NDP leadership 20

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Spector has this awesome gift for stating the obvious. Laughing

KenS

"Obvious"- like a lot of things people see around here. But most likely quite wrong.

dacckon dacckon's picture

Some News: RT @nikiashton: Talked to a lot of people about the leadership this weekend. Interesting feedback!
Interview /w Saganash (already posted in video form)
Not related to leadership- Dexter and Turmel

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Wilf Day wrote:

You sound unaware that the occupation of Kashmir has caused far more deaths and has continued for more years than the occupation of Palestine (assuming the "occupation" dates from 1967, not 1948). I don't blame you, if you get your information from the mainstream media.

Sealed

Then don't blame me because that is not where I get my information from.  I am talking about US/NATo imperialism and you throw in a regional conflict that is largely unrelated but actually a carryover from the British empire leaving the Indian sub-continent.  

I suspect the current NATO incursions into Libya will have just as profound and negative effects on the people as the British produced in the Kashmir. Intervening in other nations internal affairs used to be banned for very good reason.  Adopting the fig leaf of D2P or R2P is  a form of willful blindness to imperialism.  IMO.  

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Wilf Day wrote:

Not much comment here on Boulerice endorsing Topp:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1065093--quebec-mp-backs-topp-to-lead-ndp

Has anyone commented here? - other than nicky saying "I am presently on the shores of the Black Sea trying to assimilate why Boulerice . . . would prefer Topp to Mulcair."

To me, this is Topp's most surprising prize to date. Boulerice has been a leader of the Quebec NPD, for several years, and I would have expected him to either support Mulcair or stay neutral.

Boulerice was one of the only two NDP MPs who supported the Canadian Boat to Gaza, until he was forced to remove his name from the list of endorsers by Mulcair and Layton. The other MP, Alex Atamanenko, was put under a gag order. At the time, [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/activism/free-gaza-support-freedom-flotilla-ii#c... giggled at the idea[/url] that there was any pressure being applied to NDP MP's on the Gaza issue. I think we're now seeing a reflection of just how serious that episode was, with Boulerice coming out for Topp.

I suspect Mulcair is one of the last people Boulerice would like to see as party leader.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Public service announcement in case there are any Edmontonians on rabble who don't already know about this: all five currently declared federal leadership candidates will be attending the Alberta NDP Leaders' Levee this Saturday night in Edmonton, and all of the ones expected to announce soon have also been invited. As this is an election fundraising event, tickets are expensive, but if you can afford it and you're in town (or can get here easily), you might want to consider attending. I figure it may be the only chance to see many of these people in a casual setting.

It will be taking place at the Coast Edmonton Plaza Hotel, 10155 105 St. Saturday night, starting at 7pm. Phone 780-474-2415 for tickets if you're interested.

robbie_dee

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/united-stee... Steelworkers endorse Brian Topp[/url]

 

Quote:
Former party president Brian Topp has Canada's largest private-sector union behind him in his bid to replace Jack Layton as leader of the federal New Democrats.

The United Steelworkers announced Wednesday that Mr. Topp has its support. The union boasts 225,000 members in a wide range of economic sectors including mining, forestry and universities.

The endorsement comes the day before Thomas Mulcair - the Quebec MP who could provide Mr. Topp's fiercest competition - is expected to enter the race.

Ken Neumann, USW's Canadian national director, said in a release that the choice of the new NDP leader is critical to the future of working families.

"We need a federal leader who has what it takes to beat [Conservative Prime Minister] Stephen Harper and to govern well with strong New Democrat values," said Mr. Neumann. "That leader is Brian Topp. And the United Steelworkers is proud to strongly endorse Brian to become the next leader of the NDP."

Mr. Topp, a director with the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, is a long-time backroom worker for the party and worked closely on Mr. Layton's national campaigns.

KenS

Dewar would not have the clout within caucus- not even close- to pressure someone like that. Nor any other critic on other questions for that matter [he or she would have to go to Mulcair or Layton]. I'm not saying it happened, and I dont know; but if it did, it would be Mulcair consulting with the Layton, or both of them directly.

AnonymousMouse

M. Spector wrote:

Boulerice was one of the only two NDP MPs who supported the Canadian Boat to Gaza, until he was forced to remove his name from the list of endorsers by Mulcair and Layton.

Why would you think Mulcair had anything to do with this? Dewar was Foreign Affairs critic, but I wouldn't even assume that he was involved. I don't doubt for a moment that your right that pressure was exerted, but why do you assume Mulcair was involved? Ensuring that MPs don't freelance on policy is the resposibility of the party leader and whip.

AnonymousMouse

KenS wrote:

Dewar would not have the clout within caucus- not even close- to pressure someone like that. Nor any other critic on other questions for that matter [he or she would have to go to Mulcair or Layton]. I'm not saying it happened, and I dont know; but if it did, it would be Mulcair consulting with the Layton, or both of them directly.

Or, far more probably, just Layton and staff.

KenS

You can forget about Libby Davies having any kind of personal and past actions animus to Mulcair, if she has any at all.

And although I know nothing at all about Boulerice, I would bet a lot on the same being true for him.

What not try the actual 'obvious' folks? You know, Occam's Razor and all that:

Libby and Boulerice are definitely identified on the left of the party. They want the party to fit their hopes as much as possible. And they see the best hope with Brian Topp.

Brilliant deduction, eh?

KenS

Staff do not tell NDP MPs that sort of thing. And it would be most likely Mulcair simply because that was his role in Caucus. Though it is possible that Jack would have said something as well to make sure it is known that this is his expectation- though that might border on micro-management, and Jack was no micro-manager.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

KenS wrote:

Libby and Boulerice are definitely identified on the left of the party. They want the party to fit their hopes as much as possible. And they see the best hope with Brian Topp.

Brilliant deduction, eh?

The corollary being that Thomas Mulcair doesn't fit in with their vision of the party.

KenS

I dont think that is a stretch to surmise.

flight from kamakura

steelworkers is a huge endorsement for topp, in all senses, and it really changes the complexion of the race.  this is the sort of thing that would put a chill down other contenders' spines, and maybe a further fleshing out of the surprise julian announcement.  huge organizational boost for topp, solidifying his position as the front-runner.  all eyes on outremont tomorrow..

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

KenS wrote:

I dont think that is a stretch to surmise.

But evidently it was a huge mystery to Wilf Day, who raised the issue in this thread for the first time.

KenS

I'm saying that is an obvious conclusion now, with some time to reflect.

Wilf was expressing surprise when Boulerice's announcement first came. Then questioned the follow-up labelling of Boulerice 'hard left'.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

I'm glad you have had time to reflect. I hope Wilf has, too.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

AnonymousMouse wrote:
M. Spector wrote:

Boulerice was one of the only two NDP MPs who supported the Canadian Boat to Gaza, until he was forced to remove his name from the list of endorsers by Mulcair and Layton.

Why would you think Mulcair had anything to do with this? Dewar was Foreign Affairs critic, but I wouldn't even assume that he was involved. I don't doubt for a moment that your right that pressure was exerted, but why do you assume Mulcair was involved? Ensuring that MPs don't freelance on policy is the resposibility of the party leader and whip.

1. Mulcair was deputy leader at the time.

2. Mulcair was known to be the Zionists' Rottweiler in the previous federal caucus.

3. Mulcair had previously led the denunciation of Libby Davies for correctly saying that the occupation of Palestine began in 1948.

There are so many reasons, I keep having to add more:

4. Mulcair was Quebec lieutenant and Boulerice was under his bailiwick. Boulerice was forced to withdraw his endorsement of the CBG. Contrast this with the treatment of B.C. MP Atamanenko, who was not required to withdraw his endorsement.

5. Boulerice could have waited to make his announcement of support for Topp until later. But he chose to do so before Mulcair's declaration of intent, clearly indicating that Mulcair could not assume the support of Quebec MP's as a given, and giving momentum to Topp.

Hunky_Monkey

robbie_dee wrote:

[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/united-stee... Steelworkers endorse Brian Topp[/url]

Maybe the media are starting to talk to the rank and file a bit...

Quote:
The ties to Mr. Layton and the people who surrounded him have prompted complaints from other candidates – and from grassroots New Democrats – that the centre of the party is trying to dictate the outcome of the leadership vote.

AnonymousMouse

M. Spector wrote:

4. Mulcair was Quebec lieutenant and Boulerice was under his bailiwick. Boulerice was forced to withdraw his endorsement of the CBG. Contrast this with the treatment of B.C. MP Atamanenko, who was not required to withdraw his endorsement.

There are a million possible reasons for the difference including that Boulerice removed his name first, he was a brand new MP, he may have been convinced it was right to remove his name as his actions now reflrected on the entire caucus, or Atamenenko may have just steadfastly refused to remove his name.

M. Spector wrote:

5. Boulerice could have waited to make his announcement of support for Topp until later. But he chose to do so before Mulcair's declaration of intent, clearly indicating that Mulcair could not assume the support of Quebec MP's as a given, and giving momentum to Topp.

That not only assumes that Mulcair had anything to do with the Gaza Boat poetition--when there is no evidence to even connect him to the incident--but also assumes that that was the rason for his endorsement of Topp. Even then it doesn't add up. Whatever the reason Boulerice endorsed Topp, it would be very normal for him to time the endorsement in the way that most helps Topp. That true regardless of the reason he's endorsing.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

AnonymousMouse wrote:
I wonder why anyone would think Boulerice would be a great judge of poltics outside Quebec.

I wonder why anyone would think you would be. Boulerice had to state a reason, and I think that one is as plausible as any. Certainly Mulcair has not endeared himself to the anti-Zionist left in English Canada.

AnonymousMouse

KenS wrote:

Staff do not tell NDP MPs that sort of thing. And it would be most likely Mulcair simply because that was his role in Caucus. Though it is possible that Jack would have said something as well to make sure it is known that this is his expectation- though that might border on micro-management, and Jack was no micro-manager.

I'm refering to the leader's staff acting on behalf of the leader and in such cases they absolutely do have that kind of influence. This is an issue of caucus members not freelancing on party policy which senior staff members routinely deal with. Mulcair might also (theoretically) be considered to have gained such direct influence once he became House Leader--prior to that he would have only had such influence through Layton--but there's simply no reason to think he'd be involved in the first place. Not allowing MPs to freelance by supporting highly controvertial protests on Middle East issues--whether we agree with them or not--was very much part of that Jack Layton's position on these issues and presumably the majority position in caucus as well. That clearly pre-dates Mulcair.

AnonymousMouse

M. Spector wrote:

2. Mulcair was known to be the Zionists' Rottweiler in the previous federal caucus.

I find stuff like that gets thrown around about Mulcair a lot with absolutely no evidence of it.

M. Spector wrote:

3. Mulcair had previously led the denunciation of Libby Davies for correctly saying that the occupation of Palestine began in 1948.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I think Mulcair should have absolutely talked to Libby Davies about this before responding on the spot to a question he was asked about it. Davies had been asked a question that seemeingly was deliberately designed to be confusing and it produced a confusing answer. But I think "led the denunication" is something very different. That implies he was proactively going out on the issue when he was actually being asked about it by a journalist. Just as importantly, nothing Mulcair said, even in this incident, was about policy. I've never heard or read anything Mulcair has said that implies he has a one sidedly pro-Israel view on these issues. In fact, he denounced the use of accusations of anti-Semitism against IAW organizers at a Canada Israel Committee event. I would guess that he was probably either the only MP or one of very fewer MPs to do that anywhere, much less at such an event.

Obviously if Mulcair runs for leader, he'll get asked about this issue and we'll get a better idea of his actual views. I look forward to hearing them rather than what seems like a widespread assumption that he has a one sided pro-Israel position.

AnonymousMouse

A lot of this seems to be assuming that Davies and Boulerice have similar reasons for their endorsements. But why would we assume that?

Obviously there have been some issues between Mulcair and Davies--though anyone who saw the coverage of Jack Layton's lying in state would be assured that they can still get along even if these issues are enough to prevent Davies from supporting Mulcair for leader.

Boulerice, on the other hand, said that he is supporting Topp because he thinks Topp has the best chance of gaining support outside Quebec. I don't think that's correct--not by a long shot and I wonder why anyone would think Boulerice would be a great judge of poltics outside Quebec--but I don't think we can just dismiss this given that it's his stated reason for supporting Topp.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

flight from kamakura wrote:

steelworkers is a huge endorsement for topp, in all senses, and it really changes the complexion of the race.  this is the sort of thing that would put a chill down other contenders' spines, and maybe a further fleshing out of the surprise julian announcement.  huge organizational boost for topp, solidifying his position as the front-runner.  all eyes on outremont tomorrow..

You may have something there about the Steelworkers. Ken Neumann and Peter Julian know each other very well from years of working closely together on issues in BC.  It is obvious that Julian would have approached his long time ally and was likely rebuffed.  Some dashes of cold water sober one more than others. 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

AnonymousMouse wrote:
M. Spector wrote:

4. Mulcair was Quebec lieutenant and Boulerice was under his bailiwick. Boulerice was forced to withdraw his endorsement of the CBG. Contrast this with the treatment of B.C. MP Atamanenko, who was not required to withdraw his endorsement.

There are a million possible reasons for the difference including that Boulerice removed his name first, he was a brand new MP, he may have been convinced it was right to remove his name as his actions now reflrected on the entire caucus, or Atamenenko may have just steadfastly refused to remove his name.

Do you really think Layton would have [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/06/08/pol-ndp-flotilla-layton... a conversation[/url] with Boulerice about his endorsement of the Gaza Flotilla without first consulting Mulcair and having his approval? Mulcair's power and influence were greatly enhanced by the enlargement of the Quebec caucus.

BTW how did Boulerice's "actions" reflect on the "entire caucus"? I assume you mean they reflected badly, since you are obviously a big fan of Mulcair's liberal politics.

We do know that Layton implied [link above] that the decision to remove the endorsement was up to each of the two of them. Atamanenko (who by the way is supporting Peter Julian for leader) could afford to leave his name standing on the list of endorsers, as he has no real future with the party and is unlikely to run in the next election. And while he was willing to listen to Layton, he probably couldn't have cared less what Mulcair thought of him.

Boulerice different story; he is a young Quebec MP and as far as he knew he had to get along with both Mulcair & Layton for many years to come if he was to have any sort of career in the party.

AnonymousMouse

M. Spector wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:
I wonder why anyone would think Boulerice would be a great judge of poltics outside Quebec.

I wonder why anyone would think you would be.

I see no reason to be rude. Boulerice, endorsing a candidate for leader, gave 'he'll play best outside Quebec' as his reason without offering any indication for why that might be. He didn't say "we need a leader who will play well outside Quebec and here's why I think that person is Brian Topp." The implication was that his opinion--not argument, but opinion--should carry some weight. I'm making an argument--right or wrong--to support my opinion precisely because I don't expect anyone to just assume I'm a great judge of anything. I'm not saying Boulerice did anything wrong, it just seems to me to be an odd way to use your platform when endorsing someone.

M. Spector wrote:
Boulerice had to state a reason, and I think that one is as plausible as any.

Sure. His stated reason might not be his actual reason, but I don't think we can just assume that. If Boulerice was endorsing Topp because of Gaza Boat policy a more directly related endorsement might have involved "Canada's place in the world" or "progressive values", not "he'll play well outside Quebec". Of course, the reason given may also have been tactical. There have been other occasions when Topp and his supporters have used the "he'll play well outside Quebec" line.

M. Spector wrote:
Certainly Mulcair has not endeared himself to the anti-Zionist left in English Canada.

I completely agree with this. Insofar as activists on this issue really like Libby Davies--myself included--some will not support Mulcair on the basis of this past fracas alone, regardless of what his position on the issue turns out to be, but for others learning more about his actual views will be the deciding factor.

josh

flight from kamakura wrote:

steelworkers is a huge endorsement for topp, in all senses, and it really changes the complexion of the race.  this is the sort of thing that would put a chill down other contenders' spines, and maybe a further fleshing out of the surprise julian announcement.  huge organizational boost for topp, solidifying his position as the front-runner. 

Yeah, appears that Topp, for all intents and purposes, is pretty close to wrapping this thing up.  For better or worse.

Howard

The Steelworkers is a big endorsement and I was expecting it. The USW and Layton's crowd are like peas in a pod, the more strained relationship is with the CAW. Topp is part of Layton's crowd. The only person that could have truly forced Boulerice to withdraw his signature from the CBG petition (short of Boulerice himself) is Layton or one of his inner staff, all of whom would support Topp, but people here have concluded, for equally tenuous reasons, that Mulcair is to blame.

Mulcair is launching tomorrow. It will be a dog fight. The whole party, the whole establishment against Mulcair. The grassroots caught in the middle. I hope we don't get trampled. I'm feeling stepped on already.

AnonymousMouse

M. Spector wrote:

Do you really think Layton would have [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/06/08/pol-ndp-flotilla-layton... a conversation[/url] with Boulerice about his endorsement of the Gaza Flotilla without first consulting Mulcair and having his approval?

Absoluetly. It's not like Mulcair is gonna object to Layton asking MPs not to get involved in this issue. Layton was the leader. Layton wss as responsible as anyone for our success in Quebec. He didn't need anybody's approval to do his job. And, what more, that's what Layton always did on these issues. He clearly didn't want the party to be seen as embracing the most controvertial protest movements.

M. Spector wrote:

BTW how did Boulerice's "actions" reflect on the "entire caucus"? I assume you mean they reflected badly, since you are obviously a big fan of Mulcair's liberal politics.

No, I don't mean reflect badly. I mean that in Canadian politics, with our system of strong party discipline, the comments of individual MPs are very often imputed to one degree or another to entire parties. This is the same reason why all parties demand that MPs not freelance on policies to one degree or another.

I also don't see any evidence that Mulcair is somehow not a progressive. The Quebec Liberal Party is the Quebec Federalist Party. Yes, they're less left-leaning than the PQ, but there are people with views that range from social democratic to conservative. You should see how many committed lefty members of the NDP Quebec Section supported the Liberals provincially before QS. I've never heard or read a single ting that Mulcair has said that leads me to believe he is anything than a committed progressive, but--again--we'll find out more if he runs.

AnonymousMouse

josh wrote:

flight from kamakura wrote:

steelworkers is a huge endorsement for topp, in all senses, and it really changes the complexion of the race.  this is the sort of thing that would put a chill down other contenders' spines, and maybe a further fleshing out of the surprise julian announcement.  huge organizational boost for topp, solidifying his position as the front-runner. 

Yeah, appears that Topp, for all intents and purposes, is pretty close to wrapping this thing up.  For better or worse.

ACTRA has a long running, official partnership with Steel that makes them basically indivisible. It doesn't change whatever organizational value there is to this, but if Steel had not endorsed Topp it would have been very strange.

ottawaobserver

Nonsense. This race is just starting.

Also, KenS, where do you get the idea that Dewar has no influence in caucus? And where do others get the idea that Mulcair had no interest in the articulation of middle east policy, regardless of his formal critic role? And why do not people take an MP's word about why he is supporting someone at face value?

Perhaps I'm just cranky today, but I'm reading a lot of nonsense in these threads. I can't wait until we know the full slate, and this blessed race gets underway properly.

Howard

Actually I think we pretty much know the full slate now. More (foolish?) predictions: 1) Nash will endorse Topp 2) Julian will endorse Topp 3) Ashton will enter the race.

I think I've made the first two predictions before and I feel more sure about Nash than Julian. What are the chances Nash and Julian will endorse Topp before Mulcair's launch tomorrow? Anyone want to take me up on a non-monetary bet that they will?

Ashton entering the race also strikes me like a profile-building career move. Much like earlier comments I made about Cullen. Unlike Cullen though, I suspect Ashton's French is decent.

Count me in the cranky category too OttawaObserver Wink

Howard

An interesting article about Saganash.

Quote:

According to Saganash, what many Canadians are unaware of is just how old someone needs to be to join a political party. The legal age in Quebec is 16 and in some provinces it’s as low as 13 or 14.

Now what Saganash has to do is increase the party membership in his riding and beyond. He said in recent weeks he has been helping out NDP members in other ridings in Quebec and Ontario doing membership drives and has seen some MPs double their riding’s membership over the course of a weekend.

In the coming weeks, Saganash will head back up north to do the same throughout the Cree communities and other Aboriginal reserves. Saganash is hoping that people in his riding will respond favourably as membership drives have not been seen too often in these areas.

AnonymousMouse

Howard wrote:

According to Saganash, what many Canadians are unaware of is just how old someone needs to be to join a political party. The legal age in Quebec is 16 and in some provinces it’s as low as 13 or 14.

Wouldn't there be a single federal law that would apply to federal parties? This might not matter ouside Quebec--as NDP memberhip is handled by the provincial sections, though maybe we make exceptions where the laws conflict--but at least in Quebec you'd think it would be federal law that's controlling, wouldn't it?

AnonymousMouse

ottawaobserver wrote:

And where do others get the idea that Mulcair had no interest in the articulation of middle east policy, regardless of his formal critic role?

I, for one, am not claiming that. I'm pointing out that since there doesn't seem to be ANY source of information even CONNECTING Mulcair to this particular incident (the Gaza Boat petition) in the first place, it stretches credulity to assume he was forcing other MPs to do this or that. Maybe he was, but there's absolutely no factual basis upon which to assume that. I'm also suggesting this is especially true since we don't even really know what his views are on the issue. Though, of course, your comment may refer to another poster.

ottawaobserver

The Elections Act doesn't govern the age at which an individual can join a political party or vote in a nomination or leadership contest. That's up to the party constitutions. In the NDP, membership rules are governed by the provincial sections, except that Quebec has none and is thus governed by what the federal party's rules are.

ottawaobserver

AnonymousMouse wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

And where do others get the idea that Mulcair had no interest in the articulation of middle east policy, regardless of his formal critic role?

I, for one, am not claiming that. I'm pointing out that since there doesn't seem to be ANY source of information even CONNECTING Mulcair to this particular incident (the Gaza Boat petition) in the first place, it stretches credulity to assume he was forcing other MPs to do this or that. Maybe he was, but there's absolutely no factual basis upon which to assume that. I'm also suggesting this is especially true since we don't even really know what his views are on the issue. Though, of course, your comment may refer to another poster.

Fair enough. I believe he feels he has an interest in the carefully negotiated policy being followed, so as not to upset his constituents on either side of the delicate balance, given how heavily his riding was being targetted. For that matter, the fact that Mulcair has now won Outremont three times in a row probably means that he may not feel so hyper-alert now about every little thing that could risk the seat either.

Hunky_Monkey

josh wrote:

Yeah, appears that Topp, for all intents and purposes, is pretty close to wrapping this thing up.  For better or worse.

Far from it. He has about 8 MPs out of 102 endorsing him. He has a union backing him in a OMOV membership race. I'm sure card carrying NDP members of the Steelworkers will, like other New Democrats, make up their own mind.

And oh... he has Ed Broadbent. Maybe Brian Topp will be the Peter Tabuns of this race. Broadbent endorsed Tabuns in the Ontario leadership race if you recall. Tabuns lost to Andrea Horwath on the final ballot... by 20 points.

This race is far from over.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Howard wrote:

According to Saganash, what many Canadians are unaware of is just how old someone needs to be to join a political party. The legal age in Quebec is 16 and in some provinces it’s as low as 13 or 14.

Wouldn't there be a single federal law that would apply to federal parties? This might not matter ouside Quebec--as NDP memberhip is handled by the provincial sections, though maybe we make exceptions where the laws conflict--but at least in Quebec you'd think it would be federal law that's controlling, wouldn't it?

There is nothing in the federal Election Act dealing with membership criteria. Specific officers are required to do certain things to comply with the Act but nowhere does it set out criteria for membership in a party itself.  

In BC the age is for joining the NDP is 14.  I always thought that the 14 year old age for membership flowed from the constitution of the party not the government. If there is no Quebec party then is the 16 year limit contained in the federal constitution?  Now I'm curious.

nicky

Perhaps Topp scheduled the Steelworkers endorsement to upstage Mulcair just as he staged Davies to upstage Cullen and Shirley Douglas to upstage Dewar.
In any event I do not believe this endorsement carries as much weight as in the old days of delegated conventions when unions could deliver a block vote. The union brass may be plump for Topp but the general membership may well be different.
So far I think Topp has 7 MPs, Mulcair 11 by my count. Capstick tweeted recently that Mulcair may have up to 35 after tomorrow. Does anyone have anything firmer on this? Or how many may be from outside Quebec? I think it will be very significant if Mulcair can get a few MPs from the ROC.

Howard

Howard wrote:

Actually I think we pretty much know the full slate now. More (foolish?) predictions: 1) Nash will endorse Topp 2) Julian will endorse Topp 3) Ashton will enter the race.

I think I've made the first two predictions before and I feel more sure about Nash than Julian. What are the chances Nash and Julian will endorse Topp before Mulcair's launch tomorrow? Anyone want to take me up on a non-monetary bet that they will?

Ashton entering the race also strikes me like a profile-building career move. Much like earlier comments I made about Cullen. Unlike Cullen though, I suspect Ashton's French is decent.

Count me in the cranky category too OttawaObserver Wink

Oops! I forgot about Chisholm, but Chisholm forgot about French. Will he run anyways?

ottawaobserver

Howard wrote:

Actually I think we pretty much know the full slate now. More (foolish?) predictions: 1) Nash will endorse Topp 2) Julian will endorse Topp 3) Ashton will enter the race.

I think I've made the first two predictions before and I feel more sure about Nash than Julian. What are the chances Nash and Julian will endorse Topp before Mulcair's launch tomorrow? Anyone want to take me up on a non-monetary bet that they will?

Ashton entering the race also strikes me like a profile-building career move. Much like earlier comments I made about Cullen. Unlike Cullen though, I suspect Ashton's French is decent.

I've noticed an increase in activity on the "Go Peggy" Facebook page, which makes me think she is coming to a decision one way or the other soon. I'm torn. Nash would be a really credible entry into the race, but she has just been knocking it out of the park as Finance critic these days, and I'd hate to see her step away from that role just now either.

I do expect to see Peter Julian endorse Brian Topp at some point, and to see Ashton enter the race. You didn't mention Robert Chisholm, but it appears he's more or less decided on a run as well, and appears to have picked up at least Ryan Cleary's support based on a Hill Times story of the other day.

Paul Dewar is picking up some former-party-staff endorsements that I've seen floating around Facebook. This makes me think his organizational strength might be pretty good.

Howard wrote:

Count me in the cranky category too OttawaObserver Wink

Ah well, we'll have to cajole each other out of it, then, Howard. No-one likes a gloomy guss, never mind two of us.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

nicky wrote:

I think it will be very significant if Mulcair can get a few MPs from the ROC.

Actually it would only be significant if he could not attract MP's except from the ranks of the newly elected.  If no returning MP's support him that would show he is not fit to be leader.  However I would be gob smacked if he didn't have significant support from his peers in the last House.

ottawaobserver

nicky wrote:
Capstick tweeted recently that Mulcair may have up to 35 after tomorrow. Does anyone have anything firmer on this? Or how many may be from outside Quebec? I think it will be very significant if Mulcair can get a few MPs from the ROC.

I know of at least one MP in the ROC, and guess at least a couple more. The attraction seems to be either environmentalism and/or having a muscular politician to face Harper.

Wilf Day

ottawaobserver wrote:

Perhaps I'm just cranky today, but I'm reading a lot of nonsense in these threads. I can't wait until we know the full slate, and this blessed race gets underway properly.

Me three.

flight from kamakura

Northern Shoveler wrote:

flight from kamakura wrote:

steelworkers is a huge endorsement for topp, in all senses, and it really changes the complexion of the race.  this is the sort of thing that would put a chill down other contenders' spines, and maybe a further fleshing out of the surprise julian announcement.

You may have something there about the Steelworkers. Ken Neumann and Peter Julian know each other very well from years of working closely together on issues in BC.  It is obvious that Julian would have approached his long time ally and was likely rebuffed.  Some dashes of cold water sober one more than others. 

yeah, and there's also stuff like this:

Earlier, we reported Brian Topp's bid for the federal New Democrat leadership is being supported by Gerry Scott. Now we've learned of former provincial New Democrat leader Carole James's senior staffers - chief of staff Jim Rutkowski and outreach director Raj Sihota - are volunteering for Mr. Topp.

http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/006344.html

seems like the people julian'd have been going to for support had already climbed on the topp train. there was a hill times article very recently about libby davies' supporting topp as having a major impact on julian's decision, but i'd guess it had much more to do with these organizational-level moves by some of the bc backroom people. really looks like topp is building a huge machine here, really hope mulcair's replique tomorrow is proportionate. actually, in this context and given the way the field is shaping up, i'm pleased that after so long a consideration, mulcair found the support there for run.

AnonymousMouse

ottawaobserver wrote:

Fair enough. I believe he feels he has an interest in the carefully negotiated policy being followed, so as not to upset his constituents on either side of the delicate balance, given how heavily his riding was being targetted.

Really good point. I've heard a lot people make assumptions about Mulcair's underlying views on this subject, but I think all we can actually tell from his record is that he REALLY seems to want to maintain the kind of 'carefully negotiated balance' to which you refer.

ottawaobserver wrote:
For that matter, the fact that Mulcair has now won Outremont three times in a row probably means that he may not feel so hyper-alert now about every little thing that could risk the seat either.

Given that Mulcair has taken some pretty hard stands on issues he cares about, I think it's more likely that he genuinely believes in a careful, balanced approached to the issue. One should remember he has deep connections to the Jewish community in Montreal beyond just his own riding and beyond just those of an ordinary politician, so in addition to representing people who care about Israel, he also has the credibility to be able to do things like call people out for making unfair accusations of anti-Semitism as he has in the past. Mulcair doesn't seem to have the natural "please everyone" quality that Jack Layton had, but when in comes to rejecting the binary false choices our opponents like to present us with--instead taking "practical solutions" directly to voters--Mulcair seems to have learned a thing or two from Layton.

Howard

flight from kamakura wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:

flight from kamakura wrote:

steelworkers is a huge endorsement for topp, in all senses, and it really changes the complexion of the race.  this is the sort of thing that would put a chill down other contenders' spines, and maybe a further fleshing out of the surprise julian announcement.

You may have something there about the Steelworkers. Ken Neumann and Peter Julian know each other very well from years of working closely together on issues in BC.  It is obvious that Julian would have approached his long time ally and was likely rebuffed.  Some dashes of cold water sober one more than others. 

yeah, and there's also stuff like this:

Earlier, we reported Brian Topp's bid for the federal New Democrat leadership is being supported by Gerry Scott. Now we've learned of former provincial New Democrat leader Carole James's senior staffers - chief of staff Jim Rutkowski and outreach director Raj Sihota - are volunteering for Mr. Topp.

http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/006344.html

seems like the people julian'd have been going to for support had already climbed on the topp train. there was a hill times article very recently about libby davies' supporting topp as having a major impact on julian's decision, but i'd guess it had much more to do with these organizational-level moves by some of the bc backroom people. really looks like topp is building a huge machine here, really hope mulcair's replique tomorrow is proportionate. actually, in this context and given the way the field is shaping up, i'm pleased that after so long a consideration, mulcair found the support there for run.

Your link doesn't work but the note about Raj Sihota is interesting because Raj is reputed to be on the right-of-centre side of the NDP, having supported Nils Jensen over Carole James for the BC NDP leadership. That being said, the last BC NDP leadership race saw a mix of right and left NDPers endorsing both Farnsworth and Dix. The final race was a contest of personalities with few policy issues. Is the same phenomenom playing itself out in this federal race? Are endorsements really more about personalities than any objective policy differences? That would explain some things.

Pages

Topic locked