The discussion continues!
Issues Pages:
Regions:
NDP Leadership #97
Wed, 2012-02-15 17:48
#1
NDP Leadership #97
Wed, 2012-02-15 18:12
#2
Dewar’s camp suggests unnamed leadership contenders could ‘dishonour’ NDP principles, NDP players slam Dewar's poll
NDP MP and leadership candidate Paul Dewar has stirred up opposing camps in the NDP leadership race with a letter from his campaign manager suggesting either one or more of the other candidates is set to 'dishonour' NDP principles by moving the party to the right to become 'another Liberal party.'
http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2012/02/14/dewar%E2%80%99s-camp-s...
BTW Topp will be in Surrey tomorrow evening.
Wed, 2012-02-15 18:16
#3
Wed, 2012-02-15 18:18
#4
Another thread on the miracle of the loaves. :)
Wed, 2012-02-15 18:59
#5
M. Mulcair déclare que les conservateurs utilisent les richesses du pays à des fins partisanes. « Ils s’attaquent à nos institutions, dont Service Canada, le Centre de sauvetage de Québec, Postes Canada, l’Institut Maurice-Lamontagne. Le premier choix des conservateurs pour équilibrer le budget, c’est de couper dans les services directs à la population. Jamais le NPD ne fera un tel choix. La solution est plutôt de se donner une administration publique plus efficace. Les conservateurs ne prennent pas de décision en s’appuyant sur des faits, mais sur des préjugés. »
http://www.lavantage.qc.ca/actualite/14-02-2012-thomas-mulcair-a-rimousk...
exactly.
Wed, 2012-02-15 19:16
#6
I'm confused about one thing the pundit guide suggests that the Mulcair campaign has dropped expectations on thier goal of gaining 20000 new member saying its closer to 10000.
But does that mean Mulcair's campaign is under 20000 in signing new Quebec members or that there are under 20000 Quebec members period? How would Mulcair's team know how many people the other campaigns have signed up? Or even the NDP itself has signed up, after all the figures have not been made public.
Wed, 2012-02-15 19:25
#7
though not public, the numbers may be available to the campaigns.
Wed, 2012-02-15 19:27
#8
They are indeed, I believe they get bi-weekly updates.
Wed, 2012-02-15 20:14
#9
Romeo Saganash specifically criticized Topp's tax plan during the Halifax debate, saying raising taxes is a toxic issue for the NDP. And on his website he said "I don't think an income tax increase is the right way to go for Canada."
Romeo did not say raising taxes is toxic for the NDP. I dont agree with the alternative he offered, because it wont raise the kind of money required. But unlike Mulcair, he offered a consistent, nuanced and politicaly astute strategy.
Wed, 2012-02-15 20:34
#10
I tired of discussing how many people can dance on the head of a pin.
I want to win the next election and with Tom's leadership we can pull it off.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/bruce-anders...
So back to the NDP race. Reading about Thomas Mulcair’s meeting with the Toronto Star editorial board, I couldn’t help but wonder if something different may be starting to happen here.
That Mulcair said edgy, brash things was not shocking. That the challenges he threw down were mostly aimed at the feet of NDP members was what caught my attention.
He talked about fatigue with ‘50s boiler plate language of social democracy and admitted to meeting party members who fear the implications of winning power, believing it would be the result of an apocalyptic soul-selling. He challenged the orthodoxy of styling the NDP as the champion of “ordinary people,” suggesting that good progressive ideas will be supported by more voters if they are not always freighted with class warfare branding.
On NAFTA, Mulcair dismissed the idea of scrapping the deal, said the oil sands shouldn’t be shut down, and that tax increases would only be considered as a last resort in a government he would run.
I’m not suggesting his positions would win broad acceptance; there are lots of aspects of them that would still give pause to centrist voters. But I do think his themes are challenging to NDP voters: He’s leaving little doubt that if they want to go the next step as a party and seriously try to win an election, that’s what he wants to do as well. Inferentially, he’s asking them to consider if the same can be said for his opponents.
No doubt, in speaking out this way, Mulcair is taking a gamble in terms of the internal dynamics of this leadership race. But to borrow a term from René Lévesque, it may well be a beau risque for him – and an interesting argument for his party to consider.
Wed, 2012-02-15 20:53
#11
Yes, becoming more like the Liberal party is the ticket. Look how well it worked for them last time.
All part of the "renewal" process I guess. If the NDP's traditional viewpoint and base seem such an anathema to Mulcair, makes you wonder why he wants to lead it.
Wed, 2012-02-15 21:02
#12
Yes, becoming more like the Liberal party is the ticket. Look how well it worked for them last time. All part of the "renewal" process I guess. If the NDP's traditional viewpoint and base seem such an anathema to Mulcair, makes you wonder why he wants to lead it.
Yeah It's almost like you're describing a ridiculous caricature of the man instead of the guy who turned down a prestigious spot with the Liberals to run for a fourth place party because he believed in them.
Wed, 2012-02-15 21:07
#13
mulcair is getting us ready to replace the liberals, not become them. you have to go and listen to him speak for any length of time - none of this stuff comes out. what he's offering is a professional governance model based very much around the quebec consensus. one of my earliest memories of the ndp was some western mps protesting gas prices outside of a gas station, it's a nice bit of solidarity, but not the role of a government-in-waiting. i think people underestimate how much work it is to mount a credible opposition to the government, running the opposition is like running a fairly large business, competing directly with a much larger competitor. the ndp pre-2008/pre-2011 just couldn't be up to that task. think of the difference between quebec solidaire and the pq - i vote solidaire, but the vast majority of people (myself included on some days) wouldn't want them within shouting distance of the premier's office.
Wed, 2012-02-15 21:07
#14
It's kind of funny how people think unlike just about every social democratic "modernizer" who talked like Mulcair is now, Mulcair has no intention to move to the right, but rather just "update" the language.
Has Mulcair noticed the Occupy movement? The progressive discourse is moving leftward right now.
Wed, 2012-02-15 21:19
#15
like i said, just listen to what the substance of his proposals are. i can't think of a single position he holds that doesn't line up exactly with what jack was proposing. all he's saying on the tax issue is that it would be unproductive and entirely symbolic to promise to raise taxes for a budget that wouldn't be delivered until 2015 - there's no win there for the ndp.
and if he doesn't come out of this whole thing as the leader, he's very well positioned to rebuff the harper attack machine.
Wed, 2012-02-15 21:25
#16
I just always see these people screaming "fire" whenever Mulcair speaks. But there's no fire, not even smoke.
"Modernizing". Oh my god. Everyone knows Modernity is right-wing concept. 
Mulcair pointed out that in Quebec/Outremont, they reached out to communities who historically vote liberal, like the Vietnamese community in his riding. Their interests would be better served by the NDP. He convinced them to lend their vote in a by-election, and they've been solidly NDP ever since. He mentioned that since he's toured the rest of the country, he's noted the surprising LACK of diversity in other ridings, even in Toronto.
And as a Torontonian, I'll tell you that *I'm* disappointed in the lack of diversity in the NDP here. I have a lot of friends who work with racialized youth and other poor/marginalized/anti-racist groups. But if you ask them about politics, a lot of the stakeholders in these communities are either non-political, or Liberal. And if you ask them why they support the Liberals over the NDP, they can't tell you why exactly. They sympathize with us, but they never really connect to us. We just hope our message delivers itself, and our organization remains largely anglo-protestant.
So yes, we can afford to modernize. I'm not even talking about Mulcair. I'm talking about actually improving the way we organize.
The idea of dropping "democratic socialism" from the Party Platform was advanced by none other than our new patron saint Jack Layton.
If this idea causes you panic, you shouldn't be worried about this leadership election, because we've apparently been sellouts since 2003.
Wed, 2012-02-15 21:30
#17
one of my earliest memories of the ndp was some western mps protesting gas prices outside of a gas station, it's a nice bit of solidarity, but not the role of a government-in-waiting.
Well, I must admit that holding a press conference at a gas station is something that no serious politician with any chance of winning election to anything of importance would ever do.
Wed, 2012-02-15 21:34
#18
hahah, great one! but seriously, we're not catering to the american public.
Wed, 2012-02-15 21:41
#19
dacckon
The point was that Layton was a solidly a progressive who moderated his stance in order to win. I expected that if he won government, the agenda would be more progressive than the platform put out in a election.
Wed, 2012-02-15 21:42
#20
I think therre is more to Tom's encounter with the member in Nanaimo than we realize when she said if we formed government we would have sold out. lol
Wed, 2012-02-15 21:44
#21
[Double post]
Wed, 2012-02-15 21:44
#22
hahah, great one! but seriously, we're not catering to the american public.
Thanks! I assure you I'm not seriously advocating holding events at gas stations; I just couldn't resist posting the image.
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:14
#23
In the previous thread, my good friend mark_alfred said...
But Armine Yalnizyan, a senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, says wealthier Canadians should be taxed more, noting that according to data, Canadian millionaires are paying tax rates equivalent to those in the 1920s.
I trust the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives more than the Canadian Taxpayer Federation. However, if some Mulcair fans prefer the latter, that's their prerogative, I suppose.
Nice swipe. I used numbers from the CTF used in a CBC article. Are they inaccurate? I don't know but I did point out the source of the numbers.
One thing you didn't mention by Yalnizyan...
"You wouldn’t get a huge amount by taxing them at a higher rate but you'd get something," said Yalnizyan
Also interesting to note she talks more about millionaires in Canada. Let's face it... quite a difference between $250,000 and $1,000,000.
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:16
#24
"Modernizing". Oh my god. Everyone knows Modernity is right-wing concept.
Maybe you are not aware of this, but for decades there have been a steady stream of people who want to "modernize" social democratic parties. They never want to move right--they just just want to change the party to make it more palatable to the masses, but of course they'll keep the values.
The problem is, when it comes time to stand up for social democratic values, they don't.
So how is Mulcair different from the many people coming before him who say the same things as he's saying now?
I don't really understand what Mulcair's offering that is new.
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:16
#25
And that's true. It's only a starting point. Necessary but not sufficient.
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:17
#26
like i said, just listen to what the substance of his proposals are. i can't think of a single position he holds that doesn't line up exactly with what jack was proposing. all he's saying on the tax issue is that it would be unproductive and entirely symbolic to promise to raise taxes for a budget that wouldn't be delivered until 2015 - there's no win there for the ndp.
Where is the substance in his proposals?
I'm not trying to be dificult here...I really want to know. I have been waiting this whole time to get a sense of what Mulcaid would do as Leader. What would he actually do?
I feel like his proposals are lacking in both substance and boldness. Everything is vague, with details to be filled in later. Additionally, I don't know of anything he's proposed that couldn't have been just as easily proposed by the Liberal Party.
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:22
#27
It's kind of funny how people think unlike just about every social democratic "modernizer" who talked like Mulcair is now, Mulcair has no intention to move to the right, but rather just "update" the language.
Has Mulcair noticed the Occupy movement? The progressive discourse is moving leftward right now.
My lord... :) Have you gone to hear Mulcair in person? Asked him some direct questions?
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:22
#28
The difference is all of those parties were working from a losing position. We're here working from a historic victory. And yes, that historic victory involved some amount of modernizing under Jack Layton, including such reforms as killing affiliated membership. If modernization is something to fear, then it's too late, because it's already happening.
This all warrants skepticism. But all the alternatives, with the possible exception of maybe Nash, are all on board this train.
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:26
#29
RevolutionPlease
I feel like his proposals are lacking in both substance and boldness. Everything is vague, with details to be filled in later. Additionally, I don't know of anything he's proposed that couldn't have been just as easily proposed by the Liberal Party.
Therein lies the rub. It worked to get Liberals elected in the past. Tom's seen how it's done.
Now, can we trust him to do the opposite if he gains power?
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:29
#30
"Modernizing". Oh my god. Everyone knows Modernity is right-wing concept.
Maybe you are not aware of this, but for decades there have been a steady stream of people who want to "modernize" social democratic parties. They never want to move right--they just just want to change the party to make it more palatable to the masses, but of course they'll keep the values.
The problem is, when it comes time to stand up for social democratic values, they don't.
So how is Mulcair different from the many people coming before him who say the same things as he's saying now?
I don't really understand what Mulcair's offering that is new.
Jack modernized the party in more ways than fundraising and organization. I doubt he would have stopped in his tracks in May.
What Mulcair talks about is what happened in Quebec... how we got rid of the yes, the old boilerplate language... and talked to voters in a new and inclusive way. He wants to use that model in the rest of Canada.
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:33
#31
I'm confused about one thing the pundit guide suggests that the Mulcair campaign has dropped expectations on thier goal of gaining 20000 new member saying its closer to 10000. But does that mean Mulcair's campaign is under 20000 in signing new Quebec members or that there are under 20000 Quebec members period? How would Mulcair's team know how many people the other campaigns have signed up? Or even the NDP itself has signed up, after all the figures have not been made public.
Perhaps the Mulcair team has been the only ones successful at all in signing up members any numbers in Quebcec?
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:34
#32
I feel like his proposals are lacking in both substance and boldness. Everything is vague, with details to be filled in later. Additionally, I don't know of anything he's proposed that couldn't have been just as easily proposed by the Liberal Party.
Therein lies the rub. It worked to get Liberals elected in the past. Tom's seen how it's done.
Now, can we trust him to do the opposite if he gains power?
Gee... haven't be complained for YEARS that the Liberals campaign on NDP policies? But somehow now Tom... and only Tom... is trying to be them on... policy?
Am I in a twilight zone here?
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:38
#33
It's called leadership.
http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=185260
Mulcair is said “not to work well with others.” Sometimes this is called commitment and charisma; Pierre Trudeau wasn’t terrific at getting along, but his persona was electrifying, and he was electoral gold for a generation despite his somewhat disagreeable approach to colleagues. Maybe Mulcair just knows what he wants.
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:39
#34
Again, if you think there's no difference between ANY of the candidates and the Federal Liberal party, here's a few words: Afghanistan, child care, Kyoto, proportional representation, home care, sherbrooke declaration...
Is there ANY substance to this paranoia?
Oh, right, "modernization". The Conservatives invented it, and now the Liberals are trying to outdo them. We might be next!!! 
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:40
#35
It's kind of funny how people think unlike just about every social democratic "modernizer" who talked like Mulcair is now, Mulcair has no intention to move to the right, but rather just "update" the language.
Has Mulcair noticed the Occupy movement? The progressive discourse is moving leftward right now.
Don't blame Mulcair for what Tony Blair and the third wave did, he had nothing to do with it.
He supports childcare, pharmacare, cap and trade, he mentioned how he want to push Canada into a more value added economy like how Quebec banned the export of raw logs, he's made his support for fair trade and treaty protecting the enviroment, worker rights, and human rights clear, fighting against war rape, a fincial transaction tax, and still people make him out to be a crazy rightwinger.
And those who keep suggesting he's third way still can't provide any evidence without fabericating things. Niki Ashton is talking about "New Politics" too does that mean she's secretly a third wayer too.
People on the left of the party are too quick to label people they don't like third way, its become the left wing equilvent of red baiting.
Anywho know that I made my point :)
I have a simple suggestion to Nash on how to enforce the Health Act without violating Quebec's turf. Taxation changes. Boost federal taxation on private healthcare and any doctor that changes extra fees for healthcare services. The federal income and corporate taxes are federal juristiction. A 100% tax rate with absolute removal of any available tax credits or anything that would protect them from paying would put illegal private medical care out of business and cut out the profitablity of user fees.
Alternately a more permanant solution would be to add the Canadian Health Act to the Constitution, but that comes with its own challenges.
One question I have for all of the surviving seven is what policies of your oppentants do you approve of?
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:41
#36
Boom Boom
This got my attention:
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:45
#37
Perhaps the Mulcair team has been the only ones successful at all in signing up members any numbers in Quebcec?
I'd suspect the other campaigns (with the probable exception of the former Saganash campaign) wouldn't invest a whole lot of time or money trying to sign up new members in Quebec. It's a lot easier to track down lapsed members in other provinces where your opponent most likely to make it to the final ballot isn't already polling well north of 50%.
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:46
#38
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.
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:49
#39
Boom Boom
I have a simple suggestion to Nash on how to enforce the Health Act without violating Quebec's turf. Taxation changes. Boost federal taxation on private healthcare and any doctor that changes extra fees for healthcare services.
Interesting idea, except it could be a recipe for an exodus of our health professionals to the USA.
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:53
#40
He supports childcare, pharmacare, cap and trade, he mentioned how he want to push Canada into a more value added economy like how Quebec banned the export of raw logs, he's made his support for fair trade and treaty protecting the enviroment, worker rights, and human rights clear, fighting against war rape, a fincial transaction tax, and still people make him out to be a crazy rightwinger.And those who keep suggesting he's third way still can't provide any evidence without fabericating things. Niki Ashton is talking about "New Politics" too does that mean she's secretly a third wayer too.
People on the left of the party are too quick to label people they don't like third way, its become the left wing equilvent of red baiting.
Anywho know that I made my point :)
Agreed. I've said before if another candidate released Tom's proposals under their name, it would have been met with a different reaction.
And we've seen Romeo go after Topp on taxes but the reaction was quite different. Yes, there was some comment but it was few and pretty mild. And then we had Peggy's slip (and I think it just that... I don't question her commitment to the Canada Health Act). If Tom had made that, poop would have hit the fan :)
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:54
#41
Yes, becoming more like the Liberal party is the ticket. Look how well it worked for them last time. All part of the "renewal" process I guess. If the NDP's traditional viewpoint and base seem such an anathema to Mulcair, makes you wonder why he wants to lead it.Yeah It's almost like you're describing a ridiculous caricature of the man instead of the guy who turned down a prestigious spot with the Liberals to run for a fourth place party because he believed in them.
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.
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:58
#42
If the guy wanted to win, there were THREE parties where it would have been easier for him to go for the power grab. There's a reason Jack reached out to him, and there's a reason he went with a fourth-party.
Who in their right mind would become a New Democrat in Quebec before 2011, unless they genuinely agreed with what we were doing?
I can't believe I'm the guy defending Mulcair here, but the arguments against him are getting more and more inane.
Wed, 2012-02-15 22:59
#43
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.
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:04
#44
"Modernizing". Oh my god. Everyone knows Modernity is right-wing concept.
Maybe you are not aware of this, but for decades there have been a steady stream of people who want to "modernize" social democratic parties. They never want to move right--they just just want to change the party to make it more palatable to the masses, but of course they'll keep the values.
The problem is, when it comes time to stand up for social democratic values, they don't.
So how is Mulcair different from the many people coming before him who say the same things as he's saying now?
I don't really understand what Mulcair's offering that is new.
Mulcair has already stood up for social democratic values, when he added enviromental protection to the Quebec constitution, when he quit Charest cabinate over privatizing wetlands.
I'm starting to think for some people Mulcair could promise to nationalize the entire economy and they'd just pawn it off as part of his secret rightwing conspiracy.
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:05
#45
all he's saying on the tax issue is that it would be unproductive and entirely symbolic to promise to raise taxes for a budget that wouldn't be delivered until 2015 - there's no win there for the ndp.
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'm confused about one thing the pundit guide suggests that the Mulcair campaign has dropped expectations on thier goal of gaining 20000 new member saying its closer to 10000. But does that mean Mulcair's campaign is under 20000 in signing new Quebec members or that there are under 20000 Quebec members period? How would Mulcair's team know how many people the other campaigns have signed up? Or even the NDP itself has signed up, after all the figures have not been made public.
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.
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:11
#46
This got my attention:
Ew. I'm voting for a candidate with better taste in furniture. 
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:12
#47
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.
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:13
#48
Jack modernized the party in more ways than fundraising and organization. I doubt he would have stopped in his tracks in May.
What Mulcair talks about is what happened in Quebec... how we got rid of the yes, the old boilerplate language... and talked to voters in a new and inclusive way. He wants to use that model in the rest of Canada.
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.
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:14
#49
Ew. I'm voting for a candidate with better taste in furniture.
I'm voting for a candidate who doesn't assume that MY taste in furniture is that hideous!
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:19
#50
Boom Boom
Ew. I'm voting for a candidate with better taste in furniture.
How elitist! 
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:19
#51
Yes, becoming more like the Liberal party is the ticket. Look how well it worked for them last time. All part of the "renewal" process I guess. If the NDP's traditional viewpoint and base seem such an anathema to Mulcair, makes you wonder why he wants to lead it.Yeah It's almost like you're describing a ridiculous caricature of the man instead of the guy who turned down a prestigious spot with the Liberals to run for a fourth place party because he believed in them.
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.
Way to leave out the most critical part, the reason why he was demoted, he stood up to Charest because Charest wanted to circumvent the law and ethics and basic morality and,privatize critical wet lands to appease liberal donars (aka corruptian) and Mulcair refused and was punished for it and so he left the party for its unprincipled actions.
See this is what I mean by twisting the facts to fabericate the falsehood he lacks honesty and foundational principles. He says he doesn't plan to move the party to the centre and his actions have revealed him to be a man of courage, principle, and honesty. So I have every reason to be believe him.
Its said its better not to believe words, its better to believe actions and his actions say he's an honest guy and that he's a true Dipper.