NDP Leadership 28

Peggy Nash looks poised to join the NDP leadership race on Friday. Here's the Toronto Star article and the bit from CTV.

There is also a Facebook event. 

Quote:

[Mulcair] lauded the fact that Doer's government reduced the small business tax rate in Manitoba to zero and said he'd reduce taxes for small business as well, although he declined to get into specifics of tax policy for now.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/26/pol-cp-mulcair-ndp-leader...

Quote:

“So that is a defining difference because I want to work with the unions, but I’m never going to be beholden to anybody other than the people who voted me there, which will be the membership of the party,” Mr. Mulcair said.

Not sure how that's anti-union. I think it makes sense to a great many New Democrats as well.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Quote:

“So that is a defining difference because I want to work with the unions, but I’m never going to be beholden to anybody other than the people who voted me there, which will be the membership of the party,” Mr. Mulcair said.

Not sure how that's anti-union. I think it makes sense to a great many New Democrats as well.

Yeah. I don't get the harsh reaction to this. Mulcair was against attempts to reinsert the 25% carve out for labour (affiliated organization) that two thirds of convention voted to eliminate.

Brian Topp and the Steelworkers were in favour of reinserting the carve out.

Is it really that surprising--in the context of Steel endorsing Topp--that Mulcair would say "yeah, Ken Neumann and I had a cordial disagreement about that"? Much less the quote above in which Mulcair explicitly states that he wants the party to work with unions.

Stargazer wrote:

No to Muclair. He appears to be jumping on the anti-union bandwagon. We don't need the NDP to be the Liberal party. We need them to be the NDP. Someone has to be there to stand up for and protect worker's rights. I like Muclair because he can kick Harper's butt, but I'm afraid it will mean we toss the unions aside. Not a good move in this day and age.

If all there is to this is that he opposed the carve-out, it is a tempest in a teapot, since many if not most in the Party agree with him. However, how he did it (or how he has been quoted as doing it) does make one wonder if he understands the relationship, regardless of how he feels about it. I felt that both Topp and Mulcair should have stayed out of the carve-out discussion (at least in public) from the beginning. Other aspects of the relationship should be addressed as a way of differentiating between the candidates. If we are not for worker's rights, then we become Liberals.

Have to chuckle at those who profess surprise and disappointment at Muclair and his anti-union stance.  It's been obvious all along he's on the right edge of the NDP, at least when it comes to economic issues.  But his defenders on here constantly admonished those who refused to join them in denying the obvious by continually asking for "proof."  I'm glad he has given it to them.

Josh... what is anti-union to say you're going to work with unions but it's the general membership of the party you answer to?

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Stockholm... you're saying the substance of his comments are fine... just the timing and audience is the issue?

I'll answer for myself, and say while I don't like the substance of his remarks at all, I'm just as shocked by Mulcair's lack of political instincts to say this while trying to win over the membership. I wouldn't have liked hearing it any more during a general election, but at least I could have recognized an intelligence behind the political calculation. I've been willing to give him a significant benefit of the doubt because I thought he was smarter than this. I won't be doing that anymore.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Josh... what is anti-union to say you're going to work with unions but it's the general membership of the party you answer to?

Hey, he's the one who raised it. Contrasting himself with someone who he implies is beholden to unions because of his past association with them. Somehow I don't think his purpose was to portray unions in a good light.

AnonymousMouse wrote:

And while there's a pretty large school of political strategy that you should run towards the base for a nomination and then run toward the centre in a general election, there's also a pretty large school of political thought that says that's a mugs game.

That's exactly the sense I get from Brian Topp.

josh wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Josh... what is anti-union to say you're going to work with unions but it's the general membership of the party you answer to?

Hey, he's the one who raised it. Contrasting himself with someone who he implies is beholden to unions because of his past association with them. Somehow I don't think his purpose was to portray unions in a good light.

Ever think he was asked about it by a reporter?

I will ask again... what is anti-union about Mulcair's comments? What is anti-union about “So that is a defining difference because I want to work with the unions, but I’m never going to be beholden to anybody other than the people who voted me there, which will be the membership of the party,”

If he means it and ends up PM, probably more pro-union than any other NDP government this country as ever seen.

Stockholm wrote:

This makes me start to think "If this is what Mulcair is saying while trying to win over the NDP base - what will he say when he is trying to win a general election??")

I think Mulcair has been pretty clear that what you see is what you get. I've heard that said about him by many people.

And while there's a pretty large school of political strategy that you should run towards the base for a nomination and then run toward the centre in a general election, there's also a pretty large school of political thought that says that's a mugs game.

I absolutely want someone who can win the leadership race campaigning on the same ideas/approach they intend to take to the general electorate. It gives them credibility as a straight shooter.

(Ironically, until Nathan Cullen's joint nomination announcement, I considered both he and Mulcair the best contenders in the race. It turns out I like straight shooters, but sadly Cullen shot himself straight in the foot.)

ADDING: Why shouldn't we have the confidence as a party to expect someone who's running for leader to run as if they were running for Prime Minister? Look at Bush, Clinton and Obama. We may all disagree with the political outcomes, but in all three of their first elections as president they--unlike their opponents--ran in the primaries on the same message they ran on in the general election (compassionate conservatism; economic change, a fair shake for people who work hard and play by the rules; hope, change and post-partisanship).

josh wrote:

"Beholden" is a buzz word. It's been used by the right to attack pro-union politicians since time immemorial. He could not have accidentally used that code word.

Of course it is. But that image still exists in people's minds. We'd be fools not to try to combat it.

So, if you want a pro-union candidate/leader who can actually beat Harper, wouldn't it be a good thing that they have the credibility not to get stuck with the "beholdened to the unions" label? And in that regard, wouldn't it be good to have a pro-union candidate/leader who can point to the fact that he or she was the ONLY leadership candidate to publicly support sticking with the OMOV system and reject reinserting the 25% carve out? And a candidate/leader who generally speaking has a reputation for not kowtowing to any one interest? Hell, if you were running for leader of the NDP, wouldn't you want to promote the fact that you are such a candidate?

The man's record of supporting unions is public record, he says right in the quote in question that he wants to work with unions and he's certainly not stupid. Thus I would suggest that answering "yes" to the questions above is a much simplier--and more accurate--explanation for his comments.

Also: Rather bold of him to choose a location in Joyce Murray's Vancouver-Quadra riding, when he could just as easily pick a "safer" spot in an NDP riding. On the other hand, Vancouver East's Libby Davies has already aligned with Brian Topp.

theleftyinvestor wrote:

I'm tempted to go... I have so little upon which to base a valid opinion of him nor other candidates so far. Anyone else?

Go! Love to hear how people perceive all candidates in a "social" setting like a Meet and Greet.

AnonymousMouse wrote:

josh wrote:

"Beholden" is a buzz word. It's been used by the right to attack pro-union politicians since time immemorial. He could not have accidentally used that code word.

Of course it is. But that image still exists in people's minds. We'd be fools not to try to combat it. So, if you want a pro-union candidate/leader who can actually beat Harper, wouldn't it be a good thing that they have the credibility not to get stuck with the "beholdened to the unions" .

Whoa, that's some convoluted logic. Not to mention some triangulating third-way positioning. Is that Blair and Clinton I hear?

Here we go:

Quote:

Mr. Cullen called Mr. Mulcair’s statement “unhealthy” and said the former Liberal was attempting to create a division, where there is none, to draw attention to his campaign. Mr. [Pat] Martin was surprised when told of Mr. Mulcair’s statement, and was also critical, saying it was not a “constructive” approach to the leadership race.

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2011/10/26/mulcairs-accusation-th...

Surely some "clarification" must be forthcoming.

I agree this looks like a serious tactical error on Mulcair's part.

He either made an ill-considered intemperate remark or it was a product of careful calculation. If the latter, what is his possible logic?

Certainly he could have decided that his real more important audience in the end is not the current NDP membership but the Quebec electorate as a whole. His judgment makes more sense in that context particularly given the current Quebec headlines. 

Second, with Nash's entry in the race, and the realization that he is going to have little or no union support while his two primary opponents have ample such support, perhaps he concluded that he gains by becoming the candidate of the members who are suspicious/resentful/dubious of labour's role in the party. Try to make a virtue out of necessity perhaps? 

Who is running Mulcair's campaign? 

I hate to say it, but this is looking more and more to me like it ends up in a train wreck...or a Peggy Nash coronation. 

Azana wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:

The man's record of supporting unions is public record, he says right in the quote in question that he wants to work with unions and he's certainly not stupid. Thus I would suggest that answering "yes" to the questions above is a much simplier--and more accurate--explanation for his comments.

I've been trying not to do this, but I can't stop myself. Mulcair has said excellent things about unions. But he has also said really bad things about unions. His record on unions and workers is mixed.

I don't want to seem dismissive of your point, but NDP governments face this sort of challenge dealing with unions all the time (and environmental groups and other groups). There's a HUGE difference between supporting unions, writ large, and never disagreeing with individual unions. And that difference inevitably comes to the fore when you're in government, managing competing priorities. I would also suggest that, in this case, the problem is compounded by the fact that, as I'm sure you know, Quebec unions often support sovreignist parties (for a variety of reasons). Those much starker political battlelines can lead to nastier exchanges on both sides. But saying someone doesn't support unions--or even that their record is mixed--is a very different thing.

JeffWells wrote:

Here we go:

Quote:

Mr. Cullen called Mr. Mulcair’s statement “unhealthy” and said the former Liberal was attempting to create a division, where there is none, to draw attention to his campaign. Mr. [Pat] Martin was surprised when told of Mr. Mulcair’s statement, and was also critical, saying it was not a “constructive” approach to the leadership race.

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2011/10/26/mulcairs-accusation-th...

Surely some "clarification" must be forthcoming.

Lou Arab wrote:

If Mulcair's position is anti-union than the entire NDP is anti-union, since Mulcair's position is reflected in the constitution of the party.

Having said that - I don't think it was wise for Mulcair to rub labour's nose in it quite so much. I hope that's simply a reflection of how the reporter wrote the article.

I can't help but feeling that this whole conversation is premised (almost) entirely on the way the reporter wrote the article, not what Mulcair said.

For heaven's sake, Mulcair says that because he publicly stood up against reinserting the 25% carve out that means he'll never be beholdened to anyone but the membership.

Now you've got the Hill Times shopping around the claim that Mulcair accused Brian Topp of being beholdened to unions? WTF?

(And, by the way, it's a little strange that Cullen and Martin missed the fact that despite the carve out being removed, there were a lot of people seeming to support reinstating it in the run up to the leadership race.)

I'm not going to be supporting Mulcair for the leadership, but that said, I think people are reading waaay too much into that statement.  It is a bit awkward and a little too aggressive for my tastes, but it hardly makes Mulcair anti-union.  Don't support his campaign if he doesn't inspire you, but let's not get into a drag down grudge match.  That only benefits the Conservatives.

josh wrote:

They're not shopping anything around. Mulcair said that a "defining difference" with Topp is that he's not going to be beholden to the unions.

Upon re-reading the quote, I don't think it's fair to say that Mulcair said that. Even if you assume the "defining difference" comment was directed at Topp (which isn't at all clear from the quote, but I'd grant is a fair assumption), Mulcair is pretty clearly saying that his SUPPORT FOR OMOV is a "defining difference". Now, he does go on to say that the reason it is a defining difference--the reason it's important--is because it means he won't be beholdened to anyone OTHER THAN THE MEMBERSHIP. Mulcair--and, indeed because the 25% was not reinserted, none of the candidates--will be beholdened to anyone the membership. That's a far cry from the way the Hill Times frames it as him "accusing" Brian Topp of being beholdened to unions.

As an aside, I should make clear, based my earlier comments saying I felt Topp's lines about "angry negative campaiging" and "not becoming Liberals" were directed at Mulcair, that I'm not claiming Mulcair isn't trying to contrast himself with Topp. I assume he is. The difference for me is that Mulcair has been drawing contrasts that reflect positively on himself (he's independent, he's experienced, he's a proven winner), while Topp has been drawing contrasts that seems solely directed at reflecting negatively on Mulcair (he's angry, he's a Liberal). If Topp were campaigning on the idea that he has a sunny, positive disposition that he thinks will be effective in 2015 or that he embodies social democratic values, I'd say that might be designed to contrast himself with Mulcair as well, but at least it would be based on promoting his own positive attributes. But I see no evidence that this is what Topp is doing. (Of course, if you reject the notion that Topp's earlier comments were directed at Mulcair in the first place, then the rest of my reasoning doesn't apply, but in that case I think you'd have to equally assume that Mulcair's comments here weren't directed at Topp.)

Either way the Hill Times is obviously shopping this around; they're calling up NDP MPs and asking them to respond to it.