NDP leadership race #136

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
Winston
NDP leadership race #136

I liked the "light at the end of the tunnel" pic you closed the last thread with, Catchfire.

Issues Pages: 
Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Is it getting closer or further away? I can't tell...

Winston

Depends on whether we're climbing or descending the stairs, I suppose.  I always feel like the internecine warfare of these races is like a collective descent into madness. 

CanadaApple

I'm feeling pretty excited about the convention, even though I'm not going to be there. I'm still more or less undecided about who to vote for, though I have a top four.I'm looking forward to seeing what the candidates do for each of their showcases. it should be pretty telling, at least for me. if you're already a dedicated supporter of one of the candidates though, maybe not so much.

Winston

CanadaApple wrote:

I'm feeling pretty excited about the convention, even though I'm not going to be there. I'm still more or less undecided about who to vote for, though I have a top four.I'm looking forward to seeing what the candidates do for each of their showcases. it should be pretty telling, at least for me. if you're already a dedicated supporter of one of the candidates though, maybe not so much.

I wish I could go to the Convention, but alas, cannot get the time off work.  My partner is going (lucky bastard!).

It will be interesting to see what the candidates have lined up.  I have a bad feeling that, given how focused the race has been on endorsements, it's going to be a whole lot of testimonials from prominent endorsers.  Undecided  My expectation is that I will probably end up liking Nathan's the best, even though I am not supporting him.

One thing that I hope none of the candidates do is focus excessively on what great elements of a nuclear family they are.  Perhaps it's just that I'm a jaded gay man, but those types of presentations really nauseate me. 

quizzical

question: How come Saganash's supporters here, who really appear to like him, are not supporting Mulcair like Saganash himself is doing? They like him and voted for him or woulda, but don't trust his judgement about who he thinks would be a good leader, or just what is going on with that?

Winston

I hope someone has pyrotechnics - I love pyrotechnics!

TheArchitect

CanadaApple wrote:

I'm feeling pretty excited about the convention, even though I'm not going to be there. I'm still more or less undecided about who to vote for, though I have a top four.I'm looking forward to seeing what the candidates do for each of their showcases. it should be pretty telling, at least for me. if you're already a dedicated supporter of one of the candidates though, maybe not so much.

I'm looking forward to seeing all the showcases too.

Some of the candidates are planning a LOT for their showcases.  Paul Dewar's is going to feature a live performance of a new song, remarks by two endorsers, a biographical video of Dewar, remarks by two more endorsers, a video introduction by a "surprise guest," and finally, a speech by Dewar himself.  All in twenty minutes!

http://pauldewar.ca/content/paul-dewar-leadership-showcase-feature-live-...

Winston

TheArchitect wrote:

Winston wrote:

I hope someone has pyrotechnics - I love pyrotechnics!

I really hope somebody from one of the campaigns reads your post and makes a last-minute pyrotechnics addition to a candidate's showcase just to try to sway your vote, Winston!

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing Martin Singh juggle while riding a unicycle.  Laughing

Now, that could sway my vote!!

TheArchitect

Winston wrote:

I hope someone has pyrotechnics - I love pyrotechnics!

I really hope somebody from one of the campaigns reads your post and makes a last-minute pyrotechnic addition to a candidate's showcase just to try to sway your vote, Winston!

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing Martin Singh juggle while riding a unicycle.  Laughing

janfromthebruce

Winston wrote:

TheArchitect wrote:

Winston wrote:

I hope someone has pyrotechnics - I love pyrotechnics!

I really hope somebody from one of the campaigns reads your post and makes a last-minute pyrotechnics addition to a candidate's showcase just to try to sway your vote, Winston!

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing Martin Singh juggle while riding a unicycle.  Laughing

Now, that could sway my vote!!

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

 

ha ha ha - I would love both of those additions. And balloons for the kiddies!

Unionist

quizzical wrote:

question: How come Saganash's supporters here, who really appear to like him, are not supporting Mulcair like Saganash himself is doing? They like him and voted for him or woulda, but don't trust his judgement about who he thinks would be a good leader, or just what is going on with that?

I liked Saganash until he quit. At that particular point, he became a quitter as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not an NDP member, and I find the dogfights playing out here to be exceedingly sad. As if Mulcair, Topp, Dewar, etc., are significantly different from each other... Future archeologists and anthropologists will be scratching their heads.

But to support someone because someone you like says to support them? That's the height of folly. I loved my parents, but if I still believed in the same ludicrous God they believed in, I'd have no self-respect.

Do you like my analogy? No?

 

Winston

janfromthebruce wrote:

ha ha ha - I would love both of those additions. And balloons for the kiddies!

Not just balloons, but ballon art!  Think on it - Nathan Cullen twisting long orange balloons into Tommy Douglases!

Brian Glennie

Unionist wrote:

I'm not an NDP member, and I find the dogfights playing out here to be exceedingly sad.

You're kidding, right?

 

CanadaApple

TheArchitect wrote:

I'm looking forward to seeing all the showcases too.

Some of the candidates are planning a LOT for their showcases.  Paul Dewar's is going to feature a live performance of a new song, remarks by two endorsers, a biographical video of Dewar, remarks by two more endorsers, a video introduction by a "surprise guest," and finally, a speech by Dewar himself.  All in twenty minutes!

http://pauldewar.ca/content/paul-dewar-leadership-showcase-feature-live-...

Is twenty minutes the time limit for all the candidates?

mark_alfred

Well, here's the important information:  the hospitality suites!  http://leadership2012.ndp.ca/events

It seems Nash is the best, since she has suites planned for both Friday AND Saturday nights.

Gaian

Brian Glennie wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I'm not an NDP member, and I find the dogfights playing out here to be exceedingly sad.

You're kidding, right?

 

It's a condition suffered by those sitting too high above the earth.

TheArchitect

CanadaApple wrote:

TheArchitect wrote:

I'm looking forward to seeing all the showcases too.

Some of the candidates are planning a LOT for their showcases.  Paul Dewar's is going to feature a live performance of a new song, remarks by two endorsers, a biographical video of Dewar, remarks by two more endorsers, a video introduction by a "surprise guest," and finally, a speech by Dewar himself.  All in twenty minutes!

http://pauldewar.ca/content/paul-dewar-leadership-showcase-feature-live-...

Is twenty minutes the time limit for all the candidates?

I believe so.  I do wish that more time were allocated for the showcases.

Unionist

Brian Glennie wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I'm not an NDP member, and I find the dogfights playing out here to be exceedingly sad.

You're kidding, right?

 

No. Are you?

Lemme get this straight. Thousands of people have been recruited into the NDP so that they can vote for the person who brought them to the dance. Right? They pay a few bucks and they get to choose the leader of the Official Opposition?

And I should belong to a party that behaves in that fashion? Are you kidding?

 

Unionist

Gaian wrote:
Brian Glennie wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I'm not an NDP member, and I find the dogfights playing out here to be exceedingly sad.

You're kidding, right?

 

It's a condition suffered by those sitting too high above the earth.

I'm not God, Gaian, though you are forgiven for the understandable error.

CanadaApple

TheArchitect wrote:

I believe so.  I do wish that more time were allocated for the showcases.

hmm...on the webtie it says the showcases are meant to last from 1:30 to 5:00 PM. If each of the seven gets twenty minutes, that would be only 140 minutes, right? or is my math wrong?

Winston

Unionist wrote:

No. Are you?

Lemme get this straight. Thousands of people have been recruited into the NDP so that they can vote for the person who brought them to the dance. Right? They pay a few bucks and they get to choose the leader of the Official Opposition?

And I should belong to a party that behaves in that fashion? Are you kidding?

I'm afraid that last comment seems to do little to dispel Gaian's assertions about your heavenly perch, Unionist!

Maybe someday you will stoop to our level!  Laughing 

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Well, here's the important information:  the hospitality suites!  http://leadership2012.ndp.ca/events

It seems Nash is the best, since she has suites planned for both Friday AND Saturday nights.

You have to get shitfaced before you can vote for these people? I thought it was just about paying $10 (hereabouts anyway) to prove your loyalty!

What if someone doesn't drink? Are they allowed in anyway?

 

Unionist

Winston wrote:

I'm afraid that last comment seems to do little to dispel Gaian's assertions about your heavenly perch, Unionist!

Maybe someday you will stoop to our level!  Laughing 

No, Winston. I've been a member. And I've continued to support and work for the party long after I quit. But I will never join a party whose ONLY criteria are the payment of cash and a written statement that I will not support any other party.

vaudree

Ashton is an old lady - there are quite a few MPs younger than her. Maybe it would be a good idea to both name them and give an honest appraisal as to how they are doing in their new job.

JUDES would not mind Mulcair's inflexibility if he was not perceived as being pro-Israel enough to earn the wrath of Independent Jewish voices. Ashton's position on the Middle East was enough to put her one spot ahead of Mulcair, but it was a close decision between the two spots. JUDES seems to figure that new MPs are not the best judge because, to them, he would be a bit of a rock star. They are learning their ropes and haven't had much chance to feel a need to stand up to him.

Jack did not need someone to be able to "work well with others" and negotiate a compromise any time there was a disagreement in caucus because he was good at that. He chose Libby Davies and Mulcair as his two deputy leaders more to keep the two factions happy both by showing each proper respect but also to not be seen as choosing one over the other.

IF Mulcair gets in, he both needs to give a nod to Libby Davies and have one deputy leader that has a proven history of working with strong personalities and finding agreement among them - which would probably be a nod to Turmel. Nash and Saganash may not be as fiery as Mulcair but they are both tough and flexible - able to find common ground with strong personalities. Nash will either be leader or she will likely get her Finance critic portfolio back.

NorthReport wrote:
When has the NDP ever had a Quebec Leader? If not now, when will we ever have this chance again? We are being handed a gift on a silver platter but better to not look a gift horse in the mouth, eh! Wake up people. Jeesh!

There are a lot of talented MPs from Quebec who would have been real contenders if the race was 5 years from now instead of now. All they need is another couple of years of Federal experience under their belt.
TheArchitect wrote:
Paul Dewar's is going to feature a live performance of a new song,

Charlie Angus and Kill the Autocrat's Michael Fraser O'Brien co-wrote a song about Jack Layton entitled "Longer than a Lifetime." Did not know that they were playing it for Dewar - unless there are two songs.

 

Lachine Scot

quizzical wrote:

question: How come Saganash's supporters here, who really appear to like him, are not supporting Mulcair like Saganash himself is doing? They like him and voted for him or woulda, but don't trust his judgement about who he thinks would be a good leader, or just what is going on with that?

I can't speak for the other Saganash supporters on here, but here are my (admittedly uninformed) thoughts..

- They're not the same at all! In fact, they're almost as different as two politicians from the same province could be, occupying the same general area of the political spectrum, of course..

- Since Mulcair mentored most of the new Quebec NDP MPs, it didn't surprise me that Saganash would eventually go to support him rather than the other leadership candidates from farther afield. Although maybe he did a thorough examination of all the candidates and still decided on Mulcair for rational reasons, who knows..

- I still decided to support Mulcair with my vote, but I'm hardly in the Mulcair "camp" that supposedly exists, nor do I expect to love him too much once he starts making decisions.. Still, he was the best option out of the bunch, imo.

 

TheArchitect

CanadaApple wrote:

TheArchitect wrote:

I believe so.  I do wish that more time were allocated for the showcases.

hmm...on the webtie it says the showcases are meant to last from 1:30 to 5:00 PM. If each of the seven gets twenty minutes, that would be only 140 minutes, right? or is my math wrong?

Your math is definitely right.  I believe that the showcases are separated by ten minute intervals, which is why the amount of time allocated is from 1:30 to 5:00.

writer writer's picture

Romeo Saganash would have dealt with Thomas Mulcair when the two were involved in their prior political lives. Saganash representing the Cree of northern Quebec. Mulcair as a minister in Quebec City.

From where I sit, Saganash has put not one iota of pressure on his supporters to vote any which way. And, as self-directing adults, many of us didn't feel a desperate need for such assistance.

I'll also note that some Saganash supporters have in fact come out for Mulcair here on babble. Others have come out for other candidates. Some (like me) remain undeclared.

Otherwise, once again, what Unionist said in terms of the spirit of his statement. Though I remain a member, with hope that this status might evolve into something more meaningful than its current state.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

CanadaApple wrote:

I'm feeling pretty excited about the convention, even though I'm not going to be there. I'm still more or less undecided about who to vote for, though I have a top four.I'm looking forward to seeing what the candidates do for each of their showcases. it should be pretty telling, at least for me. if you're already a dedicated supporter of one of the candidates though, maybe not so much.

I'm actually totally excited, too! Nervous and worried about what happens after, but as far as this weekend goes, I'm just excited. I can't go, obviously, but I'm going to be cheering from my living room. I have my orange-and-green outfit all picked out. Wink

socialdemocrati...

Yeah, I haven't been one for endorsements either. With a few exceptions. In aggregate, they do mean something. And if someone with a high profile makes an endorsement, I at least hear them out. But seeing as most endorsements have been fluff pieces ("I think X is an excellent person with excellent personal qualities to lead the party into the next century and offer an excellent alternative to Steven Harper"), I can't say it's mattered all that much.

 

Wilf Day

Unionist wrote:

Lemme get this straight. Thousands of people have been recruited into the NDP so that they can vote for the person who brought them to the dance. Right? They pay a few bucks and they get to choose the leader of the Official Opposition?

And I should belong to a party that behaves in that fashion? Are you kidding?

Unionist wrote:

But to support someone because someone you like says to support them? That's the height of folly.

Really? This from the man who said we shouldn't have this long-running beauty contest, nor expect the leader to set the policy, but just let those who know (the caucus?) pick the best spokesperson. And indeed many democrats argue that one root of our democratic deficits is that we copied the American system of primaries and conventions, which produces a leader who has a mandate that trumps the mandate of any MP, and therefore entitles him to be emperor.

So if some of us pay attention to what the MPs want, and give more weight to the opinions of the MPs with more seniority, isn't that entirely consistent?

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

I'm going to be cheering from my living room. I have my orange-and-green outfit all picked out. Wink

Me too. (But why orange and green? not even a red stripe?)

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Wilf Day wrote:

Me too. (But why orange and green? not even a red stripe?)

Nah, the red is for Sunday. ;)

I'll post a picture on facebook. It's endlessly amusing to me that I can go totally "stealth New Democrat" here--at most, they'll all think I'm trying out my Queen's Day outfit. (Whereas if I were dressed like that at home, my non-NDP friends would all be rolling their eyes.)

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

writer wrote:

From where I sit, Saganash has put not one iota of pressure on his supporters to vote any which way. And, as self-directing adults, many of us didn't feel a desperate need for such assistance.

I think that is true.

writer wrote:

I'll also note that some Saganash supporters have in fact come out for Mulcair here on babble. Others have come out for other candidates. ...

Like me.

I say it again. I wish Saganesh had stayed in. Despite all of his perceived weaknesses, I thought he has a great story to tell, and I believed there was real potential there for him to grow into the job, just like Jack (blessed be his memory).

Ippurigakko

Megan Leslie endorses Nathan Cullen.

KenS

Ohh...
Now that is significant.

Not only because of who Megan Leslie is. But also because she has gone out of her way to be neutral.

NorthReport

NDP change unstoppable

 

Transformation has been underway since last election

 

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/change+unstoppable/6346635/story....

NorthReport

Over 45,000 folks have already voted - now that undeed is significant. Smile

writer writer's picture

According to Leslie's Twitter account, she has not endorsed Cullen: https://twitter.com/#!/MeganLeslieMP/status/183179668961234945

NorthReport
Ippurigakko

NDP leadership convention is on tv CPAC but not show subtitle! UGH!

 

eta finally CC on! Good! i wont complaint if CC/subtitle on!

Unionist

Wilf Day wrote:

Really? This from the man who said we shouldn't have this long-running beauty contest, nor expect the leader to set the policy, but just let those who know (the caucus?) pick the best spokesperson. And indeed many democrats argue that one root of our democratic deficits is that we copied the American system of primaries and conventions, which produces a leader who has a mandate that trumps the mandate of any MP, and therefore entitles him to be emperor.

You profoundly misread/misunderstood my several million posts on this issue. Do you recall my sarcastic references to the Dear Leader? Do you recall my characterization of the Tyrant who Decides Everything? Do you recall my pointing to Québec solidaire for proof that a party does not need a "leader", nor the concomitant "led"?

My point, which you misunderstood, is that there should not and cannot, in a progressive movement, be 9 individuals all of whom are convinced that they are the anointed one. There should be no anointed one.

I frankly couldn't understand, and still don't, why Roméo Saganash ran for the leadership. I well understand the crass and ugly careerist opportunism that motivates most, if not all, of the other candidates. Who else would read their principles and heart-felt values from a f***ing script? They all do it. They all already have handlers. They are all preparing for the role of Almighty God.

So Wilf, feel free to disagree with my position. But try, please, never to oversimplify it. I hate this spectacle, this beauty contest, and I am utterly convinced it augurs ill for both the party and the movement.

Quote:
So if some of us pay attention to what the MPs want, and give more weight to the opinions of the MPs with more seniority, isn't that entirely consistent?

Here's what I would appreciate. When some presigious personality decides, at the nth hour, with much attendant drama and drumrolls, to "endorse" some candidate, they should be grilled as to why they waited so long... what their problem is with the other candidates... why they think their opinion is important. I simply don't get it. I lost a significant amount of respect, for example, for Saganash when he endorsed Mulcair after dropping out. Had he said from the start: "Listen folks, if I don't win, I'm going for Mulcair", I would have understood a little better. But what he did (which is what all the others do all the time) is crass and deceptive. People who conceal their views, or "time" their release, are difficult to trust, without a convincing explanation.

 

NorthReport

If you get a chance watch "NDP at the Crossroads" being repeated on CPAC right now

NorthReport
Mucker

NorthReport wrote:

Canadians open to NDP taking power, poll finds

http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120323/ndp-leadership-co...

This link is blocked by my work filter, which is claiming pornography.

Which poll does the article cite?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

You should see the commentors to the contrary on CTV's website. The general consensu is that this only applies to the group polled, not Canadians. Funny how this test of credibility doesn't apply in the counter. Yep, our opponents are nervous, and Canadians are waking up.

I say again, ""the times they are a-changin'"!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

@Mucker:

I think this is ok as I am only quoting the article in part:

"As members of the NDP get set to choose a new leader to succeed Jack Layton, a new poll finds that almost half of Canadians believe that Canada would benefit from having the New Democrats in office.

Results from the poll, released Friday by Nanos Research, found that 49 agree or somewhat agree that having an NDP federal government would be good for Canada.

Although Canadians under the age of 29 were more willing than older people to embrace the idea of the NDP in power, the opinions did not vary dramatically across the various age groups, nor across all regions of Canada.

The poll of more than 1,000 Canadians also found more than one in four Canadians who voted for the NDP in last spring's election said they voted for their local NDP candidate because of Layton, who died just three months after the election.

Only 17.7 per cent of respondents said they were drawn to the party's policies or platform, the poll found.

The poll, conducted between March 9 and 12, also asked respondents about the qualities they would like to see in the NDP's new leader. More than two-thirds cited honesty and integrity.

But charisma and personality were second - rating higher than leadership skills, the ability to build consensus, the ability to tackle economic issues, "groundedness", compassion, and common sense."...

Hope this helps friend. Cheers!

KenS

Mucker wrote:

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.

 

This makes sense as an abstraction.

But we are talking about the NDP.

What you call "outcomes"- or goals- like greater income equality is the generalities we always took in.

When is it we get 'wrapped up' in what you call the means to the end- the programatic initiatives.

Its rather obvious you start with thw whty's to do it. I dont know where you get this idea we tend to be overly caught up with how to do it?

And you are awfully charitable about why the others stay away from the tax increase language. They stay away from it because in their estimation we're [still] not ready for that. We'll get a backlash, etc.

 

TheArchitect

Ippurigakko wrote:

Megan Leslie endorses Nathan Cullen.

I don't think this is correct.  Or at least, if Megan Leslie endorsed Cullen, it hasn't appeared in either Megan's or Nathan's websites or Facebbok pages, or been reported by any media outlet whatsoever.

I'm guessing you got this from the fact that Megan retweeted a Twitter message from Gregor Ash (NDP candidate in Halifax West), who has endorsed Cullen, adding that she had witnessed the endorsement.  However, she clarified that she had not endorsed, but merely happened to be at the same event.  Megan has not endorsed Nathan or any other candidate.

writer writer's picture

TheArchitect, perhaps you missed the url I posted above, which leads to the tweet by Megan Leslie herself, clarifying that she has made no such endorsement?

TheArchitect

writer wrote:

TheArchitect, perhaps you missed the url I posted above, which leads to the tweet by Megan Leslie herself, clarifying that she has made no such endorsement?

I did miss it; I'm glad you already posted something clarifying this.

Still, if I could casually be reading Babble and see the initial item about the endorsement without noticing the clarification, it's probably a good thing that I added an additional comment on the matter, lest throngs of Babblers change their ballots to Cullen at the last minute before the conventiono the basis of this "endorsement"!

Mucker

Arthur,

Thanks very much for including that blurb.  Good news!

 

KenS wrote:

This makes sense as an abstraction.

But we are talking about the NDP.

What you call "outcomes"- or goals- like greater income equality is the generalities we always took in.

When is it we get 'wrapped up' in what you call the means to the end- the programatic initiatives.

Its rather obvious you start with thw whty's to do it. I dont know where you get this idea we tend to be overly caught up with how to do it?

And you are awfully charitable about why the others stay away from the tax increase language. They stay away from it because in their estimation we're [still] not ready for that. We'll get a backlash, etc.

I agree that what I'm offering here is probably quite nuanced and might seem like a small thing, but I think where communication is concerned, we would benefit greatly in a small change to the way we explain the NDP approach.  I know many NDPers and progressives in general that, when asked something akin to "what needs to change in this country?" respond with things like: we need to raise taxes on the rich, keep tuition costs low, punish pollutors, create more cooperatives, and nationalize more industries.  I know, to them, the reasons for those things (the "why") are implicit.  They feel like they've already spent enough of their life arguing for a more fair and just society and greater equality of opportunity and now they're onto the "how", but I think to "mainstream Canada" starting with those "what's" sound very ideological.

When they hear us say "we need to raise taxes on the rich" they're not always hearing "we want a more fair and just society" they're hearing "we don't want you to get rich, and if you do, we'll take more of your money away than the other guy".  They worry, I think, that we're blind to other potential means to increasing justice in society and reducing inequality and would blindly raise taxes even when there might be other ways to achieve those same ends (or at least ways that could be used in combination with more traditional NDP policy planks).

I'll concede your final comment (that I might be too generous toward the candidates who haven't directly mentioned tax increases).  I think I took that statement as an opportunity to engage on the broader issue of the way we currently communicate.

Great discussion.

Pages

Topic locked