NDP Leadership #94

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
DSloth

Chris Borst wrote:

If Topp really does have numbers putting him around 28%, he should release his whole poll (including second choices) for comparison!

He doesn't, that was explicitly the "results" of a phone bank. 

Now Brian Topp certainly has his own scientific polls but they chose not to release any of those, which is of course his prerogative.  Really don't know why he insists on trying to run as the frontrunner though.  As a Mulcair supporter I'm fraught with concern about how coming out as the frontrunner today might put a big(ger) target on us. 

janfromthebruce

Ruth-ellen is known better than most NDP MPs. Thus it's not relevant. Oh, and p.s. I like that Ruth-Ellen is so well known - she is doing a great job and I'm so glad she got elected.

I think I am supporting old goat's thoughts here - like him I did not join the party until after Bob Rae and like him, campaigning has been so difficult with the "ghost of Bob".

Lord Palmerston

Boom Boom wrote:
ETA: comparing Tom Mulcair to Bob Rae is laughable. Laughing

I'm not so sure about that.  First of all, contrary to the partisan sour grapes, Rae was never out of sync with the NDP mainstream; his government was to the left of the current Manitoba and Nova Scotia NDP govts.  

Also, Mulcair's critique of the NDP - that it's stuck in the past, isn't serious about governing, hasn't "modernized" is the same as Rae's critique.

DSloth

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:
ETA: comparing Tom Mulcair to Bob Rae is laughable. Laughing

I'm not so sure about that.  First of all, contrary to the partisan sour grapes, Rae was never out of sync with the NDP mainstream; his government was to the left of the current Manitoba and Nova Scotia NDP govts.  

Also, Mulcair's critique of the NDP - that it's stuck in the past, isn't serious about governing, hasn't "modernized" is the same as Rae's critique.

Whether or not Premier Rae was out of sync with the NDP mainstream I'll leave for obscurantists to debate, but Liberal Bob Rae is way out there.  He successfully outflanked Harper on his right with the Afghanistan extension.  Even the words your making up and pretending Mulcair has ever said don't approach anything on that level.

 

TheArchitect

DSloth wrote:

TheArchitect wrote:

I think that if Dewar were chosen as leader, there would be a serious movement to oust him due to his poor French, but I don't think Dewar is the only candidate who would face serious internal dissent as leader.

It's clear that Mulcair has enemies within the party, and, whether one thinks it's fair or not, it's clear that he is distrusted if not outright disliked by much of the party. Meanwhile, if anyone else is chosen as leader, there will likely be rumors of plottings to oust that leader in favor of Mulcair which, whether founded or not, will surface in the media every time anything goes wrong for the leader.

 

 

I don't think Dewar would win but if he did we'd have to live with him straight through the next election and that goes for any leader. 

Mulcair is not distrusted or dislike by "much of the Party", he's leading the contest and has the most combined support in his opponent's internal poll. A small cadre of paranoics* think he's Tony Blair reborn because he comes from a different political culture and they never really got on board with thinking of Quebec as a different nation with different political nomenclature. If he wins, they will discover he still supports the Party he took a huge chance to run for in 2007 and the broad sweep of its platfrom, he won't institute a stalinist purge and they'll start to wonder what all the fuss was about.

*There are of course people who prefer other candidates for perfectly legitamate reasons and I'm not meaning to paint everyone with the same brush. 

To dismiss those who are seriously concerned about Mulcair's values "paranoics" [sic] seems to me to be grossly unfair.

Let me say that I liked having Mulcair as Deputy Leader.  At the beginning of the leadership race, I was expecting to rank Mulcair fairly highly; I didn't expect to put him first, but I certainly thought he'd be closer to the top of my list than to the bottom.

However, his comments during the course of the race praising NAFTA and free trade completely tuned me off of the idea that he is fit to be leader.

The Liberals used to be against unfair trade deals.  Then they sold out.

It would be a terrible loss for Canada if the NDP were to do the same.

I don't insist on absolute ideological purity within the NDP.  There is a diversity of opinions within our party, and that's fine.  However, when it comes to the leader, there cannot be any doubt about the person's belief in our social democratic agenda.  There are a number of people who I'm glad to have in our party but who I don't trust to be leader.  Thomas Mulcair is such a person.

DSloth

Mulcair never praised NAFTA he said he's not going to withdraw from it, which you know, no one will. A politician who says they will is lying to you. 

NorthReport

It's so obvious when Mulcair is being equated with the intensely disliked Bob Rae that the thread has seriously gone off the rails. 

And i thought we had had enough excitement for one day what with Dewar's poll. lol

Winston

LaughingLaughingLaughing

Quote of the night!

flight from kamakura wrote:

^ i'd wager than ruth-ellen is more well-known than brian topp.

Lord Palmerston

Mulcair: "We have to renew. We’re one of the only social democratic parties to never have renewed itself. One of the things that we did in Quebec was that we reached out beyond our traditional base.We identified ourselves as progressives but we didn’t stick with some of the 1950s boilerplate."

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1129700--ndp-lea...

Rae: “Every other successful social democratic party in the Western world has had to abandon certain central premises of the democratic socialist narrative and so far the NDP has not done so,”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/20/what-about-bob/

 

 

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

TheArchitect wrote:
I target Mulcair particularly in my comment because I think he's the most dangerous in this regard, as I see him as both the most likely to win in 2015 and the least commited to the values of our social democratic movement.

 

Are you saying protecting "the values of our social democratic movement" are more important than defeating Stephen Harper??? Sounds like you want the NDP to be in opposition forever. And where's the solid evidence that Tom Mulcair is not a progressive social democrat, other than made-up shit?

DSloth

Let's revamp our slogans (especially in a culture where they make little linguistic sense) isn't the equivalent of lets "abandon certain central premises."

TheArchitect

DSloth wrote:

Mulcair never praised NAFTA he said he's not going to withdraw from it, which you know, no one will. A politician who says they will is lying to you. 

iPolitcs wrote:

Although the party he seeks to lead has vigorously opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement in the past and former NDP Leader Jack Layton called for it to be re-opened, Mulcair says he supports NAFTA and helped draft some of its provisions on professional services.

“To some people, the NAFTA is an anathema,” he said. “The NAFTA is the first international agreement that had provisions dealing with the environment. You can’t throw out the baby with the bath water.”

Source: http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/10/14/weve-got-to-stop-being-such-chumps-mu...

Mulcair's quote sounds like praise to me.

Let's be very clear: Thomas Mulcair wants to keep NAFTA.  Jack Layton wanted to reopen it and renegotiate it.

Winston

janfromthebruce wrote:

Ruth-ellen is known better than most NDP MPs. Thus it's not relevant. Oh, and p.s. I like that Ruth-Ellen is so well known - she is doing a great job and I'm so glad she got elected.

I think I am supporting old goat's thoughts here - like him I did not join the party until after Bob Rae and like him, campaigning has been so difficult with the "ghost of Bob".

I will admit that Bob Rae was a disaster (and I was a member of the NDP before AND after Bob Rae), if you will admit that he was always a (federal) Liberal.

Thomas Mulcair was NEVER a federal Liberal; he was a member of the only federalist option in Québec.  There are lots of good reasons to support Brian Topp - maybe even a few valid ones not to support Mulcair - but this is most certainly NOT one of them.

People who continue to promote this tired meme show their abject ignorance of Québec.

 

DSloth

TheArchitect wrote:

Mulcair's quote sounds like praise to me.

Sounded a lot more to me like "let's not throw out the baby with the bath water", the baby in this case being environmental regulations, but than that's what he actually said and not your spin. 

We'd all love to renegotiate NAFTA and there's nothing wrong with that as an aspiration but renegotiation of a bilateral agreement between soverign states is a two way street (even more complicated by Quebec concerns) and if you hadn't noticed the other partner in that agreement has somehow grown even more right wing and neo liberal in the intervening years and they have ten times the bargaining power that we do. 

Lord Palmerston

I agree with this point, and will "defend" Mulcair here.  He never "crossed the floor", it was the only federalist party in Quebec at the time.  And running for the NDP in 2007 was not in any way "opportunistic" - quite the contrary.  This kind of critique of Mulcair is stupid.

It's what he's saying now - that he wants to emulate Gary Doer, that he'll stand up to union bosses, that the NDP is stuck in the 1950s, that he supports NAFTA, etc., that disturbs me.  

(BTW: why does he point to the 1950s?  This shows his ignorance of the history of Canadian social democracy.  The CCF of the 1950s was impacted by Cold War conservatism.  The party actually moved to the left during the late 1960s and 1970s).  

Winston

As an aside, in spite of my misgivings about the Charest government, let us not forget that Québec is STILL the only province with anti-scab legislation, is STILL the province with the lowest tuition fees in the country, is STILL the only province with $7/day daycare.  If only Saskatchewan could claim the same!

Lord Palmerston

Very true.  It says something about the difference between Quebec and ROC when a Cabinet minister in the "right-wing" Charest govt. can make such an easy transition to running for the national leadership of the social democratic party.

TheArchitect

Winston wrote:

Thomas Mulcair was NEVER a federal Liberal; he was a member of the only federalist option in Québec.  There are lots of good reasons to support Brian Topp - maybe even a few valid ones not to support Mulcair - but this is most certainly NOT one of them.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

I agree with this point, and will "defend" Mulcair here.  He never "crossed the floor", it was the only federalist party in Quebec at the time.  And running for the NDP in 2007 was not in any way "opportunistic" - quite the contrary.  This kind of critique of Mulcair is stupid.

It's what he's saying now - that he wants to emulate Gary Doer, that he'll stand up to union bosses, that the NDP is stuck in the 1950s, that he supports NAFTA, etc., that disturbs me.  

(BTW: why does he point to the 1950s?  This shows his ignorance of the history of Canadian social democracy.  The CCF of the 1950s was impacted by Cold War conservatism.  The party actually moved to the left during the late 1960s and 1970s).  

I quite agree with Lord Palmerston here.  I don't think it's fair to criticize Mulcair for having been in the PLQ; the PLQ is not affiliated with the federal Liberals.  The issue isn't his former party affiliation; it's what he believes.

It should be noted that I haven't seen anyone on this thread attacking Mulcair for his PLQ membership, so I'm not sure why this issue is even being brought up by those who are defending Mulcair.

Winston

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Very true.  It says something about the difference between Quebec and ROC when a Cabinet minister in the "right-wing" Charest govt. can make such an easy transition to running for the national leadership of the social democratic party.

Canada needs more Québec!

Winston

TheArchitect wrote:

I quite agree with Lord Palmerston here.  I don't think it's fair to criticize Mulcair for having been in the PLQ; the PLQ is not affiliated with the federal Liberals.  The issue isn't his former party affiliation; it's what he believes.

It should be noted that I haven't seen anyone on this thread attacking Mulcair for his PLQ membership, so I'm not sure why this issue is even being brought up by those who are defending Mulcair.

I think this is the point: Mulcair was a cabinet minister in a government that funds $7/day daycare and the lowest tuition fees in the country, and left said government on an environmentalist point of principle.  Topp was a senior strategist for a government that closed 50 hospitals.

My point is not to slag Topp - I understand that the Saskatchewan government had tough decisions to make, but I find it a bit disingenous for anyone from Topp's team to be questioning Tom's social-democratic credentials.

As Chantal Hébert said in a column some weeks ago (I wish I could find it), a party of the Left could do far worse in a Leader than to find a cabinet minister from a government that provided such social programs.

Mulcair believes in the NDP principles, as do all of the candidates -  that was why he chose to run in a long-shot by-election when we sat at 7% in Québec!

mtm

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Mulcair: "We have to renew. We’re one of the only social democratic parties to never have renewed itself. One of the things that we did in Quebec was that we reached out beyond our traditional base.We identified ourselves as progressives but we didn’t stick with some of the 1950s boilerplate."

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1129700--ndp-lea...

Rae: “Every other successful social democratic party in the Western world has had to abandon certain central premises of the democratic socialist narrative and so far the NDP has not done so,”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/20/what-about-bob/

 

Forgive me for noticing, but those two quotations arent the same at all.  If you put the interview in context, what Mulcair was talking about is how we can make our social democratic principles real - and that is by forming a government.  Modernizing our language and the way we speak with the electorate (rather than to them) is exactly what Jack was doing, and there are several candidates in this race who are harkening back to the old NDP I originally joined in 2002, that would just yell at everyone for "not getting it".

What Mulcair is talking about, and I think is the best part of his message is something I've been saying for years to people I meet and try to get involved with the party:  "New Democratic values are Canadian values".  We just need to get better at communicating how our values are shared by the large number of people who don't vote for us, even though it would be in their best interest to do so.

This is what Mulcair brings to the party as its next leader.  He is not in ANY way Bob Rae, and I think its laughable to be presenting that argument.

We do not have to "abandon certain central premises of the democratic socialist narrative" to win.  We have to show people that they are indeed democratic socialists at heart by speaking to them in their own language.  We win nothing by preaching to them about the virtues of socialism and the evils of neoliberalism, and by telling them their worldview is misguided (which believe me, most people at the doorstep have NO idea what neoliberalism is or why it is bad).

I'm going a bit beyond Mulcair here into my own analysis, but the whole "bringing the centre to us" thing, is not so much that as much at is making Canadians see that the nation is actually skewed left, and that the common ground is actually more left of centre than what anyone in the media defines as "centre" or "centrist", which I find to be very right wing.  Does this make sense...I hope you catch my drift on that one as I admit I am wading into the obscure. Hopefully KenS, you'll forgive me for wading into your territory.

Howard

Somewhere in the early threads I think there was a link saying Tom Mulcair was a Federal Liberal and supported Allan Rock for leader in 2003. Previous to that Tom Mulcair was an NDP member in the 1970s. Link anyone?

mtm

FYI Pierre Dionne-Lebelle is backing Mulcair now. He announced the day after Saganash's exit.

CanadaApple

Here is my concern about Mulcair, and maybe some of his supporters on here can speak to it. He has said alot about the NDP needing to move beyond it's traditional base to form the next government, which is probably accurate. Yet at the same time, he makes comments that could be, and have been on here as being interpereted as speaking down to the traditional base. Now, as mtm pointed out, he might no be trying to say that, but that's atleast how it comes seems. What I would like to see from Mulcair is an indication that he is willing to work with a listen to party members and supporters to form party policy. Topp seemed to suggest he wanted to do that when he released this, so even though he faces talk of him being "Third Way" on babble (and he may be, I don't know) to me at least it shows that he wants to get the whole party involved in making policy. In fact, he says in the paper that "Members don't want to be treated like bank machines." And as someone who joined the party just months ago, I agree. I didn't join just so i could vote in the Leadership race and then do nothing but hand over my money an volunteer during election time. I'll be happy to do what i can of course even though I am strapped for cash most of the time, but I want to do more than that. I want my voice to be heard. I want in a leader someone who will listen to my concerns and if possible act on them. Layton seemed like that kind of leader, and I'd like and indication that Mulcair would be the same.

TheArchitect

Updated caucus endorsements, listed in order of time in office, and, where there are ties, in order of last name:

ASHTON
    1.    Niki Ashton (Churchill, MB, 2008-)
    2.    Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON, 2008-)
    3.    François Choquette (Drummond, QC, 2011-)
    4.    Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, QC, 2011-)
    5.    Francine Raynault (Joliette, QC, 2011-)

CULLEN
    1.    Brian Masse (Winsor West, ON, 2002-)
    2.    Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC, 2004-)
    3.    Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, BC, 2006-)
    4.    Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC, 2009-)

DEWAR
    1.    Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, ON, 2004-)
    2.    Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, ON, 2006-)
    3.    Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, ON, 2006-)
    4.    Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, AB, 2008-)
    5.    Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, ON, 2008-)

MULCAIR
    1.    Wayne Marston (Hamllton East—Stoney Creek, ON, 2006-)
    2.    Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, QC, 2007-)
    3.    Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, BC, 2008-)
    4.    John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON, 2008-)
    5.    Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, ON, 2008-)
    6.    Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, QC, 2011-)
    7.    Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, QC, 2011-)
    8.    Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, QC, 2011-)
    9.    Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, QC, 2011-)
    10.    Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, QC, 2011-)
    11.    Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC, 2011-)
    12.    Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL, 2011-)
    13.    Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC, 2011-)
    14.    Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, QC, 2011-)
    15.    Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, QC, 2011-)
    16.    Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, QC, 2011-)
    17.    Réjean Genest (Shefford, QC, 2011-)
    18.    Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, QC, 2011-)
    19.    Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, QC, 2011-)
    20.    Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, ON, 2011-)
    21.    Sana Hassainia (Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC, 2011-)
    22.    Pierre Jacob (Brome—Missisquoi, QC, 2011-)
    23.    Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, ON, 2011-)
    24.    François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC, 2011-)
    25.    Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC, 2011-)
    26.    Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, QC, 2011-)
    27.    Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, QC, 2011-)
    28.    Marie-Claude Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC, 2011-)
    29.    Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC, 2011-)
    30.    Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC, 2011-)
    31.    José Nunez-Melo (Laval, QC, 2011-)
    32.    Annick Papillon (Québec, QC, 2011-)
    33.    Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, QC, 2011-)
    34.    Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC, 2011-)
    35.    Manon Perreault (Montcalm, QC, 2011-)
    36.    François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, QC, 2011-)
    37.    Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, QC, 2011-)
    38.    Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, QC, 2011-)
    39.    Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC, 2011-)
    40.    Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeline, QC, 2011-)
    41.    Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC, 2011-)

NASH
    1.    Denise Savoie (Victoria, BC, 2004-)
    2.    Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, ON, 2006-2008, 2011-)
    3.    Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, QC, 2011-)
    4.    Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC, 2011-)
    5.    Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC, 2011-)
    6.    Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC, 2011-)
    7.    Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC, 2011-)
    8.    Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC, 2011-)
    9.    Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, ON, 2011-)

SINGH

TOPP
    1.    Libby Davies (Vancouver East, BC, 1997-)
    2.    Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NB, 1997-)
    3.    Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC, 2004-)
    4.    Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, ON, 2006-)
    5.    Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, QC, 2004-2006 as Liberal, 2011-)
    6.    Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, QC, 2011-)
    7.    Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC, 2011-)
    8.    Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC, 2011-)
    9.    Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC, 2011-)
    10.    Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, 2011-)
    11.    Jinny Sims (Newton—North Delta, BC, 2011-)
    12.    Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, BC, 2011-)

UNALIGNED
    1.    Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, MB, 1997-)
    2.    Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS, 1997-)
    3.    Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, ON, 2000-)
    4.    David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, ON, 2004-)
    5.    Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, BC, 2004-)
    6.    Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NT, 2006-)
    7.    Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, ON, 2006-)
    8.    Jack Harris (St. John's East, NL, 1987-1988, 2008-)
    9.    Malcolm Allen (Welland, ON, 2008-)
    10.    Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON, 2008-)
    11.    Megan Leslie (Halifax, NS, 2008-)
    12.    Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, QC, 2011-)
    13.    Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC, 2011-)
    14.    Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC, 2011-)
    15.    Andrew Cash (Davenport, ON, 2011-)
    16.    Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS, 2011-)
    17.    Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, QC, 2011-)
    18.    Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, QC, 2011-)
    19.    Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC, 2011-)
    20.    Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC, 2011-)
    21.    Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, QC, 2011-)
    22.    Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC, 2011-)
    23.    Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC, 2011-)
    24.    Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, ON, 2011-)
    25.    Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, QC, 2011-)

TheArchitect

mtm wrote:

FYI Pierre Dionne-Lebelle is backing Mulcair now. He announced the day after Saganash's exit.

Thanks for pointing that out; I guess that Dionne Labelle's endorsement had somehow escaped my notice (perhaps because it isn't listed on Mulcair's website).  My post has been updated accordingly.

jjuares

Having attended one forum and several kitchen table talks I have come to appreciate Mulcair's candour. He never pandered to people and wasn't afraid to tell them things that may be uncomfortable but need to be said. No one is going to abrogate NAFTA and the fact that Mulcair said it should be to his credit.

I appreciate all the candidates but I would have trouble living with Cullen and Dewar.The lack of ability in French and the joint nominations are non-negotiables for me. It is too soon for Ashton. Nash I find much to dull of a speaker. I also had trouble with her health care comment. Not so much because I believe that she wouldn't defend medicare because I believe she would. However, it does show that she can't think on her feet in French. Sing is a non starter for me because of his lack of political experience. Topp is someone who I would consider but his lack of experience in running for office is a consideration. So, in the end I am for Mulcair but certainly not fanatically so.    

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Winston wrote:

Wow...with that e-mail the Dewar campaign put out, it almost seems like they are trying to export their Manitoba tactics to the rest of the country.  They had to have planned the release of this poll, knowing in advance that Dewar would bomb the French debates and planned on using it as a diversion.  Dewar could have taken his lumps from the debate, and like Chisholm shown some dignity and recognize his limitations.  Instead, with the wheels falling off their campaign, they pull this stunt trying to take out the Topp campaign while they were at it.  It was a slimy tactic and reeks of scorched earth politics.  I have zero respect left for the man or his campaign.

I didn't have quite this strong a reaction to it, but I admit that my reaction to the poll was: "if this is true, then I guess Topp really needs my vote." I have also been going back and forth on whether or not to rank Dewar at all (his French is so bad! but it's gotten so much better! but it's still so bad!), and am much more strongly leaning toward "not" after this.

I wonder if this is a common reaction.

jjuares

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

Winston wrote:

Wow...with that e-mail the Dewar campaign put out, it almost seems like they are trying to export their Manitoba tactics to the rest of the country.  They had to have planned the release of this poll, knowing in advance that Dewar would bomb the French debates and planned on using it as a diversion.  Dewar could have taken his lumps from the debate, and like Chisholm shown some dignity and recognize his limitations.  Instead, with the wheels falling off their campaign, they pull this stunt trying to take out the Topp campaign while they were at it.  It was a slimy tactic and reeks of scorched earth politics.  I have zero respect left for the man or his campaign.

I didn't have quite this strong a reaction to it, but I admit that my reaction to the poll was: "if this is true, then I guess Topp really needs my vote." I have also been going back and forth on whether or not to rank Dewar at all (his French is so bad! but it's gotten so much better! but it's still so bad!), and am much more strongly leaning toward "not" after this.

I wonder if this is a common reaction.

My problem with evaluating the French of the candidates is that my French is so bad that I have to rely on the opinion of others. I do believe proficency in French is an important quality for our leader.

mtm

CanadaApple - I understand what you mean.

I take Mulcair's stance on the whole "Topp Tax" issue as being exactly what you're talking about.  I think he has respect for the party members setting of policy, which could be a big reason why he isn't going to back it, and lock the Party into a course of action without having it properly passed into policy.

In fact, I think this is a common strain with Mulcair's policies at large.  Often (and believe me I've seen him at a few meet and greets now), when anyone comes at him with an axe to grind, or a policy to debate, he just points to the official party policy (that Israel/Palestine thing is a very good example of where he is directly in line with the official platform, and Jack).  One thing I notice he commonly does is refer to a colleague's bill in the House, even if that colleague isn't supporting him (Olivia's transit bill and Charlie Angus's work on the Attawapiskat file are two that immediately spring to mind).  I find he is very deferential to the policy-making process and quick to point to the work we've done as a Party.

Taking this to its natural arc, while Mulcair has launched some new policy, it mainly follows exactly what is in existing NDP policy and either stresses particular parts of it that he would "emphasize" as leader, or some tweaks to whats already in our policy (like the Pension proposal), he doesn't back off of what has been our official line under Jack, and in the 2011 platform.  It really is quite incredible discipline.  And his cap-and-trade is all about putting the issue back on the table - something that was already in the policy book that he wants to make his bread and butter, obviously with some particular customizations.

When you look at Topp's tax plan, it is a fundamental shift in our previous tax program that we've offered the people of Canada in 2011.  It really is a new idea, and something that, I think, I don't want to hear from a leadership contestant in the midst of a race.  I'd rather this be debated on the floor of a policy convention, rather than used as a bargaining chip.  I don't know if that is Mulcair's problem with it, but it is certainly a concern of mine.

Other things I've seen from Dewar are exasperating, including the mandatory floor of 50% women and tying it to public financing (which would return under an NDP government).  Lets just sit back and see about the optics the Harper crowd would pin on the NDP for wanting taxpayers to pay their paychecks again - those greedy socialists, and couple that with the inevitable backlash against women candidates who, regardless of their qualifications would stand to be ridiculed as "quota-fillers" so that we get our rebate. This is NOT the type of policy I want to see coming out of Leadership contestants...it is something that requires particular focus and consensus within the Party.  The best way to encourage more women to run for our party (and for all parties) is something that is best done in a constructive and inclusive way.  Dewar's international campaign against the death penalty is another one of those things that just seems impractical. Interfering in the domestic affairs (and moral sensibilities) of other nations like the USA seems like a particularly awful way of doing diplomacy. (My opinion only, here, folks)

And well, the "Cullen Plan"...don't even get me started.  If Cullen was elected leader, I hope me, and everyone else on here not backing Nathan would be instantly demanding that get struck down immediately!  That is WELL beyond the role of leadership candidate to propose.

I think that, to answer your question, that Thomas Mulcair is the one most sensitive to the concerns of the membership at large, and not pandering to pet issues of a minority of our membership.  I think the impression that article gave of him challenging the grassroots was in response to the anecdote of the NDP'er resistant to being in power because it means we'd sold out, but not the actual rank and file that DO want to win.

In fact, I have the exact same concerns as you, and I feel that the reason I am supporting Thomas Mulcair is because I feel that "the whole party" isn't always involved in making policy. Often policy at conventions (granted my experience is provincial and federal) seems to be scattershot sessions involving the pet issues of a small number of activists, and the sympathetic ear of the rest of the convention hall that says "aye" and waits for their pet issue to come up.  This is not true consensus, its small picture compromise on particular handpicked issues.

Edited to add: I can think of several conventions where people bail to get food and drinks during the policy resolutions because none of the resolutions had any particular interest to them and there was no fear of any of them failing to pass. As much as I like drinking with fellow New Democrats, I'd like to think I came to convention for something important! 

I think Thomas is the best person to see things with a much broader vision, and tackle some of that "big picture" stuff, and engage the membership. Lets not let the big questions die on the convention floor (or more realistically be kaiboshed by the 'resolution priority committee').  I really think that Thomas is the one to build a true, stable, lasting consensus by being brave enough to seek one, rather than avoid them in what to the outside eye looks like a sea of solidarity that belies the true tensions in the room.  Lets tackle them together and move forward!

CanadaApple

Thanks for your  very thoughtful reply mtm.  = D

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

nicky wrote:
I think Ken is more correct than Alice. Part of the whisper campaign against Mulcair's way back was that he would purge many of the existing organizers. I have yet to see anything to confirm that he will do so, but Dewar's message seems lto be an attempt to refloat that old innuendo.

Okay, seriously, suggesting that the "clean house" line of thought was part of a "whisper campaign" when it was Mulcair supporters who were most promoting that thinking on babble in early days of this race is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Take this early comment from ffk:

flight from kamakura wrote:
finally, topp:  a totally underreported fact in all of this, something i expect hebert to come to eventually is that if mulcair wins the leadership, he'll probably clean house.  if by some chance julian won, he'd probably leave most people in place.  my guess is that topp would leave virtually every member of jack's team in place.  it'd be very surprising is a mulcair leadership victory didn't mean enemployment or reassignment for jack's team.  it happens, and people would be incensed about poor anne mcgrath going to work for andrea horwath or whatever, but that's what happens.  so you have to see what's happening now as an entire coterie of layton insiders pulling favors and making calls for topp.

And here's another old comment from fellow "whisper campaigner" Howard:

Howard wrote:
Topp doesn't have an excuse here because he is supposed to be the "brains" in the race. He is the guy that chaired NDP platform committees, the brilliant strategic thinker, etc. etc. Is he out of ideas? Is he out of juice? If so, then I can't see a more eloquent argument for asking the membership to cast their vote behind someone who will clean house. If he and the insiders don't give us a seriously novel and exciting campaign, then they obviate the argument for their opponents.

If you really want to attribute those kinds of arguments to a whisper campaign, then the only reasonable conclusion I can possibly reach is that it was Mulcair's supporters who were leading said campaign all along!

Wilf Day

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:
I didn't have quite this strong a reaction to it, but I admit that my reaction to the poll was: "if this is true, then I guess Topp really needs my vote." I wonder if this is a common reaction.

Niki Ashton may not get my first-round vote after all?

Howard

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

nicky wrote:
I think Ken is more correct than Alice. Part of the whisper campaign against Mulcair's way back was that he would purge many of the existing organizers. I have yet to see anything to confirm that he will do so, but Dewar's message seems lto be an attempt to refloat that old innuendo.

Okay, seriously, suggesting that the "clean house" line of thought was part of a "whisper campaign" when it was Mulcair supporters who were most promoting that thinking on babble in early days of this race is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Take this early comment from ffk:

flight from kamakura wrote:
finally, topp:  a totally underreported fact in all of this, something i expect hebert to come to eventually is that if mulcair wins the leadership, he'll probably clean house.  if by some chance julian won, he'd probably leave most people in place.  my guess is that topp would leave virtually every member of jack's team in place.  it'd be very surprising is a mulcair leadership victory didn't mean enemployment or reassignment for jack's team.  it happens, and people would be incensed about poor anne mcgrath going to work for andrea horwath or whatever, but that's what happens.  so you have to see what's happening now as an entire coterie of layton insiders pulling favors and making calls for topp.

And here's another old comment from fellow "whisper campaigner" Howard:

Howard wrote:
Topp doesn't have an excuse here because he is supposed to be the "brains" in the race. He is the guy that chaired NDP platform committees, the brilliant strategic thinker, etc. etc. Is he out of ideas? Is he out of juice? If so, then I can't see a more eloquent argument for asking the membership to cast their vote behind someone who will clean house. If he and the insiders don't give us a seriously novel and exciting campaign, then they obviate the argument for their opponents.

If you really want to attribute those kinds of arguments to a whisper campaign, then the only reasonable conclusion I can possibly reach is that it was Mulcair's supporters who were leading said campaign all along!

You give me too much credit. Here is the quote in its full context.

NorthReport
Policywonk

NorthReport wrote:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/mulcair-lea...

That kind of alliance doesn't mean as much as it might have in 2003. Second and subsequent choice support is more unpredictable than first ballot support, and it is also unclear if and how it may come into play. I suspect that if Mulcair has 35% or more on the first count/ballot, with a 15% or more lead, he probably won't be stopped. I've been thinking for some time that Cullen could surprise, at least on the first count/ballot (possibly as high as second), given the vote against rejecting cooperation with the Liberals at Convention, but his second choice support could be limited.

nicky

Some scattered early morning observations in response to some overnight comments:

1. No one , not even the "whisperers" has said Tom wd "purge progressives", as Michelle says. The most his opponents have said is that he would clean house among the "organizers". This is what Dewar's email suggests. I do remember this said way back in August as the same time the "temper" and "doesn't play well with others" themes were floated in an attempt to wrong-foot him out of the race. I must say I have never heard anything from Mulcair or his camp that even remotely suggets he would purge organizers but at one point this at least some of his detractors were saying this.

2. The comparison with Bob Rae's government is far fetched, especially the prediction that a Mulcair government would inevitably lead to the horrors of a new Harris type government. First, we NOW have the horrors of a Harris type govrnment. Rae replaced a relatively benign Liberal government which had in fact legislated much of thepopular planks in the NDP progrm. Remember the Accord? Mulcair would be replacing the most regressive government in our history. Much of his focus would necessarily be repairing the damage done by Harper, rather than implementing the Nw Jerusulem right away. Also Rae's evolution in political thinking was steadily from left to right. Mulcair's is the opposite. To measure the ideological differences between the various leadership candidates you need callipers.

3. Dewar clumsily attempts through the leaking of his poll to polarize the so-called "anti-Mulcair" vote. The opposite may happen. The two polls (as well as the endorsements and the Forum and Abacus polls) all indicate that Tom is the substantial frontrunner. The next 3 or 4 are tightly bunched and must all hope that they can emerge in second place. But they are all so close that  they will want to play things through rather than combine early.

4. Mulcair has significant second choice support, less than Nash or Dewar, depending on the poll, but not much less. Combined with a substantial first ballot strength the others may well make the calculation that an alliance to stop him will fail or at most result in a  closely and perhaps bitterly split party. Worse, they may think that the split will be laregly on regional or linguistic fault lines. Many of Topp's and Nash's backers have long roots in the party and must care for its future. I am hopefull that when they look at the contours of the race they will see that an anti-Mulcair gang-up , firstly, is scarely assured of success, and, secondly, potentially very destructive of the party. The polls therfore give me hope that the gang-up will not occur, particularly given that the ideological differences are more imaginary than real.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

nicky wrote:

Some scattered early morning observations in response to some overnight comments:

1. No one , not even the "whisperers" has said Tom wd "purge progressives", as Michelle says. The most his opponents have said is that he would clean house among the "organizers".

I repeat: I don't think you can fault some of Mulcair's opponents for assuming that, given that at least some of his supporters (as evidenced by the old babble quotes I dredged up above) have claimed the very same thing.

nicky

Idealistic Prag..., the "whispers" by the detractors about purges were in August and September. The couple comments you referenced were long after that and not made by anyone speaking on behalf of the Mulcair campaign.

David Young

Every time I've had the 1990 Rae government in Ontario 'thrown in my face' by people I've met at the doors while canvassing over the past 4 elections here in South Shore-St. Margaret's, I come back with...

'But what about the Grant Devine Progressive Conservative government in Saskatchewan from 1982 to 1991?  There were more than a dozen of them who faced criminal charges after they were voted out."

That takes the steam out of 'You NDPers aren't good in government' criticisms every time!

And the NDP has been gaining strength over each of the past 4 elections here in S.S.S.M.

Co-incidence?

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

mtm wrote:

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Mulcair: "We have to renew. We’re one of the only social democratic parties to never have renewed itself. One of the things that we did in Quebec was that we reached out beyond our traditional base.We identified ourselves as progressives but we didn’t stick with some of the 1950s boilerplate."

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1129700--ndp-leadership-hopeful-thomas-mulcair-we-have-to-renew

Rae: “Every other successful social democratic party in the Western world has had to abandon certain central premises of the democratic socialist narrative and so far the NDP has not done so,”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/20/what-about-bob/

 

Forgive me for noticing, but those two quotations arent the same at all.  If you put the interview in context, what Mulcair was talking about is how we can make our social democratic principles real - and that is by forming a government.  Modernizing our language and the way we speak with the electorate (rather than to them) is exactly what Jack was doing, and there are several candidates in this race who are harkening back to the old NDP I originally joined in 2002, that would just yell at everyone for "not getting it".

What Mulcair is talking about, and I think is the best part of his message is something I've been saying for years to people I meet and try to get involved with the party:  "New Democratic values are Canadian values".  We just need to get better at communicating how our values are shared by the large number of people who don't vote for us, even though it would be in their best interest to do so.

This is what Mulcair brings to the party as its next leader.  He is not in ANY way Bob Rae, and I think its laughable to be presenting that argument.

We do not have to "abandon certain central premises of the democratic socialist narrative" to win.  We have to show people that they are indeed democratic socialists at heart by speaking to them in their own language.  We win nothing by preaching to them about the virtues of socialism and the evils of neoliberalism, and by telling them their worldview is misguided (which believe me, most people at the doorstep have NO idea what neoliberalism is or why it is bad).

I'm going a bit beyond Mulcair here into my own analysis, but the whole "bringing the centre to us" thing, is not so much that as much at is making Canadians see that the nation is actually skewed left, and that the common ground is actually more left of centre than what anyone in the media defines as "centre" or "centrist", which I find to be very right wing.  Does this make sense...I hope you catch my drift on that one as I admit I am wading into the obscure. Hopefully KenS, you'll forgive me for wading into your territory.

 

I hate Bob Rae. Note: I know this is a silly comment, its just I REALLY HATE BOB RAE! Wink

KenS

It's conceivable, though I do not think very likely, that one of those second four candidates would support another. Even that is not 'anti-Mulcair'.

And even if it were to turn out to be Dewar that does that, the email is campaign posturing and not to be taken as an indication of what drives him. For example, I have no idea what they think of each other, but he and Topp attach similar priorities to how the party 'works'. And they probably share a lot of support [which would be what that email was after, ham-handedly. Later I'll address the apparent and/or likely strategies of the four.]

But there is just about zero point zero chance of a gang-up on Mulcair. You cant coordinate that sort of thing.  And I doubt in the first place there is a single one of the candidates feels that kind of antipathy or dread, to even have a notion to want that- let alone subsume their chances at the early stage a gang-up would have to happen.

It just is not a possibility.

There is a lot of what varies from wariness to strong antipathy to Mulcair in the party... but that is not the makings of an anybody but camnpaign. It 'only' raises the possibility that Mulcair will start out well ahead, but never get that majority.

There is going to be lots of incentive for shots at Mulcair. But that incentive has already been strong, and there's a reason we see very limited amounts of it from the candidates and their campaigns. Because for each candidate it only makes sense to go after Mulcair along a dimension where you have a specific concrete advantage your campaign can expect to harvest some benefit from.

Which is why Topp only went after Mulcair on his all over the place tax and fiscal notions.

And what Dewar's campaign was trying to do fits too. They were looking for the concrete and specific benefit of pulling some support from Topp.

Broad attacks against Mulcair like are in that email do not work to your generalized benefit in your competition with Mulcair.And that's not what the Dewar campaign was trying to do.

KenS

jjuares wrote:

Having attended one forum and several kitchen table talks I have come to appreciate Mulcair's candour. He never pandered to people.

I've made the comment before that bluntness is often assumed to be candour. As with Elizabeth May, it only means a proclivity to say what you like. And one of the restraints that is shed is checking, or caring, whether what you siad adds up. Elizabeth May could get away with that because of the very limited scrutiny she faced. If the not adding up does not jump right out instantly at a reporter, it sails right by. By contrast, if it were Jack Layton, it goes under the microscope.

Mulcair has, and will most likely through the whole leadership race, never face that kind of scrutiny. So he gets the same kind of pass on what he puts out there.

And maybe putting out a key policy pronouncement that does not and will not add up, like using cap and trade for general revenues, does not fit some hair splitting definition of pandering. But whats the difference?

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

nicky wrote:

Idealistic Prag..., the "whispers" by the detractors about purges were in August and September. The couple comments you referenced were long after that and not made by anyone speaking on behalf of the Mulcair campaign.

I never said anything about those people speaking on behalf of the Mulcair campaign, nor did I even imply that (which you can see for yourself if you review the comments I've made in this thread). I'm just making the point that if even Mulcair's own supporters had the impression that he would "clean house" of the existing organizers, why on earth would you attribute anything as sinister as a "whisper campaign" to his opponents having the same impression...and occasionally saying so out loud?

KenS

mtm wrote:

CanadaApple - I understand what you mean.

I take Mulcair's stance on the whole "Topp Tax" issue as being exactly what you're talking about. I think he has respect for the party members setting of policy, which could be a big reason why he isn't going to back it, and lock the Party into a course of action without having it properly passed into policy.

So we have a 5 year standing NDP policy on cap and trade, which in two election platforms strongly emphasises that ALL cap and trade revenues will go into green initiatives. Then Mulcair says a better way to go instead of raising taxes on the rich to stabilize Harper [and Paul Martin] starved social programs is to use cap and trade revenues for that.

This is respecting party policy?

[Let alone the demolishing of the political protection that is the reason for guaranteeing all cap and trade revenues go to green initiatives.]

mtm wrote:

In fact, I think this is a common strain with Mulcair's policies at large. Often (and believe me I've seen him at a few meet and greets now), when anyone comes at him with an axe to grind, or a policy to debate, he just points to the official party policy (that Israel/Palestine thing is a very good example of where he is directly in line with the official platform, and Jack).

If its a difficult policy area for him viz where the party is, and/or Mulcair has said things that make people wonder where he stands, it's "I support party policy." You know he actually supports it in a way you expect from the Leader if during the campaign he calls it 'my policy'. [IE, cap and trade]

mtm wrote:

Taking this to its natural arc, while Mulcair has launched some new policy, it mainly follows exactly what is in existing NDP policy and either stresses particular parts of it that he would "emphasize" as leader, or some tweaks to whats already in our policy (like the Pension proposal), he doesn't back off of what has been our official line under Jack, and in the 2011 platform. It really is quite incredible discipline. And his cap-and-trade is all about putting the issue back on the table - something that was already in the policy book that he wants to make his bread and butter, obviously with some particular customizations.

When you look at Topp's tax plan, it is a fundamental shift in our previous tax program that we've offered the people of Canada in 2011. It really is a new idea, and something that, I think, I don't want to hear from a leadership contestant in the midst of a race. I'd rather this be debated on the floor of a policy convention, rather than used as a bargaining chip. I don't know if that is Mulcair's problem with it, but it is certainly a concern of mine.

You cant square that natural arc with his linking of taxes to cap and trade. THAT is a fundamental shift.

Topp's suggestion is exactly the kind of thing that starts with Caucus/Leader, and does not come from Convention policy processes. [As was also true of the entire climate change package.] It IS a departure as far as strategy to date goes. And that's certainly something that should be pondered and discussed. But the discussion is much more about how we win elections... which is the fodder of a leadership race and contrasting visions.

 

KenS

It would be great if Mulcair just stops talking about using cap and trade as a new/better source of increasing general revenues.

But even if he never says it again, and he becomes Leader, we're going to wear that. Because you can bet the HarperCons will dredge it up to 'prove' this is really what cap and trade is about.

That and the gem of EXPLICITLY linking putting a price on carbon to cooling down oil sands the will take pressure off the dollar and provide some relief for eastern manufacturing jobs. In other words, take jobs away in the West so the NDP can feather its nest in Quebec.

GregbythePond

A new day dawns and thankfully, the anti-Dewar rhetoric seems to have died down - so mission accomplished.

Good to see the Toppites are back to slagging the Mulcairites.Wink

For all the old goats out there, I would like them to point me to some legitimate examples  of "perfectly legitimate complaints against him" - other than the second language issue (which as I have already pointed out amounts to discrimination based on first language). The words used in post #9 of this chapter (#94) are an example of the sort of "bad language"/name calling  that I was objecting to and that other people get away with here, all the time. Seems to me that as in all things the (socialist?) elites appear rule the roost and are quite happy to dispensate with impunity against the those of "lesser" language and/or discussion skill.

Looking at the broader challenge of leading a party that often appears to be so self destructive, self interested and diverse (thankfully), I think Paul Dewar's experience in the union movement, human rights, etc. make him uniquely qualified to be leader.

Prominent human rights leaders in Quebec say:
"We are impressed by Paul’s deep commitment to social justice, his drive to be fair and yet forceful, and his charismatic personality. As Quebecers, we cherish his commitment to Quebecois values of justice, rule of law, respect for human rights and diversity, and of course his deep respect for Quebec’s unique place in Canada. We sincerely hope to see him as the leader of the NDP."

There are lots of other endorsements provided at his website, which I'm sure you can find and disassemble at will.Surprised

Wilf Day

Odd that there has been little discussion here of Jack Layton's mother endorsing Topp so fulsomely. I think it's a potential game-changer. Are some here too close to the fine details to see the big picture?

Quote:
"I support Brian Topp because he is very much on Jack's wave length. Jack and Brian worked closely together through the years. They can almost finish each other sentences. I feel secure with Brian's leadership that the NDP will definitely follow Jack's path -- a path that will lead the NDP to form government in 2015. And Jack's spirit will live on."

http://www.briantopp.ca/news/jack-laytons-mother-endorsing-brian-topp

janfromthebruce

Gregbythepond, I'm an oldgoatite and I've always respected his opinion on babble.

oldgoat

[QUOTE] For all the old goats out there, I would like them to point me to some legitimate examples  of "perfectly legitimate complaints against him"  [/QUOTE]

There is but one oldgoat, and thou shall place no other oldgoats before him.

 

Well here's one.  Quebec seems to have become kind of a big deal in NDP fortunes, and his French sucks.  He doesn't seem to grasp the importance of this which makes me question his judgement.  He will be up against people whos French is good to excellent, and will look like a knob to a lot of very important voters.  This alone I feel is disqualifying.

 

Oh yeah, and he eats kittens.

 

(just kidding about that last one)

 

Pages

Topic locked