NDP Leadership 37

As for the lack of a Toronto debate, it has been said that this is because the convention is in Toornto.

I would expect that there will be candidates' speeches the night before the voting. Does anyone know if there will also be a debate?

Geez nicky, you talk about innuendo...

And then say that 'a fundraiser was kept secret'. Etc.

But I guess baseless allegations are not innuendo, strictly speaking.

nicky wrote:

Mr Shoveller thinks that "the Right" is trying to trick us into supporting Mulcair because they say he is the candidate they fear most. He is not fooled by this transparent ploy and will be opposing Mulcair in consequence.

Does he not pause to consider that the Right really is most worried about Mulcair and they want the sophisticated Mr Shoveller to be fooled by their "endorsement" into opposing Mulcair?

Actually Nicky your candidate is already way down on my list although Do-War is at the bottom of the pile for me. No the MSM is not going to determine who I vote for.  And if you don't believe that Mulcair is going to have the constitutional file shoved up his ass at every turn if elected leader then you are going to be rudely awakened.  

I think the right is setting up the next election to be fought on a limited number of wedge issues.  Quebec is the best one for them but it loses a lot of its sting if the Quebec Topp got elected or the Quebec Saganash got elected. Mulcair has the constitutional file already hanging around his neck like an albatross.  His campaigns disingenuous crap about standing up to Western Union Bosses (especially when it involved a real gentleman like Ken Neumann) and the unfairness of the election process to Quebec will haunt his leadership.  Now before you jump down my throat I am just pointing out what the MSM story will be whether its true or not. It will not change my vote because I have considered the man poison since his asshole treatment of Libby for speaking about Palestine. 

Wilf Day wrote:

Despite the varied and imaginative speculations here, I think the explanation is dead simple. Duhaime has read about the membership figures, and assumes Mulcair cannot win, because the mass of anglo members will vote, in the end, for anyone but Mulcair. So he paints Mulcair as the logical choice, expecting him to be rejected. Quebec humiliated again: the NDP never really wanted us. Don't underrate the strength of this narrative. Brian Topp is from Quebec. (So is Saganash but he has not yet presented himself as a Quebecer, that I have seen.)

That is the most bizarre thing I've read about a candidate to date. Are Cullen, Ashton. Nash,  Singh, Dewar and Chisholm all running as candidates from their respective provinces?  

I will admit that no matter how you shake it Saganash will never be pure wool. A FN's leader not running as a Quebecer seems normal I would find it rather odd if he were to begin sounding like a Quebec centred politician.  So far Mulcair is the only candidate who seems to be running to represent his province's interests in confederation, the rest are running to lead the country.

nicky wrote:

For this, some seem to want to paint M as an extreme Zionist. Let's stick to the facts and avoid unwarranted hyperbole.

You are the one raising this anti-Zionism crap not me. So please why don't your take your own fucking advice and leave out the hyperbole. What I really objected too was an arrogant man dressing down the most courageous woman politician the party has had over the last two decades.  That kind of behaviour always causes me to lose respect in male politicians.  I listened to the tape of the interview with Libby and was at the demonstration where the Zionist with a microphone ambushed her.  Allies support each other and men allies especially have a duty to at minimum not join in on MSM dog piles of our women politicians.  What she said in her speech that day was right on the money and she made a minor misstep in saying the occupation began in 1949.  Of course she should have said the brutal suppression of Arabs by the Israeli government began in 1949 because technically speaking because of the UN resolution the ethnic cleansing in 1949 was done by a "legitimate" government. 

nicky wrote:

KenS, perhaps you don't know what the Albany club is. It is basically a shrine for the Ontario Conservative party. Of all the places to have a fundraiser, why there?

Because it's not a shrine to anyone. It's a place organizations hold dinners in. I've been to Ontario Bar Association Family Law Section dinners there. Google tells me that the Year-End Program of the Charity and Not-For-Profit Law Section was held there.

If you want $1,000 donations, you probably want to provide a little ambience:

Quote:

Friends of Brian Topp invite you to a special reception with the NDP leadership candidate.

Meet Brian Topp and discuss current fiscal and economic challenges.

Where & When:

The Albany Club

91 King St East

Tuesday November, 15

5-7PM

*Complimentary food and wine included.

Donation:

$1000 per person

* Cheques payable to NDP Canada

The NDP Election regulations require that all tickets be purchased by individuals and not corporations. Each individual within a household may donate up to $1,200 to this leadership race. For this event payment must be received by personal cheque or personal VISA/MC. Tax credits will be issued in 2012.

I see that Paola Guarnieri was Joe Pantalone's Fundraising Event Manager. Not a Conservative, I expect.

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

The leadership debate schedule has been released:

Dec. 4, Ottawa – Building an inclusive economy

January, Halifax – Giving families a break

February, Quebec City – Providing leadership on the world stage

February, Winnipeg – Building bridges between urban and rural Canada

March, Montreal – Building a strong united Canada

March, Vancouver – Creating opportunities for youth and new Canadians

In Nova Scotia, 136,620 voters voted for New Democrats on May 2.

In Manitoba, 126,639 voters did.

In Saskatchewan, 147,214 voters did.

In Alberta, 234,730 voters did.

M. Spector wrote:

Canadian Press wrote:

As for taxing the rich more, Nash said only that she favours a "fair and progressive tax system," declining to comment specifically on "one-off" ideas.

[sigh] not a good sign...

All that we know is that she said "fair and progressive tax system" and "one-off", the rest is framed by the journalist/news-corp. Chances are it was a loaded question and she dealt with it appropriately. She has spoken about restoring corporate tax rates previously, and I'm sure she has a much more comprehensive tax plan that she will announce with a press release/conference rather than spill it in an interview where her platform can be framed whichever way the journalist/news-corp wants it to be.  

KenS wrote:

Unfortunately, no candidate seems to want to say "thats a good start. Now we need to ...."

With no inside knowledge whatsoever, I guarantee you Brian will be picking up that ball again. Meanwhile, the ball is out there for anyone.

He dropped it out there without any details. And it was reported that he supported a possible sales tax hike although afterward he said he didn't which you pointed out. But the media doesn't read into anything, huh Ken? ;)

It will be nice to see what comes out from all the candidates with regard to tax policy.

M. Spector, no I don't. I don't know what Peggy thinks, I am not her. But a press release/conference that is recorded provides some sort of accountability, and something for the politician to point to if they believe they weren't being protrayed fairly. 

I'm just warning against using paraphrased bits of information as criteria for the leadership race. Like I said before, I highly suspect that she was asked a loaded question and that she dealt with it in a proper way. I've seen it done with Mulcair, Topp, and plenty of other leadership candidates/MPs. It's just something that you should be critical of, that's all. 

I'm thinking now  it's weird to predict at this stage who will win the NDP leadership - before the debates and speeches have begun. Yes, it's okay to have a favourite candidate, but predicting who will win sounds now like a mug's game to me. I said at the beginning I couldn't support Ashton (and a couple of others...) but if Ashton, for example, were to set the debates on fire, then why wouldn't I consider her? Concurrently, if Nash, Saganash, Topp and Mulcair (the presumed front runners) were to give dismal speeches and dismal debate performances, why would anyone bother to support them?  I think we have a long way to go, yet.

Gaian, everybody always asks me to expand when I am feeling dizzy and drowsie and just got up after passing out and slurring my words (allergies, technically sensitivities). Dacckon wrote: "Why we need new politics by Niki Ashton"

In the article, Ashton wrote: "This is very much the underlying agenda of the Harper Conservatives. They represent the [b]old politics[/b] of division. An [b]old politics[/b] that sees poverty and inequality as facts of life. They seek to erode rights that have been developed over decades and to dismantle public services. What we need is a [b]new politics[/b]."

Ashton does go into more detail than that - but this sets up the contrast between the "new politics" of the NDP and the "old politics" of the Tories. It also makes Ashton's perceived liability (ie her age) seem like a (word meaning plus) because, not only does Harper engage in "old politics" - he looks "old" with his greying hair. Though Bob Rae does lose a few years without his clothes on, in a suit, he looks "old" too when contrasted with Ashton - old and out of touch.

Even though there are pictures of the pepper sprayed grandmother, the stereotypical representation of the 99% is youth and 1% is decadence / decay - the latter with creates images of age even though the youth can also be decadent. The expressed ageism after the May election with the McGill Four, REB and the guy from Sherbrook - and the backlash from it, may be something else that Ashton plans to exploit from the sounds of it. The image of old and new also comes up on New Years day and that symbolism.

Some one else can probably expand on this a bit more.

An aside, Ashton tends to make liberal mention of the Manitoba Provincial government - which alludes to her father - and is outside of this "new" versus "old" dichotomy. If one doesn't go with that, there is the reputation of her father being a bit left of Sellinger.

nicky wrote:

Let's stick to the facts and avoid unwarranted hyperbole.

And the pot doth lecture the kettle.

Gaian wrote:

I think,Malcolm, that you are again wrong...of course the Sun's hireling knows exactly "which candidate for the leadership of your competing party would be best for (his) purposes," how to "play" the nationalist harp and provoke socialist opinion in the ROC. The Sun hired him for his superior work as a propagandist and provocateur.

I could be wrong, and I'll doubtless be wrong in the future.  However, I think Duhaime is smart enough to know that the preise outcome of this sort of pot-stirring is deucedly difficult to predict.  He has, however, deduced that most of the likely outcomes (ie, a Mulcair defeat being seen as a rejection of Quebec or a Mulcair victory being seen as an unfair domnance by Quebec) work to his advantage.  He may even prefer one of those outcomes over the other (likely a Mulcair defeat spun as a rejection of Quebec).

What I'm questioning is the idea that he has a specific outcome in mind and believes that his writing can advance that specific outcome.  I think he's too smart to try predicting the unpredictable in such granular detail.

Bob Rae went skinny dipping on Rick Mercer.

delete.

nicky, you are making me very glad that we haven't ended up using the local Masonic Hall, Royal Canadian Legion, or Orange Hall for any of our riding events (all of which were under discussion as possibilities as of just a few weeks ago). We were of course just looking for reasonably priced halls of the right size within the urban part of the riding, but who knows what dastardly machinations people would have read into those choices if we'd actually ended up there!

nicky wrote:

I am not saying Topp's Albany fundraiser compares to what Clement is supposed to have done, but that the optics are really bad for a number of reasons:

1. the fundraiser was apparently kept quite secret.

2. It was on Tuesday night, after Dewar made his attack on Clement which I think was on the weekend. Clement could therefore use Topp's faux pas to deflect criticism.

3. And IT WAS THE ALBANY CLUB. Were there no union halls available?

Sweet Mother of God!

There are public events at which one does a little fundraising and there are fundraising events for which there is little publicity.  The two are not the same.

If Thomas Mulcair arranges a fundraise with wealthy lawyers in Montreal, it won't be heavily publicized and it won't be at a union hall.

If Romeo Saganash does a fundraiser with First Nation and Métis entrepreneurs, it won't be heavily publicized and it won't be in a union hall.

If Niki Ashton does a fundraiser with Greek business folk in Regina, it won't be heavily publicized and it won't be in a union hall.

You're making bricks without straw and doing your candidate no service.

Duncan, I happened to think Brian did everyone a service in his ed board with the CP Ottawa bureau by seizing the opportunity to open the door on taxes again.

Those interviews were introductory, overview panel interviews with members of the bureau so they could get to know the candidates. Out of that, of course the reporter covering the NDP tried to get some news out of each one.

I agree that's not the place to release a platform.

Now, I'm curious. Are you reading into Peggy's position the idea of a fair taxes commission, or reliving woulda-coulda-shouldas from the Ontario government in the 1990s, or is that really going to be her position in the leadership race, when she starts announcing policy?

ETA: And I don't worry that he gave Bob Rae some opening to "attack us". He was moving to re-open certain topics for discussion, not guarantee that there wouldn't ever be any fight-back. Honestly, a little more muscular approach is perfectly fine. And if Bob Rae wants to stake out his position that saying increasing taxes on the rich is off the table, I would bet that by the end of it all, Bob Rae will have been marginalized by this more than Brian Topp -- with everyone except the Liberal CBC and Toronto Star.

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

What I take issue with is the Torontonians who are crying foul. The convention will be held in their city, and there's a debate scheduled elsewhere in their very own province to boot. Anyone whose first thought upon looking at that schedule is that Ontario isn't getting its fair share of NDP attention is exhibiting "centre of the universe" thinking at its most odious.

I don't necessarily think there needs to be a debate in Toronto since I agree that the convention will be there, but it seems like a big omissions to have essential 50% of one debate in Ontario whole 2.5 debates are in Quebec (the Ottawa debate is essentially in Ottawa/Gatineau and is half in French - to me it is really a kick off National Capital Region debate and not an "Ontario debate"). Why not a debate in Hamilton or Windsor or somewhere like that...

Anyways, hopefully there will be more debates that are outside of the official party sponsored set of six.

Is the Topp & Singh not having a seat excuse still an excuse? Statistics, somehow, show that leaders who are unelected do better for some reason. Furthermore, one of them could run in a Quebec riding (which they should if elected) in an area needed a better MP. We can easily see where we can do this, in Ruth's seat or that of another mp who is currently ill with blood cancer.

Anyways...

Dewar promotes the idea of a western agenda and rules out a merger 

Dewar calls for 4 more debates 

Debates are about to change the race  Always interesting to a see a Laxer commenting on the NDP as if he's actually a supporter of the party. What? Are the laxers going to piss on David Lewis' party one last time? Shocking that the CBC would ask him anything of value.

Nicky, I think you are overanalysing anything thats not Mulcair related. There are more pressing matters at hand

Oh and I forgot to post this. Ashton's endorsements!

[quote] The list includes provincial Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Minister Eric Robinson, The Pas MLA Frank Whitehead, Peguis First Nation Chief Glen Hudson and Manitoba Métis Federation president David Chartrand.

Ottawa Observor I use the Fair Tax Commission as an example because I was on its sub-committee on the corporate income tax. Prior to that I had written some articles for the Financial Post giving the figures (not my research but given to me) on the profitable corporations who payed no income tax. These same numbers were used by the Ontario NDP. This was one of the reasons Rae created the Commission and maybe why I was named to the sub-committee.

At the same time the Action Canada Network (I was co-director of research) had mounted a major campaign against the GST, the shift from progressive to regressive taxation that changed the complexion of public policy in Canada. The OFL had a fair tax campaign going and collected over a million signatures. NAC had convinced us that families would be hurt by the shift to consumption taxes, and they have been proven right.

Policy development is better than announcements like tax the rich. The CCPA Alternate Federal Budget has for 12 years set out how to do fair, progressive taxes.Many groups have contributed to the process. What has been produced could be introduced by an NDP minister of finance.

Note that Peggy Nash called for a tax on speculative finance, an FTT. Flows of money are a cause of the financial crisis, and the taxwould attack the crisis at its roots. Campaigns for a Robin Hood tax have been going on around the world. The CCPA hosted James Tobin to talk about the tax in advance of the Halifax G7 summit. She is building on campaigns that convinced the British Labour government and the Sarkozy government to support such a tax. Discussion was blocked by Harper in advance of the G8/G20 Clement event.

The reality is that taxes have been cut to the point they need to be raised. Taxing the rich alone will not do it, unless you mean by rich anyone with a regular job. Andrew Jackson makes that point on the front page today.

There is a difference between positioning yourself in a leadership race, and wanting to shift public policy. That's my take. I do support Peace Now, End Legislated Poverty, and lots of other "one issue" campaigns. Left political figures have to choose where they want to take criticism; in order to make changes, they need to build support. Having allies helps. Remarks about policy shifts can garner attention for good causes, they just need to be integrated into something solid, well prepared, and ready to be rolled out in partnership with many groups.

Why is it policy development OR punchy policy announcements?

You dismiss attention grabbing announcements as if they are inherently one offs. Topps is not going to be, and it neednt be whover is doing it. If I wanted to be as dismissive I would just call commissions winbag sessions.  That is one aspect of them.

Nor can Topp be accused of just positioning himself for a race- pandering to the membership. Because it is something he knows he will never be able to walk away from.... you've made a lot of the downside risks yourself. So there is a logical inconsistency there. How can it be both risky with the public and just pandering to the membership?