NDP leadership 55

oops - didn't check date of poll

(HuffPost story out today links to poll released December 13 and already posted in the last thread)

Shoon wrote:

Niki's dad may have helped her gain support in Manitiba, but he had nothing to do with her Quebec support, that was all Niki, as I believe is her Sask support.

Care to tell us who?

Stockholm wrote:

Paul Dewar has put together a two minute ad for his campaign that is on youtube and on his website. Thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNZfGGHkyQk&feature=player_embedded

 

Initial thoughts:

1. I like the background music and some of the scenes. All would be improved, however, if Dewar's image and voice were deleted.

2. Everything he says is non-controversial and essentially empty rhetoric. I defy you to cite one single statement he makes that could not be said in a similar video by Stephen Harper.

3. His French is so bad - and his attitude is so indifferent - that he can't even learn to say the initials of his party properly. "En-pee-dee" - seriously (at 11 secs in)?? How hard is it to say "En-Pay-Day"? As a mnemonic, he can think of cashing in when he wins the leadership.

Anyway, I'll let you know if anything else comes to mind.

Stockholm wrote:

Unionist wrote:

 I defy you to cite one single statement he makes that could not be said in a similar video by Stephen Harper.

I don't think Harper would make statements about fighting for social democratic values and about addressing climate change and building a green economy etc... to name a few.

First of all, he said "social democratic principles" (0:20) - not "values". But it's ok, because that's just rhetoric, unless you explain what you mean.

As for climate change, I heard him say "la lutte au changement climatique" and "greener economy". But it's all meaningless rhetoric, as [url=http://www.peterkent.ca/view/news/202]Peter Kent[/url] will tell you:

Quote:

Environment Minister Peter Kent and Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney today announced an investment of $600.8 million over five years to renew the Clean Air Regulatory Agenda, (CARA), which has served as the framework for the Government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality since 2006.

If he had said something gutsy, like: "I will not accept anything less than fulfilling our Kyoto obligations", I would have sat up and and taken note. But I'm still slouching here, so that should tell you something.

Following U's comment, trying for helpful suggestions here...

And maybe he would stand up and take note for anything that could be called 'money where the mouth is' substantive  [since that horse of fulfilling our Kyoto obligations went out of the barn long, long ago].

For example, "We are going to put the whole of the NDP's excellent climate change package front and centre."

[Subtext: instead of the practice to date that has been limited to positioning around bits of it. 'Cap and trade is better,' or now that the Conservatives are doing some of that: 'more'. Etc.] 

I'd love to go to the NDP convention - it would be my first - but it's a hell of a long way away, and someone has to mind the Ponderosa here.

I might consider going if I had a hearing escort (I'm deaf), but that's a very big "if".

I'm not going to make up my mind until all the debates and speeches are done, but right now here's where I am for the moment:

First tier: Thomas Mulcair (in a class by himself)

Second Tier: Peggy Nash, Brian Topp, Romeo Saganash, Nathan Cullen, Niki Ashton

There's zero probability that I'm going to vote for Dewar, Singh, or Chisholm.

Peter3 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

If he had said something gutsy, like: "I will not accept anything less than fulfilling our Kyoto obligations", I would have sat up and and taken note. But I'm still slouching here, so that should tell you something.

On the basis of the evidence available in your posts on this site, I'd guess that if Paul Dewar dove in front of a train to save a baby you'd have something snide to say about his lack of enthusiasm and a critique of the distance he achieved on the toss.

Let the record show that Peter, not I, was the first to summon the image of Paul diving in front of a train...

So Peter, serious question: Did you notice one single thing Paul said that Stephen would have balked at? Or has content become totally irrelevant in the race for who looks more prime ministerial?

I worry a lot about the NDP sounding indistinguishable from the Liberal party. What do I do when I can't distinguish them from the Cons??

I just can't figure out why young people don't give a damn about politics any more. Except for a few extremely ambitious ones, and those who (like Brigette DePape) have figured out that the world will not be changed by cutesy questions in Question Period.

Romeo Saganash in-depth interview by APTN http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/12/20/stand-up-to-defend-your-rights-says...

Could we maybe not descend into thoughtless sexism, where women are judged on their hotness or their romantic potential? That would be terrific. Thanks.

Unionist wrote:

Ken, did you notice one single solitary thing Dewar said that couldn't have been said by Harper (except for the meaningless code-word, "social-democratic principles")?

You sure make it hard on a guy.

Like, do I have to say explicitly that I agree more than I dont. If I go that far, it could hurt.

I was trying to help because you used the example of Dewar demanding nothing less than meeting our Kyoto commitments, which is no longer even physically possible, having descended form being a long shot possibility after the Liberals finished sitting on their asses.

So I inserted something else that would require gumption... even though it is 'just' promising to get serious about what is already NDP policy.

Boom Boom: It appears that there's a whole lot more where that came from ...

Romeo Saganash in the 'Peg Part II: Stopping the Dumb on Crime agenda

To thunderous applause, Saganash reiterated why Harper's crime policy was bad, how it didn't effectively reduce crime, and how Texas conservatives were backing away from it.

Romeo Saganash in the 'Peg Part III: Climate Change & Regaining the West

"Another member of the crowd then asked about strategies to get more MPs from Western Canada and to buildup membership in what was the NDP's cradle - the prairies."

Romeo Saganash in the 'Peg Part IV: The CWB & Social Housing

Saganash outlined what he sees as the two diametrically opposed approaches to farm policy. One approach involves catering to large Agrobusinesses while the other involves support for family farms. The leadership hopeful believes that preserving the Canadian Wheat Board is the best way to help family farmers.

He further went on to describe the way in which the Conservatives have gone about changing the law as "unacceptable". What he specifically has in mind are Conservative responses to Court rulings over whether the government can change the Wheat Board without affected farmers voting on the matter. The Conservative response, that they have a (manufactured) majority and thus should be able to change whatever laws they want, reeks of arrogance according to Saganash. Previous majority governments, the leadership hopeful contends, have passed more bills with amendments than the Harper Government has thus far.

... And it looks like the blogger has more to come!

AnonymousMouse wrote:

078 wrote:

How about Ruth Ellen Brosseau?    (At least she's hot???)

I don't really have a problem with this comment since it was in response to a joke about politicians having a love affair, but the date above shows "078" joined Rabble TODAY. Did you honestly sign up in order to leave THAT comment? Really, dude?

You don't have to bother, really.

I'd like those who are defending this nonsense to take a moment and look at the recent contributions of our newest members elsewhere on the board. I will promise not to say I told you so in return. Also a quick feminism 101: there is no reverse sexism.

If you're having trouble with any of this, I encourage you to review the policy you signed up to respect when joining this discussion board.

But thanks for trying to help me out with this. Really appreciated.

Hurray, we now have a schedule for the remaining official debates! http://leadership2012.ndp.ca/events

Shoon wrote:

Noah her co campaign chair and her campaign manager still a mystery, please let it not be former leader Dwain, are both from Sask and being so front and centre on Western issues such as the wheat board. As for Quebec her other campaign chair is one of the MP's from Quebec that endorsed her. Plus I've heard she gets a good crowd at her Quebec events.

It isn't Dwain.  Even speculating that it might be Dwain shows you don't really get the dynamics here.  Right now, Niki's Saskatchewan supporters include people who supported Ryan Meili, Yens Pedersen and Deb Higgins in the provincial leadership.  I'm not aware of any Lingenfelter supporters.  (Which isn't to say there aren't any.)

Does anyone actually have direct numbers from the Forum poll (as opposed to numbers mediated by either Ivison or HuffPo)?

By Ivison's version says Mulcair 45, Nash 16, Topp 8, Dewar 8 (remaining five 22).

By the HuffPo version its Mulcair 45, Nash 16, Topp 8, Ashton 8, Dewar 4 (remaining four 18 - which suggests at least one or two are ahead of Dewar).

Obviously I prefer the HuffPo version.

Topp fundraises on Cons cuts to health funding

Quote:

Under the subject line "Stephen Harper was right," which may startle a few New Democrats - Mr. Topp says the Prime Minister admitted "that stable funding for healthcare is simply unaffordable in the current situation."

The former party president adds: "And for once, Stephen Harper was right. Don't stop reading! Let me explain."Mr. Topp says the fact the Harper government plans to tie increases in health funding to economic growth means that "in good years your family might get the care it needs. In bad years, perhaps that would be less true."

But meanwhile, he writes, "Mr. Harper's wealthy friends will get their tax cuts in good times and bad. That's just wrong. I say it's time Harper's wealthy friends start paying their fair share. Our healthcare shouldn't suffer just so the wealthiest among us can benefit."

The veteran NDP strategist, who is one of nine candidates seeking to succeed the late Jack Layton, has put out a bold plan to raise taxes. He is advocating a new 35-per-cent tax rate for Canadians making more than $250,000 a year. Some pundits say he may have trouble selling this as any talk about raising taxes makes Canadians nervous.

I was curious who is getting this email. Is it all sorts of members, or just people who have signed up on Topp's site?

Because it looks to me like its not just a fundraiser.

And it would be nice to see the whole letter posted here.

Some pundits say some pundits are a complete waste of time, especially when you examine closely what some pundits say, in light of what some pundits say.

In summary, time will tell.

writer wrote:

I'd like those who are defending this nonsense to take a moment and look at the recent contributions of our newest members elsewhere on the board. I will promise not to say I told you so in return. Also a quick feminism 101: there is no reverse sexism.

If you're having trouble with any of this, I encourage you to review the policy you signed up to respect when joining this discussion board.

But thanks for trying to help me out with this. Really appreciated.

A few hours ago, I wrote to all three mods advising them of a series of s*******b***g***s who had signed up consecutively. I was hoping they'd be banned before some well-meaning babblers started either agreeing or disagreeing with them. I'm sure they will be properly sprayed in due course.

Quote:

Emilio is just looking to get a rise out of people, don't take the bait. Feminism 101: aside from a desire for female empowerment thier is no universal consenous, lots of different opinions and hypocracy (no reverse sexism) only encourages people to tune you out, and men that have had been treated this way to suffer in silence. Not saying their in equal proportions, but it does occur.

Thanks for the tip, Shoon. I did not take the bait. I registered an objection, and informed the moderators. As did others. Emilio will be posting no longer.

I have informed the moderators again. Whether there is "universal consenous" or not, there is consensus here on this board, which has evolved for more than 10 years now. You can either respect it – as you indicated you would when signing up – or, like Emilio, not. 

Shoon wrote:

Saganash is 7 percent. the rest aren't doing much better then Dewar. Also 308 went with Huffs numbers, so that's a hint as which is correct.

So:

• Mulcair 45
• Nash 16
• Ashton 8
• Topp 8
• Saganash 7
• Dewar 4
• Chisholm, Cullen and Singh 12 between the lot

Of course, I generally take things Eric Grenier says as probably flawed.  But since it actually came from elsewehere (and I actually like it) I'll go with it.

<Edited because meh.>