NDP Leadership thread FIFTY

I think the key is to try and figure out who will be good all the time in about 2-3 years. If you limit yourself to who's fully formed now, you might be missing the candidate who has the most scope for personal growth.

If I had the same criteria as David Young, I might come to the same conclusion as he did about who to support. But I'm closer to Vansterdam in post #28. I don't think we need someone who can "take on Harper" the way the popular (and not very effective) narrative imagines will defeat him. I think we need someone who can outfox and out-charm Harper instead, and build a mandate for social democratic change at the same time. To me that takes a much wider range of skills.

Malcolm wrote:

I find this knock on Ashton for lacking substance a bit odd. 

First, I don't think there's really been a lot of substance from anybody.  Some useful discussions of what principles should guide our policies in some areas and a small number of more specific and narrowly focussed policy ideas.  Compared to most of what's out there, I don't think her ten point plan for an inclusive economy is significantly less substantial than most of what's been produced.

Second, who the hell sets policy for the party?  The correct answer is "not the leader."  The leader articulates the party's policy and the party's philosophy.  If the party forms a government, the leader (with cabinet and caucus and in consultation with the mechanisms of the party) will have to make decisions about priorities and compromises.  But the leader does not set policy.

The 10 points are actually pretty good  I hadn't seen them before. There is not much how we get from A to B, but at least there is a vision of what B is, that I can get behind. I remember when Ashton raised CMHC in the first debate. I thought that was interesting and was hoping she would go further on her proposal to strengthen it. Although other candidates mentioned CMHC, I don't recall any making concrete proposals.

nicky wrote:

Ottawa Observer, I heard your argument about growing into the job somewhere before. It was at the 1989 leadership convention. Unfortunately for the party it prevailed then.

I don't recall having made that argument then, nor speaking with you during that convention.

And, anyways, the point I'm making now is a different one to me. We get to watch how they've grown and will continue to grow over a five month race, and then assess on that basis whether they're truly capable of further growth. I think Jack demonstrated a lot of growth into the job, and that was to our benefit.

Also, nicky, you've made the above point to me several times, and I've responded. But then you never respond to those arguments, merely repeat the above one over and over. You seem to be good at making arguments, so why not try to do better, and advance the discussion.

One thing for sure, we should not re-prosecute the 1989 federal convention, or the 2009 Saskatchewan one, or whichever other leadership race people want a do-over on. It's as foolhardy as trying to re-fight the last election campaign, instead of gaming out what the next one could be.

I don't think we should pick a candidate who is clearly not ready, based on having the right traits or characteristics. THAT was the mistake of 1989 (or at least it was my mistake). So if that's your point, I'll agree with you.

But I also don't think we should run around like chicken little, reacting to everyone's else agenda and timetable, without thinking about our own requirements and strategic trajectory. Three years is a long time.

The major requirement of any party/candidate/leader next time out will be some indication of a plan for growing the economy. Jobs.

Looking at Niki's 10 points above we see one, #10, pointing in that direction: 10. Establish an Our Canada initiative to ensure we as Canadians maximize the benefits from our resources including improved protection against foreign takeovers that threaten Canadian jobs and livelihoods. The current regulations allowed Vale and US Steel to take over Canadian companies and cut jobs and pensions. Reject unfair trade deals that threaten Canadian labour standards and jobs."

But even that is about "protection," like all the others, and like the proposals of a majority of the candidates.

A plan that will be acceptable in 2015 will have to include a number of pro-active proposals that are not simply a part of the social democratic lament during the ascension of the promoters of finance capital to power in recent years. There has to be some indication in those economic plans of how a leader proposes to curb that power and make our own savings, the many, many billions in workers savings, build our own future. Sovereignty capital put to work. Hell, even Jimmy Flaherty recognizes that, these days - is sounding truly nationalist, while building on the sane Liberal moves to protect our financial system a decade back.

For instance, we must again build public housing like the co-operative that has housed my family in the past, and now my daughter's. But we have to have a damned good economic plan to explain its affordability and its function in the face of a deepening worldo-wide recession. I don't see those plans being unrolled in this race, only economic lameness, except in the proposals of one candidate.

Gaian wrote:

The major requirement of any party/candidate/leader next time out will be some indication of a plan for growing the economy. Jobs. Looking at Niki's 10 points above we see one, #10, pointing in that direction: 10. Establish an Our Canada initiative to ensure we as Canadians maximize the benefits from our resources including improved protection against foreign takeovers that threaten Canadian jobs and livelihoods. The current regulations allowed Vale and US Steel to take over Canadian companies and cut jobs and pensions. Reject unfair trade deals that threaten Canadian labour standards and jobs." But even that is about "protection," like all the others, and like the proposals of a majority of the candidates. A plan that will be acceptable in 2015 will have to include a number of pro-active proposals that are not simply a part of the social democratic lament during the ascension of the promoters of finance capital to power in recent years. There has to be some indication in those economic plans of how a leader proposes to curb that power and make our own savings, the many, many billions in workers savings, build our own future. Sovereignty capital put to work. Hell, even Jimmy Flaherty recognizes that, these days - is sounding truly nationalist, while building on the sane Liberal moves to protect our financial system a decade back. For instance, we must again build public housing like the co-operative that has housed my family in the past, and now my daughter's. But we have to have a damned good economic plan to explain its affordability and its function in the face of a deepening worldo-wide recession. I don't see those plans being unrolled in this race, only economic lameness, except in the proposals of one candidate.

I know this 10 point plan is about building an inclusive economy, but inclusivity will be moot without sustainability. I await plans to build a sustainable economy. I don't expect any of the candidates to renounce growth but building food security and local economies might be a good idea.

Boom Boom wrote:

Peggy: say it ain't so!

excerpt:

She isn't advocating raising anyone's taxes, as has fellow candidate Brian Topp. And she doesn't follow candidate Tom Mulcair's example in using the derogatory term "tarsands" when discussing Alberta's energy developments, opting for the less inflammatory "oilsands."

Well, that's two things I disagree with her about. I want to tax the sh*t out of the rich, eliminate corporate tax breaks, and the tar sands are definitely tar f*cking sands.

excerpt:

And she has kind words for Stephen Harper. "I found him easy to talk to," she says, recalling an exchange she had with the PM shortly after NDP leader Jack Layton died.

Yeah, okay - a time of grief isn't the place for angry words. But, get real! Harper is eviscerating this country - or haven't you noticed???

Easy Boomer, it's the Vancouver SUN, remember: i.e.:In a 45-minute interview in Vancouver, Nash was poised and self assured. She has been compared to Margaret Thatcher in her trim, proper appearance but not, of course, in her ideology. And she has kind words for Stephen Harper. “I found him easy to talk to,” she says, recalling an exchange she had with the PM shortly after NDP leader Jack Layton died."

Their purpose is to raise dissension in the ranks. They won't use an interview with her to make remarks about their beloved bloody PM. And it would be worth the editor's job to even hint at criticism of him in this article.

But I'm critical of Peggy Nash's failure to put forward an economic plan that isn't just a defence of the current order of re-distribution of wealth by a - still - welfare state, important as that is.

We're going to have to not only re-employ the jobless,on the cusp on a world recession, but provide green jobs in a sustainable economy, and find money for building co-operatives without taxing the worker. I see that possibility being developed by one candidate, and it's not Peggy.

OO, I did not mean to suggest that YOU made the argument about growing into the job at the 89 convention, only that the Same argument was made then and accepted by enough delegates to elect a leader who never did grow into the job. We should all be concerned that does not happen again. What frankly gives me pause about the growth argument is that it fundamental only works against the candidate(s) who have already demonstrated he / she / they are now up to the job. It is something of an excuse for candidates who are not there yet and may never be. So if Mulcair (to take a not entirely random example) has shown he is the best on TV, the best in debate, the candidate most likely to solidify Quebec, the most bilingual, the candidate with the greatest caucus support, and the candidate most likely to take us to power, all of those arguments are dealt with in a fairly dismissive way by suggesting that someone else someday may be as good as he is. I am noy sure I want to gamble that another candidate will come up to a certain level by 2015. I would prefer a leader who is that good now. He or she will be immediately measured against Harper (and Rae) and will immediately be called on to weather the attack adds. The next election is not a race that only begins when the writ is dropped four years from now. And remember, as good as Mulcair is now, can we not expect him to grow still better over the next four years? Why must we assume that growth is the preserve only of those candidates who may not be up to his calbre today?

Like most of you I'm sure I feel myself pulled in several directions. Which is why I'm thankful for the preferential ballot, so I can actually contradict myself, sequentially. :)

My first choice is Romeo, and that's unlikely to change. I think his character and vision for Canada (collective human rights, reconciliation, environmental and economic justice) are the most unHarper-like of all, which is what this country will need in 2015.

My second choice is in flux, and will probably remain so until I cast my ballot. If asked, right now, it's Mulcair. Because any doubts I may have about his appreciation of the party's culture or committment to its core values are currently overshadowed by my respect for his demonstrated political skills. And since defeating Harper is so critical, for both the party and the country, I'm weighing Mulcair's obvious strengths much more heavily than I might have otherwise.

It was only 2-1/2 weeks ago for me.  Hard to believe he could have improved that much, but I guess you never know.  Maybe I should just conclude he can't relate to rural Canadians then?

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

It was only 2-1/2 weeks ago for me.  Hard to believe he could have improved that much, but I guess you never know.  Maybe I should just conclude he can't relate to rural Canadians then?

I suppose you could conclude that if you were the sort of person to be unwilling to change your first impressions on the basis of new evidence. I don't know why you'd want to do that, though.

See him again, and see if he's improved. If he hasn't, and last night in Edmonton was somehow a fluke, please do come back and tell me. (I'm not going to be able to see him again myself, so I'm going to have to rely on reports from others in making my ultimate decision, which at this rate I'll be lucky to make by the convention date.)

Topp flop

Howard wrote:

Topp flop

yawn.  

KenS wrote:

You think that is a flop?

Its been circulated here before. Predictable things said by predictable people tells us little how a person and his/her politics will actually play out.

On the subject of predictable. :)

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Well I was just being a bit cheeky.  Tone of course doesn't work on the internets.  

He was clearly uncomfortable and unsure of what to talk about, even when two of us tried really hard to help him out.  Maybe my experience was the fluke, but in a race with people who all have so much to offer the party I and others have to have something to base our ranking on.  For me it has been, at least for 2/3rds of the candidates, my personal interaction with them.  Based on that Topp moved way down, and others, like Peggy Nash, Romeo Saganash and Thomas Mulcair moved up.  I will continue to try to find opportunities to meet with candidates again, but as winter closes in that will become increasingly difficult for those from outside cities.

I a former Saskatchewan organizer can't relate to farmers on the question of the Wheat Board, no amount of time is going to change a personality-free campaigner.Change in this sense isn't a matter of paint-by-numbers.

wage zombie wrote:

Howard wrote:

Topp flop

This is a positive in my eyes, not a negative.  If the traditional media is going run an attack piece on Topp saying he'd raise taxes, 

That's not the traditional media running an "attack piece," that's a McGill economist that actually knows what he is talking about. I thought Topp was supposed to be the guy that knew virtually everything. 

William Watson wrote:

Topp compares our top federal rate with the much higher (and likely to fall) U.S. rate but doesn't factor in provincial corporate rates, which add an average of 10 points to the rate, or consider our competitors elsewhere. "Canada storms to the front of the pack in the race to the bottom in corporate taxation" isn't quite the impression you get from looking at OECD-wide data: 16 of 34 developed countries already have corporate rates lower than the 25 per cent we're headed to.

Howard wrote:

That's not the traditional media running an "attack piece," that's a McGill economist that actually knows what he is talking about. I thought Topp was supposed to be the guy that knew virtually everything. 

So what?  Your argument means nothing to me.

Saganash pens a thoughtful article on digital copyright laws.

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

But he's better one-on-one than he was just a few months ago, too (he spent a good chunk of time after the event was over talking to a young First Nations woman who was blown away by one of his answers), and man is he good now in this sort of informal, him-and-a-crowd format. Totally in his element.

That's my point in a way. There are many people out there who can give great answers. That doesn't make one a suitable leader for a national political party.

Gee... maybe Karl Rove should run for President in the US ;)

@Ken s

If you were a part of the Canadian middle you would understand that Mulcair is making a pitch to appeal to counter exactly those objectiions that you give here:
"Is force of personality or debating skills going to achieve that?Does the willingness to make a tough stand when forced to, demonstrate that you have the vision and discipline to proactively move the agenda?"

The "tough stand" is Topp's bully-boy position.

You clearly have no idea of the principles driving the Canadian economy and its players that Mulcair is aiming at. The middle. The suggestion that he is trying to intimidate the middle describes just how far out to economic lunch you are.

Ott Ob, I think you're capable of a better argument too,

Lou Arab wrote:

KenS wrote:

Life was not more interesting when I've been commited and sometimes VERY engaged with past campaigns.

But it was easier.

I'm wrapping my head around the possibility that I'm never going to be even close to sure.

Tell me about it.  Earlier this evening I thought I was very close to making a decision. I even started thinking about what I would say about it on Babble. :)

Then I went to a town hall meeting with Brian Topp, and I have to admit was very impressed. It was not at all what I expected, and now I'm back to stage one.

Sigh.

The same thing happened to my partner and I when we saw Topp at Judy's place here in Winnipeg.  He is great in person, and clearly very thoughtful and intelligent.  His debate performances and media appearances still leave me with a nagging concern about his "retail" ability, though.