NDP Leadership 78

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
KenS
NDP Leadership 78

V

Issues Pages: 
doofy

Howard, from the previous thread:

don't measure Mulcair against perfection; measure him against the alternatives.

KenS

Wilf Day wrote:

Goes far beyond, yes. Is very different in spirit, yes.
I'm simply pointing out that Pierre Ducasse, with others, wrote that declaration with exquisite care, so that it did not expressly contradict the Clarity Act. That was only prudent, since the federal caucus was, as he knew all too well, split on the Clarity Act when it was passed. Yet the Sherbrooke Declaration sailed through. A historic achievement which, if the NDP wins the next election, will put Ducasse up there with Cartier, Macdonald and Brown.

Pierre deserves high praise, but you're going to make him blush and hide under a rock.

The NDP Caucus was not very split on the Clarity Act- I believe they mostly voted for it. And Jack affirmed that when he came in as Leader... I always thought because he was the new Leader. So Unionist is wrong that Jack contradicted party policy- there wasnt one. But there was a de facto positioning that the Caucus stood with the Clarity Act... albeit with professed reservations.

The nub is in those words, the SD did not expressly contradict the Clarity Act. But only in the sense it did not explicitly repudiate it.

I'm interested to see Unionist summarise the contradiction of the two, but there is a reason people in Quebec think that the SD contradicts and spercedes the Carity Act; and why political junkies in the ROC- not just our opponents- see it the same way.

Howard

doofy wrote:

Howard, from the previous thread:

don't measure Mulcair against perfection; measure him against the alternatives.

Only Niki Ashton offers less in the way of policy.

KenS

This does not really matter now, but I think the SD sailed through Convention because the bulk of NDP activists that make up the delegates never liked the Clarity Act, Caucus support of it notwithstanding.

For myself, even besides the substantive issues, I wa royally pissed that Caucus did a 180 degree on the only recently completed Social Democratic Forum [right name?] process.... into which their input was solicited. 

DSloth

KenS wrote:

Not a soul here has suggested that we go for a candidate that mud cannot be slung at. None.

Suggesting Mulcair has "extra baggage" because the Conservatives will try to make bigoted attacks on his french background is exactly what I was complaining about. Firstly I give Canadians more credit than that (at least the Canadians who aren't already locked into the Conservative base). Second it seems pretty clear to me that Mulcair will be the hardest to label as a Sovereigntist for patently obvious reasons. Whatever the outcome I'm sure as shooting not going to let a SUN News attack influence my ballot.

dacckon dacckon's picture

As I stated, it isn't a good argument... but when have the other two parties ever had any good arguments? Never, but they do have alot of money to waste on pointless attack ads.

socialdemocrati...

I don't know why people are looking for someone who is somehow "attack proof". Every single candidate has vulnerabilities. Every single candidate will be targeted by conservative attack ads.

I'm actually pretty impressed with Mulcair. He responded quickly and succinctly, and then put Harper back in the hot seat.

So no, I'm not looking for a candidate who's attack proof. I'm looking for a candidate who knows how to disarm an attack, and give some back.

For that reason, I hope Harper attacks all the candidates now.

 

KenS

DSloth wrote:

Suggesting Mulcair has "extra baggage" because the Conservatives will try to make bigoted attacks on his french background is exactly what I was complaining about. Firstly I give Canadians more credit than that (at least the Canadians who aren't already locked into the Conservative base). Second it seems pretty clear to me that Mulcair will be the hardest to label as a Sovereigntist for patently obvious reasons. Whatever the outcome I'm sure as shooting not going to let a SUN News attack influence my ballot.

He isnt going to be called a sovereignist by the Cons or the MSM.

And you have to stop thinking that this is an argument as in a court of law or a seminar room.

It's simple:

We WILL be vulnearble on the Clarity Act and the SD. And thats with our supporter universe... not the Cons base who are not part of the discussion.

Winning that is not going to be easy. And if Mulcair is Leader there will be no need to label or even imply him a sovereignist. Or appear to be opposed to Quebec [in the ROC]. The popular predisposition is towards the Clarity Act. It just makes sense to most people. The Liberals crafted it well as a wedge.

Wilf Day

daccon wrote:

Thomas Mulcair could be viewed as being in a conflict of interest . . . I would personally try to avoid all conflicts of interest except that of those who represented by me if I was running for public office.

What conflict of interest?

Is he a shareholder in a French corporation? Does he own French bonds? If the Euro is devalued, does he lose money? If so, are the millions of Canadians who have a stake in Eurobonds (directly or through their pension plan) disqualified for running for Parliament? Nonsense.

Has anyone argued that an employee of a foreign (American) corporation has a conflict of interest as an MP? (Maybe we should??)

But if those people are eligible to run for Parliament, how is mere citizenship even relevant?

Did anyone say John Turner should not be elected Liberal Leader and Prime Minister at the Liberal Leadership convention in 1984, or at the one back in 1968, because he would have a conflict of interest as a dual citizen?

This argument is absolute nonsense. If a supporter of another candidate raises the issue, he discredits that candidate's campaign.

DSloth

KenS wrote:

He isnt going to be called a sovereignist by the Cons or the MSM.

They will definitely try to imply we are in bed with sovereigntists that's the whole point of bringing up the Clarity Act, and yes that will happen with ANY leader.  You may not agree that Mulcair is better innoculated than most because of his Federalist bona fides but surely you can see why saying he has more baggage because his family is French is going to be seen as offensive to Quebec  

Biting down on Stephen Harper's race baiting will offend our universe of supporters being French won't.  

KenS wrote:

It's simple:

We WILL be vulnearble on the Clarity Act and the SD. And thats with our supporter universe... not the Cons base who are not part of the discussion.

Winning that is not going to be easy. And if Mulcair is Leader there will be no need to label or even imply him a sovereignist. Or appear to be opposed to Quebec [in the ROC]. The popular predisposition is towards the Clarity Act. It just makes sense to most people. The Liberals crafted it well as a wedge.

So good of a wedge they lost century strong ridings to us by the bushel, and you want to follow their playbook on Quebec politics.  

Hunky_Monkey

writer... I think you're not getting my thoughts on Saganash. I think he's a great guy with a lot of experience outside elected federal politics. I've said I think he's a good leader... but I question his experience needed to be a good politician especially against Harper. Being a good leader and being a good politician are two different things. I want our new leader to have a good blend of both. And yes, he's a rookie MP.

And with all due respect to people who think he'll be a "game changer" and that Harper and the Tories won't know how to attack him or come off as racist... we're talking about Harper and Tories. They'll find ways, even racist ones, to attack Romeo. And they'll find such subtle ways to do so. They'll come after anyone we elect. That wouldn't deter me from supporting Romeo for leader in the least... if I felt he had the political goods to handle Harper.

NorthReport
socialdemocrati...

And that's the point. It's not about who has the least political liabilities. (Aside from bonafide problems with crime, corruption, or hypocrisy.)

It's about who has the right combination of skills to handle their political liabilities. God knows, running as the leader of a party that has never formed a majority, you're gonna inherit a lot of liabilities.

dacckon dacckon's picture

I think Saganash and most of the candidates would do great against Harper. Thats how much talent we have in the NDP team.

 

I also don't think its about race in the attack ads I picture in my head, its more about their past experience. Saganash has quite the impressive resume that he is one of the most attack ad proof candidates. The only thing that may be used as an attack against him is a misquoted/misinterpreted political statement(about federalism), which its typical conservative behaviour.

Hunky_Monkey

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

And that's the point. It's not about who has the least political liabilities. (Aside from bonafide problems with crime, corruption, or hypocrisy.)

It's about who has the right combination of skills to handle their political liabilities. God knows, running as the leader of a party that has never formed a majority, you're gonna inherit a lot of liabilities.

Look at Dion. I think most New Dems would say he's a good, well-meaning politician. Look at what Harper did to him. Dion didn't have the political skills to fight back.

socialdemocrati...

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
It's about who has the right combination of skills to handle their political liabilities. God knows, running as the leader of a party that has never formed a majority, you're gonna inherit a lot of liabilities.

Look at Dion. I think most New Dems would say he's a good, well-meaning politician. Look at what Harper did to him. Dion didn't have the political skills to fight back.

Bingo.

Hunky_Monkey

See, bringing up an example of the Great Whale Hydro reinforces what I've been saying. We're talking about putting up a candidate to go against Stephen Harper and his attack team that sees politics as a bloodsport.

writer writer's picture

Saganash had enough political skills to fight back on the Great Whale Hydro project that threatened the future of his people.

Against huge odds, his side. I believe he hadn't quite finished his university studies at the time. He tells this great story about going to Barcelona as part of the strategy, and of flying over the huge statue of Christopher Columbus facing west on the shoreline of Spain.

Remind me, did Dion do anything comparable to that?

writer writer's picture

Quote:
See, bringing up an example of the Great Whale Hydro reinforces what I've been saying. We're talking about putting up a candidate to go against Stephen Harper and his attack team that sees politics as a bloodsport.

That's because everything reinforces what you've been saying, even when it contradicts what you're saying. Because you change what you're saying. Then change back.

Bully vs. Bully might excite some, but it leaves me cold. As it does about 40% of the electorate, it seems.

I have no clue how  Great Whale supports what you say. Perhaps if you expand. Do you think everyone was nice to the nice people at that time?

Hunky_Monkey

writer wrote:

Quote:
See, bringing up an example of the Great Whale Hydro reinforces what I've been saying. We're talking about putting up a candidate to go against Stephen Harper and his attack team that sees politics as a bloodsport.

That's because everything reinforces what you've been saying, even when it contradicts what you're saying. Because you change what you're saying. Then change back.

Bully vs. Bully might excite some, but it leaves me cold. As it does about 40% of the electorate, it seems.

I have no clue how  Great Whale supports what you say. Perhaps if you expand. Do you think everyone was nice to the nice people at that time?

Because you're confusing political activism and such with political street smarts needed to deal with Harper.

writer writer's picture

Just like Dion? Or was that Ignatieff? Which Liberal is Saganash supposed to be like now?

Could you define "political activism" as opposed to "political street smarts" for me? Could you let me know which secret book told you that the latter is what is required to "deal with Harper"? Thanks!

Hunky_Monkey

And again... who said anything about bully vs. bully? NO ONE. Do you think Jack would have let Harper do to him what he did to Dion? I don't. Would that have made Jack a bully? No.

writer writer's picture

Could you explain to me how someone who has hunted his whole life, who grew up playing hockey and went on to college basketball, who significantly changed a hydro project, transformed the relationship between north and south Quebec and guided a new international law into realization wouldn't have anything to draw from to deal with a boy from Etobicoke who thinks politics is a "bloodsport"?

Again, it just seems ridiculous to think that someone who has survived the blunt end of colonialism and in fact thrived despite it wouldn't have the capacity to deal with Harper.

Hunky_Monkey

writer wrote:

Just like Dion? Or was that Ignatieff? Which Liberal is Saganash supposed to be like now?

Could you define "political activism" as opposed to "political street smarts" for me? Could you let me know which secret book told you that the latter is what is required to "deal with Harper"? Thanks!

This is getting tiresome. Bottomline, I want a candidate with experience and good political skills to deal with the attacks that are coming. I don't think Saganash has either. That said, even some with experience in federal politics are like deer caught in headlights when the Tory attack machine is taking aim (Dion). But no experience means you just won't know at all how to deal with what's coming.

Flip out over it all you want. I was just giving you a reason why some people, including myself, aren't placing Saganash higher on the ballot.

Hunky_Monkey

writer wrote:

Could you explain to me how someone who has hunted his whole life, who grew up playing hockey and went on to college basketball, who significantly changed a hydro project, transformed the relationship between north and south Quebec and guided a new international law into realization wouldn't have anything to draw from to deal with a boy from Etobicoke who thinks politics is a "bloodsport"?

Again, it just seems ridiculous to think that someone who has survived the blunt end of colonialism and in fact thrived despite it wouldn't have the capacity to deal with Harper.

Now, it's because he's a hunter and played sports?!?!?! Holy frak.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Hunky Monkey, you seem to be confusing political negotiation with political activism. Far from the same thing.

When has a government gone into direct negotiations with an NGO or other activist group? Government may consult with or ask for interventions/submissions but it is not a peer to peer relationship.

The Paix des Braves and Boumhounan agreements were negotiated between governments, Quebec and the Grand Council of the Crees.

writer writer's picture

laine lowe, it seems that some have difficulty understanding that the term "First Nations" actually has a concrete meaning in this country. Funny, that.

Hunky_Monkey

laine lowe wrote:

Hunky Monkey, you seem to be confusing political negotiation with political activism. Far from the same thing.

When has a government gone into direct negotiations with an NGO or other activist group? Government may consult with or ask for interventions/submissions but it is not a peer to peer relationship.

The Paix des Braves and Boumhounan agreements were negotiated between governments, Quebec and the Grand Council of the Crees.

Not at all, laine lowe. It's still different than being an MP and having the goods to deal with Harper and the Tory attack machine.

And writer, my family (I'm of mixed race) is both black and native.

socialdemocrati...

Negotiation is a very valuable skill for a Prime Minister. But negotiation isn't enough to win a political campaign. If it was, Romeo would already be the front runner.

But everyone needs to take a step back and relax. The campaign is still young. Most of the candidates haven't been battle tested.

I want to find out what they're made of. That's not asking for "bully vs. bully". It's seeing who can do battle in this political arena, which unfortunately has no equivalent in real-life experience.

writer writer's picture

Yeah, sorry, the whole bloodsport / battle / toe-to-toe ... that whole bundle of [masculine] memes speaks to one way of approaching this project of life together. It does not inspire or interest me. And I don't think it's the way we have to be together. It is not a model I am interested in embracing.

Rather, I want to contrast from it, and offer another way to be in this world.

We've seen who has won the bloodsport / battle / toe-to-toe over the last few hundred years.

Unionist

As I said at the start, this leadership race is crap. They're all in the same party. They should get together and decide which of them is best suited to be leader, instead of duking it out in public, using tactical points against each other, inventing "policy" (as if an individual has the right to do such a thing) - and creating a situation where their supporters go to war against each other.

And some call this a sign of good health and vigour. Not me.

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Agreed Unionist. And hey writer, Harper's from Leaside, not Etobicoke. ;)

Just to demonstrate how the Mulcair supporters are coming across from a Saganash perspective:

Saganash-Most able to come to compromises and negotiate solutions in the best interest of all.

Mulcair-Bully, who won't give an inch to the ROC.

But, really, it's more important we all rally around the process, let it unfold, promote our candidates but not at the expense of others. It really would do a lot to dial down the rhetoric.

Or, I can keep pointing to Mulcair alienating the left of the party.

writer writer's picture

RP: he's from both! Moved to Etobicoke and went to high school there. Like me, his "from" comes in increments! ;0]

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I know I was a bit guilty of the "withstanding a negative Harper attack campaign best" rationale for Saganash earlier in thread #76 or #77. I agree with others who have said that this should not be a barometer for chosing a leader. As has been pointed out by some, Harper is going to find something negative to go hard and heavy on and no matter who the leader is, and it's probably going to have some impact, unfortunately.

All this talk about seasoned federal politicians and being better able to handle a Harper attack doesn't really wash with me. Paul Martin was more than seasoned, he came from Liberal political establishment. Even he cowered before Harper. On his last campaign, there were times that he looked physically ill and completely defeated.

Harper is not an opponent in a game but a bully, a really nasty one. Any attempts at verbal sparring in the HoC have only left many in the electorate ashamed of how bad things have gotten in federal politics.

writer writer's picture

"Flip out"? Okay, then.

dacckon dacckon's picture

Before people start agreeing that candidates cannot propose new policies- I suggest that people should check out the NDP constitution on this matter.

 

NDP Constituition on the Council wrote:
Have full authority to issue policy statements and election statements in the name
of the Party, consonant with the decisions of the Convention, and to initiate policy
statements consonant with the philosophy of the Party in matters not yet
considered by Convention.

Always read the fine print and note how things can be interpreted... Also, I'm sure that the notion of appointing a heir would be seen as... well you get the point.

Hunky_Monkey

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Or, I can keep pointing to Mulcair alienating the left of the party.

Like Philip Toone and Mathieu Ravignat? Maybe you can point out that he's anti-union too (a charge we all heard often at the beginning of race) while being endorsed by unions and labour leaders right across the country :)

Mulcair's plus and minuses have been discussed at length. Same for some others. If I recall correctly, some by you... no? Only fair that we discuss what we think the positives and negatives are with all the candidates. I'm not "attacking" Saganash. I'm evaluating his candidacy. Not sure why that's seen as a big no no on here.

Lord Palmerston

Doofy asked me in the thread why I disagree with the claim that Mulcair is the most "electable."

The answer: Maybe he is. But for me it's not just about winning seats at all cost, it's about winning over Canadians with a principled social democratic agenda.  I'm not convinced Mulcair is a much of a social democrat at all, he is very much on the right of the party.  Even if he's the most capable of "finishing off the Liberals" (which he may very well be), the price isn't worth it at the expense of party ideology.

I'm also not convinced that every other candidate is a "disaster."  I think Peggy Nash for instance a very strong candidate who offers what Tom Walkom referred to as a "pragamatic radicalism."  She has at least attempted to provide an alternative to neoliberalism and address what social democratic economics means today, and she certainly seems to have lot of young people supporting her campaign.  She's a pioneer in the union movement and is well linked with social movements.  I very much agree with Murray Dobbin's contrast of Mulcair and Nash:

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/10/24/NDP-Leadership-Race/

And I'm quite irked by the dismissals of Saganash here.  If he's not eminently qualified, I don't know who is.  First the line was he "lacks experience", then it changed to "he's too much of a policy wonk who lacks the street smarts to beat Harper and doesn't have it down to good slogans that can appeal to the voters." Nobody else in the race has faced and overcome the challanges he has.   Give him the chance and I think he'd win a lot of support, especially from disaffected voters.

dacckon dacckon's picture

(because the points you make are silly, you should instead criticize saganash on something substantial like his platform and where his numbers are)

 

Mulcair was deputy of the party representing one side of it, and the comments about how he said "no" to unions was also silly. I don't feel like making other points at the moment, especially when you decode some of his interviews. I remember one where we said something along the lines of 'no I don't want to move to the centre, but the centre to the ndp' and then one question later said 'A doer styled government is exactly what I want'. And since Doer is an open advocate of the third way(or was? this may have changed) this implies he wants a centre leaning government. Etc.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Doofy asked me in the thread why I disagree with the claim that Mulcair is the most "electable."

The answer: Maybe he is. But for me it's not just about winning seats at all cost, it's about winning over Canadians with a principled social democratic agenda.  I'm not convinced Mulcair is a much of a social democrat at all, he is very much on the right of the party.  Even if he's the most capable of "finishing off the Liberals" (which he may very well be), the price isn't worth it at the expense of party ideology.

I'm also not convinced that every other candidate is a "disaster."  I think Peggy Nash for instance a very strong candidate who offers what Tom Walkom referred to as a "pragamatic radicalism."  She has at least attempted to provide an alternative to neoliberalism and address what social democratic economics means today, and she certainly seems to have lot of young people supporting her campaign.  She's a pioneer in the union movement and is well linked with social movements.  I very much agree with Murray Dobbin's contrast of Mulcair and Nash:

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/10/24/NDP-Leadership-Race/

And I'm quite irked by the dismissals of Saganash here.  If he's not eminently qualified, I don't know who is.  First the line was he "lacks experience", then it changed to "he's too much of a policy wonk who lacks the street smarts to beat Harper and doesn't have it down to good slogans that can appeal to the voters." Nobody else in the race has faced and overcome the challanges he has.   Give him the chance and I think he'd win a lot of support, especially from disaffected voters.

 

I couldn't agree more, that Mulcair's social democracy is more technocratic than rooted in the grassroots struggle. I still think that he and Nash would easily win us a majority, and I like his support for National Daycare, Pharmacare, progressive taxation and his CPP policy seems pretty good.

Murray Dobbin wrote:

Mulcair's widely reported bullying, bad temper

Unfortunately this is the problem.

 

 

 

Lord Palmerston

dacckon wrote:

(because the points you make are silly, you should instead criticize saganash on something substantial like his platform and where his numbers are)

Mulcair was deputy of the party representing one side of it, and the comments about how he said "no" to unions was also silly. I don't feel like making other points at the moment, especially when you decode some of his interviews. I remember one where we said something along the lines of 'no I don't want to move to the centre, but the centre to the ndp' and then one question later said 'A doer styled government is exactly what I want'. And since Doer is an open advocate of the third way(or was? this may have changed) this implies he wants a centre leaning government. Etc.

Exactly. His "I won't be beholden to the unions" line was cheap and opportunistic.

And Gary Doer governed to the right of Bob Rae in Ontario, who Mulcair has attacked from the right ("can't run the night shift at Burger King.")  

Hunky_Monkey

dacckon wrote:

(because the points you make are silly, you should instead criticize saganash on something substantial like his platform and where his numbers are)

 

Mulcair was deputy of the party representing one side of it, and the comments about how he said "no" to unions was also silly. I don't feel like making other points at the moment, especially when you decode some of his interviews. I remember one where we said something along the lines of 'no I don't want to move to the centre, but the centre to the ndp' and then one question later said 'A doer styled government is exactly what I want'. And since Doer is an open advocate of the third way(or was? this may have changed) this implies he wants a centre leaning government. Etc.

First, I think many on here agree with me when it comes to the issue of "experience" and having political street smarts. Others don't. Fair enough. Those considerations are important because we've seen what Harper does to his opponents. You may find it silly. I don't.

As for a "Doer/Calvert style government", Mulcair is talking about managing the public finances (he's also been critical of some of their records, such as Saskatchewan's climate change file).

I'd say Mulcair is pretty much a Jack Layton New Democrat. Not sure how much he's on the right when two of his top priorites are a national pharmacare program and a national childcare program. I'd say he's pretty much a mainstream New Democrat.

stevebrown

The more I think about it the more I believe Romeo is the right choice for the NDP. It just seems to make sense that a party that considers itself to be progressive would want to have a First Nations person living in 24 Sussex. Forget about worrying about Harper and his band of bullies, and remain true to the spirit that the NDP purports to contain.

Hunky_Monkey

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Exactly. His "I won't be beholden to the unions" line was cheap and opportunistic.

First, he said he wasn't going to be beholden to anyone but the individual members. He was being pressured by Ken Neumann of the Steelworkers (a Topp supporter) to support a labour crave out. He maintained his position for a true OMOV race. It was then reported by a reporter from the Globe with connections to Topp. Interesting how it all come about, huh?

Considering the amount of support he's receiving from those in the labour movement and by members writing to him in support of his position, he was spot on.

Hunky_Monkey

stevebrown wrote:

It just seems to make sense that a party that considers itself to be progressive would want to have a First Nations person living in 24 Sussex.

Sorry, but I'm not voting for a candidate just because he's Cree. I'm sure Romeo would say the same.

Wilf Day

Lord Palmerston wrote:
Gary Doer governed to the right of Bob Rae in Ontario.

Now, that, I dispute. As Thomas Walkom wrote in Rae Days, in one term Rae almost destroyed the party for a generation.

Quote:
“In 1990, the New Democrats were the only serious political force remaining on the left wing of Canada’s political landscape. When they abandoned that terrain they did not just leave it empty. They sowed the ground with salt.”

Doer didn't tell the party executive and the labour movement to go to hell. In fact he maintained solidarity and got re-elected twice.

nicky

It is getting a little tiresome to read over and over that Mulcair is anti-union because he opposed the 25% labour carve-out. This idea has been refuted repeatedly on Babble but Topp's apologists keep resurrecting it with a pejorative spin.

For hopefully the last time, let me explain what happened:

1. The previous convention voted overwhelmingly to abolish the carve-out in favour of a purely one-member-one-vote system.

2. At the Federal Council meeting in September to set out the rules for the leadership vote, Topp's forces attempted to resurrect the carve-out, relying on some ambiguous wording in the party constitution that arguably gave the Counil power to determine the voting procedure.

3. Mulcair and most of the Council opposed this and it failed to pass.

4. Topp wanted to do this because he perceived that an enhanced labour vote would be to his advantage.

Topp was attempting a sort of coup to overturn the democratic decision of the convention. When he lost, his people put out the misleading narrative that Mulcair is anti-labour because he stood behind that democratic decision.

It was the same kind of smear as Topp's people attempted in propagating the narrative that Mulcair doesn't play welll with others. False, misleading and politically motivated.

Happily, these tactics have deservedly hurt Topp much more than Mulcair.

Unionist

dacckon wrote:

Before people start agreeing that candidates cannot propose new policies- I suggest that people should check out the NDP constitution on this matter.

 

NDP Constituition on the Council wrote:
Have full authority to issue policy statements and election statements in the name
of the Party, consonant with the decisions of the Convention, and to initiate policy
statements consonant with the philosophy of the Party in matters not yet
considered by Convention.

Ummmmmmmm... that's the Council's power, not the Leader. The Constitution of the NDP gives no powers to the Dear Leader - let alone the Beloved Candidates.

So, why are the candidates proposing policy... and why are babblers cheering them on and micro-analyzing their policy pronouncements?

 

Lord Palmerston

Wilf: do they have anti-scab legislation in Manitoba yet? 

http://winnipeglabour.ca/sept2.shtml

Mulcair indeed attacked the Rae government from the right with his "Burger King" comment.  Rae's biggest problem was not deficit spending, if he had insisted on balanced budgets the situation would have been worse. 

Hunky_Monkey

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Wilf: do they have anti-scab legislation in Manitoba yet? 

http://winnipeglabour.ca/sept2.shtml

Mulcair indeed attacked the Rae government from the right with his "Burger King" comment.  Rae's biggest problem was not deficit spending, if he had insisted on balanced budgets the situation would have been worse. 

Bob Rae was an incompetent Premier all around. An example of a good politician being a bad leader :)

Pages

Topic locked