NDP Leadership 78

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
KenS

Mulcair could end all the doubting by renouncing his French citizenship. Not only heading off a big future problem, but put paid to the persistent narrative within the NDP that he is over proud, does not listen, etc.

A lot of people would not like that, actaully be dissapointed in him. Many would see it as bowing to bullying. It would not be perceived that way at all if he were to do it early on. He can make his apologies, speak of it as a sacrifice he felt he needed to make, that he did not want it to be a distraction...

 

KenS

AnonymousMouse wrote:

But Mulcair has made two policy proposals both of which would be profound, if pragmatic, economic reforms.

[Mulcair has] proposed to extend cap and trade to cover all major sources of emissions (not just the biggest polluters responsible for 50% of emissions) http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2011/12/08/mulcair-announces-new-compre... -He's proposed a plan to give every Canadian access to a guaranteed/defined benefit pension http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2012/01/11/mulcair-announces-retirement... Mulcair may emphasize managerial competence and implementing policy in a responsible manner, but if you've actually been listening to what he says he clearly isn't overly tied down to any orthodoxy.

Note that this is making an interpretation of what he reads in a VERY thin news release on cap and trade into an asseration. And its a faulty interpretation. But we've been round and round this.

The pension proposal was discussed here at some length. Leaving aside the criticisms, a voluntary add on retirement savings plan to CPP which is entirely payed for by the recipient is hardly a profound reform.

Michelle

I would be very disappointed were Mulcair to give up his French citizenship due to political pressure.  I'm no fan of Mulcair, as you all know, but that is a completely bogus attack on him.  Our freakin' head of state isn't Canadian.  And there are lots of people elected to public office who have dual citizenship with some country or other. 

Back when Jack Layton made those comments about Dion's dual citizenship, I thought it was a supremely stupid and reactionary position to take, and said so at the time.  I say so again now, about those who are complaining about Mulcair's dual citizenship.  The whole "divided loyalties" thing is crap.  I'll bet that Harper wouldn't have a problem with someone who had a dual citizenship with, say, the UK, or the US, or Israel.

As for the union carve out - I'm less decided on that than I used to be, but I still lean towards being against it.  And I think that it's also bogus to accuse Mulcair of being "anti-union" because he spoke out against it.  I think one member one vote is more democratic than delegate voting, no matter who those delegates represent.  And this is not because I think unions shouldn't have influence in the NDP - they definitely should.  If any party should represent labour interests, and listen to labour, it's the NDP.  But when it comes to voting for the leader, affiliated unions can and should mobilize their members to get involved and vote.  If unions mobilize and convince enough of their fellow members to vote for the candidate they feel can best represent their interests, then they will have a voting bloc anyhow through OMOV. I am open to arguments for a carve out, and who knows, I might even change my mind, but so far, I haven't heard any that have convinced me that it is more democratic than OMOV.

KenS

Almost no one calls Mulcair 'anti-union'. The issue has been taken is both the nature of the cheap shot, and maybe questioning of political judgement, in his campaigning opening 'I'll stand up to unions' positioning.

While that was the beginning of my questioning of what Mulcair is about- even for me, its a long time ago now.

And the point was made that if you can have it both ways of insulating yourself from the usual attacks on the NDP as being too pro-union, AND get a lot of trade unionist support, you must be doing something right. [FWIW, it surprises me not at all. Mulcair the pragmatist is going to naturally appeal to a big swath of trade unionists active in the NDP.... who very often set aside their hats as trade unionists being the primary thing in politics.] I would add the cynical point that I dont think that Mulcair was just showing he can insulated himself. A lot of NDP members are wary of unions period, let alone the role played in the NDP. I think he was deliberately speaking to them. But all fair game. And the point still stands that he is managing to have it both ways, which if nothing else, I think puts an effective end to this.

As to the possibility of him giving up his French citizenship. Even if you would never like it, dont prejudge how the optics would appear- even to you. Tom Mulcair can easily take care of any perception that he is backing down to bullying. It can be presented as a a grand gesture.

Gaian

KenS wrote:

Almost no one calls Mulcair 'anti-union'. The issue has been taken is both the nature of the cheap shot, and maybe questioning of political judgement, in his campaigning opening 'I'll stand up to unions' positioning.

While that was the beginning of my questioning of what Mulcair is about- even for me, its a long time ago now.

And the point was made that if you can have it both ways of insulating yourself from the usual attacks on the NDP as being too pro-union, AND get a lot of trade unionist support, you must be doing something right. [FWIW, it surprises me not at all. Mulcair the pragmatist is going to naturally appeal to a big swath of trade unionists active in the NDP.... who very often set aside their hats as trade unionists being the primary thing in politics.] I would add the cynical point that I dont think that Mulcair was just showing he can insulated himself. A lot of NDP members are wary of unions period, let alone the role played in the NDP. I think he was deliberately speaking to them. But all fair game. And the point still stands that he is managing to have it both ways, which if nothing else, I think puts an effective end to this.

As to the possibility of him giving up his French citizenship. Even if you would never like it, dont prejudge how the optics would appear- even to you. Tom Mulcair can easily take care of any perception that he is backing down to bullying. It can be presented as a a grand gesture.

And by the time of the March convention, I'm sure that he will be presented in a thousand ways by the oh-so-discerning antagonists who swarm his every mention - and difficult as it is not to respond in kind, finally, to a seemingly endless liturgical display . :)

janfromthebruce

I absolutely agree with that statement Unionist!

 

writer wrote:

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

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

jjuares

I have really enjoyed the discussion. I am new here but have been following these leadership threads for awhile. I am very pleased with the choices. I have tentatively decided to support Mulcair. I met snd talked with him and I remain convinced that he will not only marginalize the LPC but will stop the GP from having a negative electoral impact.  

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Michelle wrote:

I would be very disappointed were Mulcair to give up his French citizenship due to political pressure.  I'm no fan of Mulcair, as you all know, but that is a completely bogus attack on him.  Our freakin' head of state isn't Canadian.  And there are lots of people elected to public office who have dual citizenship with some country or other. 

Back when Jack Layton made those comments about Dion's dual citizenship, I thought it was a supremely stupid and reactionary position to take, and said so at the time.  I say so again now, about those who are complaining about Mulcair's dual citizenship.  The whole "divided loyalties" thing is crap.  I'll bet that Harper wouldn't have a problem with someone who had a dual citizenship with, say, the UK, or the US, or Israel.

This. All of it. Layton was 100% wrong when he said what he said about Dion, and I too said so at the time. I totally believe Mulcair when he says now that Jack told him once that he wished he hadn't said that, by the way, too. Not only is it inconsistent with other things Jack believed, but it was widely criticized at the time.

I sincerely hope that Mulcair comes out swinging, and doesn't give in. I'm a dual citizen myself, and it would be awfully hard not to see it as a betrayal of the Canadian ideals I chose if he gave up his French citizenship.

AnonymousMouse

KenS wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:

[Mulcair has] proposed to extend cap and trade to cover all major sources of emissions (not just the biggest polluters responsible for 50% of emissions) http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2011/12/08/mulcair-announces-new-compre...

Note that this is making an interpretation of what he reads in a VERY thin news release on cap and trade into an asseration. And its a faulty interpretation. But we've been round and round this.

What I wrote above is in no way an interpretation of anything.

Mulcair's press release says he was preposing to "expand beyond the 700 largest emitters in Canada to cover all major sources of climate change pollution".

Knowing that those 700 emitters (LFEs) are responsible for 50% of emissions, that direct quote Mulcair's press release (there was also a backgrounder) says nearly word for word what I said above. There is no interpretation involved.

AnonymousMouse

Wilf Day wrote:

"I’m never going to be beholden to anybody other than the people who voted me there, which will be the membership of the party." In Ontario, that sounds like an anti-labour statement. Wayne Samuelson has concluded he didn't really mean it. In that case, I wish he would stop saying it.

But he hasn't been repeating that. He has repeated the line about "let the membership" decide. that is the same language used whenever someone supports OMOV over a delegated system whether the delegated system involves affiliates like unions or just party insiders like the Liberals system.

dacckon dacckon's picture

Edit: Wrong thread

Chatbrat

Bill Siksay former MP for Burnaby Douglas announced he is supporting Brian Topp at today's townhall in Burnaby.

http://www.briantopp.ca/news/former-bc-mp-bill-siksay-backs-topp-lead-ndp

janfromthebruce

oh Bill Siksay is one of my fav former MPs - good for Bill and for Brian! Thanks Chatbrat for posting.

Wilf Day

This is confusing; please close this old thread.

MegB

CFL

Pages

Topic locked