NDP Leadership Thread - Part 3

Mountain, meet molehill.

ottawaobserver wrote:

Mountain, meet molehill.

What's that? The principle that Topp should have no role in determining how this is going to work until he disqualifies himself as a candidate? If so, I disagree. 

If instead you are referring to Topp's poorly-worded statement on the topic, I will grant you that, it is small potatoes. 

Here's how this would have been better done: Topp releases a statement this morning that as he is contemplating running for leadership, he is stepping down as party president immediately.   His final act as President is to have the party constitution (of which we are proud!) posted on-line and to encourage the Council to determine the ground rules for the leadership race soon, in a transparent democratic fashion etc. etc.

This would have given him a nice little boost out of the box I think. He needs to understand he is trying a very difficult transition -- from the back rooms to the candidate. In this it is essential that he try and negate the impression that he is devious, pulling strings behind the scenes.       

ottawaobserver wrote:

Your apparent glee in trying to pull out the worst possible interpretation of his quote, is what I was referring to. Everyone else in the country seemed to know what he meant.

Ok I get it, everyone but me knew what he meant, despite what he said. As for my tone I will try to strike a more solemn note from here. 

klexo wrote:

What's that? The principle that Topp should have no role in determining how this is going to work until he disqualifies himself as a candidate? If so, I disagree. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/08/ndp-leaders...

If this is true, the carve-out percentage is not in the Constitution. I don't remember the Constitution being changed to take it out though, and I've been to every Convention since 1989.

I would like to think Topp (and anyone else who is considering running and is potentially involved in the decisions on how to conduct the process) knows that they have to exclude themself from the decision on how and when the Leadership vote will be conducted.

I'm assuming that there will not be a regular Convention at the same time, given that it will be difficult enough to conduct a Leadership race on short timelines and the next one is not scheduled until 2013. This should prevent some idiot from getting the notion that passing a new preamble and electing a new Leader at the same time would be a good idea. Perhaps some sort of arrangement like the last BC NDP leadership with a central gathering (whatever you call it) plus local gatherings with the opportunity to vote at the time as well as by phone or on-line in advance.

Actually the timeline is longer than the BC NDP Leadership process, but that overlapped the BC Liberal race, and being confined to one albeit fairly large province with most of the population in the lower mainland and the Victoria area, there was far less travel than with a national campaign. Most candidates did not announce until a month or more had passed after Carole's resignation, but that included the Christmas period, and there was an obvious reluctance to announce too soon. The 2003 Leadership election process began the previous June with Alexa's resignation, and most candidates declared in July.

I'm thinking that the new Leader should come from the current caucus, but wouldn't be surprised if several people from outside the caucus decide to run. Presumably there will be someone from the Socialist Caucus this time too.

I have an idea for the NDP's leadership electoral process. I think the 25% affiliate carve-out is a bit of an anachronism and should be eliminated altogether. But we still have this problem of a caucus that is 58% Quebec and a membership that is about 2% Quebec, PLUS the reality that the leader is the leader of the parliamentary caucus. So why not do this - ditch the 25% affiliate vote and instead give the NDP caucus in the House of Commons a 25% weighted vote in the process. That way not only do we recognize the fact that caucus should have a role in picking their own leader, but we would also instantly be giving Quebec about 14% of the total vote just from their share of the 25% caucus carve out and that would help counter balance the lag in NDP membership in Quebec. 

Stockholm wrote:

I have an idea for the NDP's leadership electoral process. I think the 25% affiliate carve-out is a bit of an anachronism and should be eliminated altogether. But we still have this problem of a caucus that is 58% Quebec and a membership that is about 2% Quebec, PLUS the reality that the leader is the leader of the parliamentary caucus. So why not do this - ditch the 25% affiliate vote and instead give the NDP caucus in the House of Commons a 25% weighted vote in the process. That way not only do we recognize the fact that caucus should have a role in picking their own leader, but we would also instantly be giving Quebec about 14% of the total vote just from their share of the 25% caucus carve out and that would help counter balance the lag in NDP membership in Quebec. 

The caucus already has a role. They get to vote as members and they get to endorse candidates to much pomp and circumstance, something the ordinary member certainly cannot do. They also earn $200k + massive benefits, which makes it easy for them to donate the individual maximum to candidates if they like, unlike the ordinary member. They also have platforms (e.g. riding associations, constituency offices) through which they can get out the word about their favoured candidate and networks to tap for communicating about these candidates and recruit delegates, built by the ordinary members but beyond our leverage. So give the caucus 25% aka have "NDP superdelegates" just like the Liberals and the 1968 Democratic Party of the United States? No thank you. 

klexo wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

Mountain, meet molehill.

What's that? The principle that Topp should have no role in determining how this is going to work until he disqualifies himself as a candidate? If so, I disagree. 

If instead you are referring to Topp's poorly-worded statement on the topic, I will grant you that, it is small potatoes. 

Here's how this would have been better done: Topp releases a statement this morning that as he is contemplating running for leadership, he is stepping down as party president immediately.   His final act as President is to have the party constitution (of which we are proud!) posted on-line and to encourage the Council to determine the ground rules for the leadership race soon, in a transparent democratic fashion etc. etc.

This would have given him a nice little boost out of the box I think. He needs to understand he is trying a very difficult transition -- from the back rooms to the candidate. In this it is essential that he try and negate the impression that he is devious, pulling strings behind the scenes.       

 

See my above comment.

It took what a day for such stupid in-fighting comments.   Good work.   Could it be Topp is still a bit rattled by the death of a close friend and collegue and is a bit taken aback that anyone would be even suggesting he run for the leadership and is trying to come to terms with it.  Why not wait a bit before anyone actually does anything before throwing knives around.

Yes, please, LTUE. I don't want anyone who might grow into the job to be pushed out before I get a chance to hear them out and decide for myself. And I'd be willing to consider quite a wide range of candidates without preconditions.

The media have to fill column inches, but don't let their coverage dictate or direct anything.

JeffWells wrote:

I'd like to borrow that, and throw it back at the anonymous party insiders talking shit about Mulcair last week, of all weeks.

Whenever you read the phrase "anonymous party insiders", substitute the phrase "junior staffer who has been stroked by the reporter, and is speculating based on what he or she read in the Hill Times".

It will give you a much more accurate picture of what's going on.

It is amazing to me how often Jack's words about love and less anger have been used as a sword against various posters.  I guess anything can be a weapon in some peoples hands.  

Does anyone know whether it is likely that the riding association will set a long enough time frame to sell memberships or will the nomination be announced and be held so soon afterwords that it means only current members get a vote?   

Paul Dewar just told Power and Politics that he hasn't made any decisions yet, and won't until at least after the pre-session Caucus meeting.

No nobody knows.  Any suggestion by anyone is pure speculation at this point.  I think we can expect that the time frame will be such that selling new memberships and growing the base will be a priority.  But also getting on with the job of being the government in waiting will also be a priority.  Any forthcoming decisions will be a balance between those two priorities.

And again I say, let's start with the assumption that those involved in the process want the best for the NDP until it is shown otherwise, even if you disagree with what is best for the NDP.  Attacking people based on rumours and gossip reported in the media as gospel is rather unproductive.

And JeffWells I did just that around Mulcair in the previous thread.  The difference this time was I was responding directly to attacks on Brian Topp.   And I say again ascribing motives and actions to anyone from nameless sources is rather unproductive.  See Ottawaobservers saged and experience comments on this as she says it better than anyone.

Holy crap - the names were flying fast and furious on P&P today! I couldn't keep track of them all.  Rob Silver thinks it will be Brian Topp.

ps: who is Rob Silver??? I've seen him on P&P a couple of times now.

Paul Dewar, Brian Topp, Olivia Chow, Charlie Angus, Peggy Nash, Tom Mulcair, Peter Julian, Megan Leslie, David Miller...did I miss any?

I think the two mentioned as the ones most likely to win (on P&P) at the end were Brian Topp or Thomas Mulcair. Over at CTV, the Power Play host suggested Olivia Chow would be everyone's sentimental choice and the one best able to carry on Jack's legacy, but also said it's very unlikely that she will run. (have either Topp or Mulcair definitely said they will run?)

Goddess, now we already know the final two names on the ballot without knowing who all the candidates are and how members will respond to them. I wish I could get a gig as a pundit.  Just make shit up, you never are called on it, all without knowing much of anything.   What a gig that would be.  Anyone know of any openings?

I've let my passions run ahead of events today. I'm going to try to walk them back and wait and see how this unfolds.

Boom Boom wrote:

Dewar also said  "...as you know, we're having our get-together in Quebec City".

Yes, he was referring to the pre-session Caucus meeting, which is still scheduled to be held in Quebec City.

Ian Capstick is remaining neutral unlike the other lib/tory complainers, but alas his opinion is irelevant in the long run. What matters is the kingmakers like Ed Broadbent who breathed life into Layton's leadership bid. Stephen Lewis and all party elders must encourage a civil leadership campaign. The whole ndp insider attacks on Mulcair are disgusting if they are remotely true. Let there be DEBATE, not liberal party style survival of the fittest/wealthiest. Does anyone have an exact date of the leadership race?

JeffWells wrote:

Machinations from party insiders to isolate and undercut Mulcair could send the party back three years. Which is a lifetime ago. I can't believe such a self-inflicted wound is even on the radar.

We don't even know that Mulcair has now or has previously had any leadership aspirations. Remember, he himself never gave any indication that he wanted to be leader over the years, that idea was floated by pundits. In fact, the idea was floated by pundits who said over the years, "Jack Layton is going to fall on his face in the next election, but Mulcair would be a good person to replace him with." As LTUAE pointed out, that's not much to go on. As for Mulcair not running? Perhaps he never was interested in running for the leadership in the first place.

In any case, I think without a set timeline or any officially declared candidates, talking about specific individuals is pointless at this juncture. I think right now the discussion should focus on the general question of leadership, specific leadership qualities that would push the NDP over the top.

"I think right now the discussion should focus on the general question of leadership, specific leadership qualities that would push the NDP over the top."

Well said, Aristotleded.

Count out David Miller, he let his membership lapse and we don't want a toronto mayor on board.  I suggest Peggy Nash not run as well.

Paul Dewar is a modern voice, but I don't think he can't stand a debate like Jack did. Thomas Mulcair said he was not going to run, and I think this ndp insider battle is silly if it is true.  We do need to increase membership in Quebec, we must build a socio-democratic base there that will never be shaken! All around we need more membership of progressives.

I want to personally hear more about Brian Topp, Peter Julian, Nathan Cullen(if its possible) and Charlie Angus.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Anybody think Ruth Ellen Brosseau could pull it off? ;)

It might be worth the gamble.

dacckon wrote:

Thomas Mulcair said he was not going to run...

Excuse me?

Source?

I'm surprised, now that I think of it, that Frances Lankin's name hasn't come up. How's her french, and what is she doing these days.