NDP leadership race #135

105 posts / 0 new
Last post

KenS wrote:

Mucker wrote:

In my view, the reason the "other leadership candidates have shied away" isn't because they don't think the rich need to pay more taxes, it's because they'd like the debate to start with what we're trying to accomplish.  Instead of starting every discussion with "we need the rich to pay more taxes" and "we need to nationalize a bunch of industries", we need to start with outcome language: fair and just society, equality of opportunity, appropriate distribution of resources, efficient provision of public services.

And I have heard all of those things from the other candidates.

"outcome language: fair and just society, equality of opportunity, appropriate distribution of resources, efficient provision of public services."

You mean those rosy rhetorical nostrums you always get from the NDP?

You can fit ANYTHING into those pretty words. Including, nothing- which is often what it is.

Draw dotted line to "conscience of the country".

My point is that we needn't always jump straight to "tax those rich bastards more" if there are other ways to achieve our outcome.  If all we ever do is talk about the means to the end, we sound like fixated ideologues.

I'm also not suggesting that Topp has ignored the outcome language - in fact, I think he's probably spoken about what is to be achieved by tax increases better than most of the candidates - I just think that there are good solid reasons that the other candidates haven't been pushing the tax increase language as hard.  Start with the why, then talk about the how, and have all the hows on the table, is all I'm saying.

Wilf Day

flight from kamakura wrote:
with the union carve out, we all knew it had to go - one member one vote was adopted under jack back in 2006, so can it.

I sometimes think Quebec NDP members simply don't realize that the Ontario NDP kept the 25% union vote, used it to elect Andrea Horwath, and likes it. In fact I just ran across a long-time New Democrat, a city councillor, who thought we still had it federally.


TheArchitect wrote:

When we talk about avoiding "personal attacks," that means avoiding criticisms of a person that have nothing to do with their suitability to be leader.  Examples would include things about a person's family, their personal life, their gender, their sexuality, et cetera.


TheArchitect wrote:

If somebody says that Thomas Mulcair is less suitable to be leader because he has trouble getting along with other senior New Democrats

Doesn't get along with "senior New Democrats"?  Like whom?  Like you?  Do you have a first-hand account of how "difficult" Tom can be?

In the absence of any, these are unsubstantiated attacks on someone's character, and as such, ARE INDEED, personal attacks.

But if you believe these whisper campaigns are valid, should I then be able to tell everyone stories about how difficult a couple of the other candidates are to work with?  Stories I have heard from friends whose judgment I trust and who have worked closely with these individuals?  I don't think it's appropriate, since I didn't experience it.

I will tell you one thing: I had the good fortune to meet a few of Tom's staff: capable and intelligent people who have been working with him for 10+ years.  Given what I know of the staff turnaround of many MPs, I would have to say this speaks very highly of how easy Tom is to work with!


Catchfire Catchfire's picture


Topic locked