NDP Leadership 72

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
KenS
NDP Leadership 72

V

Issues Pages: 
KenS

 

Howard wrote:

I think we can agree that the Mulcair campaign has done a really lousy job of explaining their (few) policy ideas in a clear and detailed fashion.

Is it a bad job, or are we seeing the execution of the communications strategy the campaign has chosen?

Hunky_Monkey

KenS wrote:

 

Howard wrote:

I think we can agree that the Mulcair campaign has done a really lousy job of explaining their (few) policy ideas in a clear and detailed fashion.

Is it a bad job, or are we seeing the execution of the communications strategy the campaign has chosen?

No. I was informed it will be posted in the next little while.

KenS

@ HM:

Are you referring to the pension exchange idea in particular- which already has much more flesh on it than anything else, even with the lack of clarity noted here?

Or are you speaking generally- in general about the skeletal news releases that get called policy?

mark_alfred

Lord, I need a magnifying glass for my last post.  Darn fonts!  Perhaps it's the Babble Program's way of telling me that my post was not sufficiently edited enough.

Hunky_Monkey

I don't think Dion was close to power. Polls that showed him relatively close were usually ones pre-election where voters park their vote in the big wishy washy parking lot called the Liberal Party of Canada.

I think what concerns a lot of people is the idea of electing a leader without elected political experience and quite frankly a certain gravitas. I think Topp's debate peformance and the one in Vancouver demonstrated that he doesn't have it. Of course, that's my opinion :)

*Policy amounts to a hill of beans if you don't have the right person and team to sell it.*

As for the NDP surge outside Quebec... the NDP vote went up 7.5% in BC... up 4.1 in Alberta... up almost 7 points in Saskatchewan... up 7.4% in Ontario... up almost 8% in New Brunswick... there was STRONG growth outside Quebec although on a smaller scale. Seat count though was quite disappointing. I think we got the exact number of seats outside Quebec as we did in 1988.

Hunky_Monkey

KenS wrote:

@ HM:

Are you referring to the pension exchange idea in particular- which already has much more flesh on it than anything else, even with the lack of clarity noted here?

Or are you speaking generally- in general about the skeletal news releases that get called policy?

KenS... I emailed the campaign and asked if they were going to post policies on their website. They said yes. :)

KenS

Considering how much your question asked, that is not reassuring.

Mulcair has been referring to my cap and trade policy. And you can find what is there is on the website, in the news articles posted there... same as with the pension exchange idea.

It could easily be that the answer to your question means more 'posting of the policies on the website' like we already have.

KenS

Another issue with the pension exchange idea that I do not believe has come up.

It was suggested that this would be too similar to what Harper / Flaherty have been doing: driving in a wedge with voluntary options that undermine the universality of people caring about the fate of the CPP. Possibly, but the way the plan is constructed, I do not see why. And no one has continued that argument.

But what would the pension exchange idea do to the NDP's will to double CPP?

The political attractiveness of Mulcair's proposal is that it will be popular with the people who can afford to do it. And notwitstanding the liability issue in Mulcair saying investments would be insured, and that leaving us open to easy attack...it is a program without expenditures or new taxes.

Popular and no cost- the politicians dream.

Doubling CPP- even getting on the road- is not going to be easy. It is going to require dedicated will and political savvy to pull it off.

Mulcair's CPP+ is political benefits that come easy. And can compensate for not achieving what is difficult.

 

Charles

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
I don't think Dion was close to power. Polls that showed him relatively close were usually ones pre-election where voters park their vote in the big wishy washy parking lot called the Liberal Party of Canada. I think what concerns a lot of people is the idea of electing a leader without elected political experience and quite frankly a certain gravitas. I think Topp's debate peformance and the one in Vancouver demonstrated that he doesn't have it. Of course, that's my opinion :) *Policy amounts to a hill of beans if you don't have the right person and team to sell it.* As for the NDP surge outside Quebec... the NDP vote went up 7.5% in BC... up 4.1 in Alberta... up almost 7 points in Saskatchewan... up 7.4% in Ontario... up almost 8% in New Brunswick... there was STRONG growth outside Quebec although on a smaller scale. Seat count though was quite disappointing. I think we got the exact number of seats outside Quebec as we did in 1988.

we got one more seat (44) than we won in the general election in '88 (43 + one a year and a half later in Chambly in a by-election). The difference being the continued slump in Sk where we won a staggering 10 seats in '88 and to a lesser extent in BC with the exact same number of seats in MB, AB and "the North" interestingly. What the surge last year showed was a more diverse growth with big gains across the country. The ON record haul, particularly notable in Toronto, the solid numbers across Atlantic Canada with some seat fruit borne to show for those numbers etc - those things we didn't have in '88. I'd rather build from this kind of cross-Canada base than the almost entirely western-only base we were limited to in '88. The surge was real across the country outside of PEI but local quirks moved seats (even two incumbants) out of reach. Still a hell of a jump and a hell of a base to build on...

mark_alfred

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
I don't think Dion was close to power.

Admittedly, I may have overstated myself when I said "came close to winning."  But they were going up, and the Cons were going down, and they were tied in some polls, and I feel this trend would have continued if the CTV interview had not emerged.  So I stand by everything I said in my post.

doofy

I think Mark Alfred misunderstood my point. I'm not looking for the most "likeable" leader; I am looking at the person who would be most effective at standing up to the media barrage against the NDP (and in favour of the Liberals). The NDP will be facing even greater opposition from the G&M, CTV, the National Post, e.t.c.. than Dion did in 2008.

In 2011,  those were just left-wing liberals coming over to the NDP, once they saw how well the party was doing in Quebec. You can be sure that the media will be much tougher on the new leader--whoever it is--than they were on Jack Layton.

mark_alfred

doofy wrote:

I think Mark Alfred misunderstood my point. I'm not looking for the most "likeable" leader; I am looking at the person who would be most effective at standing up to the media barrage against the NDP (and in favour of the Liberals). The NDP will be facing even greater opposition from the G&M, CTV, the National Post, e.t.c.. than Dion did in 2008.

In 2011,  those were just left-wing liberals coming over to the NDP, once they saw how well the party was doing in Quebec. You can be sure that the media will be much tougher on the new leader--whoever it is--than they were on Jack Layton.

That's why I feel Topp (at this point anyway) is a better pick than Mulcair.  Topp has experience with government who successfully faced similar prospects to what Canada now faces (a large deficit created by a previous Conservative government), whereas Mulcair does not have this experience.

doofy

Topp is a much worse communicator than Mulcair. I am sorry to say this, b/c I was originally  impressed by him, but he has proven himself to be a real "bull in a chinashop". The personal attacks against Mulcair were unfair and counterproductive. He could have made his point about having a "more comprehensive policy dealing with inequality" by sticking to that issue, instead of saying Mulcair was unfit to be leader just b/c he was a cabinet minister in the PLQ gov't. Then, he sounded pathetic by saying "we need to find something to debate". 

On his tax proposal itself, it sounds good, but would probably not go far enough to deal with all the holes in Canada's welfare state. I am not saying I don't like it. It could well be part of the ultimate solution. But in the current (hostile) media climate,  you would need to be a really deft "salesman" to promote something like that. I am afraid Topp just doesn't measure up.

mark_alfred

Hey doofy, I appreciate your response.  However, we'll have to agree to disagree, I feel.  I feel a public perception of competence, as I laid out in my previous post, rather than being a "salesman" or whatever you feel is important, is more important.

Howard

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
I don't think Dion was close to power.

Don't tell Dion that. He still thinks he is the man that was almost Prime Minister (just missed it by a hair!).

doofy

Mark_Alfred,

I precisley agree w/ you that "public perception of competence" is what is most important for the next NDP leader.  But what you seem to be foregetting  is that the Liberals, Conservatives and the media will, from the outset, try and paint the next leader as being a leftist ideologue who doesn't understand basic  economics and is beholden to special interests.

Who is best able to challenge that myth? Several criteria are important in making that judgement, including experience in gov't (which both Mulcair and Topp have). But the most important issue for me is the ability to communicate our policies, in a way that will make them sound reasonable  to "centrist" voters. (i.e. people who might be influenced by  what the MSM says)

Based on his record as finance critic, Mulcair seems the best placed to do that.

Put it another way, the NDP needs "a left-wing Stephen Harper":  someone who takes the long view, who proposes incremental steps that seem minor but that would actually be a harbinger of a great culture change in our politics. Think what Harper has accomplished by the seemingly inoccuous move of reducing the GST by 2%. It was not terribly controversial at the time; he did not present it in " right-wing language" telling everyone how it would cripple the Canadian welfare state. And yet, that's exactly what Harper seems to have achieved. Think also of his attitude towards medicare. He did not tell Canadians in 2006, 2008 or 2011, that he wants more two-tier healtchare.  But anyone who looks closeldy, sees that  that's the way we seem to be going.

Ideally, we should find a way of copying him, but in the reverse direction.

Howard

-

duncan cameron

In response to Doofy I would just say that imitating Harper is not the way for the NDP to go.

The party needs to practice open politics. Be clear what its policy direction is about. Build alliances so as to mobilize support. No support no reason to go ahead. Identify opposition, talk them down, find divisions, ensure you are not going in the wrong direction. Proceed openly explaining, explaining, explaining, and monitoring, monitoring the results to ensure the policy is working. Make adjustments as necessary. Stay close to your allies, maintain a clear sense of the priorities of the public. No ogligarchy in charge, no tyranny of the leaders office, no muzzling of public service, no hiding information from the media, no lying to the public. No Harper assault on decency and fairness. Rather the contrary.

mark_alfred

doofy wrote:
But the most important issue for me is the ability to communicate our policies, in a way that will make them sound reasonable  to "centrist" voters. (i.e. people who might be influenced by  what the MSM says)

Based on his record as finance critic, Mulcair seems the best placed to do that.

Put it another way, the NDP needs "a left-wing Stephen Harper"

A "left-wing Stephen Harper" is exactly what the Liberals figured they had with Ignatieff (or Martin).  Was this a winning recipe?  No.  It was not.

doofy

You all realize that our "left-wing" Stephen Harper would not imitate the original in all things, such as lying to Pariliament, muzzling his backbenchers, accusing his oppenents of being traitors, e.t.c... (I did not think I would have to make that clearWink)

But he/she would have Harper's keen strategic sense (i.e. long-term vision of a Canada different from the one that he found) and ability to communicate radical policies in a way that sounds "mainstream"

And no, Martin and Ignatieff, were the precise opposites of Harper. Neither (esp. ignatieff) had  a clear vision of how to change the country,  for starters.

AnonymousMouse

mark_alfred wrote:

doofy wrote:
But the most important issue for me is the ability to communicate our policies, in a way that will make them sound reasonable  to "centrist" voters. (i.e. people who might be influenced by  what the MSM says)

Based on his record as finance critic, Mulcair seems the best placed to do that.

Put it another way, the NDP needs "a left-wing Stephen Harper"

A "left-wing Stephen Harper" is exactly what the Liberals figured they had with Ignatieff (or Martin).  Was this a winning recipe?  No.  It was not.

How so?

Both Ignatieff and Martin were clearly most interested in being prime minister, not what they'd do once they got there.

Mulcair laid out a simple but bold agenda on climate change early in the campaign (extend the NDP's existing cap and trade policy to cover all major sources of emissions, not just the ~700 largest polluters). Now he's added a plank on pensions that we've only seen a press release on so far,but that seems like fairly "big" idea. He also made sustainability a key message in his campaign. All that in addition to reinforcing that he would lead based on party policy. It seems clear he has an idea what he wants to do once we form a government--based primarily on exisiting party policy with new priorities or changes that he is beginning to lay out.

On the other hand, I actually agree that we don't need a "left-wing Stephen Harper" in that I don't think we need to hid what our ideas are. I think what we need is someone who will present our idea as reasonable and pragmatic. That's one of the things I like about Mulcair. Another thing I like about him is that giving people confidence in our ability to govern is in large part about the image you project and I feel Mulcair projects exactly the kind of image that most votes associate with the ability to govern--"gravitas" as some have put it.

Of course, opinions will vary on all that.

KenS

AnonymousMouse wrote:
 Mulcair laid out a simple but bold agenda on climate change early in the campaign (extend the NDP's existing cap and trade policy to cover all major sources of emissions, not just the ~700 largest polluters).

That is your contention. [actually, a few questionable contentions, in a short space]

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Mulcair is a proven quantity, winning election after election. I need to see if Topp can win in a riding to become an MP before casting a ballot his way.

nicky

Topp is "tested"? Are you being serious Mark? He has never run for anything in his life which is why so many of us find is retail political skills so wanting. You need only look at his clumsy assault on Mulcair to see he doesn't have the necessary political instincts.

dacckon dacckon's picture

As much as I am interesting in all the candidates, especially Topp who seems to be intelligent and strategic, I wouldn't call him "tested". I am looking to see whether or not some candidates stagnate and others continue to improve their leadership skills. I won't be fully satisfied with any candidates until I see them in further debates and until they release their full leadership platforms.

KenS

nicky wrote:
Topp is "tested"? Are you being serious Mark?  

Topp and Mulcair are equally untested, on very different 'dimensions'.

Boom Boom wrote:
Mulcair is a proven quantity, winning election after election.

As an MP.

And he has not demonstrated he can plot a political course out of a paper bag.

 

ottawaobserver

All I know is that there was a great big communications void in the last 48 hours for the NDP as a party, and the only leadership candidate to step in and fill that void (and do so very effectively) was Brian Topp with his open letter. Someone has to be keeping an eye on the big picture, and I think we all expect that of our leadership.

KenS

I gave up arguing with you that Mulcair's cap and trade plan is an extension of the NDP's 5 year old plan.

And as I said many times- it is irrelevant anyway.

Because the existing plan IS bold, let alone you thinking Mulcair is extending what we promise we will do.

In fact it is so bold, that Jack never rolled the whole thing out. And simple it most definitely is not.

nicky

Ottawa Observor, you are wrong in saying that only Topp has responded to the St Denis defection.

Just try Google News and you will see Mulcair widely quoted from Kamloops saying she betrayed her constituents and should test her switch of parties in a by-election.

You seem to be displaying a tiny bit of hostility toasted Mulcair lately that is perhaps affecting your objectivity.

And in case you suggest I am not objective, you would be entirely right.

AnonymousMouse

ottawaobserver wrote:

All I know is that there was a great big communications void in the last 48 hours for the NDP as a party, and the only leadership candidate to step in and fill that void (and do so very effectively) was Brian Topp with his open letter. Someone has to be keeping an eye on the big picture, and I think we all expect that of our leadership.

I didn't see Topp's letter get any coverage or have any impact on the floor crossing story. Nor do I think he had any reason to expect that it would. On that basis I assume it was purely about the leadership race.

The party's approach seems to be to move passed the story--"change the channel". There are times when you can do that and times when you cannot. I find the party does it far too often, but this is one of the cases where I think it was the right strategy.

KenS

Arguing about what Mulcair proposes about cap and trade is an inevitable consequence of pretending that a handful of paragraphs in a news release constitutes policy on an extremely complex issue.

AnonymousMouse

mark_alfred wrote:

Well doofy, we'll have to agree to disagree.  Your statement that Mulcair as "Harper-Lite" is our best chance is nonsense, I feel.  We need to present a competent and tested alternative, which is Topp, rather than Thomas "Harper-Lite" Mulcair (as you advocate him).

Who said any such thing? Saying someone is a left-wing version of a right-wing politician is a world away from saying they a "lite" version of that politician.

Attempting to construct such a meme is so overtly hostile and disingenuous that I am taken aback.

Such pointless negativity is a discredit to the party.

AnonymousMouse

KenS wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:
 Mulcair laid out a simple but bold agenda on climate change early in the campaign (extend the NDP's existing cap and trade policy to cover all major sources of emissions, not just the ~700 largest polluters).

That is your contention. [actually, a few questionable contentions, in a short space]

My characterization of Mulcair's climate change proposal as "simple but bold" is certainly my opinion, but the rest is very clearly an accurate summation of what Mulcair proposed.

Quoting from his press release:

"Mulcair proposed a new 'comprehensive cap and trade plan' that would build on the popular proposal New Democrats campaigned on during the last election under the leadership of Jack Layton... Mulcair’s new plan would still be industry-focused and based on the principle that “polluters pay”, but it would expand beyond the 700 largest emitters in Canada to cover all major sources of climate change pollution."

That is clearly a proposal to "extend the NDP's existing cap and trade policy to cover all major sources of emissions, not just the ~700 largest polluters".

If you wish to dispute that that is a bold idea or a (conceptual) simple one, fine by me, but that is what he proposed.

I would freely admit that Mulcair's pension proposal seems more complex, but the crux of his climate change proposal was very simple.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

KenS wrote:

And he has not demonstrated he can plot a political course out of a paper bag.

 

Wow. Who pissed on your corn flakes? Laughing

Hunky_Monkey

KenS wrote:

Considering how much your question asked, that is not reassuring.

Mulcair has been referring to my cap and trade policy. And you can find what is there is on the website, in the news articles posted there... same as with the pension exchange idea.

It could easily be that the answer to your question means more 'posting of the policies on the website' like we already have.

Frig, Ken... you need an essay on the question? lol

They said they will add a section on the website for policy statements. Want me to write back and ask the font they're going to use as well? *wink*

AnonymousMouse

KenS wrote:

Arguing about what Mulcair proposes about cap and trade is an inevitable consequence of pretending that a handful of paragraphs in a news release constitutes policy on an extremely complex issue.

Mulcair wants a cap and trade system that "expand[s] beyond the 700 largest emitters in Canada to cover all major sources of climate change pollution."

That's not difficult to understand.

One can agree with it, disagree with it or criticize it, but it doesn't take a lot of words to explain.

Howard

ottawaobserver wrote:

All I know is that there was a great big communications void in the last 48 hours for the NDP as a party, and the only leadership candidate to step in and fill that void (and do so very effectively) was Brian Topp with his open letter. Someone has to be keeping an eye on the big picture, and I think we all expect that of our leadership.

Where was Turmel? Or should I say Tur-moil. That is supposed to be her job. I can't wait till the permanent hire shows up.

Wilf Day

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

As for the NDP surge outside Quebec... the NDP vote went up 7.5% in BC... up 4.1 in Alberta... up almost 7 points in Saskatchewan... up 7.4% in Ontario... up almost 8% in New Brunswick... there was STRONG growth outside Quebec although on a smaller scale.

Something wrong with those figures.

2011 NDP vote as % of 2008 vote:

Quebec 369.7%

PEI 167.8%

Ontario 151.1%

Alta 145.9%

NB 143.9%

Sask 138.1%

BC 130.2%

Man 112.9%

NS 108.3%

Nfld & Lab 107.9%

Yukon 180.9%

NWT 125.9%

Nun 68.4%

Canada 179.4%

Someone asked

Quote:
Did we already comment about Brian Topp's $50,000 loan from a tiny credit union he sits on the board of, and the union ACTRA (of which he is president?) founded. What do babblers think? Bad optics? Conflict of interest? Or "nothing to see here folks, move along"?

Getting your line of credit from a credit union rather than a bank is good optics. Obviously the manager ensured there was no conflict. Every credit union board member (I was one for six years) is also a member of the credit union, with deposits and/or loans, but individual loans do not go before the board. The board chair is not "in charge" of loans or any other operational matters.

Hunky_Monkey

Finding our version of Stephen Harper means finding a leader that Canadians will trust to run a G7 country. Finding our version of Stephen Harper means electing a leader that Canadians outside the NDP bubble can vote for because that candidate has the "royal jelly" to be Prime Minister. It's about finding a candidate that can communicate what the NDP is all about to voters who haven't voted for us in the past.

That is NOT Brian Topp.

I know lots of people who voted for Harper not because he was some right-winger but they trusted him and the Tories with governing Canada. Some of these voters would even classify as progressive on the issues of the day. We need a leader on the left who can appeal to Canadians in the same way.

That is Thomas Mulcair.

ottawaobserver

Turmel was not going to be able to punch herself into that story, given the high Liberal drama going on in Ottawa. I was just writing to someone else that Mulcair gave a media reaction in an interview, but he did not seem (not from what I've seen so far) to see that as a pivotal strategic moment that needed something done in a big way for the party - the way Jack used to be able to do.

It might just be a question of acclimatising to demands of the new role. But that's the kind of thing that separates the leader from a backbencher.

dacckon dacckon's picture

As much as certain Harper campaign tactics should be copied, I think that this leadership race is more about finding who will be our next Jack Layton. Pragmatism, optimism, and teamwork is something we should uphold. I strongly believe that if we went into the next election with Layton, we would have emerged with an NDP government.

Hunky_Monkey

Wilf Day wrote:

Something wrong with those figures.

Wilf... I meant the increase in vote that was in 2008 to what we got in 2011...

For example, in 2008, we got 25.6% in Saskatchewan. In 2011, we got 32.3% of the vote. That was an increase of 6.7 points from 2008. Sorry if I was confusing using points and percentage.

Hunky_Monkey

ottawaobserver wrote:

Turmel was not going to be able to punch herself into that story, given the high Liberal drama going on in Ottawa. I was just writing to someone else that Mulcair gave a media reaction in an interview, but he did not seem (not from what I've seen so far) to see that as a pivotal strategic moment that needed something done in a big way for the party - the way Jack used to be able to do.

It might just be a question of acclimatising to demands of the new role. But that's the kind of thing that separates the leader from a backbencher.

Turmel and the federal office should have sent out a letter to New Democrats. Frankly, it was her job to do so. Topp's letter was just another opportunity to ask for support for his campaign. It was good. But let's not view it through tinted goggles. Recognize it for what it was.

dacckon dacckon's picture

When everything about a candidate you don't like is pure evil and everything about the one you admire is pure rightousness, it makes it very hard for a person, like me who wishes to remain undecided until all options are weighted at the end, to take you & other spinmasters for your candidate(s) seriously...

socialdemocrati...

I like Topp. One of the best things about him is you know he had such a big role in crafting strategy and policy over the past few years, a vote for him is a vote to continue the same priorities as Jack Layton.

But here's the problem. We're not just electing a platform or a strategy. We're electing a leader. We're electing a spokesman. I'm not gonna play up the big media narrative that the NDP won purely on Jack Layton's cult of personality. But I can't dismiss the fact that we had an exceptional leader in Jack Layton. Not just a guy who understood policy and strategy. A guy who knew how to communicate and debate. A guy who was good in an interview and good in question period.

Brian Topp hasn't proven to me that he can be that leader. I'm willing to give him time. (I'm stupified at the number of people who say the race has dragged on too long, or that the candidates are short on announcements, considering the average Canadian is just starting to pay attention now.) But he has a huge deficit to overcome. His attacks on Dewar in the debate just seemed completely uncalled for. His attacks on Mulcair were off base. In interviews, he's dull at best. Worst case, he just has this smug, arrogant manner.

I'm not saying I can't support Topp. He might be the least likeable of the candidates (at this point in the race), and I'm STILL willing to put him in my top 3. He just has to work as hard at messaging, branding, and presentation as he works at policy and strategy. If he doesn't, I'll fight his nomination tooth and nail.

It also sucks a little that picking Topp means we won't have a permanent leader in Parliament until 2013. Just saying.

janfromthebruce

I totally agree with that observation OO. We were all pretty shelled shocked and Topp has the connection and gravis to do a letter which smoothed the waters and put into perspective for members, supporters and others our NDP position and positively moving on. He righted the ship and we were able to sail on without taking on too much water nor get stuck on the rocks. Yeah, that is leadership. He reminded me of Jack but then that is probably the stuff he did naturally as president and also as the behind the scenes guy.

 

ottawaobserver wrote:

All I know is that there was a great big communications void in the last 48 hours for the NDP as a party, and the only leadership candidate to step in and fill that void (and do so very effectively) was Brian Topp with his open letter. Someone has to be keeping an eye on the big picture, and I think we all expect that of our leadership.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

mark_alfred

AnonymousMouse wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

Well doofy, we'll have to agree to disagree.  Your statement that Mulcair as "Harper-Lite" is our best chance is nonsense, I feel.  We need to present a competent and tested alternative, which is Topp, rather than Thomas "Harper-Lite" Mulcair (as you advocate him).

Who said any such thing? Saying someone is a left-wing version of a right-wing politician is a world away from saying they a "lite" version of that politician. Attempting to construct such a meme is so overtly hostile and disingenuous that I am taken aback. Such pointless negativity is a discredit to the party.

Oh brother.  Sorry to shock you.  "Harper-Lite" just had fewer characters to type than "Left-Wing Harper".  However, I will change the post to appease you.  Regardless, my main point in my original post on the topic (that competence is the winning ticket in a leader that we should be looking for rather than saleability as wrongly conceived by some) remains the same.

Hunky_Monkey

janfromthebruce wrote:

I totally agree with that observation OO. We were all pretty shelled shocked and Topp has the connection and gravis to do a letter which smoothed the waters and put into perspective for members, supporters and others our NDP position and positively moving on. He righted the ship and we were able to sail on without taking on too much water nor get stuck on the rocks. Yeah, that is leadership. He reminded me of Jack but then that is probably the stuff he did naturally as president and also as the behind the scenes guy.

Does that letter tell how us how he'll be received by voters?

mark_alfred

Well doofy, we'll have to agree to disagree.  Your statement that Mulcair as "a left-wing Stephen Harper" is our best chance is nonsense, I feel.  We need to present a competent and tested alternative, which is Topp, rather than Thomas "a left-wing Stephen Harper" Mulcair (as you advocate him).

<later edit> Note:  the above was respectfully edited so that poor AnonymousMouse would hopefully no longer be shocked and taken aback by my original misquote.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Based on these leadership threads, most here seem to think it's down to Mulcair and Topp. Well that's very disappointing in my view. I can't see either one exciting people outside the fold. They are both very conservative choices with one veering more to the left than the other. I think our political climate requires far more risk taking than the tried and true NDP supporters are even stopping to consider. I guess with official opposition status comes more cautious choice as opposed to the "we have nothing to lose by testing someone new" attitude that elected Jack Layton.

Pages

Topic locked