NDP LEADERSHIP #99

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
writer writer's picture

May 2011 election, Toronto Centre
Liberal     Bob Rae     22,832     41.01     -12.52
New Democratic     Susan Wallace     16,818     30.21     +15.12

(On a shoestring budget, with little / no organizational support from the party, and many of the riding's organizers placed elsewhere in Toronto, from what I understand.)

Bookish Agrarian

0

dacckon dacckon's picture

Which poster will give in to temptation and make #100?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I think there's an archived thread 100 - Oldgoat closed it, I think.

socialdemocrati...

josh wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

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.

By which I suspect you really mean "the small group of people I know in Toronto...seem to be consolidating behind Peggy Nash.

And really what is the left of the party- how do you determine that?  Could you send me the Cosmo quiz version I'd love to know where I stand and whether my relationship with the NDP is healthy and left enough.  Maybe we could get Oprah to do a show on her new network "Are you left enough to stay with your NDP partner" or something like that.

Or you could simply ask them whether they are for or against "renewing" the party along the lines of the British Labour Party, Greece's PASOK and the German SDP?

This again? It's amazing how people can twist one word and interpet it as a complete ideology, and then ignore pages of policy because it contradicts the point they're trying to make.

Hunky_Monkey

JKR wrote:

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Topp's left turn comes across as insincere and he can't beat Mulcair.

Libby Davies and Ed Broadbent seems to think Topp is the real deal.

So does Roy Romanow.

mark_alfred


Thanks for that interesting post, JTT.  I pretty much agree with everything said in the post.  However, I still prefer Topp's straightforwardness about how we must campaign on the economic realities of today, saying we must highlight how social democracy has successfully dealt with similar economic crises in past governments (crises usually created by right-wing governments cutting too much revenue) and saying we must present our plan to deal with the crisis head on.  The idea of soft-selling a false reality to people won't work, since they're already a bit skeptical of the NDP's ability to handle the economy (especially in Ontario).  Given what's happening in Ontario now with the Drummond report (which focused solely on cutting programs rather than increasing taxes), I think voters in the next federal election will appreciate a no-nonsense social democratic approach to preserving social programs while getting our house in order.  After years of tax cuts under Chretien, Martin, and Harper, followed by the upcoming gutting of services that they claim are simply too lush, I feel people will be open to a clearly voiced social democratic alternative.

Hunky_Monkey

Boom Boom wrote:

"In a statement released Friday, NDP MP Hélène Laverdière, who defeated former Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe on May 2, said Mr. Dewar's French is improving quickly."

 

My guess is that she did not watch the Quebec City debate. Laughing

I heard her entire riding executive supports another candidate.

Policywonk

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

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.

By which I suspect you really mean "the small group of people I know in Toronto...seem to be consolidating behind Peggy Nash.

And really what is the left of the party- how do you determine that?  Could you send me the Cosmo quiz version I'd love to know where I stand and whether my relationship with the NDP is healthy and left enough.  Maybe we could get Oprah to do a show on her new network "Are you left enough to stay with your NDP partner" or something like that.

There are also other spectra within the Party than left and right.

Hunky_Monkey

nicky wrote:

In the Quebec City debate Dewar was asked whether his appointmtent of Angus as deputy leader complicated the appointment of a  Quebecer or a woman. I think he replied something like, "just wait."

Laverdière fits both bills. Dewar had no qualms about promising Angus and Duncan jobs in advance so maybe this expalins her puzzling decision to back a candidate who looks like an electoral disaster in her province.

This also means that Mulcair will not be a deputy leader, notwithstanding his overwhelmong support in Quebec, even in Dewar's poll.

It is interesting to think where Topp's support may go if Dewar faces Mulcair on the first ballot. On P and P yesterday Topp said very clearly that Dewar's lack of French made him unacceptble.

If Dewar wins, she stays in Foreign Affairs for sure.

Unionist

[changed my mind - see Thread #100]

socialdemocrati...

Quote:
In candidates' meetings across Canada, Mulcair has answered questions on the Middle East evasively, and has refused to commit to supporting the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the near future.

I can already tell you that's not true. I already heard Mulcair say he supports a two state solution, which is the party policy, and which would presumably include an independent Palestinean state.

josh

Quote:

This again? It's amazing how people can twist one word and interpet it as a complete ideology, and then ignore pages of policy because it contradicts the point they're trying to make.

 

 

It's amazing the lengths people go to minimize a clear statement of intent.

 

Quote:

 

We have to renew. We're one of the only social democratic parties to never have renewed itself.

 

 

Termagant

josh wrote:

Quote:

This again? It's amazing how people can twist one word and interpet it as a complete ideology, and then ignore pages of policy because it contradicts the point they're trying to make.

It's amazing the lengths people go to minimize a clear statement of intent.

Quote:

We have to renew. We're one of the only social democratic parties to never have renewed itself.

Yeah, except you missed the part where YOU chose to define renewal as neoliberalism mixed with kitten-eating. For people in places like Nova Scotia, renewal is "that process we went through, and then we won".

josh

Termagant wrote:

Yeah, except you missed the part where YOU chose to define renewal as neoliberalism mixed with kitten-eating. For people in places like Nova Scotia, renewal is "that process we went through, and then we won".

I didn't define it.  The linking of renewal with "we're one of the only social democratic parties to never have renewed itself" defined it.

 

marciam

Winston wrote:

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!

Hear, hear!

janfromthebruce wrote:

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.

I beg to differ about Avaaz. They and other strategic voting efforts were focused on defeating the Conservatives by any means necessary, within the FPTP system we're stuck with.

In the last election, Leadnow put out pretty clear summaries of the parties' positions, with no evidence of dismissal of the NDP. It's not Leadnow's fault that the Liberals and the NDP campaigned on very similar platforms.

http://www.leadnow.ca/party-positions

I also think these kinds of statements show very little respect for Canadians who are committed to improving the country, but are not necessarily sold on the NDP.  They're the ones we need to work on convincing.

All the Avaaz members I know personally vote NDP (or occasionally Green). I've also been calling Leadnow's list of my neighbours who supported the cooperation campaign, and they're certainly not die-hard Liberals; they're very concerned people who want to work with like-minded folks to make Canada a better country. One of the more engaged members had joined the NDP last year to influence the BC leadership race and echoed some Babblers' concerns about Mulcair's position on the Middle East (and particularly the attacks on Libby Davies). On the other hand, she was devastated when Ujjal Dosanjh (a great Minister of Health in her opinion) lost to a Conservative when the Liberals and NDP split the vote in Vancouver South.  Should the NDP reject this new member for not being pure enough?

[edited to correct my confusion between Avaaz and Leadnow]

[edited again so my poor spelling and proofreading don't detract too much from my point]

Pages