CTV interview with Peggy Nash about the McDonough endorsement: http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/endorsing-nash/#clip565967
She's good, but she really needs to stop laughing before answering each question!
NDP Leadership Thread - Part 34
Fri, 2011-11-11 09:41
#102
Idealistic Prag...
Fri, 2011-11-11 09:57
#103
I find Mulcair's comments about moving the "centre to NDP" fairly self-explanatory. He wants the NDP's policies to become accepted mainstream positions. For example, consider what Jack Layton was able to accomplish on negotiating with the Taliban. As Stephen Lewis said "first Jack was ridiculed, then it became conventional wisdom".
I expect all NDP leadership candidates want to move "the centre to the NDP". It is after all, the true test of leadership: "don't go where the voters are, but bring the voters to where you are". Think about what Harper was able to accomplish since he became PM. In 2006, we were talking about a national child care program; by 2011 no party (including the NDP) was loucdly promising to set up national child care in the short term. Harper successfully shifted the conversation onto his terms; he cut the GST, reduced the federal government's revenues, and now we are debating whether to have a non-structural stiumulus package and whether tax credits should be refundable. In other words, "right" versus "further right".
So far, all of the candidates (including Mulcair) have evoked similar policy objectives: making the tax system more progressive, better regulating the oil sands, a more multilateral foreign policy. The question is: which one of them will be most difficult to caricature ? Because just as Harper was branded as a "religious nut who would bring back the death penalty, ban abortions, e.t.c.." the NDP's next leader is sure to be called "a crazy socialist who would tax everyone making over $25 000 to death". Haprer, not being as overtly socially conservative as Sotckwell Day, was able to resist the caricature; the NDP should pick a leader, who like Harper, will be harder to attack.
From what I have seen so far, all the leadership candidates want to take the country to roughly the same destination. NDP members should ask themselves who is most likely to actually take us there. It is on the basis of parliamentary skills, political experience, absence of "baggage", and language abilities (a lack of which excludes 5 of the candidates from the start, in my opinion) that the decision should be made. As the two leading candidates for the French socialist nomination said on numerous occasion: "ce n'est pas une question de valeurs, mais de tempérament".
Fri, 2011-11-11 10:26
#104
Yes, as long as Mulcair does not specify anything, he can be all things to all people.
He can have a continuous stream of articles where he stakes out the position on the right and moving the NDP to the centre- never his words of course.
And then when talking to the long time acivist cadre he can interpret that as 'we will move the centre to the NDP' and people can read that the way they want.
Of course we want to move the centre to the NDP. Who can argue with that? But there are different ways to do it. The most common way is to be straight up centrists. If Mulcair means something different, he should indicate that with something besides words that can be interpreted anyway people happen to want to.
Fri, 2011-11-11 10:35
#105
So far, all of the candidates (including Mulcair) have evoked similar policy objectives: making the tax system more progressive, better regulating the oil sands, a more multilateral foreign policy. The question is: which one of them will be most difficult to caricature ?
Let me guess now, who might that be?
The assumption we need to first think defensive is a bad start.
You must have a good defense. But for having the best defense. starting from defensive is, well defensive.
Maybe, just maybe, the greatest strength- including defence- lies in policy in which people have a stake.
There are not YET much in the way of policy differences. But the expectation there will be few is a particular narrative that edges a certian direction.
Fri, 2011-11-11 13:28
#106
So far, nobody has presented detailed policies, so things might change. Yet, if we assume that past behaviour is a good predictor of future behaviour, there are no great ideological differences between the candidates, at least not between the "two front-runners".
Consider that since becoming an NDP MP, Mulcair has vigorously opposed the corporate tax cuts, the Afghan mission extensions and the unregulated exploitation of the oil sands.
Brian Topp, despite his attempts to appeal to the NDP's union base, spent years as Roy Rommanow's deputy chief of staff. That was probably the most "nontraditional" NDP government in the history of Canada. It closed hospitals, fought the nurses union, and abolished universal social programs.
I am not passing judgement on either one of these two candidates, but I think that the differences between them are very much overblown. Yes, Mulcair has been posting "postive" press coverage from Quebecor on his website, but I don't think we should read too much into that. Personally, I interpret it as a signal to the NDP membership that the party's opponents (at least in Quebec) will have one less arrow in their quiver should he be elected.
I see what Ken S. is saying about not being defensive, but my own view (for what its worth) is that, to win, parties must always try to get out in fornt of their opponents. I know it sounds pretty obvious, but the Liberals have shown us that it is not. It is worth considering what the Conservatives have put out about Topp and Mulcair. Topp is portrayed as a union stooge who never ran anything in his life. I can see the attack ads now. Mulcair is called a Quebec sell-out. If that's the worst they can come up with about Mulcair, I hope NDP members give him serious consideration. Harper wouldn't dare run an explicitly anti-Quebec ad campaign. And if he does...well, Quebec might just leave on his watch!
Fri, 2011-11-11 13:37
#107
Boom Boom
Well, Paul Dewar has his economic proposal on his website (which I received as an email this morning): PRACTICAL STEPS TO CREATE GOOD JOBS
Fri, 2011-11-11 14:15
#108
Northern Shoveler
I see what Ken S. is saying about not being defensive, but my own view (for what its worth) is that, to win, parties must always try to get out in fornt of their opponents. I know it sounds pretty obvious, but the Liberals have shown us that it is not. It is worth considering what the Conservatives have put out about Topp and Mulcair. Topp is portrayed as a union stooge who never ran anything in his life. I can see the attack ads now. Mulcair is called a Quebec sell-out. If that's the worst they can come up with about Mulcair, I hope NDP members give him serious consideration. Harper wouldn't dare run an explicitly anti-Quebec ad campaign. And if he does...well, Quebec might just leave on his watch!
So are you making this shit up about a union stooge? I don't see a cite. Or to you have insider info as to the Conservative strategy? A friend in low places maybe?
Harper will definitely run against Quebec in the next election if Mulcair is the leader. My first clue was the last campaign when he ran on the horror of a coalition with separatists. I for one am extremely worried that the NDP is going to get squeezed into the constitution box and come out sausage.
THe NDP does not fair well when it jumps into the constitutional debate. IMO That is because the constitutional issues are not left versus right. There is no inherently left wing solution to any new relationship between the constituent parts of our confederation. As shown in the past being definitive about where the constitutional talks should go is a good way to lose votes. Since it is not a left/right issue ANY proposed change is guaranteed to bother some NDP voters. The MSM and Harper want the next election fought on issues like the constitution because they are divisive for their opponents.
Fri, 2011-11-11 14:21
#109
Interesting to hear that one of Mulcair's top priorities is a national drug coverage program. He sees it as a natural part of our healthcare system.
At a townhall style meeting in Halifax, he said when it comes to the military, it doesn't make sense to purchase F35's. He said everything the Tories are doing is posturing Canada to be an aggressive military power. He wants Canada to re-establish itself as an advocate for peace in the world.
Fri, 2011-11-11 14:24
#110
So are you making this shit up about a union stooge? I don't see a cite. Or to you have insider info as to the Conservative strategy? A friend in low places maybe?
It was all over the media the day after Topp announced...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-deno...
Fri, 2011-11-11 14:27
#111
Boom Boom
Interesting - I'm seeing Mulcair in a whole new light now, and it's a good one. He's been #4 on my list, I'll have to consider moving him up a bit if the top three on my list don't come up with something comparable to his national drug care and advocating for peace.
Fri, 2011-11-11 14:40
#112
Boom Boom... he didn't lay out a plan yet but he did say a national program is one of his priorities.
At the townhall, he says he wants our military to be focused on different priorities than the Tories.
Fri, 2011-11-11 15:00
#113
It would be quite amusing to see the Tories depict Brian Topp as a "union stoge" (sic.) for being executive director of a union representing actors and artists and writers in Toronto...meanwhile Harper appointed the former head of the manitoba Government Employees Union (yikes not just a union but a dreaded PUBLIC SECTOR union) to be Canada's ambassador to the US.
Fri, 2011-11-11 15:22
#114
Closing for length. Again.
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3