Well of course thats Brian's strategy- to release fragments. He's coming from the backroom and into the spotlight. He has to get media attention in order to build name recognition. He also has to, like every other campaign, build momentum.
NDP leadership 32
Thu, 2011-11-03 17:30
#52
dacckon
Thu, 2011-11-03 17:31
#53
Brian Topp HAS said less, period. He deliberately dropped out that GENERAL thing about taxing the rich. That was not the least bit fleshed out either, but since we like how that looks, and he made a statement that he and all of us know he can not back away from, there are no demands for clarity.
What he said afterwards essentially was that he was ambushed by a "would you ever under any circumstances" question in the interview. I suspect he could have handled the question better, but I agree with OO that the answers he has given are actually no more 'vague' than what Dewar put out.... not to mention that he has yet to flesh out an actual policy.
Thu, 2011-11-03 17:33
#54
OO that goes along with the thing I always felt about NDP communications and the pressure on them by our own members- why use 10 words when a thousand in 4 point type would do. One of the great things Jack did, and I guess Topp must have played a role in this, was to make communicating to those not already in the tent much more direct and a lot less long winded.
Thu, 2011-11-03 17:41
#55
Malcolm
I'm not intending to commit to Mulcair, but I think some of his criticism of the federal party culture are warranted - just as I despise Bob Rae but still believe there was some truth to his parting shots. As much as Jack Layton has moved the party's goalposts (both internally and externally), there is still a self-perception that we are not about seeking power, that sees electoral success as somehow a sullying of our high principles. That said, I agree with Ken's observation that Mulcair is overplaying that.
As to whisper campaigns, I agree that not responding these days is usually a non-starter. Essentially, though, there are two possible responses. Either you whine about it or you wear it and turn it around. Mulcair seems determined to wear it and to try and turn it into a positive. While he's been clumsy about it, I'm not convinced the apparent plan is a mistake. His problem is that he's undercutting the "I'll wear it and be proud of it" narrative by whining "it's a whisper campaign."
I recall the anti-Higgins whisper campaign in the Saskatchewan leadership. While it was never clearly determined who was shopping it, the basic criticism of Higgins was that she had little formal education and she was "just" a Safeway clerk. Frankly, ignoring would have been a better response than what the campaign did. They whined about it for weeks. Practically every time Deb spoke anywhere, she would talk about the whispers and how damned unfair it all was. Ironically, it was the Meili campaign that finally took the guts out of it with a stirring defence of the place of honest labourers in the leadership of the party. I was rather pleased with the line "I'm proud that our party has the same number of Safeway clerks as lawyers in our caucus."
(I'm referring to whisper campaigns that aren't dealing with false allegations of impropriety. Those require a specific denial and turning around.)
Thu, 2011-11-03 17:44
#56
Malcolm
Niki Ashton collecting signatures for NDP leadership race
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1079451
Pyle confirmed that a nomination form collecting signatures for Ashton, who has represented her Churchill, Man., riding since 2008, arrived at the joint campaign office for Saskatchewan NDP candidates Yens Pederson and John Nilson on Tuesday morning.Pyle could not say where else Ashton has sent the nomination forms.
Federal New Democrat leadership candidates need to collect the signatures of 500 party members — including a minimum of 50 from each of the five regions of Canada (Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies and BC/North) — and pay a non-refundable registration fee of $15,000 in order to enter the race.
Ashton was non-committal when asked about the nomination forms.
“I understand forms are out,” Ashton wrote in an email Tuesday. “Still thinking seriously about it.”
What's the holdup?
What holdup? Perhaps the Ashton campaign is working to its own schedule.
Just sayin' is all.
Thu, 2011-11-03 17:48
#57
Malcolm
As much as Jack Layton has moved the party's goalposts (both internally and externally), there is still a self-perception that we are not about seeking power, that sees electoral success as somehow a sullying of our high principles.
Really? You could say that about the NDP at various points in its existence, but this has been changing at least since the Quebec City convention when Jack specifically began talking about electing an NDP government. And I'd say that as of May 2011, that attitude is totally dead (much to the chagrin of pockets of longstanding members, of course, but dead nonetheless).
I wouldn't say it's dead - not by a long shot. But it has been dying a slow and painful death for the past 7-10 years. And the death throes have accelerated since May. But it is still very much there (and frequently represented in these parts.
Of course, it has always been stronger in some parts of the country than others, and it was very much a marginal viewpoint in SK, MB, BC, YT and more recently NS (ie, places where the party actually accomplished things). It always seemed strongest in ON - ironically gaining strength after the ONDP's one term in government. I think the Rae failure was so psychologically damaging for some ONDPers that they never wanted to risk the prospect of winning again.
IIRC, IP, you and I are both from parts of the country where the idea of principled irrelevance never had much traction to begin with.
Thu, 2011-11-03 17:52
#58
Meanwhile the one place in canada where the NDP seems to have no momentum whatsoever is Saskatchewan. In fact if i was to rank the 10 provinces by likelihood of electing an NDP government in the next decade - I would put Saskatchewan near the bottom above Prince Edward Island and Quebec (for obvious reasons) and in a tie with Alberta!
The Saskatchewan NDP may have had some great expertise at winning elections at one time - but someone let all the air out of that balloon some time ago
Thu, 2011-11-03 18:02
#59
Brian Topp HAS said less, period. He deliberately dropped out that GENERAL thing about taxing the rich. That was not the least bit fleshed out either, but since we like how that looks, and he made a statement that he and all of us know he can not back away from, there are no demands for clarity.
What he said afterwards essentially was that he was ambushed by a "would you ever under any circumstances" question in the interview. I suspect he could have handled the question better, but I agree with OO that the answers he has given are actually no more 'vague' than what Dewar put out.... not to mention that he has yet to flesh out an actual policy.
I disagree with you that he was "ambushed" by such a question. The guy should not have been a national campaign director if he didn't see the possibility for a question like that in such a context. I think he did, and I think he decided that taking the general opening on taxation now was exactly what messaging he wanted to come out of that interview, to leave it time to sink in (and maybe trial balloon it a bit) and then flesh out with further detail later.
I'm not so sure what was wrong about the way he answered that question, to be honest. It elicited several positive columns from not-the-usual-suspects agreeing that it was time to have this conversation again. While I'm not a decided supporter of Brian's or anything yet, I do give him substantial credit for that quite adroit move. We need to see more of these in fact, from more different candidates.
Thu, 2011-11-03 18:17
#60
Sorry for the confusion.
The 'ambush' was a question specifically on the HST- "would you ever under any circumstances"... which would be a follow-up to what I agree must have been his very delibearte taking of an opening to drop out the rich should pay more thing.
Which by the way CAN be used as a wedge later with the Conservatives. I think it is a safe presumption Brain is confident that the tables can be turned- that this is not something we will have to be on the defensive about.
Which by the way is reaping the fruit of Jack and Caucus being unequivocal about raising corporate taxes- with the Liberals playing me too, and the Conservatives leaving the issue alone because its one they could not win on. That is the kind of incrementalism I like to see: venture out when it is not without risks, but smart.
It works as predicted. Build on the long term opening later.
Thu, 2011-11-03 18:19
#61
Thu, 2011-11-03 18:29
#62
BTW, Ken. Is it a freudian slip that you keep typing his name as "Brain"?
Thu, 2011-11-03 18:30
#63
Lou Arab
Hold on to your hats, this could get bumpy.
Thu, 2011-11-03 19:07
#64
Hold on to your hats, this could get bumpy.
Perhaps the Globe missed it, but I think an appropriate response on Saganash's part would sound like:
"Having said that, Quebeckers have rejected these divisive debates and taken seriously Jack Layton's invitation to work together and strengthen our common future. If elected leader, I pledge to continue the work that Jack did to build bridges between French, English, and First Nations communities all over Canada because united we stand."
Thu, 2011-11-03 19:31
#65
People, read the bylines. This wasn't an interview by the Globe and Mail. It was an interview by the Canadian Press bureau, written up by Joan Bryden of CP, and published in the Globe and Mail. This is part of the same series of interviews that produced Topp on taxes, Mulcair on playing hockey in the corners, Dewar on the western strategy, and Cullen last night.
However, I will say that if Brian intended to raise the taxes question as the news from his interview, it would not surprise me. If Saganash intended this issue to be the news out of his interview, I do have some real questions about him as our leader. That is not the issue to lead with. Not right now.
Thu, 2011-11-03 20:05
#66
Would it have been a good thing to not say anything? It sounds obscure to us, but he was front and centre in Quebec during the referendum, and I would imagine that many in Quebec would remember this. Maybe he handled it clumsily, but certainly the Bloc will want to use this to their advantage next time, and it could very well cause problems in the future should Saganash win.
But like I said, I think a "we've decided to move forward together approach" is far better.
Thu, 2011-11-03 20:06
#67
Yes, and make sure to give them some other news rather than this.
Thu, 2011-11-03 20:29
#68
Of course, the irony here is that based on his personal experience, Saganash is the most well-positioned of all candidates to reconcile the differences between the French, English, and First Nations within Canada.
Thu, 2011-11-03 20:30
#69
Boom Boom
The Sherbrooke Declaration is one of several questions on Evan Solomon's Rapid Fire. And why not? It isn't in the policy of the other parties, so it stands out as something that pundits will grab on to.
Thu, 2011-11-03 20:43
#70
We count on a leader to raise issues that are in our interest when they're in our interest and progress can be made. You all are acting as though things work in a very passive way; that our politicians have to sit back and respond to what comes their way. But high level strategic communications involves knowing how to emphasize what you want emphasized at a certain moment, and downplaying other items - particularly those that have the potential to create division to no good immediate purpose. That's a basic requirement of the job, and it now looks to me as though two of the leadership candidates are missing it. And a third has disqualified himself as our chief strategist by advocating a foolhardy strategic approach for the party. Oh well,m at least that makes it easier for me to pick.
Thu, 2011-11-03 20:57
#71
Boom Boom
Same here. I think Saganash effectively wrote himself out of contention.
Thu, 2011-11-03 21:06
#72
Yes, and make sure to give them some other news rather than this.
And who is to say that he didn't give them other news??? It's not like these candidates can force the media to print what they want word for word. The media will use what they want from these interviews and run with what they think will sell the most papers. And what will do that better: printing the substance of what he said about the economy, environment and human rights or printing something flashy about how a candidate doesn't agree 110% with a policy that he didn't even say he would change?
The media is looking to pidgeon hole many of the candidates in this race and try to fit this race into the box that they want it in. This race does not fit their "lovely" normal storylines and they don't know what to do with it. So we end up with stuff like this.
I would say read the whole story: He never said in the piece that he was against the policy nor did he say that he would ditch it or anything like that. He did say that the members of the NDP made a choice and if the members decided to open up that debate again he would take part in that debate. What is so objectionable about that???
Thu, 2011-11-03 21:18
#73
Would it have been a good thing to not say anything? It sounds obscure to us, but he was front and centre in Quebec during the referendum, and I would imagine that many in Quebec would remember this. Maybe he handled it clumsily, but certainly the Bloc will want to use this to their advantage next time, and it could very well cause problems in the future should Saganash win.
But like I said, I think a "we've decided to move forward together approach" is far better.
I'm not sure he handled it clumsily at all. I think its some of the best responses I've read (or heard) from any leadership candidate so far as he seems to be pretty well informed about a lot of "legal nuances" that relate to the issue.
I do agree that his opinions on the issue might not be popular with a lot of people in Quebec (and also in other parts in Canada), so I can see that this might create "electoral challenges". But he is I think speaking from genuine conviction and I certainly don't see anything innept about his responses.
Thu, 2011-11-03 21:27
#74
The Sherbrooke Declaration is one of several questions on Evan Solomon's Rapid Fire. And why not? It isn't in the policy of the other parties, so it stands out as something that pundits will grab on to.
Yeah. Evan always asks this question of every NDP Leadership candidate so obviously he thinks its a pretty big deal. I'm not sure if its always part of the Rapid Fire. I did see his "Rapid Fire" interview with Thomas Mulcair. I can't remember what Mulcair responded but I think it was a "stock answer", rather than one where he says, "give me an hour to respond to that some time". 
I just wish that "Power and Politics" would one day ask us viewers as "Question of the Day":
Should we rename the "Watchdog" segment to "Lap Dog" as some viewers think that we always read the most boring and bland responses to our question of the day?
Thu, 2011-11-03 21:27
#75
dacckon
I understand what Saganash is trying to say and agree with it in part. But in politics one must remember, its not what you say but how you say it. I wouldn't count him out through.
Oh and,
I have decided...
Thu, 2011-11-03 22:43
#76
Would it have been a good thing to not say anything? It sounds obscure to us, but he was front and centre in Quebec during the referendum, and I would imagine that many in Quebec would remember this. Maybe he handled it clumsily, but certainly the Bloc will want to use this to their advantage next time, and it could very well cause problems in the future should Saganash win.
But like I said, I think a "we've decided to move forward together approach" is far better.
I'm not sure he handled it clumsily at all. I think its some of the best responses I've read (or heard) from any leadership candidate so far as he seems to be pretty well informed about a lot of "legal nuances" that relate to the issue.
I do agree that his opinions on the issue might not be popular with a lot of people in Quebec (and also in other parts in Canada), so I can see that this might create "electoral challenges". But he is I think speaking from genuine conviction and I certainly don't see anything innept about his responses.
Absolutely there was truth to what Saganash said. In bringing up issues like this, there are ways that work, and ways that make the situation worse. Communication. What was going on? We don't know, we just have an obscure story in a few media outlets, and I look forward to hearing Mr. Saganash clarify things.
Thu, 2011-11-03 23:18
#77
The Romeo Sagnanash interview basically reiterates and updates the postition Saganash took publically a long time ago. The sovereigntist movement has never liked his position on these things but is not going to be surprised by it. I think the First Nations and Inuit have a unique position in debates about national unity and I'm glad their voices will be part of this leadership debate.
Oo, I don't think we disagree so much. Finely parsed vagueness is a hallmark of a certain type of political PR. I would expect the Topp campaign to be good at it. My point was that Brian Topp did not say what some people were attributing to him and that the sentiments about consumption taxes apparently expressed in the CP interview had not been actually contradicted by anything Brian has said since the article was published.
Dewar's position is specific, not vague. It is not a detailed tax policy, but as far as it goes, it seems crafted to present him as anti-consumption tax. His comments in the Canadian Press yesterday were pretty clear:
"He also dumped on Topp's suggestion that he'd be willing to consider hiking the federal sales tax, once the economy recovers.
Dewar said sales taxes are regressive job killers and any increase would hurt the poor the most."
He also said he prefers starting with closing tax loopholes and shutting down tax havens, before thinking about increasing income tax rates. So no, not vague.
I return to my original (and I thought, at the time, pretty uncontroversial) observation that pronoucements from the two campaigns "sets up an interesting contrast."
It's actually Paul Dewar's comments in that article about organizing that I find most interesting.
Thu, 2011-11-03 23:43
#78
Yes, he's a bit fan of Marshall Ganz, as am I. That aspect really came out in a Regina Leader-Post interview from the other week.
And I'll take your point on the other items. We don't disagree very much at all in fact, though I think you use the phrase "a certain type of political PR" to sound a little more derogatory than neutral, whereas I consider that skill one in a quiver of essential communication skills for a leader.
Fri, 2011-11-04 00:29
#79
Boom Boom
The Saganash For NDP Leader Facebook group has the article posted: Saganash questions validity of NDP signature policy on Quebec secession
Fri, 2011-11-04 04:00
#80
I'm not sure he handled it clumsily at all. I think its some of the best responses I've read (or heard) from any leadership candidate so far as he seems to be pretty well informed about a lot of "legal nuances" that relate to the issue.
I do agree that his opinions on the issue might not be popular with a lot of people in Quebec (and also in other parts in Canada), so I can see that this might create "electoral challenges". But he is I think speaking from genuine conviction and I certainly don't see anything innept about his responses.
Jack Layton is actually getting some very serious reinforcements on this whole question of secession, in the person of Romeo Saganash, his new MP from Nunavik. Saganash has long served on the executive of the Grand Council of the Crees of Northern Quebec, whose 1996 book Sovereign Injustice is a masterful survey of the legal literature and political debate on secession. The book is linked, in several sections, from this page; the introduction, by Saganash’s colleague Matthew Coon Come, is here. The Cree, with the Solicitor General of Canada and the (NDP) government of Saskatchewan, had the most direct influence on the Supreme Court of Canada when they wrote their 1999 decision on the Secession Reference.
Fri, 2011-11-04 06:52
#81
You guys can agree on Dewar, Topp and the sales question. But I'll pass.
Peter said that Topp has done nothing to contradict the media report that he would consider increasing sales tax. He has- just not as fulsome a contradiction as you would like.
You are putting a lot of stock in Dewar's simple statement of contrast, that Topp said he would consider it. I dont blame Paul for using that- fair game. But its another thing taking Paul's words as the final word.
I have not heard the whole interview, but Brian says he was pushed into a corner. He did not say in unembellished terms he would consider a sales tax increase, and he said immediately after the article came out that was not his intent. I dont see why anyone would not accept his word on that. What I took away from that is that he should not have let himself be cornered- that while it may not be easy, that is one of the basic jobs of a Leader.
Which is a segway to what Romeo Sagnash said in his interview- exact same set-up as Topp.
Fri, 2011-11-04 07:14
#82
[Dewar] also said he prefers starting with closing tax loopholes and shutting down tax havens, before thinking about increasing income tax rates. So no, not vague.
Not vague on the surface maybe, but the classic Dipper dodge. Talking about raising income taxes- even for the rich- has long been taken as the third rail for New Democrats. At the very least, it has always been agreed to be risky. And while it is not the be all end all, it is a hurdle we have to clear to be able to achieve ANYTHING in government.
Doing something about tax loopholes and havens is the non risky but inherently vague thing to say. No risks. Good and necessary backup to raising taxes, but not something that in itself will significantly change the government revenue picture, or is it the prospect of a succesful wedge that can be built on.
I'm not quibbling with Paul's program. I think its great in its own right, and a nice push at the other candidates to come out with their own substance. What I take issue is your straw man comparisons with Topp.
Fri, 2011-11-04 07:16
#83
Who is Marshall Ganz?
Fri, 2011-11-04 09:38
#84
Brian Topp and Romeo Sagnash each went into the same 'marquee' editorial board structured interview.
You can count on both opportunities for more time than you will get anywhere else to get what you want out there. And you can count on some tough questions aimed right where you are vulnerable.
It is not at all as cut and dry as 'the media will say what you want'. It isnt easy, but you can steer it by framing what you want to get out there in a manner that you know they will find interesting. Converesly, you look ahead for general strategies on not giving them the gift of being able to focus on something you dont really want to be talking about- for priorization reasons even if not because it is a touchy subject for you.
While you think ahead about strategies, a lot alos depends on your skill at seizing opportunities and avoiding pitfalls in the uncharted flow of the question and answer. And this is not a cut-throat group out to get you. Other than friendly alternative media, this is going to be one of the best opportunities you will ever get.
It is pretty clear Brain went in there with the intent to effectively launch the rich should pay more taxes narrative. And as it turns out, and not surprisingly, there were converstains with Jack Layton, Ed Broabent and others that maybe this was finally the time for the NDP to go in what has heteretofore been considered territory too dangerous. [Among other things, no NDP government has ever done it, let alone an NDP section reaching for government.]
The opportunity was pretty sure to come up- since for those journalists it is one of those obvious tough questions. And Brian worked the opportunity well.
Then there is a follow-up question on would you EVER consider raising sales tax. When describing I do not think Brian used the word 'ambush'- but that was the gist of it.
This is the same thing that people were saying above about Romeo: "We were not there? Who knows what he was asked?? The media will say what they want?" None of those are valid excuses. This is a situation that required a diplomatic answer where without being explict about it you dodge the "ever, under any circumstances" part. It is pretty clear to me that Brian flubbed this particular part of one of his auditions for Leader.
Fortunately for Brian- and I think for all of us for finally getting this out on the table for whoever is going to be Leader- the focus was on the tax the rich narrative.
I have already said how I think Romeo flubbed the audition. And I think he did it so badly that it became the main event of the interview.
If he manages to get this back on track, he is very talented. But that is hypothetical and beside the point of understanding and discussing the relevance of what has taken place.
Fri, 2011-11-04 10:07
#85
I think Romeo made the same mistake as Ignatieff in that Mansbridge interview when he mused about post election accord/scenario options etc...if you are a party leader - you have wean yourself from the temptation to be a pundit and give academically correct but politically damaging responses.
Fri, 2011-11-04 10:40
#86
Would it have been a good thing to not say anything? It sounds obscure to us, but he was front and centre in Quebec during the referendum, and I would imagine that many in Quebec would remember this. Maybe he handled it clumsily, ....
People keep talking in all these cases, about all the candidates, as if the choice was to ignore it or go head on and answer questions as asked.
I'm not sure he handled it clumsily at all. I think its some of the best responses I've read (or heard) from any leadership candidate so far as he seems to be pretty well informed about a lot of "legal nuances" that relate to the issue.I do agree that his opinions on the issue might not be popular with a lot of people in Quebec (and also in other parts in Canada), so I can see that this might create "electoral challenges". But he is I think speaking from genuine conviction and I certainly don't see anything innept about his responses.
"Might not be popular with the people of Quebec" has to be one of the most sanguine understatements possible. All he did was directly contradict one of the pillars of the Sherbrooke Declaration- leaving aside a lot of us throughout the NDP think its great and great that it did not gather dust on a shelf [thank you Pierre Ducasse]- everyone agrees that it was instrumental, fundamental to the smashing breakthrough in Quebec.
"Some of the best legal responses, blah, blah." So fucking what? Is this the right time? What is the purpose of displaying erudition here? Is the Supreme Court decision and the 50+1 question abslolutely central to us and to Romeo Sagnash's concerns? If it is not so central- and he gives no reason can I see in the interview- then why in the hell not bury in a diplomatic answer what is for him and us the third rail?
Absolutely there was truth to what Saganash said. In bringing up issues like this, there are ways that work, and ways that make the situation worse. Communication. What was going on? We don't know, we just have an obscure story in a few media outlets, and I look forward to hearing Mr. Saganash clarify things.
"What was going on?" Of course we do not know and cannot know. But we do not need to: it is his job to handle the situation at least adequately. This was one of his big auditions for Leader.
And who is to say that he didn't give them other news??? It's not like these candidates can force the media to print what they want word for word. .....I would say read the whole story: He never said in the piece that he was against the policy nor did he say that he would ditch it or anything like that. He did say that the members of the NDP made a choice and if the members decided to open up that debate again he would take part in that debate. What is so objectionable about that???
Same point really: since you like his answer, you think its good enough. He did not need to explicitly say he was against the Sherbrooke Declaration. He dropped a bomb on it. And the nice words after he did that are just pro forma, let alone will be forgotten by today.
The Romeo Sagnanash interview basically reiterates and updates the postition Saganash took publically a long time ago. The sovereigntist movement has never liked his position on these things but is not going to be surprised by it. I think the First Nations and Inuit have a unique position in debates about national unity and I'm glad their voices will be part of this leadership debate.
The right of the First Nations in Quebec to secede IS a central question that he both wants to and needs to address. But pray tell me why that means he should have done anything but speak diplomatically about the 50+1 in the Sherbrooke Declaration? Show me how the former depends on bringing up the latter.
Fri, 2011-11-04 10:44
#87
"Might not be popular with the people of Quebec" has to be one of the most sanguine understatements possible. All he did was directly contradict one of the pillars of the Sherbrooke Declaration- leaving aside a lot of us throughout the NDP think its great and great that it did not gather dust on a shelf [thank you Pierre Ducasse- everyone agrees it was instrumental, fundamental to the smashing breakthrough in Quebec.
Yyyyep, exactly.
In the last election campaign, I have convinced some pretty hard-core sovereigntists to vote NDP by introducing them to the Sherbrooke Declaration.
And this isn't just a hard-core politico matter. The comments thread on the Radio-Canada story indicates that this isn't going over well in the general public... (And Saganash generally attracted sympathetic comments on that sort of forum.)
Fri, 2011-11-04 10:49
#88
dacckon
Fri, 2011-11-04 12:01
#89
Northern Shoveler
I think Romeo made the same mistake as Ignatieff in that Mansbridge interview when he mused about post election accord/scenario options etc...if you are a party leader - you have wean yourself from the temptation to be a pundit and give academically correct but politically damaging responses.
And wean yourself from speaking on behalf of your people. He spoke clearly and with the same message he has had for a long time. No surprises from him in this interview. And by the way his analysis is right. His FN has rights that cannot be ignored.
I find it quite disconcerting on a progressive board like babble to have white settlers in the NDP telling a FN leader he should just shut his mouth about his peoples right for the good of the party. His FN had a referendum as well and it was not even a close race. So Romeo should just ignore the fact that 96% of his people and their Inuit neighbours will not go willing into a new subservient relationship with Quebec. But just for the good of the party.
The idea that if the people of Quebec choose to separate that there will be an east way forward is a separatist line not a federalist one. Breaking up is hard to do and we need as a country to keep working on how to work on a solution to avoid a YES referendum win, not adopt the separatist notion that the game ends with a vote because the real tough part only just begins with Quebecer's saying Yes.
He pointed out that the Cree held their own referendum in 1995. While Quebeckers overall rejected separation by a razor-thin margin, an overwhelming 96 per cent of Cree and Inuit voted to remain part of Canada.
And he noted that the Supreme Court pointed out that disposition of the northern territories would be one of the difficult issues to be resolved in negotiations.
“I think people have to start thinking about that aspect as well. Thus, that issue is going to be very complex and difficult if it does come back. If Quebec decides to try to secede from Canada, they'll have to deal with a lot of issues, including the right of self-determination of indigenous peoples.”
Complicating matters further, Mr. Saganash pointed out that the Cree, Inuit and federal and Quebec governments are all signatories to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Under the Constitution, he said any fundamental change to such a treaty can not be made without the consent of all parties.
Fri, 2011-11-04 12:11
#90
What I take issue is your straw man comparisons with Topp.
Directly comparing the statements of two contenders for an elected position is the exact opposite of a straw man.
The inability of some people on this site to accept even a modicum of discussion of the relative merits of candidates is bizarre.
Fri, 2011-11-04 12:12
#91
And wean yourself from speaking on behalf of your people. He spoke clearly and with the same message he has had for a long time. No surprises from him in this interview. And by the way his analysis is right. His FN has rights that cannot be ignored.
I find it quite disconcerting on a progressive board like babble to have white settlers in the NDP telling a FN leader he should just shut his mouth about his peoples right for the good of the party.
Nobody in this thread has expressed criticisms WRT the right to self-determination of FN.
What you'll find is people talking about Saganash's tossing aside of the Sherbrooke Declaration, which as has been said, was a crucial document in the arduous process of building bridges between the NDP and Quebec. A document which recognized the national (sovereigntists + federalists) consensus in Quebec WRT the right/process of self-determination.
Fri, 2011-11-04 12:14
#92
You ignored NS that I explicitly affirmed all of that as issues he should bring up.
And you ignored that the problem part of what he said is dropping a bomb on the Sherbrooke Declaration- spefically the central pillar of the 50+1 being a majority.
So again, THIS is the issue with what Romeo brought up.... and as I asked before, pray tell us how the 50+1 is nessarily a part of the right of FN people to secede?
And since that was already the question, your scold is at least misplaced.
Fri, 2011-11-04 12:15
#93
Marshall Ganz at NDP Convention Halifax 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv95pXCGbow
That "paste as plain text" box is a bit of an ordeal, liked the way it used to be.
Fri, 2011-11-04 12:20
#95
@Peter3:
OK then, your comparison of Topp to Dewar, is of Dewar to Dewar's spin of what Topp said.
You are entitled to reject as inadequate Topp's explanation of what he said about the sales tax, but you should expect continued challenge if I dont agree that Dewar's take is fair or correct.
But you know, what nay of them said on the sales tax in particular is pretty small potatoes. You can have the last word on this if you want.
Fri, 2011-11-04 12:34
#96
I think its a bit of (actually more than a bit) an overstatement to say Saganash "dropped a bomb" on the Sherbrooke Declaration. The Sherbrooke Declaration is a very lengthy document with many provisions in it. I think Saganash is making an observation that any academic or constitutional expert would make which is that even if a federal government accepts 50%+1 in principle - there are still all kinds of issues to resolve including what happens to First nations in northern Quebec and the role of the Supreme Court etc... Quite frankly even if Quebec voted 80% Yes to a totally clear question (i.e. do you support Quebec becoming a totally independent country with no special ties to the rest of Canada?) - it would STILL be a Pandora's box of trouble if the Cree in northern Quebec who have their own treaties with the crown voted 95% NO.
Fri, 2011-11-04 12:36
#97
@Peter3:
OK then, your comparison of Topp to Dewar, is of Dewar to Dewar's spin of what Topp said.
No I did not. I compared Topp's words from a CP article and his supposed denial directly. I provided Dewar's comments as clarification of Dewar's position, not Topp's.
You can have the last word on this if you want.
Thanks.
Fri, 2011-11-04 12:45
#98
Northern Shoveler
So again, THIS is the issue with what Romeo brought up.... and as I asked before, pray tell us how the 50+1 is nessarily a part of the right of FN people to secede?
FN's have rights as nations enshrined in our constitution through their treaty rights. They don't need to secede from anyone they are already a FN independent of the province of Quebec not a federal asset to be handed over from one white settler group to another. I live in a province where FN's have been fighting for over a century to gain their rights because white people when BC joined Confederation just all agreed that the FN's didn't exist and BC was all uninhabited territory with no owners and thus no British imperial law requirements to sign treaties were in play.
Sherbrooke Declaration or not the people of Quebec do not own the Cree or Inuit homelands. Sorry if that is too radical a concept for many.
The subtlety of the question is what happens with a 50% plus 1 vote. The reality is that negotiations will break out no matter what threshold the courts think might be required to be a clear majority. But that is only negotiations not actual secession. Quebec does not have the unilateral right to secede with Cree and Inuit territory no matter whether 70% of Quebecers voted YES especially if 96% of the Cree and Inuit say NO. That is the reality and the elephant in the room that the NDP, like all federalist parties in Quebec, is trying to sidestep.
Fri, 2011-11-04 12:48
#99
Who is Marshall Ganz?
The on-the-ground organizational guru behind the Obama campaign. Came out of the United Grapegrowers. Long history of relationships with the CCF/NDP.
Here is his speech to the NDP convention in Halifax:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv95pXCGbow
ETA: Sorry, I see others beat me to the punch with the video.
Fri, 2011-11-04 12:51
#100
We're not talking about what Saganash has the right to say, or whether what he said was right. We're simply asking if his handling of this interview indicates that he knows what it is to be the leader of the whole party, and whether he has the strategic communications sense required.
Fri, 2011-11-04 13:08
#101
agree 100%