The more I think about it, and the more I think Michaelle Jean would be an amazing candidate. Dunno how her GG past would be received with the NDP members, though. Thoughts?
We've already had a former Governor Gneral as a candidate - twice IIRC. Ed Schreyer.
For the record, wikipedia has P. Julian as the Provincial Secretary for the NDP-Q in the 1990s, not a mere "organizer" in the 1980s.
Yes. I just wanted to make it clear (apparently I failed 
) that his involvement with the NDP in Québec is not a recent fling. He has been involved for a long time!
Ken: Cullen represents a geographically large, geographically peripheral riding, and I don't think a single flight at any of the airports in that riding leaves British Columbia. A leader from a large riding is fine, and a leader from a peripheral riding is fine; but a leader from a riding which is at once both large and peripheral?
Not that this is necessarily an example to emulate - but the NDp was once led by Audrey McLaughlin whose riding was Yukon - you don't get more remote and peripheral than that!!
I was trying to think of other party leaders from large peripheral ridings: Diefanbaker in Prince Albert. Lester Pearson from Algoma, Howard Hampton from Kenora...
"Do we even know if the 25% weighted vote for labour, which was in place 2003, is still in effect?
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.
Speaking of which, if we still do have the carve out, we had better get rid of that assinine idea that the vote of x, y and z affiliate officials should count extra. If we are to have a 25% carve-out, let that be conducted by OMOV as well. Otherwise, get the hell rid of it.
I suspect the convention will be held in Winnipeg, but I think the NDP should consider holding it in Saskatchewan or Alberta, or maybe in a bilingual place like Moncton.
Understandably there is a lot of talk here re who should be considered in the top tier etc., but what about a candidate of the extra parliamentary Left, who can create some sense of excitement, movement, open the party up a bit, hold the party to account (maybe even get the Constitution on-line and the rules for the next leadership sorted out in advance). What's Judy Rebick up to in the next 6 months? Any other suggestions of this ilk?
Yvone Godin has not been mentioned.
Well if we're going to mention Cullen (39) and Boulerice (37?) then Megan Leslie (37) definitely gets to be part of that discussion. Hoang Mai (37) is a rising star but I think he needs to gain more experience and become a lot more quick-witted. I've seen him on Power and Politics unable to keep up with the rapid back-and-forth of the Conservative and Liberal guests. Out of all the late-30's crowd I'd go with Leslie myself.
I'm still very much against the Brian Topp idea. Someone not currently in caucus is one thing, but also without any experience ever as an elected representative? Great, he has been behind-the-scenes for some time, but I don't think that translates well to relating with the public. Look at John Tory - he was always a backroom politician, and then after coming second for Toronto mayor got elevated directly to the PCPO leadership. Two out of three attempts to get a seat in the legislature failed. The public never connected with him. I know he had many flaws that I am not trying to compare with Topp, but is it possible the party delegates who selected him in the first place were just blinded by an insider's view that the public didn't share?
I'd forgotten about Jack Harris, but again, I think the strongest argument for Chisholm is the particular parallel of consolidating advances. He is the only living ex-leader, federally or provincially, to lead the party to this kind of breakthrough and then effectively consolidate the gains . . . even if it was left to Dexter to take them to power.
Ed Schreyer is still among the living, if he counts in that regard. (And it's of trivia-contest interest re the Michaelle Jean talk that he's a precedent as an ex-GG running federally for the NDP
)
As an aside, I find the lack of mention of Hamilton/Windsor figures curious, at least for the sake of argument--Comartin's run before, and Chris Charlton's been mentioned once, but I'm also wondering how a Christopherson or Masse would fare in such a race...
>>>>>>>>"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.
>>>>>>>>Speaking of which, if we still do have the carve out, we had better get rid of that assinine idea that the vote of x, y and z affiliate officials should count extra. If we are to have a 25% carve-out, let that be conducted by OMOV as well. Otherwise, get the hell rid of it."
I am not familiar with this Malcolm. What is this about "affiliate officials" and weighted voting? How did/does that work?
Is there anywhere to find out who the "affiliated organizations" are?
In other words, I agree.
They better get this stuff sorted well and good and quick b/c the mainstream press is dying to hand the party its lunch on this stuff. Job 1: finding out if the party president is a candidate. Kady O'Malley is saying that should happen tomorrow.
I am against being against anyone at this stage, whether because they come from a farflung riding, or haven't been elected yet. That's what a leadership campaign is for - so we can listen to their perspectives, watch them campaign, and test them under competitive situations. We don't know who is going to rise to the occasion, and who is going to flop, during that process, but at this stage I have a completely open mind.
Sometimes back room boys (or girls) can turn out to be good retail politicians. Look at Brian Mulroney. When henfirst became Tory leader in1983 he had never been elected to anything before.
Er... Mulroney wasn't much of a backroom strategist. As you know, he ran for the leadership in 1976... and bascially kept running until he had another shot when Clark blew it. Mulroney in many ways was in a league of his own.
I am not familiar with this Malcolm. What is this about "affiliate officials" and weighted voting? How did/does that work?
Is there anywhere to find out who the "affiliated organizations" are?
Someone else may have the details better, but essentially it's like this.
At NDP conventions, affiliated organizations are entitled to representation based on a formula set out - a different formula than riding associations, but based on a similar principle that a larger membership gets more representation. IIRC, the cut-off for additional reps is higher for affiliates. (IOW, given a riding association and an affiliate with the same number of members, the riding association would get more representation.)
With the introduction of One Member One Vote for the leadership, there was concern that the influence of the affiliates (almost all labour organizations) would be diluted. The solution was the carve-out which said that the affiliate vote would constitute 25% of the total vote.
That I don't necessarily have an issue with. While a member of an affiliated organization (say the USWA) may not buy an individual party membership, that person is still an affiliated member of the party by virtue of membership in an affiliated organization.
Now, had the apportionment of the affiliate carve out been accomplished by a parallel OMOV process, that would have been one thing. Instead, the process was to identify individual party members who were also members of the affiliates and weight their votes to create the 25% carve-out. THAT was complete and utter bullshit as far as I was concerned.
Some people rejected the idea of a parallel OMOV for affiliates because some affiliate members are actually supporters of other parties. However, they either are affiliate members or they aren't. If they are, they should get a vote (weighted to be less than an individual member's vote). If they aren't, then we should do away with affiliate representation at conventions since such representation is all one big Potemkin villlage.
Does anyone have the current party membership numbers broken down by province and territory? These will provide the essential electoral geographu for the leadership race.
Also, how long in advance of the leadership vote must new members be signed up in order to cast a ballot?
Michaele Jean is one of the last people in Canada I would support for the leadership.
It is said above that she had no choice except to grant Harper his prorogation and that she is to be congratualted for making Harper sweat for a full TWO hours. This was certainly not the view of any number of constitutional scolars, as well as former Governors-General Schreyer and Clarkson who have both gone on the record to indicate they would have obliged him to face the House first.
Read the leading text on Dissolution of Parliament by Eugene Forsey. His position, which is almost unanimously supported, is that Byng was justified in declining King's request for a dissolution. Surely this provides ample precedent to indicate that Jean had a choice and that she simply knucled under to an autocratic PM.
In the previous thread, an astute comment was made:
Jack's letter suggested similar timelines to the 2003 race - which started 6 June 2002 and ended 23 January 2003, a span of about seven and a half months. Following those timelines would result in an April leadership selection.
And today The Hill Times reports:
a January convention—with nine weeks of Commons sittings from Sept. 19 until
mid-December when Parliament recesses for a long Christmas and mid-winter
break—could virtually kill Mr. Mulcair's chances."That's right, because he has to sell memberships way outside of Quebec, and
he hasn't got time," the MP said. "He would have had to have a team of 50
volunteers and activists working in every region of the country selling
membership like crazy right now, and I don't think anybody has that up and
running,""If we do go with a January convention he has very little time to marshal that
number of people [he needs in the party] to support him." Mr. Mulcair's biggest difficulty . . . will be building support in Quebec, where the party barely has a membership.
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.
>>>>>>>>"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.
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.
.. perhaps to help put the fix in for the leadership's preferred candidate?
I see O Malley is also saying that 25% for "affiliated organizations" is gone. Bot for now, the rules and even the means of establishing the rules remain let's say "unclear."
This is what the Constitution says on the topic:
Elections and Appointment of Officers
(a) Leader
(i) The Leader shall be elected by secret ballot.
(ii) Every member is entitled to cast a ballot for the selection of the
Leader.
(iii) Candidates for the leadership with the fewest number of votes will
drop off the ballot in subsequent rounds until one candidate
receives 50% plus one or more of the total votes cast in that
round. The Council shall determine other leadership selection
guidelines.
(iv) Should the position of Leader become vacant at any point, the
Council may, in consultation with the Parliamentary Caucus,
appoint a Leader for the interim period until a new Leader has
been elected.
(v) At every convention that is not a leadership convention; a secret
ballot vote will be held to determine whether or not a leadership
election should be called. If 50% plus one delegate supports the
calling of a leadership election, such an election will be held within
one year of the convention vote.
It's hard to imagine either of them winning, as they don't quite have the national profile yet, but I can easily imagine one or both of Carol Hughes and another Northern Ontario MP, Glenn Thibeault from Sudbury, running "raise my profile for next time" campaigns.
About the Hill-Times article: I personally found it very distasteful that so-called "NDP insiders" were saying that Mulcair is difficult to work with and that Jack's inner circle "loathes" him. There also seemed to be an unstated implication that Jack or his advisers had set up the timeline to limit Mulcair's run at the leadership. It seems like someone is trying very hard to scuttle Mulcair's chances as much as possible before the race really gets underway.
I wish that these "NDP Insiders" would keep their mouths shut.
In the week before the funeral, some NDP insiders began touting Brian Topp as a contender, and I was annoyed to see media speculation about the next leader beginning before the funeral. At the time, though, I thought it was mostly media generated. Then it was revealed this weekend that Brian Topp is considering running for leader. I feel angry at the possibility that he may have worked behind the scenes to get his name in the media while everyone else in the caucus and the party was maintaining a respectul silence on the subject. In fact, I read somewhere that Mulcair hasn't even spoken to the media since Jack's passing.
More evidence of these kind of graceless and self-aggrandizing tactics on the part of Topp (if indeed he is somehow behind these "NDP insiders" talking to reporters), and he will never get my vote.
[I was trying to think of other party leaders from large peripheral ridings: Diefanbaker in Prince Albert. Lester Pearson from Algoma, Howard Hampton from Kenora...
You forgot Laurier in Prince Albert and Mackenzie King in Prince Albert.
More evidence of these kind of graceless and self-aggrandizing tactics on the part of Topp (if indeed he is somehow behind these "NDP insiders" talking to reporters), and he will never get my vote.
Agreed. And more likely that Mulcair will get mine.
And really, party brass: you want to burn down the house that Jack built? Keep it up.
I do think that there will only be two candidates in the leadership race: Thomas Mulcair and Brian Topp.
When I watch Mulcair on the news, he is very articulate and knows his stuff. I have heard from others that he can be abrasive. So long as he does not appear abrasive in public, it should not hurt his chances. Mulcair is strong in Quebec. Will he be able to expand his support in the rest of Canada?
Topp knows how to run campaigns. However, he does not have as much charisma as Jack Layton. Then again, Stephen Harper does not have charisma, and he's the prime minister. My guess is that the party brass is going to support Brian Topp. He is a moderate who has the potential to steal centrist voters from both the Liberals and Conservatives.
Why do I not think other people will run for the leadership? Campaigns cost money. One does not want to go into debt, especially if one loses the leadership race.
Could the NDP lose left wing support if it tries to move toward the centre of the political spectrum. If the party gains two centrist voters for every left winger lost, then the party will still gain seats in Parliament in the long run.
Predicited winner: Brian Topp.
About the Hill-Times article: I personally found it very distasteful that so-called "NDP insiders" were saying that Mulcair is difficult to work with and that Jack's inner circle "loathes" him. There also seemed to be an unstated implication that Jack or his advisers had set up the timeline to limit Mulcair's run at the leadership. It seems like someone is trying very hard to scuttle Mulcair's chances as much as possible before the race really gets underway.I wish that these "NDP Insiders" would keep their mouths shut.
I agree. I like Topp, but his friends aren't doing him any favours here. Or the rest of the party.
I'm not understanding why he's being touted as a "moderate," though. I see little evidence of that in his Globe and Mail columns, which have included one supporting the USW and another supporting Greek anti-austerity protesters. Are people saying 'moderate' when they mean 'pragmatist'?
Why do you say it is his "friends" and not Topp himself responsible for this.
Does anyone know who sits on Federal Council and when it might meet to set the ground rules?
I would be shocked if we end up with a 2 person Topp v. Mulcair contest, but I suppose if the process is made (by Topp and Mulcair) too expensive for anyone else then that could happen.
I am very encouraged that Brian Topp is considering a run. He is a principled and articulate social democrat who can unite New Democrats across the country. I hope he takes the leap.
I'm not understanding why he's being touted as a "moderate," though. I see little evidence of that in his Globe and Mail columns, which have included one supporting the USW and another supporting Greek anti-austerity protesters. Are people saying 'moderate' when they mean 'pragmatist'?
While I believe he expressed some sympathy with the protesters, he was fully onside with the Greek "Socialists" austerity measures, even celebrating it as an example of sound economic management. More than anything (til now), that soured me on Topp.
I am very encouraged that Brian Topp is considering a run. He is a principled and articulate social democrat who can unite New Democrats across the country. I hope he takes the leap.
"Joined: Aug 29 2011"
I think this cinches it: Topp is in.
Greece cannot do anything with its currency. Greece cannot properly collect its taxes. Greece lied to the EU about its debt load. Greece cant be resonsible for the destruction of the EU. Anyways...
Brian Topp is not well known, if its true that he was encouraged by Jack to run, then I accept that. But it does seem to early. He appears to be intelligent, but Canadians have no clue who he is and the media will make him appear to be an oppertunist if possible. We also don't know how good of a debater he is and how charismatic he is. We all know that he is intelligent however. Reading some of the comments on CBC, people (aside from rabble) like Paul Dewar and they see Mulcair as a massive contender. I also see on the comments the occasional recommendation of Doer, who is still very loved in Manitoba.
I need to obviously learn more about the contenders. If Topp is truely as smart as he is, he would not just so jump quickly into the fray but to allow the party members to gather around him first. If you watched the bc ndp leadership race, you saw a race where the party was united and truely cohesive. There were no insults traded n the debate. I would like to see this again.
double post
It is troubling and surprising to hear these rumours that Layton's inner circle is trying to prevent Mulcair from winning the leadership. I always had the impression that Layton and Mulcair were close but perhaps that doesn't apply to Layton's advisers.
In retrospect there are certain tealeaves that may indicate a schism with Mulcair:
- Mulcair being passed over for interim leader (which I personally discount)
- Ian Capstick saying that he thinks that neither Mulcair nor Davies should run
-the broad hints being dropped in the media that Mulair is tempermental, arrogant, etc.
- 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.
I sincerely hope that these things do not mean anything at all. It would be so destructive for the party establishment to try to circumvent Mulcair. I can see the Quebec gains melting away if this is the case.
The entrance fee will determine the number of candidates. If the NDP executive look at the party now and say we are finally a major party and it's time to be like other major parties, they will probably set an entrance fee somewhere between $25,000 to $100,000.
If they decide that they don't want to get rid of their roots as the party of the average person, then they will have an entrance fee under $10,000 or maybe $15,000.
I think they face issues with both routes. Having a high entrance fee means only the most serious candiadtes will enter, less money will be donated to candidates which will probably free up money to be donated to the party, there will be more MPs in the House of Commons, and likely less controversies. Having less candidates also means less vision, while some candidates may not stand a chance of winning they still put new policy ideas out there. As well some grassroots people and lower profile candidates may complain that the party is abandoning their roots by not making it easier for anyone who wants to run.
Setting the entrance fee low though opens up the race to lots of candidates, ones who may only use the race to give themselves a higher profile for the future. It could mean less MPs in the House of Commons duking it out with the Conservatives, A larger race may be more divisive and it definitely opens up the race to more controversies. All the NDP needs now is for some candidates to come forward and cause controversies that make the party appear as if they are not ready to be a major party in this country.
If the constitution could be found it may outline leadership rules.
It is troubling and surprising to hear these rumours that Layton's inner circle is trying to prevent Mulcair from winning the leadership. I always had the impression that Layton and Mulcair were close but perhaps that doesn't apply to Layton's advisers.
In retrospect there are certain tealeaves that may indicate a schism with Mulcair:
- Mulcair being passed over for interim leader (which I personally discount)
- Ian Capstick saying that he thinks that neither Mulcair nor Davies should run
-the broad hints being dropped in the media that Mulair is tempermental, arrogant, etc.
- 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.
I sincerely hope that these things do not mean anything at all. It would be so destructive for the party establishment to try to circumvent Mulcair. I can see the Quebec gains melting away if this is the case.
I found it very interesting that Mulcair said that the last time he saw Layton was the day of his news conference on July 25. I had thought the two were close but after hearing that I figured that they must not be as close as I thought.
I wouldn't put too much on media quoting "insiders". Anyone who is really an insider wouldn't be yapping the the media at this point. This will be hangers-on trying to make themselves seem more important than they are. It is, sadly, the human condidtion.
So I wouldn't ascribe anything to Topp based on media stories, or presume Mulcair can't play well with others.
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.
I will add that if there are to be other candidates besides Thomas Mulcair and Brian Topp, they will be in the race not to win but to giver their support to another candidate.
[quote=Life, the universe, everything]
I wouldn't put too much on media quoting "insiders". Anyone who is really an insider wouldn't be yapping the the media at this point. This will be hangers-on trying to make themselves seem more important than they are. It is, sadly, the human condidtion.
So I wouldn't ascribe anything to Topp based on media stories, or presume Mulcair can't play well with others.
[/quote]
Amen
And today The Hill Times reports:
With respect, Wilf, the Hill Times does not "report". You're quoting a piece by Tim Naumetz, the lowest kind of gutter journalist who will quote Pat Martin for whatever flows from the latter's mouth, and when Naumetz can't pump up Martin, he will dredge up "anonymous sources". I personally don't trust or believe a single word he says, absent several confirmations from serious sources.
[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/pat-martin-predicts-fall-elect...'s last year's thread[/url] about Naumetz getting Pat Martin (!) to confirm the existence of a secret Conservative - Bloc deal and to predict a fall election.
Naumetz's trashy and disrespectful journalism ought not to rate a mention among serious people here. Besides anything else, he tries to discredit Mulcair by saying that he wouldn't return a call from Naumetz - placed before the funeral! Good for Mulcair.
These rumours of an NDP convention held in January and stacked in such a way as to prevent leadership contenders from signing up memberships sounds like a really terrible idea. If the NDP wants to close the fundraising gap with the Tories it needs a robust leadership race that signs up the maximum number of new members. My understanding of Layton's letter, perhaps naïve, was that he wanted to give the leadership contenders as much time as he had when he race for the NDP leadership. That seems smarter than a convention rushed through in January when the nearest election is 3.5 years away.
I wouldn't put too much on media quoting "insiders". Anyone who is really an insider wouldn't be yapping the the media at this point. This will be hangers-on trying to make themselves seem more important than they are. It is, sadly, the human condidtion.
So I wouldn't ascribe anything to Topp based on media stories, or presume Mulcair can't play well with others.
As so often, good common sense from LTUE. The insiders may be young, self-important, brand-new staffers who get chatty with reporters because it makes them feel important. Even those who have no great love for the real party insiders the way I do would have to agree that one thing they do very well is discretion.
Enough of the reporting in these speculative analytic pieces is off-base in terms of what would just make good sense for the party, that I've already discounted it, and I would encourage others to do the same.
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.
Mr. Topp speaks:
At a meeting of our party's officers last week, party secretary-treasurer Rebecca Blaikie agreed to take the lead in a review of the party's rules, regulations and precedents as they apply to this matter.
In due course she'll be making appropriate recommendations to our executive committee and federal council.
I'm not going to play any role in that review. In the event I were to become involved in the leadership race it would then also be appropriate for me to take a leave from my duties as President. I well understand that this can't remain an open question for too very long.
He does not rule out here that he would remain President while the party, ie Council, makes it decisions about the rules of the leadership campaign. Nor does he state categorically that he will not be involved in determining those rules before declaring his candidacy. Again too smart by half for Mr. Topp I think.
It is not that tricky Brian. You do not get to play the game and make up the rules of it too. Just say that and we can move on to something more substantive.
Only someone who was looking to create an issue would read anything like that into his remarks. This is an ethical person who would not want to bend the rules, and I'm a little put out that anyone would suggest otherwise, to be honest.
I was thinking about leadership, and I think the next leader should not be an established name, should be someone newer. The world is currently being swept up in a spirit of revolution not seen since the end of World War II, and I think an up-and-comer would be better able to tap into that spirit than someone more famous. Additionally, since this up-and-comer would have to make a concerted effort to win over people and get themselves known in order to win the leadership, that would prove them well in tapping into this revolutionary spirit and winning over members of the general public.
Except to say that I think Mulcair is a case of the emperor having no clothes, I will not otherwise comment on perspective leadership candidates until the vote is set and candidates have declared or are being drafted. I can say what I would like to see in a leader:
Commitment to social justice and peace
The obvious requirement to be bilingual at a minimum. Bonus points for being able to speak additional languages like Chinese or one of the many First Nations languages.
Someone who has a proven capability to organize and win over new people.
Someone who can hold his or her own during a debate, especially with the Conservatives.
Someone who is capable of making decisions and sticking with them.
A good communicator who listens and empathizes with people.
Those are a few of my ideas. I may add more qualities to this list later.
Also I do want to be clear -- I am NOT anti-Brian Topp. I know next to nothing about this guy; it may turn out that he is absolutely the right person for the job. Like most members I do have an interest in a democratic process. From my seat, it does not look like Topp is off to a a good start, but I am only one for sure.
Mr. Topp speaks:
At a meeting of our party's officers last week, party secretary-treasurer Rebecca Blaikie agreed to take the lead in a review of the party's rules, regulations and precedents as they apply to this matter.
In due course she'll be making appropriate recommendations to our executive committee and federal council.
I'm not going to play any role in that review. In the event I were to become involved in the leadership race it would then also be appropriate for me to take a leave from my duties as President. I well understand that this can't remain an open question for too very long.
He does not rule out here that he would remain President while the party, ie Council, makes it decisions about the rules of the leadership campaign. Nor does he state categorically that he will not be involved in determining those rules before declaring his candidacy. Again too smart by half for Mr. Topp I think.
It is not that tricky Brian. You do not get to play the game and make up the rules of it too. Just say that and we can move on to something more substantive.
I disagree. He's admitted that he is considering it. So at least we know the rumours are not totally off base.
He's also trying to balance his current position with this. He's promised a decision soon, and that's good enough for me.
I can't see Topp running without a fair amount of support from the party establishment. So if he's in, that tells me they don't care for Mulcair. Honestly, this puts me in a quandry. The establishment has done a very good job in recent years moving the party forward. I give them a lot of credit, and have a lot of trust in their judgement.
But on the other hand, I like what I see in Mulcair when he's on the news. Sharp, smart, articulate.
I'm going to be taking my time deciding who to support. Because I'm baffled.
I am very encouraged that Brian Topp is considering a run. He is a principled and articulate social democrat who can unite New Democrats across the country. I hope he takes the leap.
Thanks for dropping by, Brian.
You don't know Brian very well, LP. He's not a frivolous person, and wouldn't even waste the time required to do something like that. When Brian's had something to say on Babble, he's signed his name to it.
