NDP Leadership 84

125 posts / 0 new
Last post
CanadaApple
NDP Leadership 84

I hope I'm not too late! = P

CanadaApple

Unionist, I just wanted to say that while I was originally against the "50%+1" part of the Sherbrooke Declaration, after I've read the things you've written on it here, you managed to change my mind on it. Because now I think that as someone from outside Quebec, it just isn't for me to decide what size of a majority Quebec would need in a referendum.

Unionist

Thanks, CanadaApple. I think that says it simpler and better than the Sherbrooke Declaration.

 

NorthReport

There is no question Cullen is on a roll. Finally a bit of spice to the race.

Don't forget, sell the sizzle, not the steak!  LOL

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/in-the-ndp-...

socialdemocrati...

My opinion on the Sherbrooke Declaration -- initial shock, followed by principled support. If Quebec is going to be a part of Canada, it's going to be because they believe they benefit more from being part of this union than they would being on their own. Trying to stop them from separating through legal technicalities is a recipe for resentment, and may actually encourage the very thing we're trying to prevent.

If there's any reassurance, the younger generation coming up is less interested in sovereignty than the generation before it.

I'll also add that there are are three categories of people in Quebec: federalists, sovereigntists, and people who just want to make sure the French language doesn't disappear the way it did in Louisiana or Acadia. If we offer policies to preserve the French language, there are a lot of social democratic and progressive QCers who would feel right at home with us.

writer writer's picture

A quick point of clarification: the story I linked to towards the end of the previous thread was from the Toronto Star, not Sun Media.

Wilf Day

I must confess I never thought of Daniel Paillé running against Topp in a by-election.

Is that likely? John Baglow, as a former PSAC Regional Vice-President (National Capital Region), is not given to idle speculation.

Quote:

If Topp runs in Quebec, what if he loses?

Think that's impossible? Think again. He's had no direct electoral experience whatsoever. He's been a solid backroom boy, but to be an actual candidate requires a different skill set, honed by hands-on experience that Topp has never had.

The new leader of the Bloc Québécois, Daniel Paillé, is a seasoned former MP who will almost certainly run against him. In the game of chess that is politics, why would the Conservatives run a strong candidate in that contest? Why would the Liberals?

http://www.themarknews.com/articles/8104-topp-ling-the-hope-for-victory

wage zombie

Wilf I believe a Topp-Paillé matchup has been discussed in these threads.

knownothing knownothing's picture
Stockholm

wage zombie wrote:

Wilf I believe a Topp-Paillé matchup has been discussed in these threads.

A lot would depend on the riding....I suppose that if an NDP MP resigned from a 99% francophone nationalist stronghold, it could pave the way for a Topp-Paille face off. But what if the by election was in a riding that had a lot on non-francophones in it that was very bad demographics for the BQ? Then I think Paille would avoid it.

JKR

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

My opinion on the Sherbrooke Declaration -- initial shock, followed by principled support. If Quebec is going to be a part of Canada, it's going to be because they believe they benefit more from being part of this union than they would being on their own. Trying to stop them from separating through legal technicalities is a recipe for resentment, and may actually encourage the very thing we're trying to prevent.

....

The Conservative's and Liberals are likely going to use the Sherbrooke Declaration against the NDP. And if the NDP backs away from the Declaration the BQ is going to use that against the NDP.

These are the two referendum questions the PQ asked in 1980 and 1995:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Quebec Referendum Question - 1980

"The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?"

Yes No

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Quebec Referendum Question - 1995

Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

Yes No

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 - Should these kind of questions allow the government of Quebec to unilaterally declare Quebec's sovereignty from Canada?

2 - Can a very close vote on these kinds of questions allow the government of Quebec to declare sovereignty?

3 - Does the government of Canada have an obligation, legally or otherwise, to allow the government of Quebec to put these kinds of questions to a referendum?

The Sherbrooke Declarations answer to these 3 questions is "yes".

 

But the Sherbrooke Declaration doesn't answer one very important question, which is:

1 - How should the government of Canada respond if the government of Quebec declares sovereignty based on these kinds of questions?

My answer to that question would be "The government of Canada should not interfere. They should let the issue play itself out in Quebec as Quebecers are capable of acting responsibly."

Unfortunately that answer probably leaves the NDP open to being labelled as "pro-separatist" by the Conservatives and Liberals.

So I have no good political answer to this question but I think the NDP should figure out a good answer before this issue blows up in its collective face as the Conservatives, Liberals, and BQ, are all likely waiting to use this wedge issue against the NDP.

Conservative supporters are already spinning that Mulcair would be the first separatist prime minister of Canada.

Quote:

Now it seems that the NDP wants to do just that. Their Sherbrooke declaration makes them our first national separatist party.

They have declared that if they are the government of Canada, they will not use the Clarity Act (a valid law of the land) to insure that a referendum on a trick question, such as the last two run by the Parti Québécois, can’t be used as an excuse for unilateral secession. They also promise to respect the idea that a fifty-per-cent-plus-one vote is enough to take Quebec out of Canada. And they will extend Bill 101 to include federal workers in Quebec so that Canadian citizens here cannot use both of Canada’s official language when dealing with the government of Canada.

...

 This is Thomas Mulcair’s ace-in-the-hole. And he is the perfect leader to bring about the devolution of Canada. He is a duplicitous guy who can lead a duplicitous party. In the U.S. a prospective leader just has to speak French to be branded as duplicitous, Mulcair takes it way further – he has French citizenship.

It looks like this is the destiny of the NDP. In the next election their slogan could be “Divide and Conquer!”

KenS

JKR wrote:

My answer to that question would be "The government of Canada should not interfere. They should let the issue play itself out in Quebec as Quebecers are capable of acting responsibly."

Unfortunately that answer probably leaves the NDP open to being labelled as "pro-separatist" by the Conservatives and Liberals.

So I have no good political answer to this question but I think the NDP should figure out a good answer before this issue blows up in its collective face as the Conservatives, Liberals, and BQ, are all likely waiting to use this wedge issue against the NDP.

Here, here.

Having said that, I'm not sure whether the leadership candidates raising it during the race would be productive. Unless one of the candidates thinks they have something besides pretty platitudes to offer- an approach they have thought of, something like that. Again, even if one of them or some of them have that, it does not mean floating it out during the race is good for them or the party.

But we can and should talk about, and it wasnt reassuring to me that most people remained silent when it came up.

KenS

 

Skeena13 wrote:
KenS, I'm going to have to disagree on this point. You may not agree with Nathan's perspective, but that doesn't mean he isn't listening to you and others who share your opinion. As one of his constituents, I can say with certainty that he is a man of principle, that he listens to his consituents and that he acts both on his principles and the will of his constituents. The long gun registry is a great example of Nathan listening to his constituents, despite the obvious party pressures he felt.

I think he'll bring that same sense of duty to the position of party leader and listen to the party as a whole. Right now, however, he is seeking a mandate to execute his plan to fulfill his vision for the party and the country. If he succeeds, that's not him 'not listening'; that's him leading

Listening to your constituents is not the bar here. Not to mention that voting for scrapping the LGR is a no brainer if you represent northern BC.

And the day of meetings I spent with Nathan in Halifax he listened well.

What is at issue for a prospective leader is the capacity to listen to what you are disinclined to accept. Being disinclined is fine. Holding your opinion despite what you hear is fine. But refusing to listen, or even "just" giving that impression, is not acceptable.

Nathan's idea on joint nominations was guaranteed to find, and hold, an enthustiastic constituency. But it also turned up a big chunk of the members- especially activists who carry more opinion shaping weight- who absolutely hate the idea. So much so that even people who had rated him highly, like myself, write him off the list totally on that alone.

Nathan has publicly consistently attributed that in polite but condescending words to ols ways of thinking- as if it is only a visceral reaction. He has not once that I have seen engaged the substantive arguments that acknowledge the appeal. That could be driven by strategy: the reasonable fear that if you concede an inch you will end up on the defensive. But a good politician and leader can turn that- especially in an in-house debate. So I dont buy it.

When Nathan started performing really well in the debates- I think there is a rough consensus he is the best in that milieux- I thought "this really is a shame how his idea is going to hold him back." Because as much support as Nathan can build behind it, he cannot win the final vote with the amount of opposition he has created and which is immovable. So I tried to put that into the hopper with the campaign. At the full time but lower level I got genuine shock and surprise at what I was saying. That it was new was not a good sign. Closer in to the centre of the campaign that was not at all true. But the sense I got from 'high placed friendlies' was that Nathan has heard the argument but is simply not going to change his mind.

People are going to interpret that different ways. But I read it this way. Nathan is doing very well in the debates. He can run with that in any number of ways. He doesnt need his joint nomination idea. He doesnt need to turn 180 on it either. But he has decided this really is it. Which is his prerogative of course. By his own admission this joint nomination thing is not likely to happen in very many ridings at all. So what is the point when it creates considerable intractable opposition?

That and other things look to me as too likely to be pig headed for someone to be leader. I fully realize that may be wrong, but I'm not going to take a chance on Nathan.

And I guarantee you he is headed for trouble in Quebec, even without this latest confusing statement on which I give him the benefit of the doubt. Should be 'interesting'.

 

R.E.Wood

KenS wrote:

 By his own admission this joint nomination thing is not likely to happen in very many ridings at all. So what is the point when it creates considerable intractable opposition?

That and other things look to me as too likely to be pig headed for someone to be leader. I fully realize that may be wrong, but I'm not going to take a chance on Nathan.

 

I respectfully submit two questions:

So what is the point of the intractable opposition when the join nomination plan is not likely to happen in very many ridings?

And, if Nathan is being pig headed, is not the intractable opposition being equally so?

KenS

Fair questions.

Last one first: Nathan is running for Leader, comparison to [what might be] the pig headedness of opposition to the idea is irrelevant. Let's say that we agree that the opposition to the idea is mostly pig headed. The point was about Nathan and strategy of him winning- which is relevant to all of us because he wants to be Leader and we want to win. If intractable and immovable opposition to his idea keeps him from winning, and his performance in the debates gives him a better than expected shot at winning, finding a way to at least de-emphasize his plan would seem to be something that is worth him considering.

For the first question- a lot of the opposition comes from people who have thought out what the process of ridings considering will do to the party at both the riding and party level. Nathan just refuses to address this by continuing to say 'no riding is forced to do it.' Not a word in answer to the questions of what the process will do... which may at best be merely a big distraction, but could be much worse. I dont expect anyone to just say, "Yes, you are right." But having the question ignored is not on.

So you can see there is no re-assurance felt why the understanding shared by Nathan, and apparently common in his campaign, that this is likely to not happen in more than a few ridings.

KenS

I see a lot of inside the bubble mentality in Nathan's campaign. It is inevitable that campaigns make their own realities and often do not get what is obvious to those outside the bubble. 

But this can be worked around. And in the case of the party, it is essential that the Leader make sure it is kept in check. There is the same requirement for the candidate at the top of a leadership campaign. Its a test for the big show. Allowances are made for campaigns not getting it for a while on some key issue(s). But the time for that is well past, and I think Nathan is failing the test. 

Bärlüer

JKR wrote:

Conservative supporters are already spinning that Mulcair would be the first separatist prime minister of Canada.

Holy crap! That is one incredibly misinformed, incoherent and just generally stupid piece. I'm floored.

Mulcair is viscerally federalist. This should be obvious to everyone except delusional francophobes who harbor the view that any attempt at protecting the French language or making sure the provinces' autonomy, right to self-determination and powers under the Constitution are respected (which is, um, sort of the whole idea behind federalism) is some sort of covert separatist, treasonous act.

Some guy named Blue wrote:

And they will extend Bill 101 to include federal workers in Quebec so that Canadian citizens here cannot use both of Canada’s official language when dealing with the government of Canada.

Um, no, that's not it. In a nutshell, the aim of the bill is to protect the right of Francophone workers in federal undertakings carrying on their activities in Quebec to work in French. Just read the damn bill, if that's not too much work for you. (And it's not "extending Bill 101", although I personally think that would be a preferrable solution to the ad hoc NDP's bill, but that's beside the point.)

Is this newspaper always this stupid?

Stockholm

JKR wrote:

Conservative supporters are already spinning that Mulcair would be the first separatist prime minister of Canada.

They should really look in the mirror since Harper was the one who wrote letters about building "firewalls" around provinces and was the one who brought in a motion recognizing Quebec as a "nation".

KenS

The reporter is a nutbar. But its still a warning not to be dismissed because of who is delivering it.

Bärlüer wrote:

 That is one incredibly misinformed, incoherent and just generally stupid piece. I'm floored.

Mulcair is viscerally federalist. This should be obvious to everyone except delusional francophobes who harbor the view that any attempt at protecting the French language or making sure the provinces' autonomy, right to self-determination and powers under the Constitution are respected (which is, um, sort of the whole idea behind federalism) is some sort of covert separatist, treasonous act.

When did misinformation ever stop something from biting us in the butt?

What stops it is effective countering.

And saying that Mulcair, or the NDP, is 100% federalist does not cut it.

When I linked to this article earlier I said something to the effect of strip away the over the top stuff- including the sfuff about Mulcair in particular- that only the Conservative base beleives... and underneath it lies doubts raised that will resonate with a good deal of OUR base... particularly but not at all only in the West.

A good deal of our base agrees fully with what you said there, AND when they see the lengths the Sherbrooke DEclaration goes to, they are not going to like it. So guess what the swing voters in our universe are going to think when this is raised with them- as it will be by our opponents if we dont do it first.

KenS

Thats good to keep putting back out there. But its delusional to think it can do more than play a role in countering.

Howard

Stockholm wrote:

JKR wrote:

Conservative supporters are already spinning that Mulcair would be the first separatist prime minister of Canada.

They should really look in the mirror since Harper was the one who wrote letters about building "firewalls" around provinces and was the one who brought in a motion recognizing Quebec as a "nation".

They should also review the tapes of what Harper said in 1995 as the Reform Party spokesperson on the referendum. In retrospect, he comes across as a TOTAL hypocrite.

Furthermore, everything he said or wrote about Quebec post-1995 was pretty derogatory crap about the province having "ethnic" politics. It is/was borderline francophobic stuff.

mtm

It looks like anyone can contribute drivel to that section - its an open forum, online article only, my guess.

KenS

When did you start being abusive to Babblers?

NorthReport

Typical nonsense from JKR with the now expected piling on by KenS with his silliness.

That Rick Blue if you scratch below the surface is probably a Rae Liberal.

NorthReport
KenS

Howard wrote:

They should also review the tapes of what Harper said in 1995 as the Reform Party spokesperson on the referendum. In retrospect, he comes across as a TOTAL hypocrite.

Furthermore, everything he said or wrote about Quebec post-1995 was pretty derogatory crap about the province having "ethnic" politics. It is/was borderline francophobic stuff.

Being right about Harper is going to do us so much good when we get attacked in the ROC over the Sherbrooke Declaration.

Lord Palmerston

knownothing wrote:

http://www.thestar.com/article/1124461--ndp-s-nathan-cullen-at-star-editorial-board-i-m-pro-business

 

Cullen pro-business "I don't see evil everywhere"

Cullen fell further down my list after reading that.

socialdemocrati...

JKR wrote:
Unfortunately that answer probably leaves the NDP open to being labelled as "pro-separatist" by the Conservatives and Liberals.

So I have no good political answer to this question but I think the NDP should figure out a good answer before this issue blows up in its collective face as the Conservatives, Liberals, and BQ, are all likely waiting to use this wedge issue against the NDP.

Conservative supporters are already spinning that Mulcair would be the first separatist prime minister of Canada.

I can see this coming down the pipe too.

Here's my 140 character political answer:

"Im Federalist. Fought Bloc. But forcing unity w/ lawsuit wld fan flames of resentment. If Canada/QC/NDP hold common values, QC chooses unity"

Here's my 30 second debate answer.

"If you've followed my career, you'll know that I'm consistently federalist. I've faught the Bloc. I've campaigned for unity in every referendum. But if Harper thinks you can force Quebec to stay in Canada by ignoring their concerns, and threatening lawsuits to force them to stay, he's only going to fan the flames of resentment, and empower the Bloc. The NDP's approach is to represent the shared values between Canada and Quebec, like health care, the environment, and protecting bilingualism. I intend to represent all Canadians, and I have faith that Quebec would choose unity voluntarily."

And if they want to drill in deeper, they can.

KenS

I think its mainly the NDP, not Mulcair, that is vulnerable on this.

And none of this answers to our vulnerabilities. It only may answer to Mulcair's additional personal vulnerabilities.

The themes could be the start- as long as people dont put an unwarranted faith in the force of reason in itself.

Howard

KenS wrote:

Howard wrote:

They should also review the tapes of what Harper said in 1995 as the Reform Party spokesperson on the referendum. In retrospect, he comes across as a TOTAL hypocrite.

Furthermore, everything he said or wrote about Quebec post-1995 was pretty derogatory crap about the province having "ethnic" politics. It is/was borderline francophobic stuff.

Being right about Harper is going to do us so much good when we get attacked in the ROC over the Sherbrooke Declaration.

I respect your views KenS, but part of the task of convincing Canadians you are ready for the big job is holding those currently in power accountable for their actions. This means dragging up Harper's statements about the 1995 referendum (and many other things) and showing how he has completely sold out the ideals that supposedly drove him into office.

This is something the NDP can and must do on the deficit for instance. Harper loves to beat his drum about what a great economic manager he is, but the fact of the matter is that the biggest deficits in Canadian history happened under his tutelage AND the fastest/biggest contribution to the national debt did as well. This was something Harper ripped Mulroney for. This is something he and Flaherty promised Canadians would never happen (as in "there is no chance" of us going in to deficit). Under any concievable metric for fiscal management Harper has failed, failed, failed. Revenues = record lows (post-GST cut), Spending = rapid growth, Examples of wasteful spending & graft = multiple (i.e. G8, stimulus funds predominantly to Conservative ridings, Soudas and the Port of Montreal), Deficit = largest in history, Debt = fastest/largest accumulation in history...

If Mulcair becomes leader, the NDP needs to go neg, neg, neg on the economic file and give Harper the exact treatment he would have given/did give Mulroney if in the same position. They should take to the airwaves to counter any negative ads the Conservatives might run against the new leader. In other words, mano a mano and let the Conservatives be the "little boy that cried wolf" or the bully that got called on their game.

Harper, Flaherty, and Mike Harris' economic policies are an abject failure on even the most Conservative of grading criteria and we should use that against them.

KenS

Three themes come to mind that we need to hammer home in ROC.

!.] Federalists in Quebec were and are deeply offended by the Clarity Act. Who that includes, etc. The CA works against the cause of Qubec staying in Canada. [Which will surprise most people.]

2.] This is not the business of Big Brother in Ottawa. You dont like Ottawa butting into your affairs, do you think Quebec should like it.

3.] Stephen Harper is dividing people again. This time he's playing with the unity of Canada, and he's got a long track record in that.

 

After that... and maybe the simple main themes are different, but after them whatever they are...

Nobody wants to see a 'trick question' in a referendum [or whatever words are used]. But if the question is not fair, then there will be protests on the streets in Quebec. The people of Quebec will take care of this, and they will decide. Repeat and repeat: interfering does not help the federalist cause, the Clarity Act harms the federalist cause...

 

Leaving aside the question whether those or similar ones are the themes that will be effective, knowing your themes is only a start. This is not a script.

knownothing knownothing's picture

This whole Sherbrooke vs Clarity Act is just a media driven farce. No one cares about this. The people I talk to in Saskatchewan who vote conservative say they don't care if Quebec leaves or not. Why would they care what the conditions are? It is such a bullshit issue made up by Evan Solomon and the rest of the presstitutes.

KenS

And the Leader going in swinging, or explaining, is not necessarily the way to start. Probably isn't.

This sort of campaign is likely best led with advertising- as the Cons did to Dion and the Libs with the carbon tax.

Which is another example of why the Leader is not just, or mostly, the pretty face and talking head.

socialdemocrati...

I think you're onto it KenS.

People don't really pay attention to policy. But people do vote their values. Unity is a value. Fairness is a value.

It's easy to see the Conservative argument: "the Sherbrooke Declaration makes it easier for Quebec to leave. The NDP is pro-separatism. The NDP is pandering to separatists." We're anti-unity, and anti-fairness.

The counter argument is to marry autonomy with unity, and reframe the Clarity Act as belligerent.

I repeat: "If Harper thinks you can force Quebec to stay in Canada by ignoring their concerns, and threatening lawsuits to force them to stay, he's only going to fan the flames of resentment, and empower the Bloc."

To seal the deal, we spell out the NDP approach and contrast it with Harper.

(Edit: I also agree there are parts of Canada that really doesn't care. We just have to be on guard if we get accused of pandering to separatists.)

NorthReport
Hunky_Monkey

Quote:

NDP hopeful claims deep understanding of Canada

...

In 2007, Jack Layton recruited Mulcair as his Quebec lieutenant and he was named co-deputy leader of the NDP.

“We connected first and foremost on a level of shared values,” said Mulcair.

Layton first contacted Mulcair after he’d refused to sign an order-in-council that would have transferred lands in Mont-Ordford Provincial Park to private developers so they could build condominiums. An attempt was made to shuffle Mulcair to another portfolio but he resigned on a question of principle.

“(Jack) knew about that and he called and as Jack had the ability to do, he made me a personal contact by telling me his grandfather had resigned from the Quebec cabinet on a principle back in the Second World War because he disagreed with Duplessis on conscription.”

That first contact and connection with Layton led Mulcair to Quebec City to address delegates at the NDP convention on sustainable development.

“(Layton) worked hard to recruit me and we sealed the deal over a memorable supper at a village restaurant in his old hometown of Hudson, Que., with Olivia (Chow, Layton’s wife) and Jack and my wife Catherine … and Jack laid out his vision for a social democratic government.”

Mulcair worked side by side with Layton for five years, so he has a full understanding of Layton’s vision for Canada, which he says is a deep understanding of Canada.

“An understanding that the seats here in the Maritimes can be extremely important. I met so many people in New Brunswick who share our values and goals. I’m a bit surprised that federally we haven’t been able to break through.”

http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2012/02/01/ndp-hopeful-claims-deep-unde...

mark_alfred

Two more endorsements from two Nova Scotia MLAs for Brian Topp:

Quote:
MLAs Mat Whynott (Hammonds Plains-Upper Sackville) and Lenore Zann (Truro-Bible Hill) both announced their support for Topp today [2012/01/31], saying his leadership skills, his strength across the country, and his grasp of the issues facing Nova Scotia families make him the best choice to be NDP leader and eventually Prime Minister.

nicky

 

Breaking News

The Canadian Press - ONLINE EDITION

Brian Topp tops in raising money among eight vying for NDP leadership

By: The Canadian Press

Posted: 02/1/2012 5:30 PM | Comments: 0 (including replies)

OTTAWA - Brian Topp raised the most money of any of the eight federal NDP leadership contenders during the opening three months of the contest.

According to figures released by the party, the longtime backroom strategist raked in $156,597.13 from October to the end of December.

Montreal MP Thomas Mulcair was a close second, raising $145,863.44.

Toronto MP Peggy Nash raised $108,223.01.

The other five pulled in less than $100,000 each.

Ottawa MP Paul Dewar raised $93,931; British Columbia MP Nathan Cullen pulled in $86,109; Nova Scotia pharmacist Martin Singh, $49,077; Quebec MP Romeo Saganash, $17,552.10 and Manitoba MP Niki Ashton, $10,215.

Nova Scotia MP Robert Chisholm, who pulled out of the race before Christmas, also raised $35,400.

nicky

Trends in NDP leadership donations

February 1, 2012. 6:24 pm • Section: News

ShareThis 00  

Posted by:
Glen McGregor

Make of it what you will. My take is that Thomas Mulcair, Peggy Nash, Paul Dewar and Nathan Cullen are all eating into Brian Topp's lead in the money sweeps. Nash's surge in December is particularly impressive. Note, the large spike at the far end of the chart is caused by the huge influx of contributions reported on Dec. 31, the last reporting day of the quarter.

Interesting to see that while Topp leads in total amount raised, Mulcair has taken more donations (621-304 by my count).

On average, Topp's donors gave $556 per contribution, versus Mulcair's $234. So, easy for Mulcair to claim more grassroots support and contrast with Topp's monied donors.

NB access article for a graph of cumulative donations by month

nicky

Tom Mulcair has spoken out more forcefully than any other leadership candidate against Harpers Dumb on Crime legislation. He will speaking on this as well as immigration and refugee issues in Toronto next Friday. Everyone is welcome. You don't need to be a lawyer to come. 

 

LAWYERS MEET AND GREET

Thomas Mulcair

 

WITH

Come out and meet Thomas Mulcair, Deputy Leader of the NDP/Leadership Candidate

Hear Tom speak on Harper's Law and Order Agenda: Bill C-4 on Refugees and Immigrants and Bill C-10 the Crime Bill

 

Friday, February 10, 2011 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Madison Ave Pub & Restaurant

 

 

14 Madison Ave

Toronto, ON M5R 2S1

SPADINA RD

How to Help:

You can be part of Tom's campaign for the Leadership of the NDP by making a donation (up to 75% tax credit) ahead of time at: thomasmulcair.ca or by giving at the event.

 

For More Information:

 

 

Steve Foster [email protected] (416) 482-6501

Brian Glennie

Lord Palmerston wrote:

knownothing wrote:

http://www.thestar.com/article/1124461--ndp-s-nathan-cullen-at-star-editorial-board-i-m-pro-business

 

Cullen pro-business "I don't see evil everywhere"

Cullen fell further down my list after reading that.

 

 

 

What didn't you like, Lord Palmerston?

R.E.Wood

I just had an interesting telephone poll from the NDP, which I suspect originated from the Mulcair campaign. It started by asking who my top three choices for leader are, in order. I answered Cullen, Mulcair, Nash. Amongst other follow-up questions, there were two that really stood out to me:

Why would I not vote for Peggy Nash?

Why would I vote for Thomas Mulcair?

Makes me think the Mulcair camp is looking for his strengths as perceived by the membership, and at the same time, looking for Nash's weaknesses. Alternatively, I suppose it could be from the Nash campaign, looking to find her perceived weak points in order to work on them? And to identify Mulcair's strengths in order to go after them, or strengthen Peggy in those areas?

Another question was whether it is more important to win the next election, or to unite the party after the leadership vote? I voted the latter because I suspect uniting the party will be essential in order to go on and win the election.

Very interesting. Anyone else had this call? 

KenS

There is not a lot to go on, but my guess is that came from the Nash campaign.

Given the limitations on what can be done with the information, there is little interest in why people would not vote for an opposing candidate. Possibly, you got those follow-up questions because you ranked Mulcair higher. Also, you ranking Nash only third, your answer why might give them evidence counter to the decsion otherwise that you are not in a category that it is worth expending resources on contacing in the future.

The unite the party versus winning question would be to identify whether you are the type of voter most open to their message. For example [not necessarily this]: if you answer "winning" is most important, we dont call this guy because our prior research and strategy tells us he is too difficult to move our direction. [NOT because we dont think "winning" is the most important.]

writer writer's picture

A stunning call from Team Topp

Tonight, I received a call from someone representing Brian Topp's campaign. After a brief introduction, the individual on the other end of the phone asked me whether I'm leaning to any particular candidate. Whether there is one person I'm supporting more than others. I indicated that I am supporting Romeo Saganash. 

He asked, Why?

I answered that I am impressed with his diplomacy and balance for starters. And added that all the candidates have good qualities. That we are lucky with this field.

He asked me, Aren't you concerned with Romeo's lack of fluency in French?

I answered, What?

He asked, Are you concerned with Romeo's lack of fluency in French?

I asked, Are you kidding?

He said, No. I am from Quebec.

I said, He is the most fluent candidate we have.

He said, Are you sure of that? Because I am from Quebec, and that's not ...

I said, He is perfectly fluent in French.

He said, I don't know about that. I'm from Quebec and –

I said, I have heard him speak French. And according to Chantal Hebert, for starters, he is the most fluent.

He said, I'm from Montreal ...

I said, That's nice, but you know this is really not very impressive.

He asked, Why?

I said, If this is the messaging coming from the Topp campaign, this is not impressive.

He said, Well let me ask you this way: What is it about Topp's campaign that you don't find impressive?

I said, No. You don't understand. Are you reading from a script? Is this the messaging you are being directed to give? This is really not impressive. It is so unimpressive that I am going to get off the phone and contact the Saganash campaign immediately.

He said something or another. He seemed a bit panicked, if I were to weigh in with an opinion.

I said, This is no longer a discussion. This conversation is over.

He seemed to still be trying to engage as I said good-bye and hung up.

He was calling from Quebec. I have his number written down. He was calling from Quebec, phoning a party member in Ontario, telling someone outside Quebec that Romeo Saganash is not fluent in French. He was calling on behalf of Brian Topp's campaign, the campaign with the most money in donations, based on 4th quarter reporting for 2011. Enough money to pay the cost of having people in Quebec spread disinformation about Romeo Saganash, it appears.

I did mention that I was not impressed.

Unionist

Hahaha. You call this a political party? Bunch of fucking opportunists drooling at the prospect of becoming prime minister.

A six month race to see who gets to rule the roost. They should all be expelled. They don't give a damn about the people. Reading from scripts, playing their transparent little tactical games, lying.

If they had any feeling for the so-called "families" that they ludicrously claim to represent, they would gather in a room and agree which of the 8 should lead the party, then 7 of them drop out. When hell freezes over, right? Every one of them is better than all the others.

Sorry, I just had a moment where I thought telling the truth wouldn't hurt.

 

writer writer's picture

Unionist, I do think there are things Romeo Saganash can be criticized about. His fluency in French is so not one of them. Why shouldn't this kind of manipulation be exposed?

Unionist

Hey writer, I don't think you got my point. People playing these games are the scum of the earth. Maybe Saganash is holier than the rest. But the entire process is one of filthy careerist deception and trickery. If it doesn't make you ill, I congratulate you for your iron digestion. Your story, and some of the others here, give me the heaves. Progressive my ass. What a dirty game.

 

Brian Topp Brian Topp's picture

Romeo is, of course, superbly multi-lingual, a brilliant negotiator and advocate, and already a great MP. As well as an impressive colleague in this leadership race. I apologize for any offense.

I have a great team working with me and I'm very proud of them and all the hard work they're doing. This is a colleague who needs to know a little more about Romeo. 

 

All the best,

BT

 

Unionist

Yeah, right. [url=http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/57892-topp-first-fundraising-among-n... is the level of profound corruption, sectarianism, and cronyism poisoning this so-called leadership race. Sikhs giving money to the Sikh. Nova Scotians giving money to the Nova Scotian. Boulerice on the radio yesterday, during an interview in which he is supposedly representing the party, finishing with, Hey, buy the right to vote for the leader, and vote for Brian Topp while you're at it!

Not a single one of these people have that one quality which appears to distinguish the human species - shame.

But by all means, do carry on browbeating everyone else with how wonderful your candidate is and how everyone else is the shits.

 

Bärlüer

Three possibilities: 1) that staffer was so stratospherically incompetent as to not know that Saganash is perfectly fluent in French (or confusing Saganash with another candidate or something); 2) that staffer decided to go off-script and lie about another candidate; 3) the lie was actually in the script and emanated from the campaign.

In any case, it's pretty sad.

[ETA: posted this before reading the above BT post.]

KenS

I guess Brian cant be blamed for wanting to be diplomatic in both directions. It wouldnt go over well with the crew publicly criticising what is probably a volunteer- no matter how much people might agree.

I say volunteer. I'm guessing based on experience, as with commenting on the survey R Wood relayed to us. But the point of contact like this is not at all to persuade- let alone pushing an ignorant opinion.

The point in both these polls is to identify as well as you can where people are at. You dont do that by putting words in peoples' mouths.

Pages

Topic locked