NDP Leadership 30

139 posts / 0 new
Last post
JeffWells

samuelolivier wrote:

Just out of curiosity, for those who want to make it public, is there a candidate you are leaning to?

I have to say that at the moment, with having heard a real debate from the candidates and not knowing exactly where they stand on several issues, I would go in that order:

1- Saganash

2- Nash

3- Mulcair

FWIW, that's my top three as well.

 

Hunky_Monkey

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

What makes you think it doesn't get asked?

I mean, I don't know what journalists ask, but when I've met various candidates over the past few months, I've made very sure to ask questions about Quebec to the non-Quebec candidates and questions about the rest of Canada (especially beyond Ontario) to the others. You're right that it's terribly important.

On here, I haven't heard "does Peggy Nash understand Quebec?"... or Paul Dewar. But it seems to pop up quite a bit regarding Mulcair and the rest of Canada.

Stockholm

flight from kamakura wrote:

I just read this tossaway line near the end of an article in the vancouver weekly 'georgia straight' on mulcair and topp, suggesting that the dix machine is getting behind topp because he carries the lowest risk to their provincial prospects.  great work!  so if topp just fizzles out on the no-charisma/boring issue, what does that mean?

I think that's a crazy conspiracy theory. First of all the next BC election will happen years before the next federal election so I think that who the federal NDP picks to lead it will make ZERO difference to the prospects of the provincial NDP in BC.

If Topp is getting support from the "Dix machine" in BC its probably simply because Topp and Dix are good friends who like to work together - so much so that Topp had been hired to be the BC NDP campaign manager for the election that was supposed to happen this fall but didn't. In a leadership race the number one reason people endorse each other is because they are personal friends/allies.

Hunky_Monkey

samuelolivier wrote:
As for Mulcair, I still think he is the best to beat the Conservatives. I still have doubts that he can really rally a big bunch of the caucus and I look forward to see him explaining his vision.

He is the best candidate to beat the Tories and has at this point the most caucus support... but you're unsure if he can rally the caucus and he's your third choice? :)

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

What makes you think it doesn't get asked?

I mean, I don't know what journalists ask, but when I've met various candidates over the past few months, I've made very sure to ask questions about Quebec to the non-Quebec candidates and questions about the rest of Canada (especially beyond Ontario) to the others. You're right that it's terribly important.

On here, I haven't heard "does Peggy Nash understand Quebec?"... or Paul Dewar. But it seems to pop up quite a bit regarding Mulcair and the rest of Canada.

I certainly asked Dewar questions about his approach to Quebec and will do the same with Nash when I have the opportunity to meet her. It's a hugely important concern. But for what it's worth, I think the issue comes up with Mulcair and the rest of Canada specifically because some babblers who have already had an opportunity to meet him have observed specific things about him that have made them worry about that.

Howard

Stockholm wrote:

I had the same thought - the only people who talk about "class warfare" these days are talking heads on Fox news who dismiss any suggestion that the wealthy should pay higher taxes as "class warfare". IMHO the real class warfare is one being waged by the rightwing politicians and the rightwing media that is a class war on behalf of the top 1% and against everyone else!

Bill Tieleman uses that word as well as class-based, and it is implicit in a lot of articles when he writes about economic issues. He has a lot of influence in the BC NDP. I wonder if it is a BC thing.

As you raised the example of the USA, how about the Dailykos series on the "war on workers", same difference.

 

Howard

Stockholm wrote:

flight from kamakura wrote:

I just read this tossaway line near the end of an article in the vancouver weekly 'georgia straight' on mulcair and topp, suggesting that the dix machine is getting behind topp because he carries the lowest risk to their provincial prospects.  great work!  so if topp just fizzles out on the no-charisma/boring issue, what does that mean?

I think that's a crazy conspiracy theory. First of all the next BC election will happen years before the next federal election so I think that who the federal NDP picks to lead it will make ZERO difference to the prospects of the provincial NDP in BC.

If Topp is getting support from the "Dix machine" in BC its probably simply because Topp and Dix are good friends who like to work together - so much so that Topp had been hired to be the BC NDP campaign manager for the election that was supposed to happen this fall but didn't. In a leadership race the number one reason people endorse each other is because they are personal friends/allies.

I don't think it is a crazy conspiracy theory. The BC NDP likes the Federal NDP to be on the same message track as them. That's why the Federal NDP came out against a carbon tax shortly after the BC NDP did. The BC NDP faced an election in the province in 2009 and they wanted to use the tax as a wedge issue. The federal NDP came on board and ran against it in 2008. Now the BC NDP supports a carbon tax again. Given that Brian Topp was the BC NDP campaign chair, I have to think he and Dix share an understanding on messaging.

ETA: Charlie Smith articles should be read with a large grain of salt. I think he is clearly a left Liberal.

Howard

JeffWells wrote:

samuelolivier wrote:

Just out of curiosity, for those who want to make it public, is there a candidate you are leaning to?

I have to say that at the moment, with having heard a real debate from the candidates and not knowing exactly where they stand on several issues, I would go in that order:

1- Saganash

2- Nash

3- Mulcair

FWIW, that's my top three as well.

Same. Although for the moment I have Nash and Mulcair swapped. I think I'm going to refrain from commenting for the rest of the campaign and focus on some volunteering...

josh

Howard wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

I had the same thought - the only people who talk about "class warfare" these days are talking heads on Fox news who dismiss any suggestion that the wealthy should pay higher taxes as "class warfare". IMHO the real class warfare is one being waged by the rightwing politicians and the rightwing media that is a class war on behalf of the top 1% and against everyone else!

Bill Tieleman uses that word as well as class-based, and it is implicit in a lot of articles when he writes about economic issues. He has a lot of influence in the BC NDP. I wonder if it is a BC thing.

As you raised the example of the USA, how about the Dailykos series on the "war on workers", same difference.

 

It's not the same difference. Unless you take a totally ahistorical view of the usage of the term. Or try to equate a sarcastic use of the term with a perjorative use. Or are a third way Blairite.

Vansterdam Kid

My top 3...this is subject to change depending on the way the campaign goes.

Mulcair - He's scrappy, witty, charismatic and articulate.

Nash - She's warm, intelligent and isn't afraid to talk about what's wrong the economy in specifics.

Cullen  - Even though his French isn't amazing and he was against the Gun Registry I've always felt like he's had a strong grasp of whatever critic area he was given and I think he could develop a strong populist appeal.

flight from kamakura

also subject to the actual campaign itself:

1. mulcair - he's everything i want in a candidate, if i had 100 votes, he'd get 85 of them.

2. topp - despite my fear of the disheveled zero-charisma candidate sinking us, i can't help but put stock in how many really experienced politicians are lining up behind the guy.  audrey or dion, could be, but maybe not.  remains to be seen.

3. cullen - incredibly charismatic and authentic, i hope he's listening to rosetta 3-4h/day to improve his french, because if tragedy strikes mulcair and topp really is a fish, i'd like this guy to fall back on.

Unionist

ottawaobserver wrote:

Chretien himself had awful english - but great political instincts.

Chrétien speaks excellent colloquial English - with a heavy accent. Dion can't express himself comfortably in English. People don't mind accents - as long as the discourse is comprehensible.

 

Stockholm

Howard wrote:

 The BC NDP likes the Federal NDP to be on the same message track as them. That's why the Federal NDP came out against a carbon tax shortly after the BC NDP did. The BC NDP faced an election in the province in 2009 and they wanted to use the tax as a wedge issue. The federal NDP came on board and ran against it in 2008. Now the BC NDP supports a carbon tax again. Given that Brian Topp was the BC NDP campaign chair, I have to think he and Dix share an understanding on messaging.

Actually I think that the federal and BC NDPs each had their own reasons for opposing the carbon tax. For the feds it was that Jack personally didn't believe in it and it was also not good politics to support an unpopular policy championed by Stephane Dion at a time when the NDP was trying to differentiate itself from the Liberals. I think the BC NDP had similar reasons for taking that position - though they were much less skilled at managing relations with the ENGOs than the federal party was.

I think its a bit of an overstatement to say that the BC NDP "supports" the useless caron tax which has not rediuced GHG emissions by one iota. I think they are simply resigned to the fact that the BC Liberals won the 2009 election, by 2013 the carbon tax will have been there for almost 5 years and at some point its too late to try to refight an old issue. In 1988 the federal NDP campaigned against the Free Trade Agreement with the US and against the GST. Twenty-odd years later I'm sure the NDP still wishes the FTA had never happened - but its clearly too late to put toothpaste back into a toothpaste tube and say "elect us and we will tear up all trade agreements that involve Canada and the US".

I think that one big difference though between Mulcair and Topp is that Topp is committed to the NDP as a Canada-wide organism. He cares about how the party does - not just federally but in every provincial election and he recognizes the importance of having some degree of coordination between the federal and provincial parties. In the case of Mulcair - I honestly don't know whether he gives a hoot about how the NDP does in the next BC provincial election or if he is even aware of any potential issues that need to be managed  between the federal party and the provincial parties. I've never heard of him campaigning for the NDP in any provincial elections or have i ever had the impression that he is emotionally involved in the success of the NDP "brand" at every level.

 

Stockholm

flight from kamakura wrote:

also subject to the actual campaign itself:

1. mulcair - he's everything i want in a candidate, if i had 100 votes, he'd get 85 of them.

I don't know about you but one of the things I want in a candidate for leader is that they be a good person who is respectful of people and who gets along with people and has really good people skills etc...I'm not saying that Mulcair does NOT have those skills - but the main knock against him seems to be that he has managed to make a lot of enemies in the caucus in a relatively short time. Its all very well to trot out endorsements from 33 NDP MPs - but 31 of those 33 MPs were first elected in May and have barely seen him in action. I'd be much more impressed if he was able to show that he was being backed by some high profile MPs who were in the House before the May election. If Mulcair had launched and had the backing of some respected figures like Jack harris or Joe Comartin or Yvan Godin or Stoffer or Charlie Angus etc...or is he was backed a single solitary woman who was in caucus with him pre-May. But no dice. Even looking at the Quebec caucus - yes he has a large volume of backers - but its notable that the Quebec MPs who have the most profile and star quality themselves are either running themselves (Saganash) or are backing Topp (ie: Francoise Boivin and Alexandre Boulerice)

Vansterdam Kid

Endorsements are interesting. On the one hand the endorsers are often people's whose opinions and experience I respect. On the other, being politicians themselves, they are often ensconced in the bubble of politics which can give them a bit of a disconnect from the average person. Besides which, a lot of the time the 'establishment' starts lining up behind any given candidate I have to question their motives. And frankly, I couldn't give less of a crap about whether or not Topp has been "involved" or is "a nice guy." In fact one thing I find odd about the NDP vis a vis the other parties is how much it's politicians publically link themselves at different levels of government, which tends to hurt the party more than help it when any given level of that party is unpopular.

This is not to say I wouldn't support Topp, I just don't see his being "involved" or a "nice guy" all that relevant in my decision making process. Now, I have been given pause by all the questions about how abrasive Mulcair allegedly is, but this works in two ways. On the one hand it makes me question whether or not he'd be able to "get a long with others." On the other it makes me question the motives of his detractors who just might be undermining his electability by focusing on personal attacks that could have a lasting impact on his ability to fight the real enemy.

I mean what if Mulcair won and then the Conservatives started playing attack ads quoting how 'nasty' Mulcair is, according to prominent NDPers? No one of consequence in the NDP has gone that far yet, but I'd suggest they watch it because I (and I'm sure other NDPers agree) would be less likely to support a candidate who themselves (or who have their proxies) launch such an attack. Ronald Regan said it about the Republican Party primaries, and I think it's apt with modification here, thou shall not attack a fellow New Democrat (in such a way as to make them unelectable and help the Conservatives). Not to mention how all the Liberal Party infighting helped to hasten their demise.

Besides which, there are enough policy issues that need to be addressed that the nonsensical meta stuff should be shoved to the backburner.

Gaian

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

My top 3...this is subject to change depending on the way the campaign goes.

Mulcair - He's scrappy, witty, charismatic and articulate.

Nash - She's warm, intelligent and isn't afraid to talk about what's wrong the economy in specifics.

Cullen  - Even though his French isn't amazing and he was against the Gun Registry I've always felt like he's had a strong grasp of whatever critic area he was given and I think he could develop a strong populist appeal.

Indeed.

Stockholm

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

 

This is not to say I wouldn't support Topp, I just don't see his being "involved" or a "nice guy" all that relevant in my decision making process. Now, I have been given pause by all the questions about how abrasive Mulcair allegedly is

No one said that Topp was necessarily a "nice guy" either - but I do think that he is someone I trust with the party in terms of doing what's good for the NDP. He has his strengths and weaknesses as a candidate but one thing I would never question is that he is totally committed to the NDP at all levels. I'm sure if you slashed his wrist he would bleed orange!

There are many aspects of the job of leader that matter that are not what we see in scrums or in Question Period. They involve being able to run the party organization on the inside and unify the caucus and work well with people etc...One of the things that Dion never recovered from was that hardly anyone in the Liberal caucus backed him for the leadership and similarly in BC Christy Clark is having to deal with a caucus where she only had one supporter. The conventional wisdom about Mulcair was always that he was the heir apparent to Jack. Yet, obviously "something" happened to cause that to be less of a foregone conclusion (I wasn't there so i don't know what).

The main issue I have with Mulcair is that for someone whose biggest "trump card" is all his political experience - he keeps saying things that strike me as ...shall we say...impolitic (ie: bragging about saying "no" to the USW, or constantly talking about how the process is somehow stacked against him). Its not that what he's saying is necessarily incorrect - but I have to question his political instincts and judgment for saying things so far in the race for leader that strike me as mistakes in front of the NDP memership electorate.

flight from kamakura

yeah, those are good points both about topp's concern for the ndp canada-wide and mulcair's seemingly poor strategy thus far.  my retort is that the next ndp leader is not the one we needed before.  the specific skills that mulcair has are less party-building than election-winning.  i wish i were old enough to know how mulroney was perceived at the time, but i really do feel like mulcair could be our mulroney - and by that parallel, i obviously mean that at every level, i.e. far better fiscal manager, etc.   anyway, in this context, there's no reason to assume that mulcair is less concerned with the provincial parties than other candidates; and mulcair's strategy can be seen as pretty clearly trying to push the ndp to seriously consider how we'll get to government, what winning in the ontario suburbs would look lke, how to consolidate those quebec seats, and who has the most credibility and force of personality to lead us down that garden path.

Gaian

@boom boom

Given massive Conservative campaign funds and their use of U.S. style attack ads on a gullible Canadian electorate you can appreciate that "taking out Harper and his thugs in 2015" will involve more than a recitation of "plans to take the NDP to government in 2015." A believable explanation of where we are at and how jobs can be maintained in a viable economy, forcefully delivered, will be needed.

nicky

As most of you will know my heart has been with Mulcair since almost the beginning. I think Cullen would be my second choice nad then maybe Topp. To date I just don't think any of the others have shown the gravitas necessary to be the leader.

I think electibility is almost transcendant here. This country will be damaged enough after four more years of Harper. It is almost unimaginable what it would be like if he had eight more years. Mulciar stands to eliminate the federal Liberal party and consolodate the progressive vote. Topp's backroom image and lack of sparkle may be a real handicap.

I have looked up what I posted on Aug. 28 in the very first NDP Leadership thread. with some minor revisions my present thoughts are similar:

"1. The party must consolidate its hold on Quebec. Mulcair is the obvious choice to accomplish this. I think he may be able to extinguish the lingering Liberal hold on the West Island in particular. Although Jack was mostly responsible for the Quebec breakthrough we should not underestimate Mulcair's role. Dianne Ablonszy (sp?) congratulated Jack on the Quebec result and he magnanimously said"I had a great Quebec lieutenant." Let's not forget this.

2. The next election will be the best chance the NDP has ever had to take power. We should not blow this chance by giving in to the the old NDP propensity to be ideologically pure and play identity politics. We should all remember what happened when we picked Audrey McLaughlin for similar reasons. I think Mulcair offers us our best shot at power. He may be a lapsed Liberal and that may eliminate him in the eyes of some. But he is our best prospect to consolidate the progressive vote, partly because of his Liberal background. As Mike Layton quoted his father, you make the best with what you have at hand.

3. If Mulcair runs he is likely to have near unanimous support from Quebec. The mathematics of the leadership leave him at a distinct disadvantage. The unions (with whom he has no particular ties) have a guaranteed 25%. The rest is a one member one vote system. The Quebec membership has always ben very low although I expect it has recently grown. Saskatchewan, on the other hand has always had a high membership, sometimes even greater than Ontario in years past. So we may have the anomaly that Saskatchewan with no NDP MPs has a greater say in the leadership vote than Quebec which has almost 60% of the caucus. If Mulcair is defeated in this landscape it will inevitably be seen as a repudiation of Quebec.

4. I have only seen Mulcair on television, as have almost all Canadians. He is formidably smart and forceful, in my view a formidable political talent. The Conservatives obviously fear him in Question Period. The point has been made that Mulcair does not have Jack's sunny image of conciliation. It will be a grave mistake to look to find a duplicate of Jack because we will never find him. We can expect of a certainty that whoever we pick as the next leader will be met with a massive Conservative ad campaign to define his or her image pejoratively like they did Dion and Ignatieff. Jack was able to escape this because he came in under the radar until the last couple of weeks of the last campaign. He had also been around long enough to define his own image. As the best known of the contenders, especially in Quebec, Mulcair may be best able to weather this inevitable storm. I also think that unlike the last two hapless Liberal leaders Mulcair has the sheer political talent to counterpunch his way out of the Conservative attempt to kneecap him from the outset."

 

KenS

Howard wrote:

 The BC NDP likes the Federal NDP to be on the same message track as them. That's why the Federal NDP came out against a carbon tax shortly after the BC NDP did. The BC NDP faced an election in the province in 2009 and they wanted to use the tax as a wedge issue. The federal NDP came on board and ran against it in 2008. Now the BC NDP supports a carbon tax again. Given that Brian Topp was the BC NDP campaign chair, I have to think he and Dix share an understanding on messaging.

You've got that completely wrong.  The federal party came out with its policy first- cap and trade and NOT carbon tax. That was the product of some intense but careful research.

The BCNDP had its own ponderous process, and came out later supporting the carbon tax without ever asking the federal party why it did not. Which bit them in the ass good later.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

My strong hope is that whomever becomes NDP leader can take out Harper and his thugs in 2015. That's why, for me, it's really important that we get the debates going as soon as everyone's in and we can see how each of them plans to take the NDP to government in 2015 - if there's anything left to lead in this country after Harper is finished with it. Frown

Stockholm

Well Mulroney had one quality that I have not (yet) seen in Mulcair. By all accounts Mulroney built incredible personal loyalty from those around him. He was apparently an incredibly charming guy and even when Tory support had collapsed almost to single digits in 1991-1992 - he could still walk into the Tory caucus and get standing ovations and unanimous support and seemed to be genuinely loved WITHIN his own party. Mulroney was a true blue party man. For YEARS before he ran for Tory leader there was no partisan Tory event anywhere in Canada that was too small or insignificant for him not to attend. How do you think he won the leadership in 1983 despite never having run for public office before? He did it because he was so visible in Tory circles across canada that if you were a card carrying Tory loytalist in Canada in the early 80s - you had to KNOW Brian Mulroney. He was everywhere and he was always willing to pitch in. If PEI was having a provincial byelection Mulroney was there. If something was happening in rural SK - Mulriney was there and if you were a Tory loyalist - he was apparently an incredibly nice guy who build contacts everywhere he went.

I Mulcair had those kinds of skills - we would not even have a race for the leadership -it would be a coronation for Mulcair.

Stockholm

nicky wrote:

3. If Mulcair runs he is likely to have near unanimous support from Quebec. The mathematics of the leadership leave him at a distinct disadvantage. The unions (with whom he has no particular ties) have a guaranteed 25%. The rest is a one member one vote system.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The 25% union carve out vote was eliminated at the Quebec City convention in 2006. This race is pure unadulterated one member one vote.

Gaian

Wish I could have formulated that, nicky.

That's the essence of what we are on about.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

flight from kamakura wrote:

the specific skills that mulcair has are less party-building than election-winning.  i wish i were old enough to know how mulroney was perceived at the time, but i really do feel like mulcair could be our mulroney - 

That is the scenario I fear the most.  A favourite son leader who soars to the sun for one election but when he fails brings his party to crashing defeat in Quebec, for generations. If the NDP is to be a lasting influence then it must have a leader who is proud to be a social democrat. Someone who will walk a picket line when workers are on strike in their riding.  From the outside it appears to me that the voters in Quebec lean towards left of centre politicians in at least the same numers as in BC [35% to 50%]. If the NDP wants to have continued electoral success it cannot just be about short term electoral success. The NPD needs to become the federal party of the left of centre voter in Quebec and that is about consistent policy more than electing any specific leader.  If we fail to build a party in Quebec any victory will be fleeting.

flight from kamakura

Stockholm wrote:

Well Mulroney had one quality that I have not (yet) seen in Mulcair. By all accounts Mulroney built incredible personal loyalty from those around him. He was apparently an incredibly charming guy and even when Tory support had collapsed almost to single digits in 1991-1992 - he could still walk into the Tory caucus and get standing ovations and unanimous support and seemed to be genuinely loved WITHIN his own party. Mulroney was a true blue party man. For YEARS before he ran for Tory leader there was no partisan Tory event anywhere in Canada that was too small or insignificant for him not to attend. How do you think he won the leadership in 1983 despite never having run for public office before? He did it because he was so visible in Tory circles across canada that if you were a card carrying Tory loytalist in Canada in the early 80s - you had to KNOW Brian Mulroney. He was everywhere and he was always willing to pitch in. If PEI was having a provincial byelection Mulroney was there. If something was happening in rural SK - Mulriney was there and if you were a Tory loyalist - he was apparently an incredibly nice guy who build contacts everywhere he went..

yeah, another of the great shames of jack's dying too soon was that mulcair never really got to that point.  people haven't even met the guy, they just know him across the media and through gossip, he really hasn't had time to get around and press the flesh.

 

nicky

Stockholm, I copied exactly what I said in late August for comparison. Obviously not all of it remains completely accurate and in fact I said some "revisons" were necessary.

Until the Federal Council meeting in mid Sept it was not at all clear that there would be no carve-out. Many of the early posts, mine included, proceeded on the assumption it was still unresolved and indeed it would seem that some effort was made before the executive to resuscitate it.

Fidel

What nicky said in #120. It will be a mistake if we elect another white Anglo-Saxon leader of the party given the breakthrough made in Quebec. 

Stockholm

sorry I thought you had made the obvious edits and corrections.

Policywonk

KenS wrote:

Howard wrote:

 The BC NDP likes the Federal NDP to be on the same message track as them. That's why the Federal NDP came out against a carbon tax shortly after the BC NDP did. The BC NDP faced an election in the province in 2009 and they wanted to use the tax as a wedge issue. The federal NDP came on board and ran against it in 2008. Now the BC NDP supports a carbon tax again. Given that Brian Topp was the BC NDP campaign chair, I have to think he and Dix share an understanding on messaging.

You've got that completely wrong.  The federal party came out with its policy first- cap and trade and NOT carbon tax. That was the product of some intense but careful research.

The BCNDP had its own ponderous process, and came out later supporting the carbon tax without ever asking the federal party why it did not. Which bit them in the ass good later.

Carbon pricing was included in Sustainable BC (passed in 2007 and reaffirmed in 2009 after it was largely ignored in developing the platform for the 2009 election. Both a carbon tax and cap and trade are forms of carbon pricing. The federal NDP preference for cap and trade dates from before the 2006 Convention, as I recall, but the question has never been debated at a federal Convention (the 2006 energy policy only mentioned cap and trade as an option, and the wording of the policy booklet on energy and climate change that superceded it was accepted without debate). With cap and trade, or any form of carbon pricing, the devil is in the details, and considering the form in which cap and trade was included in the last federal election platform, the research could not have been particularly intense or careful.

Stockholm

Fidel wrote:

What nicky said in #120. It will be a mistake if we elect another white Anglo-Saxon leader of the party given the breakthrough made in Quebec. 

so far the only person in the race who is NOT white anglo-saxon by any stretch is Saganash. Though if you classify Dewar and Mulcair as Irish as opposed to anglo-saxon (splitting hairs if you ask me) we could bump it up a bit...and I guess Topp and Mulcair can both claim to be 50% French.

KenS

V

Gaian

"If PEI was having a provincial byelection Mulroney was there. If something was happening in rural SK - Mulriney was there and if you were a Tory loyalist - he was apparently an incredibly nice guy who build contacts everywhere he went..

And if you happened to live in Schefferville, you knew how it felt when the then president of the Iron Ore Company of Canada closed down the town.

As the envelope full of money in that N.Y.hotel room showed, Brian had his price. And you go home from the party with the one what brung you...

KenS

I dont entirely agree with your history of carbon pricing policy in the NDP Policywonk.

But it is completely beside the point being made here: where an unsubstantiated and flat out incorrect 'analyis' was being given that the Feds policy was geared to what the BC NDP wanted. Which could not be firther from what happened.

Bärlüer

Stockholm wrote:

Even looking at the Quebec caucus - yes he has a large volume of backers - but its notable that the Quebec MPs who have the most profile and star quality themselves are either running themselves (Saganash) or are backing Topp (ie: Francoise Boivin and Alexandre Boulerice)

But what about the formidable McGill Four...? I say they will act as the leadership race's bellwether. Wink

So far, Mulcair has the endorsement of one of them (Matthew Dubé); Topp just recently gained the support of Charmaine Borg (even though she had devoted a lot of time to the Mulcair campaign during the elections). The other two remain undeclared. Suspense...

KenS

Policywonk wrote:

 With cap and trade, or any form of carbon pricing, the devil is in the details, and considering the form in which cap and trade was included in the last federal election platform, the research could not have been particularly intense or careful.

I'll just address this one part. Election platforms are always skimpy. And it bothered me that the federal party never really did justice to the policy it developed in getting it around. But it most certainly was the product of a great deal of work. All of it by Caucus, but that does not mean it did not happen.

MegB

Closing for length.

Pages

Topic locked