NDP leadership race #136

I think that is true.

Like me.

I say it again. I wish Saganesh had stayed in. Despite all of his perceived weaknesses, I thought he has a great story to tell, and I believed there was real potential there for him to grow into the job, just like Jack (blessed be his memory).

Over 45,000 folks have already voted - now that undeed is significant.

NDP leadership convention is on tv CPAC but not show subtitle! UGH!

eta finally CC on! Good! i wont complaint if CC/subtitle on!

You profoundly misread/misunderstood my several million posts on this issue. Do you recall my sarcastic references to the Dear Leader? Do you recall my characterization of the Tyrant who Decides Everything? Do you recall my pointing to Québec solidaire for proof that a party does not need a "leader", nor the concomitant "led"?

My point, which you misunderstood, is that there should not and cannot, in a progressive movement, be 9 individuals all of whom are convinced that they are the anointed one. There should be no anointed one.

I frankly couldn't understand, and still don't, why Roméo Saganash ran for the leadership. I well understand the crass and ugly careerist opportunism that motivates most, if not all, of the other candidates. Who else would read their principles and heart-felt values from a f***ing script? They all do it. They all already have handlers. They are all preparing for the role of Almighty God.

So Wilf, feel free to disagree with my position. But try, please, never to oversimplify it. I hate this spectacle, this beauty contest, and I am utterly convinced it augurs ill for both the party and the movement.

Here's what I would appreciate. When some presigious personality decides, at the nth hour, with much attendant drama and drumrolls, to "endorse" some candidate, they should be grilled as to why they waited so long... what their problem is with the other candidates... why they think their opinion is important. I simply don't get it. I lost a significant amount of respect, for example, for Saganash when he endorsed Mulcair after dropping out. Had he said from the start: "Listen folks, if I don't win, I'm going for Mulcair", I would have understood a little better. But what he did (which is what all the others do all the time) is crass and deceptive. People who conceal their views, or "time" their release, are difficult to trust, without a convincing explanation.

Canadians open to NDP taking power, poll finds

http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120323/ndp-leadership-co...

You should see the commentors to the contrary on CTV's website. The general consensu is that this only applies to the group polled, not Canadians. Funny how this test of credibility doesn't apply in the counter. Yep, our opponents are nervous, and Canadians are waking up.

I say again, ""the times they are a-changin'"!

This makes sense as an abstraction.

But we are talking about the NDP.

What you call "outcomes"- or goals- like greater income equality is the generalities we always took in.

When is it we get 'wrapped up' in what you call the means to the end- the programatic initiatives.

Its rather obvious you start with thw whty's to do it. I dont know where you get this idea we tend to be overly caught up with how to do it?

And you are awfully charitable about why the others stay away from the tax increase language. They stay away from it because in their estimation we're [still] not ready for that. We'll get a backlash, etc.

TheArchitect, perhaps you missed the url I posted above, which leads to the tweet by Megan Leslie herself, clarifying that she has made no such endorsement?

Arthur,

Thanks very much for including that blurb.  Good news!

I agree that what I'm offering here is probably quite nuanced and might seem like a small thing, but I think where communication is concerned, we would benefit greatly in a small change to the way we explain the NDP approach.  I know many NDPers and progressives in general that, when asked something akin to "what needs to change in this country?" respond with things like: we need to raise taxes on the rich, keep tuition costs low, punish pollutors, create more cooperatives, and nationalize more industries.  I know, to them, the reasons for those things (the "why") are implicit.  They feel like they've already spent enough of their life arguing for a more fair and just society and greater equality of opportunity and now they're onto the "how", but I think to "mainstream Canada" starting with those "what's" sound very ideological.

When they hear us say "we need to raise taxes on the rich" they're not always hearing "we want a more fair and just society" they're hearing "we don't want you to get rich, and if you do, we'll take more of your money away than the other guy".  They worry, I think, that we're blind to other potential means to increasing justice in society and reducing inequality and would blindly raise taxes even when there might be other ways to achieve those same ends (or at least ways that could be used in combination with more traditional NDP policy planks).

I'll concede your final comment (that I might be too generous toward the candidates who haven't directly mentioned tax increases).  I think I took that statement as an opportunity to engage on the broader issue of the way we currently communicate.

Great discussion.

And the long time established NDP habit is that when you have no policy with which to engage on an issue- or much more likely, you dont want the risks of getting concrete- then you just stick with the aspirational general goals.

Those keep the base happy. And no one else hears or remembers if they do hear.

A funny thing about that poll; it was Nanos. I don't really have much use for him but none of those Red-Neck CTVers had problems with any of his other polls, like the ones showing the Tories and Libs ahead, and the NDP down in Quebec and the rest of Canada. On that website  people are suddenly posting remarks like "sure those results are true for those 1000 people polled for this poll". Its comical.

This is true.

But it does not mean the antidote is 'better' didactic explanation.

Political discourse is complex, mediated, and directionally meandering. It doesnt replicate the natural linear progression of the way people think and talk.

So raising taxes on the rich is both making everything concrete, so that we can have a discussion in the first place; and it is a starting point for raising all those questions. We get to all of them in due time.

Astute politics is when you know the conditions of the public space are ripe for you being able to start a public conversation, with confidence it will go in the right direction. There have to be more than wishes and 'will' behind that pragmatic assesment.

That is essentialy what Topp and Cullen decided: that it is time for this, and it will work for us. Yes, it has always been something we are with good reason defensive about. But we and Canadians in general are ready now.

There are two [main] problems with the position on taxes of Mulcair, and the other 4 besides Topp and Cullen.

1.] There is an opportunity in gaining votes when this is aimed right. And our traditional mincing on the issue and never saying tax increase is not necessarily even the safest way to go.

2.] The fiscal status of the government is so wrecked by Harper [building on Paul Martin] that there is so amount of 'smarter/better tax collection' that is going to fix the situation. If we are not able to begin raising at least some taxes, we will as government be consigned to managers of the continuing cuts.... as is the case with the Nova Scotia government.

Unfortuanately, let alone broad public discussion, we dont even have a discussion among NDP activists about the latter reality. Which leaves Topp reduced to selling his tax agenda as a 'nice thing to do.'

Which is how people are taking it. Yes, that would be nice, but....

That and the pure delusion that once we get to government we can raise taxes. When we didnt want to talk about it before the election. Right. That has worked so well.

I question whether there is a measurable number of Canadians who are both: a) absolutely certain that taxes need to be increased; and b) supporters of a federal party other than the NDP.  I'm unconvinced that a message proposing that taxes be raised (as an end rather than a means) would in itself gain us any more votes.

This is probably true, but its an argument that we don't make effectively, because we just say "rich people need to pay their fair share" and then we stop.  At least this is how I think "soft Liberals" with NDP sympathies would describe our position and the reason they don't vote for us.