V
Issues Pages:
Regions:
NDP Leadership- 44 threads before the first debate
Sat, 2011-12-03 18:42
#1
NDP Leadership- 44 threads before the first debate
Sat, 2011-12-03 18:53
#2
Maysie
KenS, you're so cute.
Sat, 2011-12-03 19:00
#3
The company you keep, the arguments you saved up in those 4 links; bless your tiny heart, debater:
-Rex Murphy
-A National Post hack who comments on candidate's hairdos
-The Montreal Gazette taking umbrage at an all-french campaign
-Gazette reader making the same complaint - two days after the editorial.
Overpowering demonstration of francophobic liberal sentiment, for use in the ROC.
Sat, 2011-12-03 19:03
#4
I think there's a concern/criticism that the party elders and establishment in the NDP anointed Topp as the next leader. Chantal Hébert wrote a critical column earlier this fall where she talked about how it looked like Ed Broadbent and some of the party elders were trying to cut the other candidates off at the pass by endorsing him right out of the gates.
There's some truth to that, and that is my big issue with Topp. But it hardly compares to the situation in the LPC where the party powerbrokers decided that they needed to get Ignatieff in there because he was so "electable" that the membership would have no say whatsoever and there would be no democratic nomination at all.
I think the notion is more daft now, than I thought when it first came up... which is also before I had anything more than surprise and curiousity about Topp's candidacy.
Topp and people around him knew they were going to surprise everyone. "Brian Topp, huh?" even among what would be his [pretty small] natural consituency.
So obviously, he had to move VERY fast to overcome that skepticism. The bigger the blitz the better- just to be taken seriously.
And the very idea that Thomas Mulcair, of all people, could be shock and awed out of running.... just too laughable. Not at all the type of person, AND with many times more starting assets, without a word needing to be spoken. Reporters who dont know any better- I can see that.
I have no problem at all seeing that Topp and friends had motive [if it was possible], and I know nothing at all about what kind of gutter ball tactics any of them are capable, so I would never say "Topp wouldnt do that." What do I know?
But the idea that Mulcair could be just pushed aside- thats not a feasible strategy, its a joke.
And by the way... where is all this 'party establishment support' trying to annoit Topp? What you saw right away, that's it. If it existed as more than what we saw right away, we all would know by now.
And the first couple months have if anything proved the point that Topp needed that fast jump just to be out there- becaue so far, Mulcair has a lot more traction.
It
Sat, 2011-12-03 19:07
#5
The company you keep, the arguments you saved up in those 4 links; bless your tiny heart, debater: -Rex Murphy -A National Post hack who comments on candidate's hairdos -The Montreal Gazette taking umbrage at an all-french campaign -Gazette reader making the same complaint - two days after the editorial. Overpowering demonstration of francophobic liberal sentiment, for use in the ROC.
Those are just a sample of the many similar views out there. You haven't successfully disputed the arguments above, or defended your own.
If you want to laugh it off, it will hurt the NDP. 
Sat, 2011-12-03 19:23
#6
Who's laughing, you sadistic twerp. I'm just hoping that others are taking into account your list with an understanding of how your type will use it...and if Mulcair does not take the leadership, how your species in Quebec will come forward.
Beautiful people all.
Sat, 2011-12-03 19:25
#7
My rate of campagns so far:
* Mulcair campaign. Clicking as would be expected. Less talent to draw on quickly than Topp. But the first part of the campaign is all about getting the candidate out there and exposed. For the by far best known one, should be a piece of cake. And looks like it has been
* Topp campaign. Not much evidence of one. Gets around. Does everything right. Who knows whether low visibility is planned [dont risk running up a brick wall when you have less to start with], or that had hoped for some organized pyrotechnics that have turned out not to be feasible. After the debates will tell more.
* Dewar campaign seems to be clicking. Seems to be aiming for the heart and energy campaign. Has the fundamentals for it- as much as one could expect to see at this point.
* Nash campaign. Looks floundering to me. Even if true, long enough campaign that you can flounder for a while and still win.
* The rest dont have visible campaigns. Admittedly, that may just be that they get less attention because they werent deemed to be in the top tier.
All the comments require the caveat that it is still very early- especially to be commenting on campaigns. We wee so little. Even those of us who know more what to be looking for- 90% of what is out there is media foucused impression management.
As well as being very early on, its a period where no campaign can yet do much to change the hand they were dealt at thg start. Yes, some will never chenge that hand. But those that it turns out will/can, we wouldnt know yet if they are, except if there were an abslute steamroller in the field. But none of that.
Sat, 2011-12-03 19:31
#8
Mulcair's main pitch is that he is the winner, who will win more. He had those cards at the deal. Playing them well is required. But it is straightforward.
The rest have less to start with. Sure they've all amde their statements in various ways. But their elementary pitch- even its startup- is a more complex and uncertain. And even the other top 3 have not had a chance for that yet. It was possible for one of them to pulled that together already, but not likely. Only for Mulcair was it likely- maybe even expected- already.
Sat, 2011-12-03 19:47
#9
Gaian... I just brought up the Republican nomination in that sometimes people go with candidates they like and don't step back to see the big picture. Not saying any of our candidates are like Gingrich or Romney lol.
A bit of an example would be supporting Chisholm because he's such an awesome guy or speaks on issues others may not be such as mental health. French? Don't bother to factor it in. So they'll work for Chisholm even though it would be a disaster for the party having a unilingual leader.
Of course, it's their total right to do so. That's democracy :)
Sat, 2011-12-03 19:52
#10
sadistic twerp.
Apologize, please. That type of personal attack is uncalled for.
Sat, 2011-12-03 19:58
#11
sadistic twerp.Apologize, please. That type of personal attack is uncalled for.
Yeah, really, Gaian! If anything, he's shown himself to be masochistic on this board, so your adjective is completely inappropriate. As to the twerp...a little too personal. Apologize, or I'm going to request the moderator intervene.
Sat, 2011-12-03 20:00
#12
As someone who has voted NDP, but is not an NDP partisan, the only candidate I like at this point is Paul Dewar, who I've always liked. With the possible exception of Thomas Mulcair I could possibly have a problem voting for the NDP under the other candidates.
Sat, 2011-12-03 20:27
#13
Everyone - thanks for the videos and articles!
RE: "Environment minister Peter Kent says Kyoto is in the past. In actual fact it is the Tories who are in the past." - Ashton insinuating that age makes one out of touch with the present and that her relative youth is an advantage
My top three are
1. Actually my second choice but one I want to have a decent show
2. My first choice
3. My third choice
Oldgoat - I have my preferences but I am not going to abandon the party of Charlie Angus and Libby Davies and Peter Julian and David Orlikow no matter who wins. No matter who the coach is, the NDP has a good team.
Howard - I remember Parizeau's "money and the ethnic vote" comment (with "money" referring to anglos in Quebec). Did not know about Mulcair's "gift" comments and that they predated Pariseau's comments. Though, it does make one wonder why Duceppe brought Parizeau out of retirement in that Quebec is now much more "gifted" than before and that the Bloc under Duceppe had always been a bit more appreciative of this "gift" than the PQ - though one should concede that Duceppe took the Bloc in a much different direction than did Bouchard.
Your quotes do show that, even as a Liberal (there is no NDP provincially in Quebec so it is a tent of convenience for diverse views) that Mulcair held social democratic views and that he did take a risk running for the NDP rather than the Liberals federally. And it is also true that when Mulcair won, it was because he was more popular than the party at the time.
It seems that Mulcair stood up for some pretty good issues - even when he faced heat for doing so. Thus, this quality of his is a plus as well as a drawback. I am missing Jack who managed to keep feathers from getting too ruffled in his caucus while allowing his MPs to shine. Mulcair can get his face out there like Jack did - which seems to be a drawback with a few others - though I won't know which others until I see the debate. The Liberals tore themselves apart over infighting - we need a leader who can prevent disagreements between NDP MPs from turning into grudge matches. We also need someone who is not so bent on mending fence that they become too trusting like Dion. Turmel has no charisma what-so-ever but she does do this part of the job well.
One should note that many of the newbies spent the last election campaigning for Mulcair. All the NDP MPs participated in the Filibuster and I liked Matt Dube's contribution, among others. I think that Mulcair was told to be with REB when she faced the media - though, on his webpage way way down, Charlie Angus did comment that REB was a very good worker. Mulcair is a very good critic - though he needs to be careful about aiming his fire at others of his own party if he is planning to lead the party. If an MP has a disagreement, they can be demoted or quit. The leader is supposed to deal with whatever issues necessary to create a united front. My comments would be better if the google translator worked on video.
Sat, 2011-12-03 20:48
#14
sadistic twerp.Apologize, please. That type of personal attack is uncalled for.
My sincere apologies. I took the laughing face smiley to reflect your sentiment. Must have been mistaken.....
Sat, 2011-12-03 20:50
#15
sadistic twerp.Apologize, please. That type of personal attack is uncalled for.
Yeah, really, Gaian! If anything, he's shown himself to be masochistic on this board, so your adjective is completely inappropriate. As to the twerp...a little too personal. Apologize, or I'm going to request the moderator intervene.
I will keep your fifth column propensity in mind in future.
Sat, 2011-12-03 20:58
#16
vaudree: "It seems that Mulcair stood up for some pretty good issues - even when he faced heat for doing so. Thus, this quality of his is a plus as well as a drawback. I am missing Jack who managed to keep feathers from getting too ruffled in his caucus while allowing his MPs to shine. Mulcair can get his face out there like Jack did - which seems to be a drawback with a few others - though I won't know which others until I see the debate."
And of course, it begs the question who would have filled the bill in these fighting momengts while Jack "managed to keep feathers from getting too ruffled." The tremendous admiration that Mulcair had for Jack is evident throughout, and I believe one can assume that Jack did not haul back too sharply on his "Quebec Lieutenant's" reins. It had to be working relationship of mutual respect.
Sat, 2011-12-03 21:02
#17
That's exactly how I feel about it AM. I have some repect for Topp's abilities. I really liked his book and many of his Globe writings. But the pettiness of many of his backers in trying to kneecap another candidate has really diminished him in my view. He might have been my second choice but his camp's tactics drop him down several places.
Sat, 2011-12-03 21:20
#18
Argh! The dreaded double-post. Was supposed to be a small edit.
Sat, 2011-12-03 21:21
#19
..
Sat, 2011-12-03 21:22
#20
I think there's a concern/criticism that the party elders and establishment in the NDP anointed Topp as the next leader. Chantal Hébert wrote a critical column earlier this fall where she talked about how it looked like Ed Broadbent and some of the party elders were trying to cut the other candidates off at the pass by endorsing him right out of the gates.
There's some truth to that, and that is my big issue with Topp. But it hardly compares to the situation in the LPC where the party powerbrokers decided that they needed to get Ignatieff in there because he was so "electable" that the membership would have no say whatsoever and there would be no democratic nomination at all.
I think the notion is more daft now, than I thought when it first came up... which is also before I had anything more than surprise and curiousity about Topp's candidacy.
Topp and people around him knew they were going to surprise everyone. "Brian Topp, huh?" even among what would be his [pretty small] natural consituency.
So obviously, he had to move VERY fast to overcome that skepticism. The bigger the blitz the better- just to be taken seriously.
And the very idea that Thomas Mulcair, of all people, could be shock and awed out of running.... just too laughable. Not at all the type of person, AND with many times more starting assets, without a word needing to be spoken. Reporters who dont know any better- I can see that.
I have no problem at all seeing that Topp and friends had motive [if it was possible], and I know nothing at all about what kind of gutter ball tactics any of them are capable, so I would never say "Topp wouldnt do that." What do I know?
But the idea that Mulcair could be just pushed aside- thats not a feasible strategy, its a joke.
And by the way... where is all this 'party establishment support' trying to annoit Topp? What you saw right away, that's it. If it existed as more than what we saw right away, we all would know by now.
And the first couple months have if anything proved the point that Topp needed that fast jump just to be out there- becaue so far, Mulcair has a lot more traction.
It
I agree with all of this, but I think there's another take on the whole "shock and awed [people] out of running" meme.
First of all, I don't think trying to scare other candidates out of the race was necessarily all or even mostly about Mulcair. Sources in the Topp campaign leaked that they thought they had Romeo Saganash's support "locked up" before he suddenly announced he was running. Peter Julian is a close friend of Topp's campaign manager and would have been a strong contender for much of the MP/MLA support Gerry Scott has helped Topp secure, but he didn't run either.
Secondly, even if you don't succeed in keeping a candidate out of a race, that doesn't mean intimidation can't serve a purpose. Mulcair took a month to get in the race. Maybe the idea that it was already sewn up kept him from jumping in earlier.
Either way, for me the issue was never (mainly) about whether Topp campaign was specifically "trying to convince candidates not to run". For me, it was about whether people supporting Topp were behind the leaks in the days immediately after Jack Layton's death which declared Topp the frontrunner and slammed Mulcair. That was enough to drop him WAY down my list. If, as part of that, he or his supporters were also actively trying to convince people not to run, that just makes it worse.
Sat, 2011-12-03 21:45
#21
On the eve of the first debate, let's recap:
We have 102 MPs. Seven are running, 33 support Mulcair, 10 Topp, 3 Ashton, 2 Nash, 2 Saganash, 1 Chisholm. Turmel, Julian (caucus chair), Caron (Quebec Caucus Chair), Comartin (House Leader), and Charlton (Whip) are neutral and I expect will remain so.
Another 39 MPs are undeclared. Like me. :)
But of the 90 free to declare, Mulcair has 37%. Okay, not a majority, but a very strong plurality. Enough to make me pause and reflect.
Sat, 2011-12-03 21:56
#22
Still catching up from the previous thread ...
Slideshow:
Topp="inequality" versus "equality"
Mulcair="well-connected" versus "public interest"
Nash= "temporary" and "precarious" versus "good jobs"
Dewar="neglect" versus "build" and "restore"
Cullen="falling behind" versus "potential" and "responsive" and "fairer"
Saganash= "conflict" and "recrimination" versus "reconciliation" and "respect"
Singh="challenges" versus "solutions"
Chisholm="individual" versus "collective" and "collaboration"
Ashton="old" versus "new"
Chisholm talks about it being a bad idea to have a detailed plan. Ashton has a detailed plan - but it basically sounds like existing NDP policy put into her own words- and is well worded, well organized and easy to understand. This seems like a difference of opinion.
Mulcair says: "One of the great aspects of Jack Layton's legacy is that he built a broad policy consensus within the party. He did so by bringing together the largest possible number of stakeholders to craft policies that reflect the values and hopes of the vast majority of Canadians.
I'll be presenting more detailed policy proposals in the New Year, but thanks to Jack's consensus-building approach, I don't expect us to have many differences on policy throughout this race."
1. Mulcair seems to value this quality in Jack; and
2. He seems to figure that most of the heavy lifting has already been done
3. He doesn't say whether he has this quality himself - which he will need to be an effective leader. Jack did personify ideas that others did not have before but have incorporated into their behaviour. Libby Davies was talking about how the right wing church groups which support the Tories are also big on affordable housing and that, by working with them, she figures that she can get something done - and I never heard her really talk like that quite as strongly before.
Nash says: "And we need to reshape the economy to not only create jobs, but to create a green economy by ending subsidies to the oil sands and using those savings to diversify our energy sector and invest in transit across the country."
Nash doesn't elaborate on what she means by "diversity" except that buses mean less cars on the road - but they still use gas. Cullen seems to be talking home renovation strategies.
Sat, 2011-12-03 21:57
#23
On the eve of the first debate, let's recap:
We have 102 MPs. Seven are running, 33 support Mulcair, 10 Topp, 3 Ashton, 2 Nash, 2 Saganash, 1 Chisholm. Turmel, Julian (caucus chair), Caron (Quebec Caucus Chair), Comartin (House Leader), and Charlton (Whip) are neutral and I expect will remain so.
Another 39 MPs are undeclared. Like me. :)
But of the 90 free to declare, Mulcair has 37%. Okay, not a majority, but a very strong plurality. Enough to make me pause and reflect.
Olivia Chow and Peter Stoffer are staying neutral as well.
Sat, 2011-12-03 21:58
#24
On the eve of the first debate, let's recap:
We have 102 MPs. Seven are running, 33 support Mulcair, 10 Topp, 3 Ashton, 2 Nash, 2 Saganash, 1 Chisholm. Turmel, Julian (caucus chair), Caron (Quebec Caucus Chair), Comartin (House Leader), and Charlton (Whip) are neutral and I expect will remain so.
Another 39 MPs are undeclared. Like me. :)
But of the 90 free to declare, Mulcair has 37%. Okay, not a majority, but a very strong plurality. Enough to make me pause and reflect.
Olivia Chow and Peter Stoffer are staying neutral as well.
Sat, 2011-12-03 22:38
#25
Malcolm
* The rest dont have visible campaigns. Admittedly, that may just be that they get less attention because they werent deemed to be in the top tier.
Well, according to this piece, Ashton's campaign is getting attention - indeed, the most attention - online.
Sat, 2011-12-03 22:46
#26
Malcolm
We have 102 MPs. Seven are running, 33 support Mulcair, 10 Topp, 3 Ashton, 2 Nash, 2 Saganash, 1 Chisholm. Turmel, Julian (caucus chair), Caron (Quebec Caucus Chair), Comartin (House Leader), and Charlton (Whip) are neutral and I expect will remain so.
Apart from a few Mulcair partisans, sentiment on this board (at least among active posters) seems to lean towards Paul Dewar and / or Peggy Nash. A few posters apear to have written off my preferred candidate as lacking the potential to generate broad support.
I merely point out that my preferred candidate, despite her advanced youth, has attracted 50% more endorsements that Peggy Nash and Paul Dewar combined.
I will also reiterate that she was the only candidate who chose to announce her candidcy in a place that was not an assumed base of regional / demographic support.
Sat, 2011-12-03 22:48
#27
Malcolm
Olivia Chow and Peter Stoffer are staying neutral as well.
Olivia's reasons are obvious. Does anyone know whay Stoffer has declared pre-emptive neutrality?
Sat, 2011-12-03 23:10
#28
Olivia Chow and Peter Stoffer are staying neutral as well.
Olivia's reasons are obvious. Does anyone know whay Stoffer has declared pre-emptive neutrality?
I'd say it's just his persoanlity, unless he really wanted to get involved in a certain campaign what's the sense of endorsing one of your colleagues over another?
Sat, 2011-12-03 23:28
#29
Warning - snipping ...
I think there's a concern/criticism that the party elders and establishment in the NDP anointed Topp as the next leader.
Topp and people around him knew they were going to surprise everyone. "Brian Topp, huh?" even among what would be his [pretty small] natural consituency.
So obviously, he had to move VERY fast to overcome that skepticism. The bigger the blitz the better- just to be taken seriously.
I agree with all of this, but I think there's another take on the whole "shock and awed [people] out of running" meme. First of all, I don't think trying to scare other candidates out of the race was necessarily all or even mostly about Mulcair. Sources in the Topp campaign leaked that they thought they had Romeo Saganash's support "locked up" before he suddenly announced he was running. ...
For me, it was about whether people supporting Topp were behind the leaks in the days immediately after Jack Layton's death which declared Topp the frontrunner and slammed Mulcair. That was enough to drop him WAY down my list. If, as part of that, he or his supporters were also actively trying to convince people not to run, that just makes it worse.
Taken together, these comments seem to point to a belief on Topp's part that he would have the best shot in a two man race where he would get all the "anybody but Mulcair" vote. If Topp pulled this with Saganash, odds are that he was discouraging people behind the scenes from jumping in. It could be the media as well since a Topp versus Mulcair cage match would make their mouths water. While it is not in Topp's best interest, if he wants to increase his profile, to get lost in a crowd, it is also not easy for those reporting the story. The media was also talking up that Cullen would not run because of his young family - which would encourage some of his support to go to Topp. They seemed pretty certain that Cullen would not run.
As far as getting more members signed up, the more the merrier. All regions except the North are represented and each candidate brings a different aspect of the party to the table.
Mulcair seems to think Topp was playing dirty - but think that the way he handled it backfired on him a bit.
Gaian - it was not just Mulcair - Jack did not haul back too sharply on anybody's reins but preferred that any disagreements take place behind closed doors with the promise that he would listen and try to find a way to bring those who disagreed in caucus together.
Sun, 2011-12-04 00:08
#30
Interesting to note that on the day of Mulcair's launch, one of his parliament hill staffers attended his announcement. That was it. Wasn't working it. Some other camp lodged a complaint...
Sun, 2011-12-04 00:47
#31
Well, according to this piece, Ashton's campaign is getting attention - indeed, the most attention - online.
That's interesting, though what I find also interesting is the Martin Singh and Romeo Saganash had the most positive attention, while Nathan Cullen and Peggy Nash had the least.
Sun, 2011-12-04 01:15
#32
A few posters apear to have written off my preferred candidate as lacking the potential to generate broad support.
I merely point out that my preferred candidate, despite her advanced youth, has attracted 50% more endorsements that Peggy Nash and Paul Dewar combined.
I will also reiterate that she was the only candidate who chose to announce her candidcy in a place that was not an assumed base of regional / demographic support.
Niki Ashton is the future. That's why her "New Politics" slogan resonates, at least with me. Before Marshall McLuhan, people asked what was the message, missing the point: the medium is the message. Niki Ashton is the message; she is the new politics.
But assuming the party is not yet ready for her, I still feel confident we will do very well with either Topp or Mulcair.
And of course everyone likes Saganash and Nash and Dewar; and many like Cullen and Chisholm and Singh. It's really an amazing field. The party is very fortunate. And when the public starts to see them, they will agree.
Sun, 2011-12-04 02:50
#33
Malcolm
That's interesting, though what I find also interesting is the Martin Singh and Romeo Saganash had the most positive attention, while Nathan Cullen and Peggy Nash had the least.
Without having all of their data to hand, it really isn't clear how to interpret "the most/least positive attention." Does that mean that (to pick one of those four at random and making up a number to illustrate my point) all five online mentions of Martin Singh were positive? The most mentions is a little easier to interpret - but only a little.
Taking things together, I'm interested that Niki Ashton has more mentions and a higher proportion of positive mentions than either Nash or Dewar, especially given that the media and the punditocracy are all saying that Nash and Dewar are first or second teir candidates but Ashton is not.
Sun, 2011-12-04 03:59
#34
Malcolm, it's the same 10 people retweeting each other all day long. Also, Niki's own tweets don't say anything much beyond using the word "Exciting!" all the time, and way too many explanation points, which only make her sound too young to be serious. This is the department of counting meaningless things. The only reason a study like this didn't appear on 308 is because he doesn't have the programming skill to do it.
Also:
I merely point out that my preferred candidate, despite her advanced youth, has attracted 50% more endorsements that Peggy Nash and Paul Dewar combined.....
.... TO THIS POINT. By the time we get to the start of advanced voting, I'm willing to bet that's not only no longer the case, but very obviously no longer the case. You don't seriously expect us to believe Nash and Dewar don't have endorsements in their back pocket for momentum purposes, do you.
If Niki knocks my socks off tomorrow, great. But an endless cycle of retweeting "Exciting to be in X! New politics!" might be working for Wilf, but it's not exactly grabbing me.
Sun, 2011-12-04 09:01
#35
Just up overnight at the Huffington Post Canada, the newest posting from Romeo Saganash, where he gives some of his views on the situation in Attawapiskat and why things aren't quite the same on the other side of the James Bay, where he is from. A very interesting perspective
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/romeo-saganash/attawapiskat-emergency_b_112...
Sun, 2011-12-04 10:47
#36
Some people here may not agree but a large number of Canadians would have a tough time voting for a 33 year old for Prime Minister in 2015, particularly one who looks very young.
Sun, 2011-12-04 10:55
#37
dacckon
There have been many young premiers before, I don't see how youth can be a negative factor. Political immaturity perhaps, but not youth. If anything, a young leader could bring youth to the polls like never before.
Sun, 2011-12-04 11:52
#38
There have been many young premiers before, I don't see how youth can be a negative factor. Political immaturity perhaps, but not youth. If anything, a young leader could bring youth to the polls like never before.
Running a province is much different then running a country. Robert Ghiz is young, but he's premier of a province of 140,000 people. Many people will say she lacks the life experience needed.
Sun, 2011-12-04 12:04
#39
Just saw that Dewar will face off against Topp and Mulcair in the mini-debate part. Dewar could receive a lot of buzz if he comes off better then them, though Mulcair has a lot of experience. These may be the worst two for Topp to go up against, they're two of the more experienced politicians in the bunch. Topp could impress but I think he's the underdog here and if he doesn't perform strong it won't be good for his campaign, of course this is just one debate.
Sun, 2011-12-04 12:27
#40
This is the department of counting meaningless things. The only reason a study like this didn't appear on 308 is because he doesn't have the programming skill to do it.
Remind me not to cross anyone who can slide in the knife so politely and brutally.
Sun, 2011-12-04 12:31
#41
Sorry, I guess I *was* a bit crabby last night, wasn't I.
Sun, 2011-12-04 12:33
#42
Boom Boom
Just up overnight at the Huffington Post Canada, the newest posting from Romeo Saganash, where he gives some of his views on the situation in Attawapiskat and why things aren't quite the same on the other side of the James Bay, where he is from. A very interesting perspective
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/romeo-saganash/attawapiskat-emergency_b_112...
Excellent! Now, how do we stop the government from driving First Nations off their lands? 
Sun, 2011-12-04 13:13
#43
Some people here may not agree but a large number of Canadians would have a tough time voting for a 33 year old for Prime Minister in 2015, particularly one who looks very young.
No doubt this is her major problem.
. . an endless cycle of retweeting "Exciting to be in X! New politics!" might be working for Wilf, but it's not exactly grabbing me.
I don't follow tweets, sorry. But I did find some substance here:
I will be outlining policies that:a) Deal with the structural factors behind the growing inequality in Canada such as gender inequality, third world conditions on Aboriginal communities, racism and discrimination, the erosion of collective bargaining rights and foreign takeovers of our economy. I will also be dealing with the growing affordability gap facing many working and middle income Canadians
b) Recognize and support the growing diversity in Canada and act on issues ranging from racism to immigration
c) Recognize and improve support to culture, a key element of who and what we are.
d) Make the promotion of peace and conflict resolution key to our foreign policy,
e) Make Canada a leader on climate change and the environment,
f) Build our communities through investments in infrastructure, social services and community economic development
g) Make Canada a world leader in innovation
h) Allow us to have greater control over our destiny by protecting public services and strengthening measures to stop foreign takeovers that don't benefit Canadians.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/01/ndp-leadership-candidates-2012_n...
Sun, 2011-12-04 13:46
#44
Ndp.ca is down, anyone have the link of the livestream?
better not be a ddos attack...
CPAC is covering it. As is CBC.
Sun, 2011-12-04 14:37
#46
Ms. Ashton is doing very well in the tv debate, very confident and lots to say.
Sun, 2011-12-04 17:16
#48
I am really digging how everyone is being so much more respectful and courteous than they are in the US GOP debates which I have been suffering through recently. It really is a nice refresher to see how the Canadian left does things vs the American right. I have written up my initial impressions on the NDP debate here.
This is only the first debate.
Sun, 2011-12-04 17:17
#49
I am really digging how everyone is being so much more respectful and courteous than they are in the US GOP debates which I have been suffering through recently. It really is a nice refresher to see how the Canadian left does things vs the American right. I have written up my initial impressions on the NDP debate here.
This is only the first debate.
Sun, 2011-12-04 17:34
#50
Boom Boom
Who won the French debate???
Sun, 2011-12-04 17:36
#51
dacckon
Onwards to the second debate...
Who do you think can legitamately improve and do much better in the next debate? Who has the most to lose after the first debate? Who do you think doesn't have the lingustic capacity to continue?