NDP Leadership 37

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
dacckon dacckon's picture

Uhm, there are two different sccenarios here at play. I don't see why they are being confused. If Brian Topp did do a fundraiser there( and when exactly?), why is it being confused with the conservatives hosting them in the centre block. There is a massive difference. Although Topp should be more careful where he hosts these things. I don't think this is a conspiracy, mayhaps Topp can log on to babble and answer any allegations(like he has done before).

I'd say Topp's proposal to hike income taxes on the rich is a good idea. We have to look to nordic countries and see how they manage equality with competitive market economies. On raising the hst, he did fall into a bit of a trap; even though such sales taxes are higher in Europe, with sales taxes(Europe)  on such things as fatty foods which is a good idea but horrible politics. That sort of thing would have to be brought in without any warning and pushed fast.

Anyways, has anyone mentioned that Dewar is pushing for more debates, especially one in Toronto.

 

nicky

I am not saying Topp's Albany fundraiser compares to what Clement is supposed to have done, but that the optics are really bad for a number of reasons:

1. the fundraiser was apparently kept quite secret.

2. It was on Tuesday night, after Dewar made his attack on Clement which I think was on the weekend. Clement could therefore use Topp's faux pas to deflect criticism.

3. And IT WAS THE ALBANY CLUB. Were there no union halls available?

nicky

As for the lack of a Toronto debate, it has been said that this is because the convention is in Toornto.

I would expect that there will be candidates' speeches the night before the voting. Does anyone know if there will also be a debate?

KenS

I would be willing to bet that there will be a venue for all the candidates to speak in Toronto, before Convention.

Since an actual debate at Convention would be a departure, I cant see it happening. 

KenS

Geez nicky, you talk about innuendo...

And then say that 'a fundraiser was kept secret'. Etc.

But I guess baseless allegations are not innuendo, strictly speaking.

ottawaobserver

There is nothing stopping other groups from organizing debates, by the way. The party is organizing and paying for 6 of them in its leadership budget. Why doesn't the Toronto and District Labour Council or an enterprising riding association step in to organize one?

Nicky, where is the Mulcair fundraiser in Toronto being held?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

nicky wrote:

Mr Shoveller thinks that "the Right" is trying to trick us into supporting Mulcair because they say he is the candidate they fear most. He is not fooled by this transparent ploy and will be opposing Mulcair in consequence.

Does he not pause to consider that the Right really is most worried about Mulcair and they want the sophisticated Mr Shoveller to be fooled by their "endorsement" into opposing Mulcair?

Actually Nicky your candidate is already way down on my list although Do-War is at the bottom of the pile for me. No the MSM is not going to determine who I vote for.  And if you don't believe that Mulcair is going to have the constitutional file shoved up his ass at every turn if elected leader then you are going to be rudely awakened.  

I think the right is setting up the next election to be fought on a limited number of wedge issues.  Quebec is the best one for them but it loses a lot of its sting if the Quebec Topp got elected or the Quebec Saganash got elected. Mulcair has the constitutional file already hanging around his neck like an albatross.  His campaigns disingenuous crap about standing up to Western Union Bosses (especially when it involved a real gentleman like Ken Neumann) and the unfairness of the election process to Quebec will haunt his leadership.  Now before you jump down my throat I am just pointing out what the MSM story will be whether its true or not. It will not change my vote because I have considered the man poison since his asshole treatment of Libby for speaking about Palestine. 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Nice spin attempt, Duncan. The fact is that making the tax system more progressive necessarily means taxing the rich more.

I guess you haven't noticed the tens of thousands of people camped in public parks all over North America calling for the system to make the rich give back at least some of what they have ripped off from us. I guess you also haven't noticed the millions cited in the opinon polls who agree with them.

What's Peggy Nash afraid of in refusing to say she would increase taxes on the rich?

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Wilf Day wrote:

Despite the varied and imaginative speculations here, I think the explanation is dead simple. Duhaime has read about the membership figures, and assumes Mulcair cannot win, because the mass of anglo members will vote, in the end, for anyone but Mulcair. So he paints Mulcair as the logical choice, expecting him to be rejected. Quebec humiliated again: the NDP never really wanted us. Don't underrate the strength of this narrative. Brian Topp is from Quebec. (So is Saganash but he has not yet presented himself as a Quebecer, that I have seen.)

That is the most bizarre thing I've read about a candidate to date. Are Cullen, Ashton. Nash,  Singh, Dewar and Chisholm all running as candidates from their respective provinces?  

I will admit that no matter how you shake it Saganash will never be pure wool. A FN's leader not running as a Quebecer seems normal I would find it rather odd if he were to begin sounding like a Quebec centred politician.  So far Mulcair is the only candidate who seems to be running to represent his province's interests in confederation, the rest are running to lead the country.

nicky

There has been a lot of exageration about the Davies/ Mulcair divide on Palestine, as reflected in Mr Shoveler's post.

This is what I understand:

D said Palestine had been occupied territory since 1948. This is inaccurate because there was a UN resolutution creating Israel in 1948. It is only after 1967 that it can be said in international law that the West Bank etc was "occupied."

M, whose riding is heavily Jewish corrected her. If her mistatement had been allowed to stand it would have caused significant problems for M in Outremont.

D appolgized and acknowledged her mistake.

For this, some seem to want to paint M as an extreme Zionist. Let's stick to the facts and avoid unwarranted hyperbole.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

nicky wrote:

For this, some seem to want to paint M as an extreme Zionist. Let's stick to the facts and avoid unwarranted hyperbole.

You are the one raising this anti-Zionism crap not me. So please why don't your take your own fucking advice and leave out the hyperbole. What I really objected too was an arrogant man dressing down the most courageous woman politician the party has had over the last two decades.  That kind of behaviour always causes me to lose respect in male politicians.  I listened to the tape of the interview with Libby and was at the demonstration where the Zionist with a microphone ambushed her.  Allies support each other and men allies especially have a duty to at minimum not join in on MSM dog piles of our women politicians.  What she said in her speech that day was right on the money and she made a minor misstep in saying the occupation began in 1949.  Of course she should have said the brutal suppression of Arabs by the Israeli government began in 1949 because technically speaking because of the UN resolution the ethnic cleansing in 1949 was done by a "legitimate" government. 

Gaian

NS: " So far Mulcair is the only candidate who seems to be running to represent his province's interests in confederation, the rest are running to lead the country."

:)
So far, you are the only one to buy into Duhaime's propagandistic picture of Mulcair. But it shows to go you that his style works on the naive.

I can't find any evidence that he is only "running to represent his province's interests in Confederation."

p.s. Why don't you take your language and stuff it.

Wilf Day

nicky wrote:

KenS, perhaps you don't know what the Albany club is. It is basically a shrine for the Ontario Conservative party. Of all the places to have a fundraiser, why there?

Because it's not a shrine to anyone. It's a place organizations hold dinners in. I've been to Ontario Bar Association Family Law Section dinners there. Google tells me that the Year-End Program of the Charity and Not-For-Profit Law Section was held there.

If you want $1,000 donations, you probably want to provide a little ambience:

Quote:

Friends of Brian Topp invite you to a special reception with the NDP leadership candidate.

Meet Brian Topp and discuss current fiscal and economic challenges.

Where & When:

The Albany Club

91 King St East

Tuesday November, 15

5-7PM

*Complimentary food and wine included.

Donation:

$1000 per person

* Cheques payable to NDP Canada

The NDP Election regulations require that all tickets be purchased by individuals and not corporations. Each individual within a household may donate up to $1,200 to this leadership race. For this event payment must be received by personal cheque or personal VISA/MC. Tax credits will be issued in 2012.


http://www.zvents.com/z/toronto_on/fundraising-event-for-brian-topp--eve...

I see that Paola Guarnieri was Joe Pantalone's Fundraising Event Manager. Not a Conservative, I expect.

KenS

M. Spector wrote:

What's Peggy Nash afraid of in refusing to say she would increase taxes on the rich?

I dont think that is the case. I take her word, with Duncan's eleboration, that there is a better way to go about it.

I fundamentally disagree, and flat out rejected Duncan's attempt to spin Topp's foray as having put the party on the defensive. Substantively; I disagree that starting with a commision is the best way to go- and certainly not that it is the safest. [Which I know is not really Duncan's reason for favouring it, he's just trying to use that as a hook.]

Even if you want to put the question to a commission, I would submitt that you need to frame the situation with 'the rich have to pay more'.

Not to mention that now with Topp having dropped the ball onto the field, whoever is Leader is advised not to try to run away from or around the ball.

Unfortunately, no candidate seems to want to say "thats a good start. Now we need to ...."

With no inside knowledge whatsoever, I guarantee you Brian will be picking up that ball again. Meanwhile, the ball is out there for anyone.

Wilf Day

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

The leadership debate schedule has been released:

Dec. 4, Ottawa – Building an inclusive economy

January, Halifax – Giving families a break

February, Quebec City – Providing leadership on the world stage

February, Winnipeg – Building bridges between urban and rural Canada

March, Montreal – Building a strong united Canada

March, Vancouver – Creating opportunities for youth and new Canadians

In Nova Scotia, 136,620 voters voted for New Democrats on May 2.

In Manitoba, 126,639 voters did.

In Saskatchewan, 147,214 voters did.

In Alberta, 234,730 voters did.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Wilf Day wrote:
Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

The leadership debate schedule has been released:

Dec. 4, Ottawa – Building an inclusive economy

January, Halifax – Giving families a break

February, Quebec City – Providing leadership on the world stage

February, Winnipeg – Building bridges between urban and rural Canada

March, Montreal – Building a strong united Canada

March, Vancouver – Creating opportunities for youth and new Canadians

In Nova Scotia, 136,620 voters voted for New Democrats on May 2.

In Manitoba, 126,639 voters did.

In Saskatchewan, 147,214 voters did.

In Alberta, 234,730 voters did.

I think the consideration was more representation of regions than representation of clumps of existing voters. Some people here are up in arms about that, but I have to admit that I do see a certain logic to the schedule as it stands, even if it's unfortunate for most Prairie voters that they will have to watch the debates on CPAC or online instead of in person.

What I take issue with is the Torontonians who are crying foul. The convention will be held in their city, and there's a debate scheduled elsewhere in their very own province to boot. Anyone whose first thought upon looking at that schedule is that Ontario isn't getting its fair share of NDP attention is exhibiting "centre of the universe" thinking at its most odious.

kinch

M. Spector wrote:

Canadian Press wrote:
As for taxing the rich more, Nash said only that she favours a "fair and progressive tax system," declining to comment specifically on "one-off" ideas.

[sigh] not a good sign...

All that we know is that she said "fair and progressive tax system" and "one-off", the rest is framed by the journalist/news-corp. Chances are it was a loaded question and she dealt with it appropriately. She has spoken about restoring corporate tax rates previously, and I'm sure she has a much more comprehensive tax plan that she will announce with a press release/conference rather than spill it in an interview where her platform can be framed whichever way the journalist/news-corp wants it to be.  

Hunky_Monkey

Wilf Day wrote:

We have nine excellent candidates, but I think the next leader will be Brian Topp or Tom Mulcair.

I don't buy that, Wilf. I think it will come down to Mulcair, Nash, and Dewar. I don't see the rank and file support out there... yet... for Topp. He's getting a lot of big name endorsements but I don't see that translating into grassroots support. I had one MP say the exact same thing to me... she doesn't see any on the ground support for him.

And I've talked with several New Democrats across the country ranking Dewar (some as their first choice actually) ahead of Topp even though Dewar's French is pretty bad. Same goes for Nash. I think it would be foolish to underestimate her.

Hunky_Monkey

KenS wrote:

Unfortunately, no candidate seems to want to say "thats a good start. Now we need to ...."

With no inside knowledge whatsoever, I guarantee you Brian will be picking up that ball again. Meanwhile, the ball is out there for anyone.

He dropped it out there without any details. And it was reported that he supported a possible sales tax hike although afterward he said he didn't which you pointed out. But the media doesn't read into anything, huh Ken? ;)

It will be nice to see what comes out from all the candidates with regard to tax policy.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

kinch wrote:

All that we know is that she said "fair and progressive tax system" and "one-off", the rest is framed by the journalist/news-corp.

I haven't seen where Nash has disputed the accuracy of the journalist's report.

Quote:
I'm sure she has a much more comprehensive tax plan that she will announce with a press release/conference rather than spill it in an interview where her platform can be framed whichever way the journalist/news-corp wants it to be.

Why would she give an interview if she's trying to keep her agenda under wraps?

Does she think holding a press conference prevents journalists from "framing" her views any way they want to? Do you?

kinch

M. Spector, no I don't. I don't know what Peggy thinks, I am not her. But a press release/conference that is recorded provides some sort of accountability, and something for the politician to point to if they believe they weren't being protrayed fairly. 

I'm just warning against using paraphrased bits of information as criteria for the leadership race. Like I said before, I highly suspect that she was asked a loaded question and that she dealt with it in a proper way. I've seen it done with Mulcair, Topp, and plenty of other leadership candidates/MPs. It's just something that you should be critical of, that's all. 

Unionist

nicky wrote:

D said Palestine had been occupied territory since 1948. This is inaccurate because there was a UN resolutution creating Israel in 1948. It is only after 1967 that it can be said in international law that the West Bank etc was "occupied."

You're wrong, and Libby was correct (whether she knew what she was talking about or not). Post-1948 Israel included territories that the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan had assigned to a future Palestinian state. Here it is in colour:

 

  • Blue = area assigned to a Jewish state in the original UN partition plan, and within the 1949 Israel armistice lines.
  • Green = area assigned to an Arab state in the original UN partition plan, and controlled by Egypt or Jordan from 1949-1967.
  • Light red = area assigned to an Arab state in the original UN partition plan, but within the 1949 Israel armistice lines.

Quote:
M, whose riding is heavily Jewish corrected her. If her mistatement had been allowed to stand it would have caused significant problems for M in Outremont.

Umm, how shall I put this? Oh yeah: Bullshit, and racist, and stupid. I'm Jewish, I reside in Outremont, and I loathe Israel's crimes. And being Jewish doesn't make one a supporter of Israel. Or perhaps all Muslims cheered the destruction of the WTC?

As for the demographics, inform yourself before concocting things. From the 2001 census for Outremont:

Religions: 46.6% Catholic, 10.2% Jewish, 8.1% Muslim, 7.0% Christian Orthodox, 4.9% Protestant, 3.0% Hindu, 1.9% Buddhist, 1.6% Other Christian, 16.1% No religion

"Heavily Jewish"? Who told you this?

Quote:
D appolgized and acknowledged her mistake.

Yes - but not before Jack Layton had a meeting with the Israeli ambassador and cravenly apologized for Libby's accurate response!

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I'm thinking now  it's weird to predict at this stage who will win the NDP leadership - before the debates and speeches have begun. Yes, it's okay to have a favourite candidate, but predicting who will win sounds now like a mug's game to me. I said at the beginning I couldn't support Ashton (and a couple of others...) but if Ashton, for example, were to set the debates on fire, then why wouldn't I consider her? Concurrently, if Nash, Saganash, Topp and Mulcair (the presumed front runners) were to give dismal speeches and dismal debate performances, why would anyone bother to support them?  I think we have a long way to go, yet.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Lou Arab wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

Her official MP photo is sans glasses.

Much better!

 

Really?  I still think she looks more mature with the glasses.

vaudree

Gaian, everybody always asks me to expand when I am feeling dizzy and drowsie and just got up after passing out and slurring my words (allergies, technically sensitivities). Dacckon wrote: "Why we need new politics by Niki Ashton"

In the article, Ashton wrote: "This is very much the underlying agenda of the Harper Conservatives. They represent the old politics of division. An old politics that sees poverty and inequality as facts of life. They seek to erode rights that have been developed over decades and to dismantle public services. What we need is a new politics."

Ashton does go into more detail than that - but this sets up the contrast between the "new politics" of the NDP and the "old politics" of the Tories. It also makes Ashton's perceived liability (ie her age) seem like a (word meaning plus) because, not only does Harper engage in "old politics" - he looks "old" with his greying hair. Though Bob Rae does lose a few years without his clothes on, in a suit, he looks "old" too when contrasted with Ashton - old and out of touch.

Even though there are pictures of the pepper sprayed grandmother, the stereotypical representation of the 99% is youth and 1% is decadence / decay - the latter with creates images of age even though the youth can also be decadent. The expressed ageism after the May election with the McGill Four, REB and the guy from Sherbrook - and the backlash from it, may be something else that Ashton plans to exploit from the sounds of it. The image of old and new also comes up on New Years day and that symbolism.

Some one else can probably expand on this a bit more.

An aside, Ashton tends to make liberal mention of the Manitoba Provincial government - which alludes to her father - and is outside of this "new" versus "old" dichotomy. If one doesn't go with that, there is the reputation of her father being a bit left of Sellinger.

 

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

nicky wrote:

Topp didn't attend someone else's wedding at the Albany Club but his own political fundraiser!!!!!

I don't see that your comparison, KenS, ameliorates the optics at all, nor your sly innuendo that other candidates engage in questionable fundraising tactics.

I have gone back and looked at Topp's webpage, his Twitter page and his Facebook page. He seems to publicize all of his appearances but for some reason neglected to tell us about the Albany Club fundraiser.

Perhaps he is more self-conscious than you are about appearing there to raise money.

 

Complete non-issue.  He rented a nice space for an event.  C'est tout.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

nicky wrote:

Let's stick to the facts and avoid unwarranted hyperbole.

And the pot doth lecture the kettle.

duncan cameron

Just to go back over well trodden ground.

Do you want to excite your opponents by raising a flag, and allowing them to calibrate their attack, while you attack alone, hoping enough people will agree with you on the general principle you espouse, that they will not begin to fight amongst themselves over, say, how best to tax the rich?

Or do you want to make transormative change by builiding an on-the-ground coalition of people who first know the tax system is unjust, second see how it can be more just, and three will fight alongside you to do it?

For those who think tax the rich is a rallying cry, I understand and sympathize. Mass action results when masses march behind such sentiment. Where is the follow-up to the statement? The buttons, the posters, the demos, are they enough? Or do we need a citizens strike against paying unfair taxes ? What does this require beyond giving a quote that will be picked up to a CP interview panel?

Before the Rae campaign victory over one million people signed OFL fair tax petitiions complaining about corporations that paid no income tax. The one measure the Rae government brough tin was a corporate minimum income tax. The ground had been tilled, and the opponents didn't make a fuss.

For those who think making yourself a target is the prelude to policy making I can only ask for examples.

If the tax the rich statment is positioning, then I want to know to what end? Chasing votes for the leadership? 

Give me agreement we need good government and fair taxes not less government and lower taxes and I am happy with the party position against the opposition.

Now who can get the job done? The person who attracts the flack, or the one directing it at the opponent? It is Harper, he is wrong, what is happening is not normal. Until enough people agree we are likely to see him stick around.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111117/peggy-nash-says-canada-not...

 

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Gaian wrote:

I think,Malcolm, that you are again wrong...of course the Sun's hireling knows exactly "which candidate for the leadership of your competing party would be best for (his) purposes," how to "play" the nationalist harp and provoke socialist opinion in the ROC. The Sun hired him for his superior work as a propagandist and provocateur.

 

I could be wrong, and I'll doubtless be wrong in the future.  However, I think Duhaime is smart enough to know that the preise outcome of this sort of pot-stirring is deucedly difficult to predict.  He has, however, deduced that most of the likely outcomes (ie, a Mulcair defeat being seen as a rejection of Quebec or a Mulcair victory being seen as an unfair domnance by Quebec) work to his advantage.  He may even prefer one of those outcomes over the other (likely a Mulcair defeat spun as a rejection of Quebec).

What I'm questioning is the idea that he has a specific outcome in mind and believes that his writing can advance that specific outcome.  I think he's too smart to try predicting the unpredictable in such granular detail.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

KenS wrote:

With them, she reminds me ofthe young Nana Maskouri [sp?]- with the same trademoark glasses. They project 'pretty' 'mysterious' 'cool' [in that making virtue of nerdy way]. Which is fine for a folk singer.

 

I'm not sure that "pretty," "mysterious" and especially "cool" are bad things to be projecting.  But I absolutely disagree with Lou's take that the glasses make her look younger.  Part of the reason older (ie 40+) politicos and celebrities start shifting to contacts or get laser eye surgery in order to ditch the glasses is that, come middle age, they want to look younger.

In any event, I doubt Niki is going to change her eyewear based on this thread.

I'd be curious (and I don't mean this as a shot or a challenge - I'm just genuinely curious) to hear what a certain female politician close to Lou thinks about Niki's glasses.

vaudree

Bob Rae went skinny dipping on Rick Mercer.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

vaudree wrote:

Though Bob Rae does lose a few years without his clothes on,

Surprised

TOO MUCH INFORMATION!!!

 

vaudree

delete.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Ah yes. I deliberately skipped that episode, as I recall.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

nicky, you are making me very glad that we haven't ended up using the local Masonic Hall, Royal Canadian Legion, or Orange Hall for any of our riding events (all of which were under discussion as possibilities as of just a few weeks ago). We were of course just looking for reasonably priced halls of the right size within the urban part of the riding, but who knows what dastardly machinations people would have read into those choices if we'd actually ended up there!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Unfortunately, it has been repeated a few times, and I saw it. Cry

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

nicky wrote:

I am not saying Topp's Albany fundraiser compares to what Clement is supposed to have done, but that the optics are really bad for a number of reasons:

1. the fundraiser was apparently kept quite secret.

2. It was on Tuesday night, after Dewar made his attack on Clement which I think was on the weekend. Clement could therefore use Topp's faux pas to deflect criticism.

3. And IT WAS THE ALBANY CLUB. Were there no union halls available?

 

 

Sweet Mother of God!

There are public events at which one does a little fundraising and there are fundraising events for which there is little publicity.  The two are not the same.

If Thomas Mulcair arranges a fundraise with wealthy lawyers in Montreal, it won't be heavily publicized and it won't be at a union hall.

If Romeo Saganash does a fundraiser with First Nation and Métis entrepreneurs, it won't be heavily publicized and it won't be in a union hall.

If Niki Ashton does a fundraiser with Greek business folk in Regina, it won't be heavily publicized and it won't be in a union hall.

You're making bricks without straw and doing your candidate no service.

vaudree

Malcolm wrote:
I'm not sure that "pretty," "mysterious" and especially "cool" are bad things to be projecting.  But I absolutely disagree with Lou's take that the glasses make her look younger.  Part of the reason older (ie 40+) politicos and celebrities start shifting to contacts or get laser eye surgery in order to ditch the glasses is that, come middle age, they want to look younger.

In any event, I doubt Niki is going to change her eyewear based on this thread.

I think that Harper's handlers actually convinced him to wear his glasses to make him look less like a bully.

Right now, Ashton would be most interested in sticking out from the crowd and being different enough to be noticed.  One can complain about her dark glasses and her dark sleeveless shirt and black and white leadership picture - but it is meant to present a certain image of her that separates her from the crowd.  Ok, Nana did it first!  But, if you think of it, Obama stole his catch phrase off of Bob the Builder.

Any way, presumably there is a difference between being nerdy (associated now with intellectand intellectual pursuits) and being a geek that did not really exist when I was younger.

ottawaobserver

Duncan, I happened to think Brian did everyone a service in his ed board with the CP Ottawa bureau by seizing the opportunity to open the door on taxes again.

Those interviews were introductory, overview panel interviews with members of the bureau so they could get to know the candidates. Out of that, of course the reporter covering the NDP tried to get some news out of each one.

I agree that's not the place to release a platform.

Now, I'm curious. Are you reading into Peggy's position the idea of a fair taxes commission, or reliving woulda-coulda-shouldas from the Ontario government in the 1990s, or is that really going to be her position in the leadership race, when she starts announcing policy?

ETA: And I don't worry that he gave Bob Rae some opening to "attack us". He was moving to re-open certain topics for discussion, not guarantee that there wouldn't ever be any fight-back. Honestly, a little more muscular approach is perfectly fine. And if Bob Rae wants to stake out his position that saying increasing taxes on the rich is off the table, I would bet that by the end of it all, Bob Rae will have been marginalized by this more than Brian Topp -- with everyone except the Liberal CBC and Toronto Star.

vaudree

It is not just whether or not they slip up, but how well they recover after a slip up.  Saganash did slip up but recovered quite nicely.

Libby Davies is for the two state solution and believes that both states have the right to exist and she was tricked.  Davies comes from a tradition of helping the poor and the homeless and seeing people made homeless due to greed would gain her sympathy.  Mulcair saw blood and pounced for personal gain.  I think that there are a few that are going to be hesitant about him just because of the way he treated a very popular MP with a good rep.

JUDES stated that Israel should not exist and Canada should not exist - comparing the plight of the Palestinians to the First Nations, Inuit and (to a much lesser degree) Metis.  However, she figures that the fact that it does exist now means that it should not be eliminated from existence - which is a specific view of things which allows her to stay in Canada.  JUDES stated that this is her view and not Libby's.  It is a view that takes things out of the shoulds and should nots associated with Zionism and gets into the "what do we do now?"

The two state solution is official NDP policy, though it is not Harper's official policy - and that is the distinction that Layton wants to maintain.  Mulcair did look like he put his own interests ahead of the party there - and that is not good for a leader to do - and something I think he will need to overcome.  Layton was in a bind because Rebecca Blaikie was running from a seat where the Jewish vote could decide it.

Topp and Singh, neither have a seat.  Also, I think that there would be a backlash if the new leader took Layton's seat.  I think that seat needs to be filled by someone a bit more local rather than a parachuted candidate.  I think that the leadership will (and has) increased Topp's profile, which may win him a seat in three years and a juicy portfolio if he doesn't do too badly.  Singh, it is basically name recognition so he can run next time.

Stockholm

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

What I take issue with is the Torontonians who are crying foul. The convention will be held in their city, and there's a debate scheduled elsewhere in their very own province to boot. Anyone whose first thought upon looking at that schedule is that Ontario isn't getting its fair share of NDP attention is exhibiting "centre of the universe" thinking at its most odious.

I don't necessarily think there needs to be a debate in Toronto since I agree that the convention will be there, but it seems like a big omissions to have essential 50% of one debate in Ontario whole 2.5 debates are in Quebec (the Ottawa debate is essentially in Ottawa/Gatineau and is half in French - to me it is really a kick off National Capital Region debate and not an "Ontario debate"). Why not a debate in Hamilton or Windsor or somewhere like that...

Anyways, hopefully there will be more debates that are outside of the official party sponsored set of six.

Stockholm

Looks like Paul Dewar and Niki Ashton have both swept across Manitoba like white tornadoes and each scooped up most of the MLAs and other notables' endorsements.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/breakingnews/Ashton-rolls-out-end...

dacckon dacckon's picture

Is the Topp & Singh not having a seat excuse still an excuse? Statistics, somehow, show that leaders who are unelected do better for some reason. Furthermore, one of them could run in a Quebec riding (which they should if elected) in an area needed a better MP. We can easily see where we can do this, in Ruth's seat or that of another mp who is currently ill with blood cancer.

Anyways...

Dewar promotes the idea of a western agenda and rules out a merger 

Dewar calls for 4 more debates 

Debates are about to change the race  Always interesting to a see a Laxer commenting on the NDP as if he's actually a supporter of the party. What? Are the laxers going to piss on David Lewis' party one last time? Shocking that the CBC would ask him anything of value.

nicky

Perhaps it was a different NDP I joined many years ago but the Albany Club was always a symbol of everything the party opposed -smugness, intolerance, establishment values, miltarism, complacency towards inhustice, entrenched privilege and active promotion of Conservative values.

It is not like some little chapter of the Orange Lodge or the Royal Candian Legion. It is the embodimnet of  what we should be fighting against. it is not some benign institution with a forgotten unfortunate past. It presently, agressively and actively promotes right-wing values. Here again is its Mission Statement:

 Mission

The exclusive social and business club for those who influence, celebrate, debate, and promote Canada's conservative and political history, ideals, values and leadership.

And its present Board of Directors is filled with some of the most reactionary of the Mike Harris crowd.

http://www.albanyclub.ca/About-Us/Board-of-Directors.aspx
I would be surprised if Jack Layton ever staged a fundraiser at the Albany Club and I am positive that Tommy Douglas would never have even considerd it.

dacckon dacckon's picture

Nicky, I think you are overanalysing anything thats not Mulcair related. There are more pressing matters at hand

Oh and I forgot to post this. Ashton's endorsements!

Quote:
The list includes provincial Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Minister Eric Robinson, The Pas MLA Frank Whitehead, Peguis First Nation Chief Glen Hudson and Manitoba Métis Federation president David Chartrand.

Stockholm

Here is a misconception I need to correct:

"Michael Byers, the B.C. co-chair of the Mulcair campaign, says the key to a Mulcair win is signing up new members in Quebec, somewhat the way Layton won by signing up new members in Toronto."

While I'm sure Jack layton's leadership campaign did sign up new members in Toronto - that was not how he won the NDP leadership - which incidentally he won with 57% of the vote on the first ballot. Jack won the leadership by convincing the existing NDP membership that he was the best person for the job - contrary to what Byers suggests he did not stage some sort of "friendly takeover" from Toronto. Jack and Olivia spent the whole Xmas to New Years holidays in 2002 in rural Saskatchewan going to coffee parties and meeting party members and convincing NDP members in the west that the "guy from downtown Toronto" was the best person to lead the party - and it worked.

Similarly, if Mulcair is to win the NDP leadership this time around - signing up a lot of new members is nice - but his real path to victory is to spend a helluva lot of time in places like BC and Ontario where there are a lot of existing members and convincing them that the "man from Outremont" would be the best leader.

In my experience, NDP members are not very "chauvinistic" about favouriate sons/daughters - whatever province we live in - we want the aame thing - a leader who will be popular across Canada.

duncan cameron

Ottawa Observor I use the Fair Tax Commission as an example because I was on its sub-committee on the corporate income tax. Prior to that I had written some articles for the Financial Post giving the figures (not my research but given to me) on the profitable corporations who payed no income tax. These same numbers were used by the Ontario NDP. This was one of the reasons Rae created the Commission and maybe why I was named to the sub-committee.

At the same time the Action Canada Network (I was co-director of research) had mounted a major campaign against the GST, the shift from progressive to regressive taxation that changed the complexion of public policy in Canada. The OFL had a fair tax campaign going and collected over a million signatures. NAC had convinced us that families would be hurt by the shift to consumption taxes, and they have been proven right.

Policy development is better than announcements like tax the rich. The CCPA Alternate Federal Budget has for 12 years set out how to do fair, progressive taxes.Many groups have contributed to the process. What has been produced could be introduced by an NDP minister of finance.

Note that Peggy Nash called for a tax on speculative finance, an FTT. Flows of money are a cause of the financial crisis, and the taxwould attack the crisis at its roots. Campaigns for a Robin Hood tax have been going on around the world. The CCPA hosted James Tobin to talk about the tax in advance of the Halifax G7 summit. She is building on campaigns that convinced the British Labour government and the Sarkozy government to support such a tax. Discussion was blocked by Harper in advance of the G8/G20 Clement event.

The reality is that taxes have been cut to the point they need to be raised. Taxing the rich alone will not do it, unless you mean by rich anyone with a regular job. Andrew Jackson makes that point on the front page today.

There is a difference between positioning yourself in a leadership race, and wanting to shift public policy. That's my take. I do support Peace Now, End Legislated Poverty, and lots of other "one issue" campaigns. Left political figures have to choose where they want to take criticism; in order to make changes, they need to build support. Having allies helps. Remarks about policy shifts can garner attention for good causes, they just need to be integrated into something solid, well prepared, and ready to be rolled out in partnership with many groups.

Hunky_Monkey

Boom Boom wrote:
Concurrently, if Nash, Saganash, Topp and Mulcair (the presumed front runners) were to give dismal speeches and dismal debate performances, why would anyone bother to support them?  I think we have a long way to go, yet.

Agreed about knowing how this could end up. We all have some gut feelings though.

As for giving dismal speeches and such, just look back to Audrey in 1989.

KenS

Why is it policy development OR punchy policy announcements?

You dismiss attention grabbing announcements as if they are inherently one offs. Topps is not going to be, and it neednt be whover is doing it. If I wanted to be as dismissive I would just call commissions winbag sessions.  That is one aspect of them.

Nor can Topp be accused of just positioning himself for a race- pandering to the membership. Because it is something he knows he will never be able to walk away from.... you've made a lot of the downside risks yourself. So there is a logical inconsistency there. How can it be both risky with the public and just pandering to the membership?

dacckon dacckon's picture

I don't think anyone in the race will oppose a robin hood tax. Its an idea thats long overdue.

Pages

Topic locked