One thing's for sure, there is gonna be a good finish to this leadership race. Things are heating up!
NDP Leadership 28
Wed, 2011-10-26 20:58
#52
knownothing
Wed, 2011-10-26 21:49
#53
There is an elephant in the room as to the tactical wisdom of Mulciar's move and what end game strategy it may be part of.
People have mused whether maybe Mulcair thinks he can flood the NDP with new members in Quebec that will vote for him.
There is another, or additional, possibility.
I am often reminding people of the fallacy in their assumption that the NDP membership is left of the leadership. What you hear from is the activist membership, not members in general. And that is further qualified as the activist membership that participates in the affairs of the party, not the activists that work elections. Overlapping groups, but not the same.
And my experience is that at least in the Praries and the Maritimes the general membership is at least as inclined to centrism as the leadership. And I suspect the same is at least somewhat true outside the big cities of BC and Ontario that produce the bulk of activists in the BC and ONDP.
So there is a natural constituency in the existing NDP membership for a more overtly centrist approach. The question is. will they vote? Which in turn is again a question of organization- people not previously engaged dont vote without contact, and usualy require multiple contact.
I think the same advice in the Mulcair campaign that thinks wedge politics within the party is a good idea, is likely to rate very highly the prospect they can organiza this constituency that otherwise largely would not vote.
Wed, 2011-10-26 21:52
#54
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"?
One of the benefits in holding one's fire until the dance card is complete, is that we don't know yet what pokes Mulcair will take, if any, at a candidate who worked for many years for the CAW.
As I mentioned two threads back, of the 40 female NDP MPs in the House, two are potential candidates, 15 are supporting a candidate, and 23 are uncommitted. Of the 62 male MPs in the House, four are candidates, one is a potential candidate, 29 are supporting a candidate, and 28 are uncommitted. So 58% of female MPs are waiting for Nash and Ashton, while only 47% of male MPs are.
This picture will change significantly in 36 hours.
Wed, 2011-10-26 22:30
#55
As I mentioned two threads back, of the 40 female NDP MPs in the House, two are potential candidates, 15 are supporting a candidate, and 23 are uncommitted. Of the 62 male MPs in the House, four are candidates, one is a potential candidate, 29 are supporting a candidate, and 28 are uncommitted. So 58% of female MPs are waiting for Nash and Ashton, while only 47% of male MPs are.
This picture will change significantly in 36 hours.
Are you saying they're waiting to see the whole field and then make a decision or that they're waiting to back specific candidates?
Wed, 2011-10-26 22:32
#56
Waiting to hear Mulcair speak, rather than going on the strength of a MSM piece that's looking to create controversy would also seem a wise course, before going into the knotted knickers routine.
Wed, 2011-10-26 22:40
#57
In 1995 the NDP was so DEAD outside of the Prairies that Nystrom won the OMOV primary largely because something like over half of the votes cast were in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and to people there Alexa was an unknown and Svend Robinson was a bit too well-known. Also in 1995 the only purpose of the "primary" was to determine who was allowed to be on the ballot at the convention - so there wasn't much point in having non-Prairie candidates like Svend and Alexa pour resources into chasing down votes in SK and MB.
Doesn't change the fact that the rank and file supported a certain candidate over the others. Are you trying to say they voted for Nystrom in the primary just to make sure he made it to convention and then would have gone elsewhere had they been a delegate? I think people generaly voted for who they wanted as leader in the primary. But then, the members who went to convention as delegates... the activists...went down a different path.
And all candidates campaigned in all regions before the primaries. Alexa's campaign manager if I recall was Judy Wasylycia-Leis from Manitoba. Not as if she didn't have plenty of contacts, etc. in Manitoba.
Wed, 2011-10-26 22:55
#58
RevolutionPlease
GO, Ms. Nash, GO!
Wed, 2011-10-26 23:11
#59
Mulcair is supposed to be an experienced politician. He ought to have been able to see the pitfalls in that line of questioning, but either (a) didn't see them because he's unaware of how they would be seen within the party, (b) didn't see them because he's not as good with the media as advertised, (c) thinks the answer gives him some kind of advantage, or (d) has been given some very bad advice.
Ken's right that this could be dialled back, but it would have to be done very quickly. It's not the pro- or anti-union aspect that's bothering me; I accept that he has a good record on labour relations issues in general, but does not identify exclusively with the labour movement in his political priorities. What bothers me is the appearance that he thinks he can win the party leadership by dropping a bomb into party solidarity. We will need all hands on deck, pulling in the same direction. That's what Jack gave us, and I'm not thrilled to say the least with the idea of blowing it up. If Mulcair didn't realize that's what he was doing, he needs a serious education in the party culture, and not from the mainstream media who have a cartoonish perspective on it. If he wants to be taken seriously as a leadership candidate, he needs to dial that kind of talk back, and start listening more than talking.
Wed, 2011-10-26 23:18
#60
GO, Ms. Nash, GO!
My worry about Nash is her understanding of Quebec culture and politics. That's part of how an NDP finally connected with Quebec. I don't care if they live in Quebec or not... I just care that they understand Quebec.
Does Nash?
Wed, 2011-10-26 23:23
#61
Mulcair is supposed to be an experienced politician. He ought to have been able to see the pitfalls in that line of questioning, but either (a) didn't see them because he's unaware of how they would be seen within the party, (b) didn't see them because he's not as good with the media as advertised, (c) thinks the answer gives him some kind of advantage, or (d) has been given some very bad advice.
Ken's right that this could be dialled back, but it would have to be done very quickly. It's not the pro- or anti-union aspect that's bothering me; I accept that he has a good record on labour relations issues in general, but does not identify exclusively with the labour movement in his political priorities. What bothers me is the appearance that he thinks he can win the party leadership by dropping a bomb into party solidarity. We will need all hands on deck, pulling in the same direction. That's what Jack gave us, and I'm not thrilled to say the least with the idea of blowing it up. If Mulcair didn't realize that's what he was doing, he needs a serious education in the party culture, and not from the mainstream media who have a cartoonish perspective on it. If he wants to be taken seriously as a leadership candidate, he needs to dial that kind of talk back, and start listening more than talking.
What percentage of union households traditionally vote NDP? What percentage of rank and file union members are NDP members? If I recall, Mulcair has said before he'd rather connect with the rank and file of labour. Often, it's the union leadership we have in support of the party.
Wed, 2011-10-26 23:39
#62
Malcolm
Historically, union voters were more likely to support the Liberals tha the NDP. I suspect that was not the case last May.
Thu, 2011-10-27 00:49
#63
Historically, union voters were more likely to support the Liberals tha the NDP. I suspect that was not the case last May.
Probably wasn't the case in 2008 either.
Thu, 2011-10-27 00:57
#64
Before this union thing, I was leaning to rank Mulcair above Topp in a head-to-head contest; now I've flipped my preferences.
I agree with Stuart. "Beholden to the unions" is a right-wing talking point.
I'm leaning towards Peggy Nash, with Mulcair dead last.
Thu, 2011-10-27 01:01
#65
I have to say that I wanted to like Mulcair. I had a very open mind towards him - but so far I just think he seems like a bit of a "loose cannon". To me the biggest advantage he offered was that he was a very experienced smooth politician etc...but so far he keeps saying things that make me question his political instincts.
I'll take a hard look at Peggy Nash. I'm intrigued by Niki Ashton. Dewar is wonderful but his French just doesn't cut the mustard. I'm not averse to Topp either - but I need to see some evidence that he can "connect" with people.
Thu, 2011-10-27 01:08
#66
Much as Mulcair's remarks about being "beholden" to unions are problematic, we do have to remember that unions are not perfect and that people within can fall victim to the same kinds of power struggles as any other organization. Being backed by the unions is also no guarantee of anything, as Gary Doer himself was a key player in the MGEU before becoming leader of the Manitoba NDP. It's important to look at the personal histories of the individuals involved as well.
Thu, 2011-10-27 01:10
#67
I just think Mulcair is proving to have poor political instincts...I have no problem at all with him implying that as NDP leader or as PM he is never going to be a "yes-man" or a "puppet" of the CLC. That's a given. I would be very leery of a leadership candidate who said "If I become NDP leader, anytime Ken Georgetti says "jump" my response will be "how high?"". But Mulcair is choosing his words very poorly and is being gratuitously provocative.
Thu, 2011-10-27 01:19
#68
Historically, union voters were more likely to support the Liberals tha the NDP. I suspect that was not the case last May.
Probably wasn't the case in 2008 either.
And I assume a lot of it went to the... Tories?
Thu, 2011-10-27 01:51
#69
"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.
Just like the NDP says the Tories and Liberals are beholden to big business? Buzz word... lol
Thu, 2011-10-27 02:59
#70
Much as Mulcair's remarks about being "beholden" to unions are problematic, we do have to remember that unions are not perfect and that people within can fall victim to the same kinds of power struggles as any other organization. Being backed by the unions is also no guarantee of anything, as Gary Doer himself was a key player in the MGEU before becoming leader of the Manitoba NDP. It's important to look at the personal histories of the individuals involved as well.
Of course. I actually don't support the special status, it has the effect of demobilzing rank and file workers and gives too much power to the union leadership. I support one member one vote, but also a more working class orientation for the party. The problem is that when leadership candidates who come out against the special status do so for the opportunistic reason of distancing the party from unions.
Thu, 2011-10-27 03:27
#71
I just think Mulcair is proving to have poor political instincts...I have no problem at all with him implying that as NDP leader or as PM he is never going to be a "yes-man" or a "puppet" of the CLC. That's a given. I would be very leery of a leadership candidate who said "If I become NDP leader, anytime Ken Georgetti says "jump" my response will be "how high?"". But Mulcair is choosing his words very poorly and is being gratuitously provocative.
Mulcair may be choosing his words poorly for the NDP establishment, but I think he's scoring consistent home runs with the centre-left folks we have to win over at the ballot box in 2015. It remains to be seen whether his strategy will propel him to victory in the leadership, but I can guarantee one thing: he will have neutered many Tory and MSM talking points in 2015 if he does win. By campaigning (publicly) on the right of the party, if he were to win, he could tilt as left as he wanted in a general election and no one would dare accuse him of such.
So far my impressions are that Topp is playing to the NDP base, Mulcair is playing to Canada and Cullen is playing to Bob Rae and Elizabeth May.
Thu, 2011-10-27 03:34
#72
Running against the NDP establishment could work for Mulcair - and that group includes union leaders. This might've been too unsubtle a way of doing that.
Thu, 2011-10-27 03:40
#73
Well the Mulcair meetup in Vancouver was interesting. I did not count any current MLAs or MPs among the group, but I did recognize Dana Larsen from the leadership contest. Someone said he was a former MLA but I can't recall who. Former federal NDP candidates Victor Elkins (Vancouver-Quadra 2011) and Michael Byers (Vancouver-Centre 2008) attended as well.
I walked in partway but got to her him talk about a few things including Quebec provincial politics, his take on Nathan Cullen's co-operation idea, the NDP's official stance on Israel/Palestine and other things. I signed Mulcair's nomination papers, as well as Paul Dewar's which were being passed around by one of his supporters. Mulcair had no problem with this and even signed Dewar's papers himself. I shook hands and introduced myself. He seemed friendly but a bit itchy to not let any one conversation go too long.
I asked if he knew of any plans for debates. What he said was that the party is working on organizing them, but candidates have been advised not to accept any debate invitations just yet, so that the NDP can have some say over the process rather than have an inconsistent patchwork of half-baked events. I look forward to watching as many as I can.
Thu, 2011-10-27 05:36
#74
What percentage of union households traditionally vote NDP? What percentage of rank and file union members are NDP members? If I recall, Mulcair has said before he'd rather connect with the rank and file of labour. Often, it's the union leadership we have in support of the party.
That is totally irelevant to the point OO is making [post60], to which you are supposedly responding. She opens saying the problem is not at all about what Mulcair said or thinks about unions and the NDP.
Thu, 2011-10-27 05:45
#75
"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.Just like the NDP says the Tories and Liberals are beholden to big business? Buzz word... lol
So you're equating the two? I guess it depends which side you're on, so to speak.
Thu, 2011-10-27 06:25
#76
Mulcair may be choosing his words poorly for the NDP establishment, but I think he's scoring consistent home runs with the centre-left folks we have to win over at the ballot box in 2015. It remains to be seen whether his strategy will propel him to victory in the leadership,
Do you think that he is only or primarily riling the party establishment? But to the main point: how about hitting some of those home runs- one at least- with issues of substance? The folks at the ballot box arent interested in those?
So far my impressions are that Topp is playing to the NDP base,
As in the tax the rich narrative? That has no resonance with the folks at the ballot boxes? If so, Topp is stupid. Because he could have chosen any number of issues on which to pander to the base that are dog whistles only they will remember. But he went and chose the one issue that if he is Leader which will never go away. Which leads one to think he must see it as a winner at the ballot box.
Thu, 2011-10-27 06:44
#77
I have just returned from abroad and read the most recent comments about Mulcair supposedly attacking labour. Forgive me for thinking from the tone of some of you that Mulcair had self-imploded.
Then I went back and read what he actually said:
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
This was clearly in the context of the OMOV issue and not a general ant-labour comment, as helpfullly explained by AnonymousMouse in #45 above.
I don't think we have ever got a clear version of what went on at the Sept. Federal Council meeting which set the rules for the leadership race. I think it would be most helpful if someone could explain what exactly happened there because this seems to be the context for Mulcair's much-impugned remarks.
My understanding is necessarily incomplete but for what it's woth here goes:
1. The last convention eliminated the 25% affiliate carve-out by a more than 2/3 majority.
2. Notwithstanding this certain people tried to reinstate it at the FC meeting, relying on some ambiguous language in the constitution that arguably gave the FC the discretion to do so.
3. Brian Topp was among thsoe who supported this. Thomas Mulcair was among those who opposed it.
4. FC decided to stick with the eleimination of the carve out.
On this reading the Topp forces seem to have tried to stage a minor coup which they believed would have advantaged him by enhancing the weight of labour. They tried and failed to change the rules in his favour.
Mulcair is simply saying that a defining issue between him and Topp is Topp's attempt to circumvent the OMOV rule to his own advantage.
I don't read it as Mulcair raising an anti-labour wedge issue at all.
If anything the opposite may be at play. Certain people are attempting to distort Mulcair's language to support an alleged anti-labour message. Can they not be seen as thhemselves attempting to drive a wedge between Mulcair and Labour?
Let's chill.
Thu, 2011-10-27 07:07
#78
Mulcair in Vancouver (from www.terahertzatheist.ca)
While I didn't manage to get a picture, tonight I did get to meet Thomas Mulcair, leadership candidate for the federal NDP, deputy leader, and Quebec MP.
Mulcair was a polished politician in the small Dentry's Pub. He managed to shake the several dozen hands a couple times each. He remarked to me that it's better to introduce yourself twice instead of never.
Once the crowd had assembled and he'd made his first round he gave a brief speech. I recorded it on my phone (I was at a bad angle so I just took audio), and you can listen here:
He emphasized the need to reach out to all Canadians and to present a credible alternative to Stephen Harper's Conservatives.
He took a couple questions and answered them all skillfully. One asked his thoughts about fellow contender Nathan Cullen's suggestion for cooperative nomination meetings. He shot it down arguing that New Democrats can and will be successfully, provided we actually believe in our movement. He was also asked about his thoughts on the Israel-Palestine issue, to which he stated his position is, and always has been, identical to the party's - one of peace through UN-led negotiations toward agreeable borders. He also rejected starting a Quebec provincial NDP for practical reasons - the party needs to establish roots for the 59 trees that sprouted in May.
I also recorded the questions, but I'm not sure if the audio is as good (the pub was quite noisy), so I'll likely not post them (unless I magically have time tomorrow to go through them).
Afterward he did another round and I managed to ask him a couple of my own questions.
I asked for his thoughts on the Occupy Movement, to which he responded that he is hoping to get to some of the protests to hear the concerns, but that it's foolish for any politician to tie themselves too closely at this stage. He argued that the movement is in a precursor stage where it's likely to lead to something more substantitive (similar to the environmental movement of the 60s).
There was also a brief mention of the need for electoral reform (associated to the discussion about whether the Occupiers need to get out to vote), and Mulcair noted that governments only tend to care about reform when they're at risk of being on the losing end of the math.
I should mention that Mulcair mentioned that he signed Romeo Saganash's nomination papers (and vice-versa) and at the meeting he also signed Paul Dewars - although he did make an offhand remark that there were some paper's he wouldn't sign. I signed both Mulcair's and Dewar's papers, not because I plan on supporting either in the race, but because I support a race with a diversity of viewpoints.
Overall Mulcair spent a little time with everyone, but not a lot of time with anyone. It's a striking contrast to a memory of mine of Jack Layton sitting at Avenue Pizza in Edmonton after a meeting with some random patrons at the bar (who also happened to be from the UofA Physics department). His goal wasn't to just get his face out there, but to actually connect with people.
Mulcair was sharply dressed as always (has the man ever not worn suit?) which prompted one lady I sat with at the start of the night to question whether he should have dressed down to meet the average NDP member, similar to how Harper donned a sweater-vest in a desperate to look human. I suggested that while Harper needs to appear casual, the NDP may need to appear more serious, so the suit may not be such a bad choice.
In any case, the event was quite positive, although it didn't win me over. Mulcair is a strong and smart politician. I do wonder if some of his "opening the tent" rhetoric is being overplayed by the media.
Mulcair is supposed to be back in Vancouver in December for the BC NDP convention, and the Vancouver Quadra NDP association (who hosted tonight's event) is hoping to have Paul Dewar in town next month. Most leaders should try to make it to Vancouver, as a bulk of the NDP's members are currently in BC. Any event I can get to, I plan on.
Thu, 2011-10-27 07:41
#79
I have just returned from abroad and read the most recent comments about Mulcair supposedly attacking labour. Forgive me for thinking from the tone of some of you that Mulcair had self-imploded.
Then I went back and read what he actually said:
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
This was clearly in the context of the OMOV issue and not a general ant-labour comment, as helpfullly explained by AnonymousMouse in #45 above.
I don't think we have ever got a clear version of what went on at the Sept. Federal Council meeting which set the rules for the leadership race. I think it would be most helpful if someone could explain what exactly happened there because this seems to be the context for Mulcair's much-impugned remarks.
My understanding is necessarily incomplete but for what it's woth here goes:
1. The last convention eliminated the 25% affiliate carve-out by a more than 2/3 majority.
2. Notwithstanding this certain people tried to reinstate it at the FC meeting, relying on some ambiguous language in the constitution that arguably gave the FC the discretion to do so.
3. Brian Topp was among thsoe who supported this. Thomas Mulcair was among those who opposed it.
4. FC decided to stick with the eleimination of the carve out.
On this reading the Topp forces seem to have tried to stage a minor coup which they believed would have advantaged him by enhancing the weight of labour. They tried and failed to change the rules in his favour.
Mulcair is simply saying that a defining issue between him and Topp is Topp's attempt to circumvent the OMOV rule to his own advantage.
I don't read it as Mulcair raising an anti-labour wedge issue at all.
If anything the opposite may be at play. Certain people are attempting to distort Mulcair's language to support an alleged anti-labour message. Can they not be seen as thhemselves attempting to drive a wedge between Mulcair and Labour?
Let's chill.
Welcome back from your travels.
What kept you?
Thu, 2011-10-27 07:47
#80
The wrath of Malcolm. Don't tell him I'm back.
Thu, 2011-10-27 08:00
#81
Nicky and others have said "all Mulcair said" followed by the mildest of quotations, and never addressing what people have said other than to say chill out. It's already clear I dont buy it.
But lets back up and leave it as "I dont buy it so far."
It is very clear that Mulcairs interviews of the previous 24 hours, particularly but not exclusively the Globe piece that was the turning point for me and others, that the blowback comes from anything but 'the establishment'. In fact, it is a lot of us for whom Mulcair was at least close to the top of the list, and who preferred him over Topp if it comes down to those two.
If it is the cant of the way the articles are written, or simply that Mulcair said what he intended but he and the team did not want the ripples they caused, then TODAY there will be some kind of backing away, however it is worded.
But here is a wording that will not count as a dialback: "People seem to think I am making anti-union statements, blah blah blah."
That is NOT the issue, even if it does exacerbate for some. The only people who are saying he is anti-union are people for whom he was already on the bottom of the list, if not right off of it.
Defenders are saying that all he set out was that he wants less power for the unions, or even something as uncontroversial as he only wanted to speak for the membership and the integrity of OMOV. Bull, that is all he was saying.
I would not care if he did [just] come out and say he wants less power for unions in the NDP. I think its a red herring, but it is also a common sense in the NDP, and not a defining issue for me- not even close. Hell, its not even a defining issue for a lot of union people who do have influence in the party. The party has been drifting that way for a long time [as in parallel have a lot of unions]- if it was a defining issue, they would not still be around.
So the issue is not that Mulcair is perceived to be anti-union. If he chooses to address that, it is just a dodge of what bugs people.
And it is not just the staking that he wants less power or say or whatever it is for unions in the NDP- it is how he chose to frame that. It is perceived as a callous disregard for party processes. He framed himself as 'standing up' to a union leader who is not used to hearing 'no' [more bull by the way, but that is a tangent].... around an issue where people not only agreed to do it the way he asked, but publicly said it was the right way, the only way.
At a minimum, there is a perception that Mulcair delivered a low blow that shows a complete disregard for broad party processes. And the overwhelming majority of us who 'perceive' it that way are not establishment [more likely the opposite], and have no connection to unions.... it isnt the particular target of Mulcair's kick that bothers us.
A Leader does not go around gratuitously offending major chunks of the party beyond the targets he has chosen. And if a Leader happens to have done that unintentionaly or by miscalculation, he backs away.
If Tom Mulcair chooses not to dial this back, then I will take that to be a demonstration of the kind of Leader he would be.
Thu, 2011-10-27 08:34
#82
There is a very strong argument to be made that the next Leader of the NDP has to establish some distance between the party and unions, and that this does not happen with simple wave of the hand statements.
And there is certainly a solid case that the potential Leader who sees that he has a greater ability to do this should claim that as an asset. Which is done not by milquetoast staements to that effect. And it follows that there is good reason to point to Brian Topp as someone who will always be saddled by baggage, and to return to that theme through the campain.
All of that is the perfectly legitimate stuff of a leadership campaign.
But does that require, or even suggest, that at the outset of his campaign- do you really think getting the broad public to beleive requires that?
The timing and the framing IS a signal that this is to be one of the features of the campaign- with Mulcair moving to establish this as his turf in an agressive manner....... and regardless of whether it was intentional, touches off a reaction that he does not give a shit about party processes and culture from people who have argued against the validity of the 'not a team player' tag put on him.
Thu, 2011-10-27 08:34
#83
Guess you missed his clear statement that young people today are carrying heavy environmental, economic and social issues in their backpacks. Perhaps you missed him talking about solutions for the horror show of the Tarpatch. Heard anyone else speaking directly to power and western politgics in that manner? Try to rise above psychoanalysis and above analysis from other sources put into an incredible stew of conjecture.
Thu, 2011-10-27 08:44
#84
No one is going to win the leadership by running on the right of the party.
Thu, 2011-10-27 08:50
#85
I would not rule that out. At least not rule it out where for many members it is not clear he is doing that.
But signalling that the left of the party does not like, the rest are not sure about, and then making other moves that people across the ideological spectrum eliminate you as their second choice.... hardly looks like a recipe for success.
Thu, 2011-10-27 08:51
#86
Try to rise above your dismissive tagging of babblers.
Leaving that aside- every candidate talks of all sorts of things.
Whether or not they get reported as intended, and/or want to back away even if it was accurate, a candidate in Mulcair's situation yesterday KNOWS this is the moment you are rollingl out what you want to feature. Not necessarily what will be the only feature. But at least A top priority and possible the top priority since it is first up.
All those other things they have talked about are not equal for the message they want to get to the membership, until and if they feature them as well.
Thu, 2011-10-27 09:01
#87
Daring to speak to Canada's broader economic questions rather than tiptoeing past them in typical New Democrat fashion also seems to have a chilling effect.
Thu, 2011-10-27 09:06
#88
Dont be thinking that because a lot of members like what Mulcair said, that he is fine. First of all- only the ones for whom he rose in estimation matter. There is little strategic gain in impressing those who had already decided he is or probably will be their first choice.
But even if there are significant numbers of members for whom Mulcair's stock rises with yesterday's performance- as I believe is probably the case- remember Svend Robinson in the leadership race. His supporters were shocked, and that was like Svend not to take account of that, but he knew that he was few people's second choice. So being well ahead in first place was not good enough by a long shot.
That does not happen only with delegated voting.
I do not think Mulcair has torched his chances for crucial second choice preferences. But he does seem to be working on it.
Thu, 2011-10-27 09:11
#89
Daring to speak to Canada's broader economic questions rather than tiptoeing past them in typical New Democrat fashion also seems to have a chilling effect.
More than a little enigmatic. No idea what you are referring to.
Are you referring to Mulcair bringing up the broader economic questions? And that had a chilling effect? Or that he doesnt because it has a chilling effect?
Like the 'chilling effect' after Brian Topp makes a defining feature of the need to tax the rich more?
Thu, 2011-10-27 09:12
#90
Well, you know what Napoleon said about eggs and omelettes, on the eve of Waterloo. :)
Thu, 2011-10-27 09:14
#91
Wow. Thanks for the clarification.
Thu, 2011-10-27 09:16
#92
Topp suggesting raising taxes on the rich seems to be a clear attempt to address the economy. I'm eagerly awaiting his next plank when he announces taxes on corporations need to be increased.
Thu, 2011-10-27 09:45
#93
He talked about that at the same time. I think 'next plank' would be something in a different policy area... or possibly like Mulcair's plank, delving into, ah, internal party processes.
Thu, 2011-10-27 10:03
#94
Nicky and others have said "all Mulcair said" followed by the mildest of quotations, and never addressing what people have said other than to say chill out. It's already clear I dont buy it.
But lets back up and leave it as "I dont buy it so far."
It is very clear that Mulcairs interviews of the previous 24 hours, particularly but not exclusively the Globe piece that was the turning point for me and others, that the blowback comes from anything but 'the establishment'. In fact, it is a lot of us for whom Mulcair was at least close to the top of the list, and who preferred him over Topp if it comes down to those two.
If it is the cant of the way the articles are written, or simply that Mulcair said what he intended but he and the team did not want the ripples they caused, then TODAY there will be some kind of backing away, however it is worded.
But here is a wording that will not count as a dialback: "People seem to think I am making anti-union statements, blah blah blah."
That is NOT the issue, even if it does exacerbate for some. The only people who are saying he is anti-union are people for whom he was already on the bottom of the list, if not right off of it.
Defenders are saying that all he set out was that he wants less power for the unions, or even something as uncontroversial as he only wanted to speak for the membership and the integrity of OMOV. Bull, that is all he was saying.
I would not care if he did [just] come out and say he wants less power for unions in the NDP. I think its a red herring, but it is also a common sense in the NDP, and not a defining issue for me- not even close. Hell, its not even a defining issue for a lot of union people who do have influence in the party. The party has been drifting that way for a long time [as in parallel have a lot of unions]- if it was a defining issue, they would not still be around.
So the issue is not that Mulcair is perceived to be anti-union. If he chooses to address that, it is just a dodge of what bugs people.
And it is not just the staking that he wants less power or say or whatever it is for unions in the NDP- it is how he chose to frame that. It is perceived as a callous disregard for party processes. He framed himself as 'standing up' to a union leader who is not used to hearing 'no' [more bull by the way, but that is a tangent].... around an issue where people not only agreed to do it the way he asked, but publicly said it was the right way, the only way.
At a minimum, there is a perception that Mulcair delivered a low blow that shows a complete disregard for broad party processes. And the overwhelming majority of us who 'perceive' it that way are not establishment [more likely the opposite], and have no connection to unions.... it isnt the particular target of Mulcair's kick that bothers us.
A Leader does not go around gratuitously offending major chunks of the party beyond the targets he has chosen. And if a Leader happens to have done that unintentionaly or by miscalculation, he backs away.
If Tom Mulcair chooses not to dial this back, then I will take that to be a demonstration of the kind of Leader he would be.
I had thought Mulcair's statement(s) would sober up the Mulcair kool aid drinkers. But apparently not. They're either denying that he said what he said, through elaborate interpretive gymnastics, or else pooh poohing it.
He has yet to "dial it back." Not that dialing it back would convince most that he didn't mean what he said. But at least it would show some sensitivity to those he dissed. If he continues not to, that silence will speak volumes.
Thu, 2011-10-27 10:48
#95
Something from Saganash in 2004 I just discovered, that should add to his appeal to those on the left of the party (from the UK's [url=http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=4602]Socialist Worker[/url]):
Why these people are angry with Blair
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE from Canada and the Arctic travelled to London last week to campaign against Tony Blair’s government for its refusal to recognise collective human rights.
Collective rights to land would give tribal and indigenous people some democratic control over if, and on what terms, companies were allowed to take over mining rights. They would also limit the ability of armed forces to use areas for military exercises.
The United Nations has been drawing up a declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples. But Britain is one of a handful of governments blocking its progress because it mentions collective rights.
...
Diom Romeo Saganash from the Crees of Northern Quebec adds, “Collective rights are important for everyone. It does not make sense to talk of an individual right to a safe environment, or to see peace and security as an individual right.”
The battles of indigenous people are rooted in processes that are recognisable to all.
“Wherever you go in the world—whether it is the Cree and the Innu in Canada, the Inuit in the Arctic, the African bushmen, the Maori in New Zealand or the Aboriginal people of Australia—you always find the same problems,” says Diom Romeo Saganash.
“We are defending our ways of life, our culture and our livelihood against the giant corporations, the states we live in and the influence of the US.”
Thu, 2011-10-27 10:55
#96
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
This was clearly in the context of the OMOV issue and not a general ant-labour comment
Fine. And I have already said that it is not an anti-labour comment- as have all of us the most ticked off said that is not the issue.
And you followed this with your version of how the OMOV issue played out within the party. Leaving aside that I think you left out a lot in that account, because it is really beside the point, which is:
We all agree the issue has been decided. There has never been any signs of acrimony from the process. In fact, all the influential labour leaders who either said or were reasonably assumed they thought there should still be a carve-out, went to some lengths after the decision to say that the right thing was done.
So what is Mulcair's purpose in bringing this out now?
Bearing in mind that this interview, and the CTV one the night before, was special and known to be.
There was a very similar dynamic to the Topp campaign. Topp was out immediately. So there were weeks of announcements of people supporting him.... with nary a word about about policy or vision or anything like that [except in the most general and saccharine terms that are pro forma minimums of things you say].
Then he chooses his moment to roll out what he wants to feature, and does it.
Mulclair announcing much later this is all compressed. So you have the announcements all rolled together at the launch. Then and in the following week it is sticking to those same pro forma minimums of generalities of vision, etc. Then he chooses his moment, and rolls out what he wants to feature.
So please someone tell us why you think that apparently closed issue should be so featured.
Thu, 2011-10-27 10:57
#97
M. Spector
Being backed by the unions is also no guarantee of anything, as Gary Doer himself was a key player in the MGEU before becoming leader of the Manitoba NDP.
I'm unsure what this means. Do you mean that Gary Doer came from a labour background to the NDP and then when he became leader he stabbed labour in the back?
Don't forget Gary Doer is one of Mulcair's [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-27#comment-1290... idols[/url].
Thu, 2011-10-27 12:20
#98
Seeing tweets today that Chisholm is making his announcement on Sunday.
Thu, 2011-10-27 12:24
#99
As was predictable and predicted that choice, 'I'll stand up to them' quote is making the rounds, rather than the ones Mulcairs defenders choose to recount. Again here at Macleans.
Mr. Mulcair recounted how he informed the Canadian national director of the Steelworkers, Ken Neumann, that he opposed a reserved voting block for unions at the NDP leadership convention in March. "It was quite clear he wasn't used to being told ‘no' by anyone in the NDP. And I said ‘no.'
This is a classic apocrophyl narrative. Complete with the typical considerable overstatement. Practical Ken Neumann knows very well that this is a controversial issue in the NDP, and he would not be surprised at being contradicted by me on this, let alone by Tom Mulcair. But exxageration is the stock in trade of politics when you want to drive home a point.
Thu, 2011-10-27 12:26
#100
Much as Mulcair's remarks about being "beholden" to unions are problematic, we do have to remember that unions are not perfect and that people within can fall victim to the same kinds of power struggles as any other organization. Being backed by the unions is also no guarantee of anything, as Gary Doer himself was a key player in the MGEU before becoming leader of the Manitoba NDP. It's important to look at the personal histories of the individuals involved as well.
Of course. I actually don't support the special status, it has the effect of demobilzing rank and file workers and gives too much power to the union leadership. I support one member one vote, but also a more working class orientation for the party. The problem is that when leadership candidates who come out against the special status do so for the opportunistic reason of distancing the party from unions.
This nails my position, except that I support OMOV weighted by riding so as to provide incentives to build our base outside of areas of traditional support.
But the problem is that Mulcair has framed his issue not as "we need union members to become more engaged as indviduals," but instead as "unions have too much power." That's what disqualifies him as a candidate for me. Depicting the Steelworkers as some group of special interest bullies comparable to Stelco is the kind of rhetorical move that made me leave the Green Party.
Thu, 2011-10-27 12:33
#101
Singer and children's entertainer Raffi was so inspired by late NDP leader Jack Layton's letter to Canadians that he turned it into a song and the recording, which he is encouraging Canadians to share, was released Thursday.
Titled Letter to a Nation, the song's lyrics use the final words from Layton's letter as the chorus: "My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/27/pol-layton-raffi.html