NDP LEADERSHIP #99

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hunky_Monkey
NDP LEADERSHIP #99

#99 :)  How many posts I wonder?

Issues Pages: 
Hunky_Monkey

TheArchitect wrote in the previous thread...

Quote:
It's interesting to note that of the twenty-nine people who were in caucus at the time of Mulcair's election to parliament, only one is endorsing Mulcair. He doesn't seem to have much support among the folks who remember what it was like before he arrived.

So we're back to Tom doesn't play well with others? Back to remembering what 30 some seats and less than 20% of the vote was like?

He has four MPs supporting his leadership campaign that were elected in 2008.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

And was hand picked by Jack Layton. Smile

Hunky_Monkey

And I'll say again... it's a little rich of Topp to say Tom wants to move the party to the centre. Wait... he now says Tom is saying that which is a complete lie. Yet, he brags about his years in the Romanow NDP government and how they governed Saskatchewan.

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here?

I will add that I like Romanow and that he inherited a huge mess to clean up. But his government was pretty moderate and Romanow liked to brag he was Third Way before Tony Blair. But Topp sings it praises all the time while attacking the Third Way/Blair and linking Tom to it.

Amazing. I don't mind if politicians throw a little mud and go on the attack like Jack did against Ignatieff. But please let it be genuine and accurate. Topp's attack really makes me feel that the man has some ethical issues and will say anything to win.

TheArchitect

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
TheArchitect wrote in the previous thread...
Quote:
It's interesting to note that of the twenty-nine people who were in caucus at the time of Mulcair's election to parliament, only one is endorsing Mulcair. He doesn't seem to have much support among the folks who remember what it was like before he arrived.
So we're back to Tom doesn't play well with others? Back to remembering what 30 some seats and less than 20% of the vote was like? He has four MPs supporting his leadership campaign that were elected in 2008.

I'm not saying that Mulcair doesn't play well with others.

I do, however, think it's an entirely legitimate question why Mulcair has so little support among the people who were in caucus when he arrived in Ottawa.

Endorsements from senior MPs are important because these people have inside knowledge of the candidates that most voters aren't.  Therefore, they may be in better position to make judgements about who would be the best leader than the average member.

When Denise Savoie endorses Peggy Nash, or when Brian Masse endorses Nathan Cullen, or when Libby Davies endorses Brian Topp, et cetera, I think people should take notice of that—not only because Denise, Brian and Libby are all people for whom I have great respect, but also because they are making judgements based on a lot more information than most people have.  They know all—or at least most—of the candidates.  They've seen their fellow MPs not only through their speeches and press conferences, but in the caucus room, and in extensive personal interactions.  I'm not saying that we should completely defer to their judgement, but I think it's certainly appropriate to take their opinions very seriously.

Brachina

Why bother, to these guys Mulcair will always be the outsider, no matter what he says or does, it will never been enough.

Anyways I heard back when Mulcair was enviromental minister he put a motorium,thingy in shale gas exploration or some such,for 10 years. A sign of principles over opportunism.

JKR

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
TheArchitect wrote in the previous thread...

Quote:

It's interesting to note that of the twenty-nine people who were in caucus at the time of Mulcair's election to parliament, only one is endorsing Mulcair. He doesn't seem to have much support among the folks who remember what it was like before he arrived.

So we're back to Tom doesn't play well with others? Back to remembering what 30 some seats and less than 20% of the vote was like? He has four MPs supporting his leadership campaign that were elected in 2008.

It's fair to question why only 1 person from Mulcair's initial NDP caucus is endorsing him.

So what's the answer?

Bookish Agrarian

I find these comments about Mulcair odd.  Nathan Cullen is playing footsie with Avaaz and other strategic voting groups that actively worked against the NDP in the last election.  His route could only lead to a major watering down of social democratic values in the party, but nary a peep.  Seems like double standards abound in what people will pick at and what they choose to ignore.

Hunky_Monkey

TheArchitect wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
TheArchitect wrote in the previous thread...
Quote:
It's interesting to note that of the twenty-nine people who were in caucus at the time of Mulcair's election to parliament, only one is endorsing Mulcair. He doesn't seem to have much support among the folks who remember what it was like before he arrived.
So we're back to Tom doesn't play well with others? Back to remembering what 30 some seats and less than 20% of the vote was like? He has four MPs supporting his leadership campaign that were elected in 2008.

I'm not saying that Mulcair doesn't play well with others.

I do, however, think it's an entirely legitimate question why Mulcair has so little support among the people who were in caucus when he arrived in Ottawa.

Endorsements from senior MPs are important because these people have inside knowledge of the candidates that most voters aren't.  Therefore, they may be in better position to make judgements about who would be the best leader than the average member.

When Denise Savoie endorses Peggy Nash, or when Brian Masse endorses Nathan Cullen, or when Libby Davies endorses Brian Topp, et cetera, I think people should take notice of that—not only because Denise, Brian and Libby are all people for whom I have great respect, but also because they are making judgements based on a lot more information than most people have.  They know all—or at least most—of the candidates.  They've seen their fellow MPs not only through their speeches and press conferences, but in the caucus room, and in extensive personal interactions.  I'm not saying that we should completely defer to their judgement, but I think it's certainly appropriate to take their opinions very seriously.

No... I make my own decisions as a member of the party for 21 years :)

BTW... you're leaning toward Peggy, right? Savoie was elected the year before Tom in 2006... two years before other MPs listed supporting Tom.

Brachina

TheArchitect wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
TheArchitect wrote in the previous thread...
Quote:
It's interesting to note that of the twenty-nine people who were in caucus at the time of Mulcair's election to parliament, only one is endorsing Mulcair. He doesn't seem to have much support among the folks who remember what it was like before he arrived.
So we're back to Tom doesn't play well with others? Back to remembering what 30 some seats and less than 20% of the vote was like? He has four MPs supporting his leadership campaign that were elected in 2008.

I'm not saying that Mulcair doesn't play well with others.

I do, however, think it's an entirely legitimate question why Mulcair has so little support among the people who were in caucus when he arrived in Ottawa.

Endorsements from senior MPs are important because these people have inside knowledge of the candidates that most voters aren't.  Therefore, they may be in better position to make judgements about who would be the best leader than the average member.

When Denise Savoie endorses Peggy Nash, or when Brian Masse endorses Nathan Cullen, or when Libby Davies endorses Brian Topp, et cetera, I think people should take notice of that—not only because Denise, Brian and Libby are all people for whom I have great respect, but also because they are making judgements based on a lot more information than most people have.  They know all—or at least most—of the candidates.  They've seen their fellow MPs not only through their speeches and press conferences, but in the caucus room, and in extensive personal interactions.  I'm not saying that we should completely defer to their judgement, but I think it's certainly appropriate to take their opinions very seriously.

It very simple, they know each other better and have a deeper relationship with each other, that doesn't mean anything bad about Tom like your infereing, it says something goof about the other candiadates.

JeffWells

TheArchitect wrote:

I do, however, think it's an entirely legitimate question why Mulcair has so little support among the people who were in caucus when he arrived in Ottawa.

What an odd criteria. But okay: Cullen also has just one. Ashton one. Nash just one. Topp and Singh, obviously none.

Dewar boasts three - triple word score! - which, if anything, speaks to the lousy political judgement of that particular cohort.

 

socialdemocrati...

For what it's worth, Topp is an anomaly because he's been in the backrooms, and his boy Romanow has openly embraced the third way (even takes credit for pioneering it). Mulcair is an anomaly too because his public record in the federal NDP only goes back to 2008, plus any contrasts he had with the PLQ while he was there.

That's the main reason why Peggy Nash remains a really appealing option to me. It's also the reason she can make a gaffe about user fees and retract it the next day, and everyone is pretty cool with it. There's no question in my mind that the NDP under Peggy Nash would still be the NDP. That counts for a LOT.

Howard

Before Tom Mulcair joined the NDP, I understand that caucus meetings were conducted 100% in English. Terrible that that has changed Wink

Howard

-

TheArchitect

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
TheArchitect wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
TheArchitect wrote in the previous thread...
Quote:
It's interesting to note that of the twenty-nine people who were in caucus at the time of Mulcair's election to parliament, only one is endorsing Mulcair. He doesn't seem to have much support among the folks who remember what it was like before he arrived.
So we're back to Tom doesn't play well with others? Back to remembering what 30 some seats and less than 20% of the vote was like? He has four MPs supporting his leadership campaign that were elected in 2008.

I'm not saying that Mulcair doesn't play well with others.

I do, however, think it's an entirely legitimate question why Mulcair has so little support among the people who were in caucus when he arrived in Ottawa.

Endorsements from senior MPs are important because these people have inside knowledge of the candidates that most voters aren't.  Therefore, they may be in better position to make judgements about who would be the best leader than the average member.

When Denise Savoie endorses Peggy Nash, or when Brian Masse endorses Nathan Cullen, or when Libby Davies endorses Brian Topp, et cetera, I think people should take notice of that—not only because Denise, Brian and Libby are all people for whom I have great respect, but also because they are making judgements based on a lot more information than most people have.  They know all—or at least most—of the candidates.  They've seen their fellow MPs not only through their speeches and press conferences, but in the caucus room, and in extensive personal interactions.  I'm not saying that we should completely defer to their judgement, but I think it's certainly appropriate to take their opinions very seriously.

No... I make my own decisions as a member of the party for 21 years :) BTW... you're leaning toward Peggy, right?

I remain undecided, but if the election were held right now, I probably would be inclined to rank Peggy first.

With that said, I certainly could be persuaded to support a number of different candidates.  I haven't really "fallen in love" with any of them, I admit, and I have concerns about each of them, Peggy included.  If one of the other candidates can convince me that my concerns about their candidacy are not serious, they certainly could win my support.

janfromthebruce

When I previewed the previously thread I noted the reference of Avaaz and groaned - the trogan horse of the Liberals and BA is right, they did actively work against the NDP. FYI, I didn't ignore it at all.

 

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

I find these comments about Mulcair odd.  Nathan Cullen is playing footsie with Avaaz and other strategic voting groups that actively worked against the NDP in the last election.  His route could only lead to a major watering down of social democratic values in the party, but nary a peep.  Seems like double standards abound in what people will pick at and what they choose to ignore.

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

Brachina

JeffWells wrote:

TheArchitect wrote:

I do, however, think it's an entirely legitimate question why Mulcair has so little support among the people who were in caucus when he arrived in Ottawa.

What an odd criteria. But okay: Cullen also has just one. Ashton one. Nash just one. Topp and Singh, obviously none.

Dewar boasts three - triple word score! - which, if anything, speaks to the lousy political judgement of that particular cohort.

 

Not to mention many have declared neutreality, such as Olvia Chow, Peter Stouffer, Peter Julian, and I believe others. The cacus was never that big to begin with.

Brachina

Howard wrote:

Before Tom Mulcair joined the NDP, I understand that caucus meetings were conducted 100% in English. Terrible that that has changed Wink

Truely tragic indeed! :p

DSloth

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

For what it's worth, Topp is an anomaly because he's been in the backrooms, and his boy Romanow has openly embraced the third way (even takes credit for pioneering it). Mulcair is an anomaly too because his public record in the federal NDP only goes back to 2008, plus any contrasts he had with the PLQ while he was there.

The effect of the party not selecting Mulcair on our Quebec prospects does not over worry me, but arguments like this do. It's a huge slap in the face to the voters who trusted that there was a place for there distinct society within our party when we establish standards that no Quebec member could possibly meet. "Sorry the NDP wrote off your province for decades (and still has no provincial party) but if you really wanted to be a part of our movement you should have moved to where the REAL canadians are."

Unionist

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

 Mulcair is an anomaly too because his public record in the federal NDP only goes back to 2008, plus any contrasts he had with the PLQ while he was there.

If you're going to make a big point out of this, at least get the year right.

 

TheArchitect

Let's be clear about who the twenty-nine New Democrats who won seats in the 2006 election—the people who were in caucus at the time of Thomas Mulcair's arrival in Ottawa—are supporting.

Seven are supporting Brian Topp.  These are Dawn Black, Chris Charlton, Jean Crowder, Libby Davies, Yvon Godin, Bill Siksay, and Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

Paul Dewar, Nathan Cullen and Peggy Nash were each among those twenty-nine MPs.  In addition to himself, Paul Dewar has received the support of four of them (Charlie Angus, Catherine Bell, Tony Martin and Irene Mathyssen), while Cullen has received the support of two additional MPs (Alex Atamanenko and Brian Masse) and Nash has received the support of two others (Alexa McDonough and Denise Savoie).

Thomas Mulcair has received the support of only one of those twenty-nine MPs (Wayne Marston).  Neither Ashton nor Singh has been endorsed by any of them.

Howard

TheArchitect wrote:

Let's be clear about who the twenty-nine New Democrats who won seats in the 2006 election—the people who were in caucus at the time of Thomas Mulcair's arrival in Ottawa—are supporting.

Seven are supporting Brian Topp.  These are Dawn Black, Chris Charlton, Jean Crowder, Libby Davies, Yvon Godin, Bill Siksay, and Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

Paul Dewar, Nathan Cullen and Peggy Nash were each among those twenty-nine MPs.  In addition to himself, Paul Dewar has received the support of four of them (Charlie Angus, Catherine Bell, Tony Martin and Irene Mathyssen), while Cullen has received the support of two additional MPs (Alex Atamanenko and Brian Masse) and Nash has received the support of two others (Alexa McDonough and Denise Savoie).

Thomas Mulcair has received the support of only one of those twenty-nine MPs (Wayne Marston).  Neither Ashton nor Singh has been endorsed by any of them.

And Mulcair and Topp are tied for the number of MPs supporting them that were elected in 1993. What other trivia can we draw upon in making our leadership choice?

Bookish Agrarian

I would like to know who has the lead in what kind of take out members of caucus have.  I don't think I can vote for a leadership candidate who is not endorsed by a majority of the call up for pizza caucus grouping.

Brachina

I look forward to seeing our membership totals for the party. I'd laugh if we ended up gaining like 5,000 members in PEI. Or higher.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Tom has some pretty significant endorsements that are not MPs, as I mentioned earlier. Regardless of how many endorsements anyone has, I think Tom will win it. I shudder to think what the NDP will be like under a Dewar leadership.

Howard

Brachina wrote:
I look forward to seeing our membership totals for the party. I'd laugh if we ended up gaining like 5,000 members in PEI. Or higher.

Up from ~150 near the beginning of the campaign?

Brachina

Howard wrote:

TheArchitect wrote:

Let's be clear about who the twenty-nine New Democrats who won seats in the 2006 election—the people who were in caucus at the time of Thomas Mulcair's arrival in Ottawa—are supporting.

Seven are supporting Brian Topp.  These are Dawn Black, Chris Charlton, Jean Crowder, Libby Davies, Yvon Godin, Bill Siksay, and Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

Paul Dewar, Nathan Cullen and Peggy Nash were each among those twenty-nine MPs.  In addition to himself, Paul Dewar has received the support of four of them (Charlie Angus, Catherine Bell, Tony Martin and Irene Mathyssen), while Cullen has received the support of two additional MPs (Alex Atamanenko and Brian Masse) and Nash has received the support of two others (Alexa McDonough and Denise Savoie).

Thomas Mulcair has received the support of only one of those twenty-nine MPs (Wayne Marston).  Neither Ashton nor Singh has been endorsed by any of them.

And Mulcair and Topp are tied for the number of MPs supporting them that were elected in 1993. What other trivia can we draw upon in making our leadership choice?

I know! Which one has the most endorsements from MP pets. I hear Mulcair just got endorsed by Libby Davies poodle, but her hamster endorsed Topp, and her cat went with Niki Ashton because Niki promised the cat it could be deputy leader;p

I also hear Paul Dewar is trying to get Megan Lesle's pet bearded dragon lizard support, but the lizard is holding out for the office of governor general which Dewar already promised to Ryan Cleary's goldfish.

Man this race is getting tight.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I wish this damned thing would be over soon.

 

Brachina

Boom Boom wrote:

I wish this damned thing would be over soon.

 

We still have three official debated to go, anyone know if anymore unofficial ones are on,the way?

Brachina

Howard wrote:

Brachina wrote:
I look forward to seeing our membership totals for the party. I'd laugh if we ended up gaining like 5,000 members in PEI. Or higher.

Up from ~150 near the beginning of the campaign?

That only 4831 more member and we have what two days left, I think its doable:)

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

It's pure torture, I tells ya. Whose brilliant idea was it to make this thing go on for so long?

Stockholm

Mulcair demanded a long campaign so that there would be time to sign up new members in Quebec and the party went along with the idea.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Thanks, it's coming back to me now. I wonder how that's working out for him (actually I think someone discussed this earlier today).

Howard

Brachina wrote:
Howard wrote:

Brachina wrote:
I look forward to seeing our membership totals for the party. I'd laugh if we ended up gaining like 5,000 members in PEI. Or higher.

Up from ~150 near the beginning of the campaign?

That only 4831 more member and we have what two days left, I think its doable:)

If that's true, I'm going to need some Moosehead to wash down the good news. Also, if we are anywhere near 20,000 members in Québec, that is a great achievement.

Howard

Maybe babblers will disagree with me, but I thought Brian Topp did well on Evan Solomon's (lousy) show today.

Winston

This leadership race wouldn't seem so excruciatingly brutal if it wasn't for the purity test BS coming from some of the camps' fans.

Crap like "only endorsements from pre-2006 count" or only "only women from outside Quebec count" are divisive and insulting to all of the dynamic (and so many young) people Jack brought into the Party and into the House of Commons since then.

I'm sure that these leadership candidates have more on offer than the fact that they have more "old-school NDP" endorsements, but you wouldn't know it from these threads.

If we refuse to let even our own MPs (other than the 29 members of the class of '06) pass our ridiculous purity tests, we don't deserve to be the government of a book club let alone this country.

If you want the NDP to be the ideologically pure pre-Jack rump you imagine it to have been in the 90s just say so and be done with it.  Otherwise, push your candidates and their strengths, highlight the weaknesses of others, sure, but cut out the 2nd-class New Democrat arguments!

 

Lord Palmerston

I agree that Topp's attacks on Mulcair are stupid and even hypocritical.  Mulcair has demonstrated his loyalty to the party and this has to stop.  My issue with him has nothing to do with whether he's "really" a New Democrat or his QLP past but rather what he's saying now.

Topp's left turn comes across as insincere and he can't beat Mulcair.  The left in the party seems to be consolidating behind Peggy Nash.

Howard

Some people don't want to acknowledge the party has changed or haven't recognised it yet. For all the talk of women's equality, 2011 saw the first serious tranche of female MPs elected from Québec. Many of them are young. They were expected to be sacrificial lambs. The same is true for visible minority candidates from Québec, who's connections to multicultural communities are often stronger than those of visible minority NDP MPs from the rest of the country. All of these accidental MPs and "accidental" NDP voters have changed the party, and changed what it is about. The NDP is still a progressive party but it has moved more into the mainstream. These voters don't vote NDP out of class-based consciousness. If anything, 80% of Canadians want to consider themselves without a class nowadays.

Winston

NorthReport wrote:

Good response Jeff

Obviously this attempted drive-by smear went nowhere. Could we please have a little substance instead of this absolute silliness.

Yeah...maybe when we've finished driving away the 72 MPs we elected since 2006 we can tell the 31% who voted for us to go back where they came from if they aren't pure enough, as someone actually suggested in a previous thread.

I mean if they aren't 100% completely onside ideologically with us, we don't even want their vote, right?

NorthReport

Good response Jeff

Obviously this latest attempt at a drive-by smear went nowhere. Could we please have a little substance instead of this absolute silliness.

JeffWells wrote:

TheArchitect wrote:

I do, however, think it's an entirely legitimate question why Mulcair has so little support among the people who were in caucus when he arrived in Ottawa.

What an odd criteria. But okay: Cullen also has just one. Ashton one. Nash just one. Topp and Singh, obviously none.

Dewar boasts three - triple word score! - which, if anything, speaks to the lousy political judgement of that particular cohort.

 

CanadaApple

I Watched the At Issue panel tonight on the National, and I was surprised the NDP Leadership Race didn't come up. I mean, you would think that given the recent polls, the Quebec City Debate, the Nash vs. Dewar incident, and Topp attacking both Dewar and Mulcair it would get at least a section, but nothing. 

Stockholm

FYI Marciam, Dosanjh did not "lose because of vote splitting" if you compare the results in Vancouver South in 2008 and 2011 you will note that it was one of the few ridings in BC where NDP support did not go up at all. Dosanjh lost in 2011 because people shifted from Liberal to Conservative. I think Liberals should quit trying to blame the NDP for their losses and instead think about how to win bak all the votes they lost to the Tories.

Btw: Dosanjh was a dreadful Health minister. In November of 2005, Layton made an offer to Dosanjh whereby the NDP would have given the Martin government another lease on life if only the Liberals would agree to actually enforce the Canada Health Act and crack down on private for profit clinics. Dosanjh refused and the rest is history!

vaudree

Paul Martin had no interest in enforcing the Canada Health Act and Dosanjh was his Minister.  An NDP minority government with the Liberals holding the balance of power will be bad enough - I don't like the idea of giving up the idea of electing an NDPer whose DNA is dedicated to enforcing the Canada Health Act.

How Mulcair plays with other is important if he is going to be leader.  If he doesn't play well with others, he can create rifts in the party rather than be the healer of rifts.  Mulcair (or any leader) will need to check their ego at the door and make sure that the NDP caucus feels empowered.

Mulcair's ability to handle debates and question period is exceptional, his language skills are flawless - so this is the big hesitation or hurdle he needs to overcome - if not to win, afterwards.

I think that the best thing for Mulcair to do is to admit that he has a bit of trouble in this regard and his been working hard to overcome it.  I think that doing so would make some who are reluctant to support him support him and those who did not support him happier if he wins.

Hunky_Monkey

Winston wrote:

This leadership race wouldn't seem so excruciatingly brutal if it wasn't for the purity test BS coming from some of the camps' fans.

Crap like "only endorsements from pre-2006 count" or only "only women from outside Quebec count" are divisive and insulting to all of the dynamic (and so many young) people Jack brought into the Party and into the House of Commons since then.

I'm sure that these leadership candidates have more on offer than the fact that they have more "old-school NDP" endorsements, but you wouldn't know it from these threads.

If we refuse to let even our own MPs (other than the 29 members of the class of '06) pass our ridiculous purity tests, we don't deserve to be the government of a book club let alone this country.

If you want the NDP to be the ideologically pure pre-Jack rump you imagine it to have been in the 90s just say so and be done with it.  Otherwise, push your candidates and their strengths, highlight the weaknesses of others, sure, but cut out the 2nd-class New Democrat arguments!

 

And for some odd reason, MPs elected in 2008 don't count either.

Hunky_Monkey

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Topp's left turn comes across as insincere and he can't beat Mulcair.  The left in the party seems to be consolidating behind Peggy Nash.

Interesting to note that some volunteers for Tom in Nova Scotia would be considered on the left of the party. I also know a "Romanow New Democrat" supporting Peggy.

And some of our most left MPs such as Philip Toone are supporting Tom.

Your comments may be based on the babble bubble?

Hunky_Monkey

vaudree wrote:

Paul Martin had no interest in enforcing the Canada Health Act and Dosanjh was his Minister.  An NDP minority government with the Liberals holding the balance of power will be bad enough - I don't like the idea of giving up the idea of electing an NDPer whose DNA is dedicated to enforcing the Canada Health Act.

How Mulcair plays with other is important if he is going to be leader.  If he doesn't play well with others, he can create rifts in the party rather than be the healer of rifts.  Mulcair (or any leader) will need to check their ego at the door and make sure that the NDP caucus feels empowered.

Mulcair's ability to handle debates and question period is exceptional, his language skills are flawless - so this is the big hesitation or hurdle he needs to overcome - if not to win, afterwards.

I think that the best thing for Mulcair to do is to admit that he has a bit of trouble in this regard and his been working hard to overcome it.  I think that doing so would make some who are reluctant to support him support him and those who did not support him happier if he wins.

I don't disagree... any leader needs to listen and be inclusive. But I've seen Tom in action and he does just that. I'll also point out that it's a two way street. MPs, activists, etc, have to play ball as well and realize that the new leader was chosen by all the membership. I'll support the leader and party regardless who is elected. I won't take my marbles and go home. Same goes for the odd decision that party makes I disagree with. That happened under Jack as well.

Howard

vaudree wrote:

How Mulcair plays with other is important if he is going to be leader.  If he doesn't play well with others, he can create rifts in the party rather than be the healer of rifts.  Mulcair (or any leader) will need to check their ego at the door and make sure that the NDP caucus feels empowered.

The candidate that has been giving me the impression they have trouble playing well with others is actually Topp. He's been doing a lot of negative campaigning.

Howard

Thomas Mulcair wrote:
 “I learned a lot from Jack. I guess that's because I had a lot to learn. But one of the things I learned from him is to stay respectful, upbeat and positive, especially with regard to colleagues and I am going to maintain that.” 

socialdemocrati...

I don't think there's anything basing my support for Peggy Nash on the level of trust I have for her, and her level of consistency. Topp and Mulcair are welcome to run, and I think they'd make great leaders and great Prime Ministers. I'm not disqualifying them based on their lack of public record. I'm supporting a candidate I feel more comfortable with. That being said, she's shown a lack of charisma in this campaign, even less than Topp. And even if I trust that her French is competent, she hasn't really inspired me in either language -- except on her record, which only appeals to the rank-and-file unfortunately. So I guess you could say I'm giving her conditional support, in the hope that she'll improve, but open to supporting someone else if she doesn't.

Policywonk

http://www.results-resultats.ca/WhatsNew/NewsRelease_eng.asp?ID=100183

In the previous thread someone asked if Mulcair had ever supported an FTT. He announced it as the Party position over a year before the last election, and while I can't personally remember him mentioning it in the campaign yet I expect he has.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
#99 :)  How many posts I wonder?

Over 10,000.

And trillions of electrons have died in vain.

Imagine the mayhem if there were actually real issues at stake in the leadership race!

Pages