper" or "he's a center-right Liberal". That's grade-A unadulterated bullshit.
KenS, I've heard you say a few times that you believe we'll end up getting "a move to the right" under Mulcair. But you don't believe he's promising a move to the right, and you don't think he's concealing a hidden agenda of a move to the right. Having an appreciation for nuance, I wanted to know what the third possibility is. In theory, how does Mulcair end up moving the NDP to the right?
Has anybody on Babble actually said that Mulcair is indistinguishable from Harper? I don't recall seeing that. If somebody said that Mulcair, in general, is indistinguishable from Harper, that's extraordinarily hyperbolic.
With that said, I think people are absolutely right to have serious concerns about Mulcair and other leadership candidates who are likely to move the party significantly to the right.
The move to the right, or, better said, the move to the centre will be a political force, like gravity. All candidates will experience a push to the centre, as part of the current political realignment and the goal of the OO to form government. Whether or how much the party moves to the centre will depend in part on how the leader is prepared to address these political forces.
Both Topp and Cullen are being loud and clear on that. Ashton has been very clear about her strong left wing stance, but she has not been all that clear on how she will engage with these political forces. It's not just a question of resisting these forces...because simply resisting these forces builds up the pressure.
There will certainly be the idea that to win government we have to moderate our views on some issues. This idea will be present under all candidates. Candidates who are addressing that idea now are, IMO, answering some of the longer term questions. Some candidates are saying we need to hold up those values and policies, and other candidates are saying we need to moderate those values and polcies.
There are a range of issues that will be making the cut and some that won't, and candidates are right now signalling which is which.
Ashton has said she is in favour of the party policy of mj decriminalization, would actively push to implement it, and views decrim as effectively putting control into the hands of the provinces, which means that bc or quebec could conceivably decide to go that route.
Topp and Mulcair will both say that they "support party policy" on cannabis, but neither of them will say a fourth word. And I would not expect any movement while they are in power. That is an issue they will drop in order to best navigate the political forces pushing them to the centre.
They are just not attached to the issue. So, it's a prime candidate for an issue that they will drop once in power. This is how "the move to the right" works.
Issues are changing all the time. At one point queer rights were an issue that the NDP was willing to drop when in power and experiencing those political forces. Now, that's changed. Queer rights are firmly accepted by the centre. On dailykos they are talking about how opposition to equal marriage in the US now would be an albatross for anyone running for the Dem nomination in 2016.
What about electoral reform? I think it could go either way and that's why it's important to see what the candidates are saying. Candidates that choose of their own volition to talk about their aggressive plans to implement PR are probably not going to drop the issue. Candidates who will do no more than state when asked that they support party policy are NOT signalling that it's an issue that they would protect. They're not exactly signalling that they would drop it...but these political forces are going to be a reality, not just once in power, but pretty much as soon as the leadership race is over.
This is why I am going on about the financial transaction tax. We are not getting any kind of commitment. Mulcair is not selling the issue to us, which means he is not demonstrating to us how well he would go about selling the issue. And he's not putting the idea into the public space. If he were doing all these things, then I would be optimistic. Mulcair isn't willing to make the commitment to even talk about the FTT...so I'm not sure how likely he is to get one implemented.
The "indistinguishable from Harper" thing was a trope thrown around on the Palestine threads.
I should know better than to call people out on that kind of hyperbole, because they're seldom interested in having an evidence-based discussion.
I'm just interested to hear what policies we will end up moving to the right on, compared to what Jack Layton had already done in reforming the party.
From the previous thread:
Well I like him too - but not what he did here!
I don't mind Gerard endorsing whomever he wants as (presumably) an NDP member, but I have a hard time with the "USW International President" expressing preferences in the choice of a leader for the NDP. Bad precedent. Officials of the Canadian section - sure, no problem.
Caving is a problem. We need a certain amount of moral and political courage from our leader.
Funny how Obama campaigned on a public health insurance option, with no mandate. But in the end, they got a mandate with no public option. Even if you think he was telling the truth about his promise during the campaign, when all was said and done, he wouldn't "go to the mat" for what he promised.
I think this is a legitimate and more nuanced concern about someone like Mulcair. I genuinely believe he feels more at home in the NDP than the Liberals -- there was an easier path to political power in any party but us. He's been willing to make social democratic promises, but the details on his website are only on a few areas, and whatever other details we only get when he's directly asked.
And other candidates do it too. I can appreciate the strategy of wanting to avoid the conservative attack machine, and even giving yourself room to take "half a loaf" to placate the mushy middle. But my opinion is the attacks are going to come anyway. Might as well be forthright with your policy, lest you get accused of a hidden agenda.
I think this is why I've been disappointed with the candidates. No one has really made their campaign about anything. Who is the jobs candidate? Who is the reform Ottawa candidate? Who is the environment candiate? We have 6 "stop Harper" candidates, and one pharmacare candidate.
If one candidate would really "go to the damn mat" on 2 or 3 core NDP issues and hammer them home, my trust and excitement level would skyrocket. It almost doesn't matter what those issues are.
Am I the only one who feels that way?
NR, I couldn't agree with you more. I don't want the estalishment, Union or otherwise, telling me what to do. Frankly, Gerard should just shut his yap tight! Frankly, this Ed Braodbentian, Union, Ontrario elite, establsihmentarian collalition stuff is really turning me off. Keep this up and I'll stay home and the hell with em'!
Arthur, I don't consider unions a part of the elites - considering the crap they go through and especially now and how they often act as backup for other social activism (eg. tents, supples for occupy) I think going easy here. Almost like buying into the right wing meme that unions are greedy and evil.
Unionist
I like Leo Girard because he is a superb speaker, would love to see him run as an NDP candidate, and even the leadership of the NDP, as I thought Leo Girard was a Canadian.
Yes, and very revealing too. First, in the assumption that by simply endorsing they're "telling people how to vote." And that they're somehow "elite." I mean it's not like they had anything to do with the forming of the NDP, right? But, then again, Mulcair said he wouldn't be "beholden" to the unions. Maybe this is what he meant.
When did Mulcair say that? What was the context of those remarks?
http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2011/10/26/mulcairs-accusation-th...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mulcair-dra...I thought Nash was overall disappointing in the Winnipeg debate, and Topp did pretty well. I like Topp's taxation policy best although I think Nash is the strongest in terms of thinking about structural conditions of the economy. But her reluctance to talk about taxes doesn't sit well with me. Too bad Topp wrote that article praising Papandreou's "responsible" social democratic approach (lol) and that he boasts about his role in the Romanow govt. and then runs against the Third Way! Topp is a very smart strategist who can read the tea leaves and sees the discourse is moving left as income inequality has become a front and center issue. Nash wins my respect for unapologetically embracing the trade union movement (rather than distancing herself from it) and working class themes, but Topp has moved up.
But he didn't really mean it. Why don't you go to his next event and ask him what he really thinks?
Beholden to unions, bad. Beholden to Onex Corp donors, ?expanding the party?
Oh and the trolls come out. Taking a modest donation does NOT in any way suggest that we are, or should be beholden to anyone. I don't expect anything for my donations to the NDP than for us to try and win!
Why don't you go down Mulcair's list of supporters and find the hundreds of folks on there who are members of the labour movement? Surely their combined "hypothetical influence" on Mulcair's donors list would be many scales times larger than these donors.
No, of course you wont. Because you'll find that the VAST majority of donations to Mulcair's campaign is from rank-and-file New Democrats, donating what they can, because they believe in a better country.
I have no problem with us taking money from rich corporate types if it is used to foster equality and a better Canada. Why wouldn't you?
Enough is enough.
On the bright side, if Gerry Schwartz gives $500 to Mulcair's campaign, that is $500 that is NOT going to any Liberal or Tory politicians!
I don't think Mulcair has been "bought" by Onex. But a lot of the corporate elite like what he says, which is unusual for a New Democrat.
I don't think he's been bought by anyone either, I just get the creeps by the optics of having those kinds of supporters.
Mulcair may turn out to be a fine leader who speaks well to the aspirations of traditional New Democratic voters. Or maybe not.
Yeah, I don't think Mulcair can be bought for a few thousand bucks. But the ties to that charity that basically hires mercenaries creep me the fuck out.
In David Miller's mayoralty campaigns in Toronto - he had lots of developpers donating money etc...I still think he was a very good mayor.
Really, in a lot of ways we restrict ourselves in terms of fundraising by refusing such donations.
Provincial sections typically take money from corporations, while, like in NS, campaigning on removing them if they get elected. Which Dexter did do.
Yeah, I'm not 100% comfortable with it, but I've made peace with it. I think it would be literally impossible for us to get 10 yards from Ottawa without big corporations starting to throw cash at us.
I know people get upset when any comparisons to Blair/New Labour are made, but it's important to remember that New Labour wasn't just about moderating platforms and de-ideologization, but also about actually embracing the wealthist capitalists in Britain (and saw the Democrats under Clinton as a model). Will the NDP continue to be a social democratic formation or will it become a liberal bourgeois formation like the US Democratic Party?
You need to identify what he's saying which the other candidates aren't saying that is music to the ears of the corporate elite. Otherwise, this is just innuendo.
But Unionist if we got rid of baseless innuendo these threads would probably be under 30 in total and then where would we be?