NDP Leadership 17

Ken Burch wrote:

(as opposed to Mulcair, the only OTHER Quebec candidate at this time, who has yet to develop cross-Canada appeal);

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1058971--ndp-would-do-best-under-mulcair-poll-finds

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/44054/conservatives-still-first-in-canada-ndp-would-do-well-under-mulcair/

Ken Burch wrote:

Unlike Dewar, not known as a "hawk", so could also be a "come up the middle" candidate for those who want neither Topp nor Mulcair but who also don't want a more prowar NDP foreign policy.

Every NDP MP voted for the extension of the mission in Libya, including Saganash.

Gonzaga wrote:

I spent some time trying to get the actually content of Mulcair's swings at Libby Davis on the divest, boycott, and sanctions stuff, and all I could find was that he was pretty harsh about her seeming to talk out of turn. Is he really a hardliner on Israel? Has he said something pro-colonization? Pro-wall? Pro - Gaza strip bombing?

AnonymousMouse wrote:

Mulcair has connections to the Jewish community in Montreal. I think his wife and kids are Jewish too. A lot of people assume based on this that he has anti-Palestinian views, but I've never actually seen him say anything to suggest that. In fact, he's repeatedly said he supports party policy on this issue and echoed the exact same positions taken by Jack Layton. Kady O'Malley reported a while back (a year or so ago) that he gave a speech at a Canada-Israel Committee event taking people to task for calling the organizers of Israeli Apartheid Week anti-semites. He disagreed with the use of that word, as did Layton, but he also had the courage to tell such an audience they it's wrong to use those kinds of fear tactics. Many will of course point to that dispute with Libby Davies, but in that case Mulcair was reacting to comments Libby made that seemed to suggest that all of Israel was occupied land (present tense)--as if Israelis living there now didn't have the right to do so. Now Libby clearly didn't understand the question being asked of her, the person asking it seemed to make no effort to clarify and Mulcair clearly should have waited to see how Libby ultimately reacted before commenting on the issue, but that's a very different set of questions than what his policy views are on the larger issue. I think it's pretty obvious that Mulcair will get asked about this if he runs, so we'll definitely get to understand his views more clearly before long.

Malcolm wrote:

Cullen's announcemebnt was in Vancouver, which most of the Parliamentary Press Gallery would be challenged to find on a map, while the Davies presser happened at their doorstep on Parliament Hill.

By contrast, the Dewar announcement was in Ottawa, which the Gallery believe is the centre of the universe, while the Douglas endorsement was a news release about a past event in Toronto with no photo op.

I completely agree that that is no doubt why the Libby Davies endorsement was more successful in capturing media attention than the Shirley Douglas endorsement, but that has nothing to do with the point I was making (i.e. whether the timing of both endorsement announcements were attempts to distract attention away from both campaign launches).

theleftyinvestor wrote:

vermonster wrote:

But Saganash has a potential significant liability in Quebec if he is elected leader. In the past he has advocated that IF Quebec were to vote to separate, the First Nations and Inuit territory of the province would be allowed to vote to separate from Quebec and stay in Canada.

I don't want to start a debate here around things like the Clarity Act, the divisibility of Quebec territory, etc -- there are extremely complex and difficult positions on both sides of an issue like this. But that position would certainly give the Bloc a huge issue to go after Saganash with and to attempt to regain a lot of the soft nationalist vote that went NPD in the last election - and rather than "making Quebec support rock-solid in the next election" could make it more difficult to consolidate hold in Quebec.

 

 

I don't know if that is necessarily a liability. It's a nuanced issue. If Quebec voters respond well to being trusted with the right to self-determination, would those same voters hold it against FN/Inuit people if they too would like to express the same self-determination on their territory? Is FN/Inuit land in Quebec part of the same distinct society, or is it even more distinct unto itself? The historical relationship between francophone Canada and aboriginal groups has its own unique flavour.

I do think that Saganash, by way of his ancestry, would not be seen in Quebec as embedded in the English-French divide the same way that a white anglophone or francophone candidate would. Who better to rise above the longstanding bitterness between two "founding nations" that emigrated here hundreds of years ago, than a man of Cree origin whose roots are deeper than both?

I'd like to believe your positive spin in the idea of self-determination of FN and Inuit peoples being potentially accepted by Quebec nationalists, but the history of the discussion here (Quebec, not rabble) strongly suggest otherwise. Anytime the question of the territorial integrity of Quebec being questioned in light of independence discussions has come up, the reaction has been very very strong and very very negative. Whatever the moral merits of the arguments, most Quebec nationalists view the discussion as nothing more than a gambit by federalists to undermine the case for independence.  

The issues around this are made more pronounced by profile of Plan Nord - Quebec's focus on developing northern resources, and the tremendous economic implications of hydro, mining, and other northern development possibilities. 

I am not saying that Saganash couldn't overcome the issue -- but make no mistake about it, the idea would be attacked vigourously by the Bloc and other nationalists, and could present a real challenge for Saganash as a leader with Quebec voters. 

The relationship between Quebec nationalism and aboriginal issues is extremely complex (and has received far less serious discussion in Quebec than it deserves). Whether an electoral campaign would be well-suited for promoting that nuanced discussion seems a dubious proposition, especially if one party (the Bloc) would have an interest in painting it in stark terms. 

Continues here.