NDP Leadership Thread - Part 2

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
Malcolm Malcolm's picture

aka Mycroft wrote:

klexo wrote:


>>>>>>>>"Could we please stop referring to the carve-out as being for "labour."  It isn't for "labour," but for "affiliated organizations."  While the vast majority of affiliated organizations are trade unions (national or locals), there have been others as well.

As I recall the only affiliated organization that isn't labour is the Douglas-Coldwell Foundation which sends one or two delegates to NDP conventions meaning more than 99% of the affiliates are labour unoins.


The Woodsworth-Irvine Socialist Fellowship as well.

Yes, the vast majority of affiliates are labour organizations.  That does not change the fact that it is NOT a Labour carve-out but an Affiliate carve-out.  Any organization that supports the principles of the party is free to apply for affiliation.  The Christian Socialist Movement, for example, is an affiliate of the UK Labour Party.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Northern Shoveler wrote:

You forgot Laurier in Prince Albert and Mackenzie King in Prince Albert. 


Laurier's riding was actually Saskatchewan - and that was in the days when leaders and star candidates would run in multiple ridings to ensure they got a seat.  Laurier resigned his Saskatchewan seat and never represented it in the Commons.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

nicky wrote:

- The lack of any conspicuous role for Mulcair in Layton's funeral. I was surprised that he was not at least a pallbearer. I looked to see him on TV at the funeral without success. Later I noticed him in a still photo sitting perhaps 10 rows back and out of the TV camera range.


No potential leadership candidate was given any role in the funeral - level playing field and all.  Neither was Topp.

Oh, and it is worth noting that Topp is from Montreal.

Life, the unive...

ottawaobserver wrote:

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

I don't really understand this gossipy need to speculate. It only feeds into divisivness If you want to see someone run, send them an email or something. Otherwise, I think we can wait until those who might be interested or willing to come forward.

Not sure I agree with this point, though. People are very interested, which is a good thing, and want to explore the kinds of qualities and traits that would make a good next leader.

What I don't like is the folks who are coming out now saying *not* a certain person, before we have been able to give everyone a good long look and listen.


I guess that was more what I was referring too.  This I heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another- stuff about potential candidates- so therefore they are no good- is what I meant by gossipy need to speculate.   I can understand wanting to discuss what the NDP needs or wants in a future leader.  I can even understand wanting to discuss potential names.  What I can't understand is the kind of divisive attacks I already see starting, such as the comments you referenced above about Brian Topp's comments.  He seemed pretty damn straight forward to me, and to suggest otherwise frankly borders on offensive.


ottawaobserver wrote:
I honestly doubt the extent of inside knowledge of the source for that quote. Why in god's name would the federal NDP promote a timeline for its leadership contest that worked *against* signing up new members in Quebec? It makes no sense at all from the perspective of the party's interest.

In the first place, it's totally contrary to Jack's final desires, as Jack wanted the NDP to sign up as many members from all regions of the country as possible. What surprises me is that nobody thus far has mentioned that this is a clear shot at Quebec. It implies that the NDP is "beholden to Quebec" and tries to create the impression that Quebec will decide how the federal leadership goes. As others have pointed out, votes from other regions of Canada count as well.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Long thread! Continue here.


Topic locked