NDP leadership thread #118

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wilf Day

Unionist wrote:

This Socialist Caucus sounds like a caricature of something. Not sure what.

A caricature of a popular broad left front (like Lula in Brazil)?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

wow - Stockholm is right - the Socialist Caucus really is out to lunch!

 

 

ps: what the hell is this under my nick: \,,/ rabble-rouser-l33t \,,/

KenS

I think you missed the boat entirely on Nathan's political instincts. I had the same questions about his judgement, as well as the idiot idea itself.

And I was waiting for him to find a gracefull way to 'de-empahaise' it.

But I think he has proved us wrong and mamnaged to pitch it in a way that he keeps the appeal it has, while more and more people who dont like it decide that it is harmless, and he seems to know what he is doing.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Nathan's latest post on FB (a few minutes ago):

Nathan Cullen: What do New Democrat voters, Quebec and young voters want? Co-operation to replace Mr Harper's majority with a progressive one. This new poll says 60% of NDP supporters want it. Among all voters, support highest in Quebec and young people. Only 17% of Tories support idea...that should say something.

Policywonk

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Wilf Day wrote:

Howard wrote:

The last table on this pdf is the most interesting to me. It shows the regional strength in each candidate's fundraising.

Yes, fascinating.

Peggy Nash raised $5,720 in Quebec; 4.7% of Quebec donations, 3.5% of her receipts. Not much more than Singh, who was not far ahead of Dewar. Not healthy.

Cullen got only $1,770 in Quebec. And Niki Ashton, despite hitting the Montreal Greek community, got only $906.

It's a two-man race in Quebec. Well, we already knew that, eh?

Mulcair's running fourth in Ontario despite his Toronto lawyer fans. Odd.

Nash is third in Ontario, although this is her base. Fourth in BC, fourth in Manitoba, fourth in Alberta, third in Nova Scotia, fourth in Saskatchewan.

Am I reading that right Wilf when it says Martin Singh got the 2nd highest total in BC? Wow. Also interesting is that Muclair raised more money in BC than Topp (BC suppose to be according to some Topp country).

The table is amounts rather than number of donators. Those figures would be more interesting, in my view. It is surprising that Mulcair has raised more money in BC than Topp.

Policywonk

KenS wrote:

I think you missed the boat entirely on Nathan's political instincts. I had the same questions about his judgement, as well as the idiot idea itself.

And I was waiting for him to find a gracefull way to 'de-empahaise' it.

But I think he has proved us wrong and mamnaged to pitch it in a way that he keeps the appeal it has, while more and more people who dont like it decide that it is harmless, and he seems to know what he is doing.

Given the vote at Convention to reject non-cooperation, I thought Nathan had a great deal of potential first ballot support; it's whether there is much second choice support for him.

vaudree

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Mulcair might have called Libby out, but he didn`t silence her. He didn`t shut her down. He didn`t have that power by himself. That was a party decision that all concerned stood behind, including Jack. Shameful indeed, but no reason to single him out from all the others.

In the last debate, Mulcair chastised a couple of the other leadership candidates for attacks, not made against himself but against other leadership candidates. He "reminded" them of the promise that they each made to be kind to each other both during the leadership race and afterwards.
I am mentioning that because it is the closest Mulcair has come to saying that he himself has changed since the Libby incident - without mentioning the incident itself. I am not sure whether Saganash knew of the Libby incident, but what he saw during the French Debate was a Mulcair who presented the belief that they should have each other's back.
I will probably mark Saganash first and Cullen last. Not sure yet who will be next after Cullen between Topp and Singh. I like Cullen (he is very easy to like) but, to quote the late Jack Layton: "Conservatives or Bloc or grits you all give me the screaming shits" and neither Topp or Singh have seats - so their placement will be according to their performance in Sunday's debate.

It is the rest that I am up in the air about.

 

Policywonk

vaudree wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Mulcair might have called Libby out, but he didn`t silence her. He didn`t shut her down. He didn`t have that power by himself. That was a party decision that all concerned stood behind, including Jack. Shameful indeed, but no reason to single him out from all the others.

In the last debate, Mulcair chastised a couple of the other leadership candidates for attacks, not made against himself but against other leadership candidates. He "reminded" them of the promise that they each made to be kind to each other both during the leadership race and afterwards.
I am mentioning that because it is the closest Mulcair has come to saying that he himself has changed since the Libby incident - without mentioning the incident itself. I am not sure whether Saganash knew of the Libby incident, but what he saw during the French Debate was a Mulcair who presented the belief that they should have each other's back.
I will probably mark Saganash first and Cullen last. Not sure yet who will be next after Cullen between Topp and Singh. I like Cullen (he is very easy to like) but, to quote the late Jack Layton: "Conservatives or Bloc or grits you all give me the screaming shits" and neither Topp or Singh have seats - so their placement will be according to their performance in Sunday's debate.

It is the rest that I am up in the air about.

Sounds like you mean Cullen next, or second, not last.

flight from kamakura

^ i think the point is that cullen's last, in any case.  then next-to-last are the two candidates without seats, but that their order isn't yet clear, could be

5) topp; 6) singh; 7) cullen  or 5) singh; 6) topp; 7) cullen  -  am i right?

personally, i'd actually be rating cullen as 2nd or 3rd if he could speak french.  i'm not too worried about strategic cooperation, as i don't really think that there's much appetite for it, and there'll be even less when it's looking like we're sailing into government in 2015.

 

Brachina

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
You're basing your decision on what candidate to support from debate on babble?

I'm having conversations with lots of New Democrats. Friends, colleagues, and the more devoted bunch here. I wish more people bothered to talk to their fellow members before making up their minds.

The real question is if you're not here to actually persuade people to support your candidate, then what effect do you think your conversation is having on others?

I suppose this question might answer itself.

SD will still make SD's own decision, but thier is nothing wrong with seeking the wisdom of those you respect, especially when you,have a difficult decision to make. It shows humility.

vaudree

The Grits give me the shits - as much as I like Cullen, he is dead last.  Not having a seat also puts one near the bottom.  I like that Topp has more progressive policies than Singh, but like that Singh is a better debater than Topp - but theirs is fight over second last and third last.

I am thinking of putting Saganash first on the ballot - like his negotiating ability and seeing the interconnection of all things.

Mulcair, Nash, Ashton and Dewar can go up or down depending on Sunday's debate.

About the Socialist caucus, short of throwing out the old system completely and starting from scratch, I don't see how one pleases them.  There will be a limit over how much one can change in four years - and that is if one gets a majority.  Also, I suspect that Harper's bunch are doing their best to gut the finances which will place limits on what can be accomplished.

That said, afordable child care and a drug plan (with central approval and Arthur Schafer on the board) and affordable housing and equal funding to reserves would be a good start.  The midwife plan seems like it can be done cheaply enough.  I'm from Manitoba so hydro and other forms of green energy sounds good to me - and like cap and trade.  

Looking for someone who can close loopholes first term and maybe go more for the corporate jugular second term.  If we don't close the loopholes, then it doesn't matter how much we tax the big corporations because they will still be using the loopholes to funnel out money.  Looking for someone who will make the rich pay their fair share without inadvertently taking from others whom we don't want to take money from.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Cullen is beating a dead horse with his co-operation proposal, because not only are the Libs not interested, it's pissing off a lot of NDP'ers, too.

Doug

clambake wrote:

Socialist Caucus endorses Niki Ashton:

 

Whatever did she do to deserve that?

 

socialdemocrati...

Brachina wrote:
SD will still make SD's own decision, but thier is nothing wrong with seeking the wisdom of those you respect, especially when you,have a difficult decision to make. It shows humility.

Appreciate the compliment.

I'd also add... one of the reasons I'm talking to other people who have voted New Democrat -- new members and old members -- is to get a read on who can UNITE our supporters and who can EXCITE our supporters.

At this point, my vote is bigger than what I would personally want the NDP to represent. It's who can hold together the coalition that Jack built, and make it exciting enough that other people (especially young people) want to join up, and say proudly that they're voting NDP.

I haven't found a candidate who stands head and shoulders above everyone else. At least not yet. So I'm trying to look for signs that someone can become that candidate by 2015.

Aristotleded24

DSloth wrote:
"In my over 25 years of being involved the political scene of Québec and Canada; I have a strong understanding of which direction we need to head in as a country and how we need to get there. It is this belief and desire to build a better future for the young and generations that come after us that led me to join the New Democratic Party and run under its banner as a candidate

Of all my great colleagues who have offered to be our next leader, I believe that Tom is best able to lead all Canadians into that better future together. Tom has shown throughout this race that he has the ability to bring progressive Canadians of all stripes together, united under the NDP banner. We can create the better country that we all seek and I have great confidence that Tom will lead us to victory in 2015."

-Romeo Saganash, March 7, 2012

Very disappointed to hear that Saganash has endorsed Mulcair.

socialdemocrati...

I'm a little embarassed for the so-called socialist caucus. They seem so desperate to be treated as a legitimate influence on the party, but it's like the more we ignore them the more we win. So...

socialdemocrati...

Strange. A lot of non-supporters of Mulcair saw Saganash's endorsement, and instead of becoming more interested in Mulcair they became less excited about Saganash.

I wonder who people thought they were supporting when they said they supported Saganash? I really liked him: bilingual, great policy papers, a really unifying demeanor. But on policy -- even taxes -- he wasn't particularly different from Mulcair.

I'm just trying to understand the disappointment.

algomafalcon

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Nathan's numbers in BC were a big surprise to me. He is pretty charismatic. I just keep thinking of him as a non-starter, I guess, because of the whole nomination scheme. Apparently there's more appetite for that sort of thing out here than I realised, and more life left in his campaign than I've been giving him credit for.

My problem with him is not the idea itself, despite my personal conviction that it's utterly unfeasable and not worth wasting a jot of political capital or energy on. It`s that he really should have known that he would be turning the whole party against him from the get-go, and kill his chances of winning this race. If he's just running to bring up some issues that he feels should be talked about in the leadership then he`s done a great job, but he's not a serious candidate and I shouldn`t treat him like one. If he really is running to win, then he seems to have very poor political instincts.

I'm quite sure that he hasn't "turned the whole party against him", and I think he very much IS "a serious candidate", although you are certainly welcome to support anyone you want. Just keep in mind that you don't speak for the rest of the party membership. Wink

 

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

ps: what the hell is this under my nick: \,,/ rabble-rouser-l33t \,,/

You've been inducted into my elite club.

I think it means you've reached your 100 millionth post.

I don't like the symbols much, but what am I gonna do - sue?

 

Brachina

Doug wrote:

clambake wrote:

Socialist Caucus endorses Niki Ashton:

 

Whatever did she do to deserve that?

 

She drew the short straw:p seriously though, at this point it may help her campaign, especially,if she can drain some of Topp's support.

Jacob Two-Two

Okay, that might be an exaggeration. But he's a quality candidate. Don't you think he'd be doing much better right now if he'd never brought all that up? To me it seemed like deliberate suicide. But I say this acknowledging that he's clearly not as dead as I thought.

Brachina

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Okay, that might be an exaggeration. But he's a quality candidate. Don't you think he'd be doing much better right now if he'd never brought all that up? To me it seemed like deliberate suicide. But I say this acknowledging that he's clearly not as dead as I thought.

When Cullen entered the race he know it was as long shot and so he decided to take a risk and I think it payed off by drawing liberal ndp and green switch voters into the party and building enough steam that people now see him as a serious player. Was it a gamble and will Cullen pay a price for it? Yes. Did the benifits out weigh the risks for him? I believe so. Is it political suecide? No, I don't think he was likely to win to begin with, this was his one shot and even if it doesn't work, his gains means he'll get a major promotion, possibly house leader in a Mulcair government.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Unionist wrote:

I don't like the symbols much, but what am I gonna do - sue?

 

If anyone else is affected, maybe we could do a class action suit! Wink

Michelle

Haw haw haw.  That's pretty knee-slappingly funny, mocking the left-wing members of the party like that for endorsing a leadership candidate that they think might support some of their ideas.

It's always fun to hear centrist dippers talk out of two sides of their mouths.  When left-wing people give up on the NDP, they get scolded by the centrists and told that they should get involved in the party and try to bring about change from within - quit whining from the sidelines, quit complaining if you're not going to get involved, blah blah blah. 

And then, when people like the folks in the Socialist Caucus actually take their advice and become active in the party and try to promote their values and policy ideas, they quickly learn that what the Dipper centrists actually meant was, "You owe us your votes and your money and your envelope licking during election campaigns.  But while you're busy emptying your wallet and pounding the pavement, could you maybe shut up so we don't have to listen to your stupid left-wing crap?  Kthxbye."

Yes, I'm out of sorts and probably being more touchy than usual about this kind of thing lately.  My excuse is that I'm dreading March 24th because we all know what's going to happen, even though the other campaigns are putting on brave faces to the end, and watching the debacle unfold is making me grumpy.

Unionist

Michelle, I left the NDP long ago, so maybe someone can help me with this:

What's a "socialist caucus" inside the NDP? Should there be a centrist caucus, a social-democratic caucus, an Olympica Do caucus?

So that's one problem I have.

Second problem:

How does a socialist caucus decide to support one candidate? Does that mean everyone in the caucus supports Niki? Or 50% + 1?

Also, did you read this:

Quote:
As a result, the Socialist Caucus urges NDP members to vote for Niki Ashton for Leader.  We do not recommend a second, third, or further choice.  Ashton opens the door for progressive change.  The others do not.

And this:

Quote:
No labour concessions.

And all the rest of it.

I thought it was bad enough when each candidate had their own little program made up out of their heads and massaged by speechwriters.

Now there's a whole caucus doing it.

What happened to the party? Its convention, its program?

They're a caricature. They're either better than everybody else, or worse. I do not recommend a second, third, or further choice.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Michelle, this is the part that threw me: "Mulcair, the ex-Liberal cabinet minister from Quebec, who also considered joining the Conservatives, wants the NDP to "move to the center."  This would make it the New Liberal Party of Canada.  Rather than save the NDP's newly-won seats in Quebec, he is likely to lose them by being outflanked on the left by the resurging Bloc Quebecois."

First, Mulcair never considered joining the Conservatives. Second, Mulcair said he wants to move the centre to the NDP - and that's different from the slander they posted.

The BQ is unlikely to outflank the NDP on the left - the BQ can be pretty right wing. I voted for the BQ guy here last time because I thought he was the best placed to defeat the Cons - and I was wrong. The BQ guy here is really right wing - I'm glad he got whupped by the new NDP guy.

flight from kamakura

seriously, there's a difference between constructive activism and unconstructive activism.  if these folks got their wish and ashton were elected leader, they'd never have a chance of seeing any of their ideas implemented, unless it was through some sort of deal propping up the governing liberals.  we have a vehicle for contesting elections, the ndp is an election-fighting machine, by definition.  i used to be a very very radical leftist, to the point of living in a radical house under surveillance by the police for activities related to fundraising for the farc-ep.  but these days, i just want us to win, ndp governments are always better than any other kind that we have in canada (except for maybe pq governments) and the party is the vehicle for the aspirations that we have that can only be achieved by legislation.  as long as the cpc is in power, social pressure and mobilization will have no effect on their actions.

that said, if i were an elected mp, i'd probably join the socialist caucus.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I get why they endorse Ashton, but she'd reduce the NDP here in Quebec probably to one seat - Mulcair's.

janfromthebruce

You know Boom Boom, I still am mystified that you voted Bloc and not NDP in the last election because every poll was showing the orange wave, in big big poll numbers, and it was huge in Quebec. It was like you were in a coma, and yet you are such a politically "on-line" babble engaged poster - so I didn't get it and still don't. I know you can't tell me why but it sure seemed like you had blinders on - kinda of like Chantel Herbet in TorStar Kiss That was poking some fun at you but done sweetly.

Hunky_Monkey

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Strange. A lot of non-supporters of Mulcair saw Saganash's endorsement, and instead of becoming more interested in Mulcair they became less excited about Saganash.

I wonder who people thought they were supporting when they said they supported Saganash? I really liked him: bilingual, great policy papers, a really unifying demeanor. But on policy -- even taxes -- he wasn't particularly different from Mulcair.

I'm just trying to understand the disappointment.

I think a lot of people projected their own beliefs and such onto Saganash. I find a lot did that with Jack too.

Michelle

And what exactly does that empty slogan "move the centre to the NDP" mean, anyhow?  What does that look like?  Has he ever explained what he meant, or was it a dog whistle to right-wing Dippers that he wants to move to the right, with just enough plausible deniability in case he's called on it by progressives in the party?

As for Mulcair considering joining the Conservatives - he admits that he had talks with the Conservatives before deciding on the NDP - do you think he'd bother talking to them if he wasn't considering them?  Note that the Socialist Caucus note didn't say anything about Mulcair demanding money, which is what Mulcair denied as "patently false".  They just claimed that he considered joining the Conservatives, and Mulcair admits that he was in talks with them himself.

Quote:

Mr. Mulcair calls the claims “transparently false,” while acknowledging he talked to the Conservatives (and the Liberals and the Greens) before opting to join the NDP, after quitting Jean Charest’s provincial Liberal government in Quebec City.

 

According to the NDP MP, he quit Cabinet in Quebec City on a question of principle on the environment file and was approached by a friend who had joined the Conservatives. “He said the environment was their weakest suit in Quebec and he’d like to know if I’d accept work on that file. The Conservatives offered me two senior positions, one as head of a federal agency in environment and the other as a senior advisor. As you can see I took neither,” he said in an email Thursday. He said that the intermediary he was dealing with suggested he would have to adapt to the Conservative position on the Kyoto Protocol if he were to join the party, which ended the discussion.

If he was talking to the Conservatives and discussing with "an intermediary" what he could and could not adopt as policy if he were to join the party, then clearly he was considering it.  Yes, he decided against it, but he considered it, and that's all the Socialist Caucus claimed.  So it's not slander at all.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Okay so it's not slander, but it's at least silly and malicious to even bring it up as if it were a big deal, which it manifestly is not.

And as for the Socialist caucus endorsing Ashton - well, read Unionist's comments after listenig to her on The Current.

jjuares

I consider myself very much on the left of the party and yet I am supprting Mulcair. I think any characterization of Mulcair as appealing only to centrists as being unfair.

Hunky_Monkey

Michelle wrote:

And what exactly does that empty slogan "move the centre to the NDP" mean, anyhow?  What does that look like?  Has he ever explained what he meant, or was it a dog whistle to right-wing Dippers that he wants to move to the right, with just enough plausible deniability in case he's called on it by progressives in the party?

As for Mulcair considering joining the Conservatives - he admits that he had talks with the Conservatives before deciding on the NDP - do you think he'd bother talking to them if he wasn't considering them?  Note that the Socialist Caucus note didn't say anything about Mulcair demanding money, which is what Mulcair denied as "patently false".  They just claimed that he considered joining the Conservatives, and Mulcair admits that he was in talks with them himself.

Quote:

Mr. Mulcair calls the claims “transparently false,” while acknowledging he talked to the Conservatives (and the Liberals and the Greens) before opting to join the NDP, after quitting Jean Charest’s provincial Liberal government in Quebec City.

 

According to the NDP MP, he quit Cabinet in Quebec City on a question of principle on the environment file and was approached by a friend who had joined the Conservatives. “He said the environment was their weakest suit in Quebec and he’d like to know if I’d accept work on that file. The Conservatives offered me two senior positions, one as head of a federal agency in environment and the other as a senior advisor. As you can see I took neither,” he said in an email Thursday. He said that the intermediary he was dealing with suggested he would have to adapt to the Conservative position on the Kyoto Protocol if he were to join the party, which ended the discussion.

If he was talking to the Conservatives and discussing with "an intermediary" what he could and could not adopt as policy if he were to join the party, then clearly he was considering it.  Yes, he decided against it, but he considered it, and that's all the Socialist Caucus claimed.  So it's not slander at all.

Can you imagine any of the other NDP leadership candidates, at any time in their careers, giving even three seconds to the Conservative Party to make a pitch to them to move to their team?  I can't.

He was offered jobs in the environment file. Government jobs. When he clued in they just wanted him as window dressing, he said no.

If that makes Mulcair some possible Tory, I guess Ed Broadbent and Stephen Lewis became Tories too?

Hoodeet

Michelle wrote:

Haw haw haw.  That's pretty knee-slappingly funny, mocking the left-wing members of the party like that for endorsing a leadership candidate that they think might support some of their ideas.

It's always fun to hear centrist dippers talk out of two sides of their mouths.  When left-wing people give up on the NDP, they get scolded by the centrists and told that they should get involved in the party and try to bring about change from within - quit whining from the sidelines, quit complaining if you're not going to get involved, blah blah blah. 

And then, when people like the folks in the Socialist Caucus actually take their advice and become active in the party and try to promote their values and policy ideas, they quickly learn that what the Dipper centrists actually meant was, "You owe us your votes and your money and your envelope licking during election campaigns.  But while you're busy emptying your wallet and pounding the pavement, could you maybe shut up so we don't have to listen to your stupid left-wing crap?  Kthxbye."

Yes, I'm out of sorts and probably being more touchy than usual about this kind of thing lately.  My excuse is that I'm dreading March 24th because we all know what's going to happen, even though the other campaigns are putting on brave faces to the end, and watching the debacle unfold is making me grumpy.

Hoodeet (JW)

Thanks, Michelle.   Well said (in my opinion).  I'm quoting your post in its entirety in case someone hadn't read it carefully the first time. 

My question to you is: How have you been able to stand so much rudeness and aggressiveness for 11 years without quitting?  And "Grumpy" is the best you could come up with as a response to "this kind of thing"?   You're too polite.  

 

 

 

Hunky_Monkey

Hoodeet wrote:

Thanks, Michelle.   Well said (in my opinion).  I'm quoting your post in its entirety in case someone hadn't read it carefully the first time. 

My question to you is: How have you been able to stand so much rudeness and aggressiveness for 11 years without quitting?  And "Grumpy" is the best you could come up with as a response to "this kind of thing"?   You're too polite.  

 

 

 

Does the Socialist Caucus represent those on the left of the party or just a small group of members that banded together? I was speaking to a longtime New Democrat who considers herself on the left but doesn't view the Socialist Caucus as being representative of her politics.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

You know Boom Boom, I still am mystified that you voted Bloc and not NDP in the last election because every poll was showing the orange wave, in big big poll numbers, and it was huge in Quebec.

I didn't see any evidence of the orange wave here, and the NDP guy was an unknown here on the Lower North Shore - well known in Sept-Iles, though. And the BQ guy has been winning several elections here by huge margins. I campaigned for Pierre Ducasse and voted for him - twice - and he went down to serious defeat both times, despite being well known in Sept-Iles. So if Pierre Ducasse coundn't beat the BQ guy, it seemed to reason this new unknown wasn't going to, either. And Genest-Jourdain never visited the Lower North Shore during the campaign as far as I know. Pierre Ducasse made the effort to get to know us, as did the BQ guy.

Winston

I can understand where Boom Boom was coming from.  If someone had told me on May 1 that the MP-elect on May 3 for Manicouagan would be an NDPer, polls or not, I'd have laughed.  I figured that we'd sweep most of the Montréal and Outaouais areas, pick up a few in the Ville de Québec, Roméo Saganash in Baie James-Nunavik-Eeyou, and maybe, just maybe Claude Patry in the Saguenay.  I thought that bluet Québec was going to stay with the BQ, and most other people did too.  No one thought they'd be reduced all the way down to 4 seats.

But there it is - what better argument could there possibly be AGAINST strategic voting!

janfromthebruce wrote:

You know Boom Boom, I still am mystified that you voted Bloc and not NDP in the last election because every poll was showing the orange wave, in big big poll numbers, and it was huge in Quebec. It was like you were in a coma, and yet you are such a politically "on-line" babble engaged poster - so I didn't get it and still don't. I know you can't tell me why but it sure seemed like you had blinders on - kinda of like Chantel Herbet in TorStar Kiss That was poking some fun at you but done sweetly.

 

Unionist

Michelle wrote:

If he was talking to the Conservatives and discussing with "an intermediary" what he could and could not adopt as policy if he were to join the party, then clearly he was considering it.  Yes, he decided against it, but he considered it, and that's all the Socialist Caucus claimed.  So it's not slander at all.

Michelle - Ed Broadbent quit as leader in 1989, and in 1990 accepted Brian Mulroney's offer to head the newly-formed International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. Does that mean he "joined the Conservatives" in any sense different from what Mulcair reported discussing?

It's possible Mulcair was lying. But nothing approaches the wholesale concoctions made up by this Caucus, who report as fact that he considered "joining the Conservatives". I would never believe a word said by someone who deliberately extrapolated that from what you just quoted.

I don't like Mulcair's politics, but the Socialist Caucus diatribe is ludicrous. I quoted some examples, because I didn't just want to re-quote the entire thing. Niki Ashton is the one - and no one else will do. Honestly, WTF is up with these people? What do they know about the saintly Niki Ashton (and about all the other devils) that we don't?

They're Monty Python material.

Michelle

I think the non-Mulcair supporters who were supporting Saganash like his communication style, his personality, his accomplishments, and his way of being able to work well with others and listen to what other people have to say. 

So that might explain the disappointment in his endorsement of Mulcair more than the policy stuff.  They might not be that far off from each other on policy, but really, it's up to NDP members to make policy (she said, smirking cynically) and the leader's role is to sell it to the public. 

So, policy isn't as important as personality and the ability to work well with everyone and support and inspire people to be their best.  I think the people who are disappointed in the endorsement saw that ability in Saganash, but not so much in Mulcair.

 

Winston

Unionist wrote:

They're Monty Python material.

LaughingLaughingLaughing

I often don't agree with you, Unionist, but I nevertheless appreciate your ascerbic wit.

Michelle

Oh, I'm not in the Socialist Caucus, Hoodeet, never have been.  I'm not a member of the party at all - I just vote for them and occasionally help knock on doors during election campaigns.

I was a member a few years ago, but I let it lapse over various dealbreaker issues, and every time I start getting over it and thinking about rejoining, they do some other supremely stupid thing that ticks me off.  I think I'm just not cut out to be a joiner.  I don't have the patience of the longsuffering Socialist Caucus folks.  I don't know how they do it.  Heck, I don't know WHY they do it.  Life's too short. 

Life's even too short to stay up half the night ranting about it on babble!  I should probably get to bed - it's a school night. :)

Brachina

Michelle wrote:

Haw haw haw.  That's pretty knee-slappingly funny, mocking the left-wing members of the party like that for endorsing a leadership candidate that they think might support some of their ideas.

It's always fun to hear centrist dippers talk out of two sides of their mouths.  When left-wing people give up on the NDP, they get scolded by the centrists and told that they should get involved in the party and try to bring about change from within - quit whining from the sidelines, quit complaining if you're not going to get involved, blah blah blah. 

And then, when people like the folks in the Socialist Caucus actually take their advice and become active in the party and try to promote their values and policy ideas, they quickly learn that what the Dipper centrists actually meant was, "You owe us your votes and your money and your envelope licking during election campaigns.  But while you're busy emptying your wallet and pounding the pavement, could you maybe shut up so we don't have to listen to your stupid left-wing crap?  Kthxbye."

Yes, I'm out of sorts and probably being more touchy than usual about this kind of thing lately.  My excuse is that I'm dreading March 24th because we all know what's going to happen, even though the other campaigns are putting on brave faces to the end, and watching the debacle unfold is making me grumpy.

What makes you think that just because someone supports Mulcair and busts on the socialist cacus thier centrists? I concider myself on the moderate left of the party.

I read Niki's rabble interview and though she did the best of all those that did them to date, her answers were intelligent and highly detailed. She's my number 2 choice. Just because I bust on her and the socialist cacus doesn't mean I dislike them.

As for the SC, I'm often sympathic to thier ideas, but the hard truth is is that they have a hard time understanding regular people and this has lead them to lack in charm at times.

The socialist cacus needs its own Nathan Cullen.

I call myself a social democract with both socialist and capitalist sympathies. The truth is I plan on building a new socialism/ social democratic idealogy for my future manifesto.

For example when I was younger I favoured lots of nationalization, but now I prefer goal oriented cooperatives with duel consumer and worker run, with key exceptions, because with nationalizations a tory or liberal government could come in later and sell it or nearly as bad appoint patronage pork to the boards.

Also with cooperatives you don't depend as much on who wins elecfions and what not, to achieve social change.

Aristotleded24

Doug wrote:

clambake wrote:

Socialist Caucus endorses Niki Ashton:

 

Whatever did she do to deserve that?

I think the fact that she treated them with dignity and respect went a long way, and the fact that she treated them in such a fashion only makes my respect and admiration for her grow. I'm not a member of the SC and I don't have any particular connection, but I notice that the vast majority of the SC's detractors don't even bother to address the arguments they make, they just resort to cheap shots and insults. Is that a concession on their part that maybe the SC is correct?

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:
... the vast majority of the SC's detractors don't even bother to address the arguments they make ...

The entire reason for their release was to support Niki Ashton, and to say (in very dramatic fashion) that no one else was worth supporting, even as a second, third, or fouth choice.

I'd love to address their "argument" in favour of that rather dramatic position. Kindly refer me to it.

Oh, and as a unionist, I'd also like to address their "no labour concessions" directive. Sounds thrilling. How would I address their argument in favour of that - unless, of course, they don't really mean it?

I've never seen such empty sloganeering since my student days.

ETA: Ok, sorry A24, I've been dismissing them and scorning them. But what would you suggest I do with this:

Quote:
Nash is hobbled by the CAW's treacherous and failed 'strategic' voting orientation. 

WTF?????

And how about this:

Quote:
By obscuring the class question, by obsessing on Harper, Cullen fosters illusions in the system that caused the Great Recession, the system that enables the rulers to substitute another arrogant dirty trickster for the current P.M. at a moment's notice.

Or this:

Quote:
Ex-CAW negotiator Nash would go further, calling for even more public money to bribe Canuck companies to generate a few jobs.  Yet what we need is not economic nationalism or corporate welfare, but a massive job creation program through public ownership under workers' and community control, and reduction of the workweek with no loss in pay or benefits.

It's rare when the best arguments against someone consist of just quoting what they say without comment.

 

Bill Davis

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

My problem with him is not the idea itself, despite my personal conviction that it's utterly unfeasable and not worth wasting a jot of political capital or energy on. It`s that he really should have known that he would be turning the whole party against him from the get-go, and kill his chances of winning this race. If he's just running to bring up some issues that he feels should be talked about in the leadership then he`s done a great job, but he's not a serious candidate and I shouldn`t treat him like one. If he really is running to win, then he seems to have very poor political instincts.

The analysis here is very weak.  You assume he is running to be leader of the party, he is not.  He is running to be PM.  Of course he knew the co-op plan was risky and would present issues for many members.  Well guess what, he's in the top 3 who could actually win the nomination, with Tom and Peggy.  And what would happen if Nathan won?  The ball is in the Liberal's court.  It's lose lose for them.  They either accept and have just had a co-op plan dictated to them, or they reject it and we run on a brilliant narrative of co-operating for the betterment of the country with a charismatic leader who can win over any room.

It continually impresses me that some members, generally those flag waiving partisans, that can be terrified of losing joint nominations to Liberals and assume we are destined to form the next government all at the same time.

 

 

 

 

Aristotleded24

Unionist, I was referring specifically to those on the centre and right of the NDP who sneer at the "crazies" in the Socialist Caucus. You have your issues with what was said, you have clearly expressed those issues, and I respect that. My criticism was not directed at you.

Jacob Two-Two

I never said I don't like the idea of joint nominations. I'm saying that Cullen should have known that this would do him more harm than good in an NDP leadership race. I appreciate that he may be running for PM, but he has to become NDP leader first and I question the political choices he has made in his efforts to do this.

I think he would have done much better to have left that alone and positioned himself as the PR candidate, which it seemed there was space for him to do. That's a position that gets a lot more traction in the NDP than working with Liberals, and has the advantage of not being a pipe dream. The Liberals will never, never agree to this. 

CanadaApple

What really stops me from supporting Mulcair is that I'm just not sure he's the kind of guy who would listen to me. By that, I mean I'm not sure I'm going to have much say in Party Policy under a Mulcair Leadership. Granted, I'm not sure I'm going to have any say about Party Policy under any of the Leadership Candidates, and that's one of the main reasons I joined the NDP. Based on the information I've seen, (and people are free to bring more to my attention, I beg you to!), Brian Topp and Paul Dewar are the only ones who are suggesting anything like that. I guess they could be lying, but it at least gives me hope.  But Mulcair hasn't released anything on what his plans and ideas are for the Party itself, or what role members will play,and I find that troublesome. Yes, he's said things about "renewal" and "bringing the centre to us", but I'm just not sure what exactly those mean. I'd like to see a actual plan for what he really wants to do with the party. Hey, I guess he could have and I've just missed it, and if that's the case someone please show me, because I couldn't see anything on his website.

I'm not saying any of this because I'm "anti-Mulcair". To be honest, without ever having met him, I kinda like him. I don't even feel all the negative feelings others seem to have towards him, but hey, I can't even bring myself to hate Stephen Harper. I'm just trying to articulate what exactly holds me back from supporting Mulcair, and what he and his campaign could do to stop it.

 

Rakhmetov

I have a lot of time for the Socialist Caucus and more of the candidates should have engaged with them.  Strongly disagree with some of their right-wing arguments though.  Such as advocating laissez faire economics and having the automotive industry collapse instead of providing them public support during an existential crisis.  And some of the silliness about Cullen was a little puerile even if you agree with nationalization.

Mulcair has garnered a lot striking endorsements and if this had been a traditional delegated convention I'm convinced he would have won.  But this is OMOV and unfortunately for him these endorsements seem to carry little weight with a majority of members.  Most members are not very familiar with someone like Saganash even as impressive as he's been in the race, or say a Paul Moist for Nash.  As for the polls, I challenge anyone to name me a poll in the 4 month BC NDP leadership race which showed Farnworth with less than than a 10 point lead over Dix, or one which didn't show a potential Dix leadership being a disaster against Clark.  The fundraising numbers are also quite intriguing and provide more evidence of why Mulcair's support is likely quite exaggerated.  He's fourth place in Ontario and tied for 3rd in BC when 60% of the the members are from those two provinces.  No, Mulcair is obviously going to be the runner-up or the winner, and I think that at the end of the day the members and the party will pick an anti-Mulcair.

Pages

Topic locked