NDP Leadership 40

Malcolm wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

Ian Capstick is saying something on Power and Politics about the leadership race, he said he surveyed 10 strategist and that Nash Dewar and Topp are top 3 or something. I'm confused about what he's saying but he will post information on his blog later.

 

Capstick must be confused.  He says Ashton has no support outside of Manitoba, but she has endorsements from three Quebec MPs and her campaign chair is from Saskatchewan.

You would have thought that Ashton's excellent communications team would have put all the broadcast pundits on their media list some time ago, so they wouldn't have to guess about these things.

I wonder to what extent NDP membership in Quebec would have gone up by this much even if there was no race for the leadership at all just as a sfunction of 58 new MPs setting up riding associations and more and more Quebecers spontaneously deciding to join the partly they had just voted for in May.

Malcolm wrote:

Nobody has said much of substance about anything so far.  It's a bit pointless poking at anyone for a lack of subsyance when the same applies to every single candidate.  (Well, except maybe Dewar, who Capstick claims is the only one with a policy section populated on his website.)

But you all just fly right over my correction that is NOT about amount of substance in my critique of Mulcair and description of his positioning strategy.

But the fact that this keeps happening is just symptomatic of how fruitless this dialogue is. I think it is fair to say that you and Lou Arab and others here are among Mulcair's natural consistency- the solid base he starts from. For lack of a better terminology- the party moderates.

In my 'warnings' about Mulcair, you aren't the target- because I expect his offerings to appeal to you. Those of you who have significant reservations about him, it is all about his 'style'. And those concerns it isnt hard for Mulcair to allay. He only has to refrain from shooting himself in the foot. His comportment and manner is very engaging.

Jack Layton understood well and was sometimes a practitioner of what I call push politics.

Think 'push the enevelope'. Yes, its trite. But that's the meaning. Acknoweldge the limits of what you can advocate in the short and mid term. But work on moving those limits. Understood to be a longer term project of discrete steps that do not necessarily fit into the standard political calculation of with positioning X you can expect Y concrete benefits in weeks or months. Ideally, you can get the short term payoffs as well in your push politics steps. But you do not expect that, nor do you choose instead the different positioning simply because it will get you more of the immediate payoffs.

Jack did not practice push politics often. I often despaired we would never see anything more than simple incrementalism and 'boutiquey' appeals. In the end, I remained optimistic. Succeeding at push politics, and not getting bit [where it matters] by blowback, is challenging for a 4th party that has significant vulnerabilities even among its supporter universe.

But even among those of us who do not wave off these challenges as simply a product of 'not trying'... there are differences about where to draw the necessary line of caution. I thought Jack too cautious and/or too unwilling to allocate resources and political capital to longer term push politics. But I also acknowledged that I was not in the position of having to make the tough choices- not to mention that it isnt my choice anyway.

After the May tidal wave I was very hopeful and expectant. Now we had more breathing room [after a period of digesting the radical change in size and composition of Caucus], and we had a need to rope in new sectors of voters to get the rest of the way to government. Instead, Jack dies, and we have a leadership race.

Calling for the raising of corporate taxes was a good example of push politics. [2009 ?]

Seems pretty modest, safe even. Which it proved to be- with the Liberals me tooing and the Conservatives saying the predicatble but not trying to make hay of a tax increase is a tax increase.

But the modesty and low likely risk is not the whole picture. It was not just the fact of getting away with saying "tax increase". 

'Getting away with it' raised the bar of what the NDP can put out there at tolerable risk levels.

Which is where Topp's drop of the rich should pay more comes in. No eleaboration required initially. Even that much- the rich should pay more- breaks the NDP taboo on tax increases, which you see from no NDP provincial governments, let alone an opposition party that the general expectation is will appraoch the road ahead with a great deal of caution.

The event I saw him at Topp said he talked about this plan for the NDP could go with Jack Layton and Ed Broadbent. And I expect this is oft repeated. [Intersting to speculate how it will turn up in the debates, where he will not have the option of keeping it as his chosen mode of narrative.] 

Who knows what talked about it with Jack means. Maybe it was Brian's suggestion that we are in a position to do this now, while Jack was non-commital. What Jack thought we do not know. And it does not matter. It is Brian Topp's plank for the party now.

If you know anything at all about Brian Topp, and whether or not you have any inclination towards him at all, let alone as prospective leader.... you have to admit how unlikely it is that Brian Topp dropped this out there half unwittingly, or as just a little teaser to pander to the cadre's hopes. 'Pandering' as in no intention to follow through in any concrete way.

Because on this issue- taxes and the NDP- there is no backing away from letting the genie out. This was calculated. It was calculated both that the NDP cadre will like it, and that when fully developed will be an effective wedge thatl net benefits us at the ballot box. If you dont think the latter half of that is true, no one except a fool would put this out there for the short term benefits of appealing to the cadre. I have not hear anyone suggest Brain Topp is a fool.

Peggy Nash definitely also subscribes to push politics. I dont think she or her supporters have a viable plan of how to do it. That opinion is subject to change, but it is really beside the point for the purposes of arguing for push politics.

I am suggesting that we need push politics, not who will best do it.

Besides Nash and Topp I see some candidates who I expect would be open to a well developed plan for push politics, and have enough sense of collaboration and humility to look beyond their predilictions, even if they become the Leader... as did Jack Layton. And there are one or more candidates who I cannot see ever being willing to entertain push politics.

@ Lou, nor am I a Topp supporter yet. And if I never see sufficient retail skills, probably cannot go there, no matter what I think of the alternatives.

At this point, 'inclined to' is relevant enough.

But I didnt call you either a supporter or an 'inclined to'. I said you were in Mulcairs natural constituency. Of course people in any such constituency are going to differ over who they choose. Especially in leadership races, there are no monolithic factions or sub-cultures or tendencies. But the candidates have their different natural constituencies.

Which brings me to the point, such as it is, raise by the always helpful "Gaian".... and Gaia help us if this is a reflection of the mindset of our mother earth... but I digress.

We all know there are tendencies in the party. Its difficult to draw the lines- and impossible to pigeon hole all the real people into one or the other. But the identifiable de facto tendencies do exist.

If you have some names for these tendencies that will please everyone, lets hear them.

Dropping 'centrist' for 'moderate' was largely out of recognition that 'centrist' tends to be used as a put down- even if I dont intend it that way. I dont like moderate either. The floor is open for better ideas.

Ken... didn't we, under Jack, back away from raising taxes in general? And when we did advocate it, from what I recall, it was just to "pre-tax cut levels"?

Like I assumed would happen Ryan Cleary has endorsed Robert.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Ken... didn't we, under Jack, back away from raising taxes in general? And when we did advocate it, from what I recall, it was just to "pre-tax cut levels"?

Of course we backed away from advocating raising taxes in general. Pretty basic in what I said that we dont go there.

The question is what do you do instead. Staus quo for most of the NDP, and even Layton's NDP most of the time, is just to stay away. Dont go there. And if you want to impress your base without risk talk about 'tightening up loopholes,' wasteful spending,' or cutting funding for things the base does not like or is not attached to.

The alternative is to go after it in little bites. 

And of course we called it "going back to pre-tax cut levels". You spin what you can where you need to. And being true does not make it not spin. We bloody well knew its still a tax increase, would be called that, and we did not argue otherwise.

It was a very small step. But when dealing with your biggest bogyman, the very first step in push politics would be small.

Gaian wrote:

quote: "Which brings me to the point, such as it is, raise by the always helpful "Gaian".... and Gaia help us if this is a reflection of the mindset of our mother earth... but I digress." What "mother earth" does to us in our hubristic meanderings will be completely dispassionate, as James Lovelock made clear in his many works on the subject of climate change. Mulcair makes equally clear that he's thinking of the kids and a grandchild when he pronounces on things "environmental."

Yeah Lovelock thinks we should build a whole bunch of nuclear plants because it is too late to reverse climate change, do you agree?

Hot off the virtual presses from Romeo Saganash, his newest column in the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/romeo-saganash/stephen-harper_b_1112328.html

The title of the article says it all: How to Defeat Stephen Harper

@HM
Can you see them rushing to read Lam's bio on Tommy to verify/contradict his fiscal conservatism? :)

KenS wrote:

More than half of the other candidates, and the membership too.

Purge trials is what we need.

Whatever became of George Victor?

Was he purged? :)

Echo.

northwestern_lad wrote:

Hot off the virtual presses from Romeo Saganash, his newest column in the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/romeo-saganash/stephen-harper_b_1112328.html

The title of the article says it all: How to Defeat Stephen Harper

I'm not particularly inclined toward Saganash at this point, but I was really impressed by this one.

KenS wrote:

Dropping 'centrist' for 'moderate' was largely out of recognition that 'centrist' tends to be used as a put down- even if I dont intend it that way. I dont like moderate either. The floor is open for better ideas.

Incrementalist.

Stockholm wrote:

The first debate among the leadership candidates is just a little over a week away. Does anyone know:

What time on Dec. 4 the Ottawa debate takes place

Where it takes place?

What networks will carry it and what are the options for watching it live?

What is the format?

Apparently it's rumoured to be in the afternoon, and being held at the new Ottawa Congress Centre. Apparently CPAC is covering it, and it was also be streamed online through NDP.ca.

I gather Dewar's campaign is planning to host a watch party in Ottawa as well. Presumably either Topp or Nash's campaigns (or both) will do the same in Toronto.

It's all being formally announced later today, I heard through Facebook.

Romeo Saganash wrote:

They won't be satisfied until Viterra and Cargill and Monsanto control every bit of farmland in this country. Whether trees or minerals or energy, they will take the resources out of the land with vague promises of temporary work and leave nothing lasting in its place but a scar on the environment. It doesn't need to be this way. When we were the CCF, rural Canadians knew we were on their side. We need to reach out to them again with respect, to listen to their concerns and to act on their behalf. When we do, they will come back to us and we will grow together.

I'm impressed by Saganash. A very articulate, intelligent writer. Should be interesting to see how he fares in the debates.

knownothing]</p> <p>[quote=Hunky_Monkey][quote=Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

knownothing wrote:

nicky wrote:

Anyone know who Capstick's "ten neutral NDP observerors" are?

What a load of bull. Why does Capstick even speak for the left? He admits he is a fiscal conservative and he supports the military parade for Lybia. Seems to me he is only NDP because of some social views. These non-socialist NDP'ers are going to be the death of this party. 

Tommy Douglas was a socialist. And Mulcair we won't know until he has a chance to lead the party.

Many have said Douglas' views are quite different then what the party is now, but I don't really know enough about it. 

I do think however that it's ridiculous to be slamming Ian Capstick, he's a strong NDP supporter and if he's going to be criticized for his views then the party will have a tough time expanding any further. 

Malcolm wrote:

KenS wrote:

as a communications person you know the stream of interview articles describing him as moving the NDP to the centre or right cannot be chalked up to media interpretation....

 

Actually, I don't know that at all.  Media routinely come up with naratives that are only tangentially related to reality - and once the herd is in motion, they will follow each other lemminlike over the cliff.  Consider:

• New Democrats are not fiscally responsible (yet the NDP has the best recod of balancing budgets among provincial governments)
• The new Quebec NDP MPs are virtually all poteaux and unqualified to be MPs
• The Liberals are a party of the (moderate) left

I could go on.

That's the sense I get. Mulcair talks about reaching out to Canadians who have never voted for us before. That to the media means moving to the centre. When he's in front of NDP crowds and such, it's quite clear what he means... as he usually explains it... as he did with the media but it often gets left out of whats reported.

Look at how the media ran with "Topp the frontrunner" or "Topp has a juggernaut on NDP leadership" without any basis in fact.

I've come to think most media in this country are jokes.

ottawaobserver wrote:

I gather Dewar's campaign is planning to host a watch party in Ottawa as well. Presumably either Topp or Nash's campaigns (or both) will do the same in Toronto.

I've seen a small raft of watch parties. Might be fun to have a special thread to identify them all.

northwestern_lad wrote:

Hot off the virtual presses from Romeo Saganash, his newest column in the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/romeo-saganash/stephen-harper_b_1112328.html
The title of the article says it all: How to Defeat Stephen Harper

Excellent piece, well worth contemplating.

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

I'm not particularly inclined toward Saganash at this point, but I was really impressed by this one.

Agreed.

knownothing wrote:

nicky wrote:

Anyone know who Capstick's "ten neutral NDP observerors" are?

What a load of bull. Why does Capstick even speak for the left? He admits he is a fiscal conservative and he supports the military parade for Lybia. Seems to me he is only NDP because of some social views. These non-socialist NDP'ers are going to be the death of this party. 

Seriously, take a valium. He is JUST an observer. He speaks for himself. I have to say that half the time I hear NDP MPs spout off on foreign or military policy, I have to think, "They sure don't speak for me". Hopefully we can still have independent thought on all sorts of matters of conscience.

I did wonder if Capstick might be a little "Ottawa centric" in his high placement of Dewar (who I think is kind of a wimp, but at least is not as dull as Nash). But I'm still open minded about who might be best suited for the job, if any.

ottawaobserver wrote:

I'm wondering about that tactic, Wilf, and what it says about Mulcair's campaign. Candidate travel costs aren't covered under the ceiling, but what about the travel expenses of proxies. That kind of a campaign is going to eat up a chunk of change, and to the extent it's focused exclusively on Quebec, will tend to come at the expense of what can be done elsewhere.

Mulcair's strength is in Quebec. He needs to leverage caucus support into membership votes. His success or failure may determine the NDP's political support in that Province.

When I read that Sagnash piece that particular paragraph stood out as NOT good.

Our main competition in Quebec might be, likely is, the Bloc. But our task is to keep what Queckers entrusted us with. And us competing with the Bloc is the kind of small minded politics that drove people to ditch the Bloc.

In the end, Romeo claims he has the qualities necessary to connect with Queckers- which is what matters.

So I dont think its a huge deal, which is why I wasnt going to mention it... until I saw it recommended. But it puzzles me, and it unsettles me a little about him. Like whether he has the necessary basic political instincts.