You're inviting a tome?
NDP Leadership 79
Mon, 2012-01-23 04:33
#52
Mon, 2012-01-23 05:04
#53
The only time that Mulcair has even given a moderate degree of speification of what is talking about was a few paragraphs on the CPP+. I commented a bit on what was there, not the volume. I didnt see much to say one way or the other.
I think we are safe in not needing to worry our little heads over the possibility of Mulcair specifying enough that it brings out complaints that it is too much.
Now if you wanted to complain that whatever Mulcair says someone is going to criticise it, you'd be on solid ground. But then, it is a leadership race. And he's the front runner.
Mon, 2012-01-23 06:26
#54
The Halifax debate is next Sunday afternoon.
Are there any debate parties scheduled in Toronto?
Mon, 2012-01-23 07:01
#55
...and without detail, what's the difference between a policy statement and a wishlist?
Mon, 2012-01-23 08:17
#56
writer
No official debate, nicky. The Toronto Area Council held one just a few days ago, on Wednesday. All the candidates attended. It was covered by rabble.ca. It's still available here, I believe.
Mon, 2012-01-23 08:27
#57
I meant parties next Sunday to watch the debate from Halifax.
Mon, 2012-01-23 08:34
#58
writer
Sorry, missed that all-important word! Sleepy head, over here.
Mon, 2012-01-23 08:36
#59
In terms of turnout in Halifax:
Weather forecast for Sunday- of course could change massivley by then. We are today coming off a couple of the few cold days we have had this winter, and some snow.
Through Sunday we are slated for dismal cloudy weather around freezing, but no serious precipitation.
Mon, 2012-01-23 11:51
#60
So now the biggest criticisms against Mulcair aren't that he's anti-union. It's that he has poor political judgment in how he handled the issue.
How do you quantify or qualify "poor political judgment"?
- He wins elections.
- He wins endorsements. From unions.
- He wins support. From members.
- He gets favorable media coverage.
- He polls well. Outside and inside the party.[...]
Good points.
Mon, 2012-01-23 11:57
#61
While not directed only at me.... the comment was a response to what I said.
And those are the most obvious answers, but not all of them.
I'm getting there. 
[As a general comment about about Mulcair's political judgement.]
Mon, 2012-01-23 12:41
#62
I meant parties next Sunday to watch the debate from Halifax.
What's this, a cheery note in the vale of tears? Party? Amongst the Jeremiads? :)
Mon, 2012-01-23 12:47
#63
Yes, I need a drink after reading some of this stuff.
Mon, 2012-01-23 13:04
#64
Sun's over the yardarm, I never wait for party time. But a (reasonable)round's on me on the 24th.
Mon, 2012-01-23 14:23
#65
I've found most of the candidates severely lacking on policy. Brian Topp has been the best candidate on this, but only because he made a VERY brief statement on revenue (with no detailed numbers, as far as I remember, but maybe I'm wrong).
I'm not sure this is going to be a policy-based race. Again, everyone basically supports the platform. The big policy announcements barely expand on that: "we will have a national childcare program". "We will make electoral reform a priority." "We will have pharmacare." For people who already support the party, none of this is news.
So unless anyone can find some genuine wedges between the candidates, we're picking our candidate based on their ability to win. I say that as a matter of fact, not as a matter of preference.
Mon, 2012-01-23 14:25
#66
I've found most of the candidates severely lacking on policy. Brian Topp has been the best candidate on this, but only because he made a VERY brief statement on revenue (with no detailed numbers, as far as I remember, but maybe I'm wrong).
I'm not sure this is going to be a policy-based race. Again, everyone basically supports the platform. The big policy announcements barely expand on that: "we will have a national childcare program". "We will make electoral reform a priority." "We will have pharmacare." For people who already support the party, none of this is news.
So unless anyone can find some genuine wedges between the candidates, we're picking our candidate based on their ability to win. I say that as a matter of fact, not as a matter of preference.
On the question of "fact" or "preference", the party having a united policy agenda is not a bad thing, IMO.
Mon, 2012-01-23 18:15
#67
I dont accept that there are no differences shown, but I'll get to that later.
If there were none shown, that is not the same thing as a 'united policy agenda.'
And it sounds like what SDM is suggesting is united in no policy agendas.
Mon, 2012-01-23 18:55
#68
I've found most of the candidates severely lacking on policy. Brian Topp has been the best candidate on this, but only because he made a VERY brief statement on revenue (with no detailed numbers, as far as I remember, but maybe I'm wrong).
Since when do leadership candidates get to make up policy and parade it around fashion-show style? What kind of party is this?
I'm not sure this is going to be a policy-based race. Again, everyone basically supports the platform.
Whoa, what a disappointment. They support the platform. Shee-it.
The big policy announcements barely expand on that: "we will have a national childcare program". "We will make electoral reform a priority." "We will have pharmacare." For people who already support the party, none of this is news.
Yeah, what we need is news. Like a candidate saying: "I think we should fucking privatize everything that isn't nailed down, and then ban nails!!!" Or, "I think we should nationalize everything in sight - vote for ME!" Now that would produce some sparks, wouldn't it? Fuck the convention, to hell with the members - we need leaders that [size=20]LEAD[/size]!!!
Mon, 2012-01-23 19:15
#69
dacckon
Why not campaign? The leader who can campaign the best and win is a sign that he/she may do in the next federal election
We are individuals with one vote picking the strongest individual. We must look beyond the stereotypical notions of what they may be and objectively see them for the complex human beings that they are. The notion that we should resort to party vanguardism is abhorrent, we should be proud of the openess we have that individuals can propose new policies that we can vote on. If someone wants to run on the same policies and directly state that he/she is doing so, then they can.
Don't make me spew more rhetoric out :D, and lets get back to the race.
Mon, 2012-01-23 20:02
#70
There seems to be general agreement about the policy direction the NDP should be taking. And that makes sense. Usually parties choose a new leader because there is dissatisfaction with the former leader and/or the direction the party was going in. This is obviously not the case here. The NDP just had its most successful election ever and there is no real need for dramatic policy changes. Surely the NDP has existing policies and platforms that the candidates can adopt. Candidates should focus on telling members how they will plan on maintaining support in Quebec and growing support in the other provinces. IMO, that is the most important thing for the NDP right now. I think the NDP needs a leader with excellent communication skills, the ability to stand up to the Conservative attack machine and good connections in Quebec.
Mon, 2012-01-23 20:31
#71
Of greater relevance, perhaps, might be the misleading comments he made as Minister of the Environment in 2005 about the wages earned by bus drivers. He basically made misleading comments about bus drivers earning between 80 000 and 100 000$ (whereas the mean salary was 48 000$ and only a handful of drivers managed to make more than 80 000$ by accumulating a shitload of overtime) and used that as a (fictional) wedge issue to justify not increasing investment in public transit.
I wouldn't say that is evidence of "anti-unionism", but it does evince a disparaging attitude toward workers.
I think that's a reasonable concern, that when expanding support for any public service that the money doesn't end up going to salaries rather than improved service. That can happen.
Mon, 2012-01-23 20:57
#72
I'd like to see some real contrasts between the candidates. Maybe it IS a good thing that there haven't been any strong contrasts on policy, and that it's only a question of degree or priority. There definitely hasn't been a complete lack of policy, more just a general lack of details, and vague but "violent agreement" on the NDP platform. It's good that every leader is going to let the NDP be the NDP.
But what that means is that this isn't a leadership race so much as a beauty contest.
Mon, 2012-01-23 21:21
#73
Since when do leadership candidates get to make up policy and parade it around fashion-show style? What kind of party is this?...
Whoa, what a disappointment. They support the platform. Shee-it.
After 5 years of Harper's one-man show, we now seem to have a political culture where people feel that a successful leader has the perocative to act as a unilateral dictator. Once someone replaces Harper as PM, it will be interesting to see if that person gives up the "dictatorship of the PMO" that has steadily grown during the last 40 years.
If there is one thing that needs changing in Canada it's the reduction of prime minestirial powers. The nature of the NDP's Leadership race seems to be supporting the dictatorial nature of Canadian politics instead of providing an alternative to it.
Lack of consultation in policy making has been a hallmark of the Harper Administration. The prospective NDP leaders should be providing a democratic alternative to this approach.
Mon, 2012-01-23 21:23
#74
But what that means is that this isn't a leadership race so much as a beauty contest.
I disagree. Leadership is about more than deciding policy. It's about how to implement the policy - how to make it reality. It's about how the party can persuade Canada that its policy is right for the country. Even if candidates are all in general agreement about the NDP's policy goals, they are likely not in agreement with the best way to achieve them. To me, this is much more than a beauty contest.
ETA - oh and call my cynical but I don't think we'll ever see a majority gov't reduce the PM's powers. This will have to happen in a minority gov't. (or, I guess I could see it happening in a majority right before an election if the governing party senses it won't win again)
Mon, 2012-01-23 22:08
#75
Its not about deciding policy.
Existing NDP policy just about covers the waterfront. But where you go with it, what initiatives are featured for it to hit the road... those set the direction the party will take.
So a leadership race SHOULD be about the candidates indicating the direction/vision they see unfolding.
If people think that little difference in that between the candidates is a good thing- that's sad.
I do not actually agree that there is as little difference as being suggested. But I think the very idea that people like seeing little difference means something- even if I do not know exacly what.
Mon, 2012-01-23 22:31
#76
After 5 years of Harper's one-man show, we now seem to have a political culture where people feel that a successful leader has the perocative to act as a unilateral dictator. Once someone replaces Harper as PM, it will be interesting to see if that person gives up the "dictatorship of the PMO" that has steadily grown during the last 40 years.
If there is one thing that needs changing in Canada it's the reduction of prime minestirial powers. The nature of the NDP's Leadership race seems to be supporting the dictatorial nature of Canadian politics instead of providing an alternative to it.
Lack of consultation in policy making has been a hallmark of the Harper Administration. The prospective NDP leaders should be providing a democratic alternative to this approach.
Word.
Tue, 2012-01-24 00:03
#77
The Vancouver Peggy team is having a debate viewing party:
Tue, 2012-01-24 00:39
#78
I agree Summer.
Tue, 2012-01-24 00:42
#79
I don't know. If leaders aren't really doing more with policy, other than dressing it up, explaining its priority in their administration, explaining how they might do it or how they might sell it to the electorate... then that's what I mean by a beauty contest. Finding the most leader-y of the leaders, based on qualities like "I can imagine him/her as Prime Minister", "I could imagine him/her responding to attacks well", "they inspire me", or "I like their jokes". That's basically okay with me, because we need a leader who can first and foremost make our party appealing to at least 40% of voters. It's just making it hard for me to decide between candidates, because I basically like all of them, but don't love any of them.
Tue, 2012-01-24 00:57
#80
Here's Romeo Saganash's response to Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME). More about principles than "platform." Apologies if this has been posted already:
December 12, 2011
Thomas E. Woodley, President, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
9880 Clark St., Suite 225, Montreal, QC H3L 2R3
Dear Mr. Woodley,
Thank you for your letter of November 12th requesting my position on issues of importance to Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME).
To begin, I would like to highlight my complete agreement with the three values on which you indicate that CJPME bases its policies:
1) As a practitioner in the field, I am entirely committed to international law and to the rule of law more broadly.
2) I believe equal expectations of all parties to conflicts is an element of basic fairness, noting that equity sometimes requires support for a leveling of the playing field before equal expectations can be imposed and fulfilled.
3) Especially in situations such as the conflict in the Middle East where ongoing violence has continually interrupted the peace process, a firm commitment to non-violent negotiation is a minimum requirement for progress.
I am very pleased to share these values with your organization and know that they give us a firm foundation from which to work together for peace.
In response to the questions you have asked, I would like to begin by saying that there is reason for hope. As you noted, I have some experience and expertise in international law and international relations. I have seen patient and persistent commitment to the process pay dividends for everyone concerned.
Over the course of my campaign for leadership of the New Democratic Party, I have spoken often of my approach to bringing people together and I believe that it has very strong applicability to this situation. If parties can come to the table with respect, listening attentively to what is said, and search for solutions based in the common ground that exists rather than focusing on what divides them, then they can and will make progress.
For this approach to work, there must be a trusted and secure environment for dialogue. International law provides that environment. Regrettably, in the Middle East, the principles of international law are violated daily. This must end in order to create the space for successful dialogue. I am firmly committed to ensuring that the context for peace is established, so that the parties can move forward together. I believe Canada can and should play that role.
As I believe you are aware, colonization and colonialism are circumstances with which I have considerable familiarity. Suffering and subjugation is a condition that I cannot wish upon any people, but it is an inevitable result of colonialism. Therefore, I believe we must oppose such action everywhere it occurs. Settlements have been established in the West Bank contrary to international law. There have been United Nations resolutions condemning these and yet, it appears that they continue. Illegal colonization is contrary to constructive dialogue and will not help bring about a lasting peace.
The blockade of Gaza exacerbates economic and humanitarian conditions that must be overcome in order to create the conditions for constructive dialogue. As long as people are unable to build their own economies and fully exercise their rights of self-determination, the establishment of expectations regarding governance is impeded and the possibility of nation-to-nation dialogue is constrained. Clearly, the broader implications of the blockade with regard to meeting basic medical and alimentary needs must also be addressed to alleviate the pressing humanitarian challenges that exist.
More broadly, I would like to say that I have fought for many years to defend the rights of all peoples to self-determination and self-government. This is the way to defeat colonialism and the way to promote both human rights and economic progress. Those are the conditions under which peace can bloom.
My own history is as a member of a colonized people who are fighting our way out from that circumstance. I note that we are doing this through peaceful means at all times. Respect for the rule of law is a condition that must be self-imposed if it is to be expected of others.
The three values that CJPME and I share, when applied to the situation of Palestinians and Israelis. provide the conditions for progress. I wish you well in these efforts and offer my full support to helping all parties find the way to peace and justice in the Middle East.
Tue, 2012-01-24 01:52
#81
What is the NDP's platform or position on bulk water exports?
Tue, 2012-01-24 03:50
#82
It has opposed them vigourously since I can remember, NR. It was one of the big issues raised during the NAFTA debate.
Tue, 2012-01-24 03:52
#83
Well, I've finally caught up with 5 leadership threads from while I was immersed elsewhere. Amazing how little has changed.
Tue, 2012-01-24 04:15
#84
What is the NDP's platform or position on bulk water exports?
I think the right answer is "who cares"?
Tue, 2012-01-24 04:20
#85
Idealistic Prag...
Well, I've finally caught up with 5 leadership threads from while I was immersed elsewhere. Amazing how little has changed.
I beg to differ--you were sorely missed!
Tue, 2012-01-24 05:31
#86
Yes. Just think what could have developed if you had been here!
Tue, 2012-01-24 05:56
#87
Welcome back Ottawa O. I wondered where you were. Perhaps in exile with Malcolm, whose return we still await.
Tue, 2012-01-24 06:37
#88
Well, I've finally caught up with 5 leadership threads from while I was immersed elsewhere. Amazing how little has changed.
What changes were you expecting? ;)
Tue, 2012-01-24 09:20
#89
I care.What is the NDP's platform or position on bulk water exports?
I think the right answer is "who cares"?
Tue, 2012-01-24 09:33
#90
Arthur Cramer
So do I.
Tue, 2012-01-24 09:40
#91
LOL. This sounds like a lead-up to attacking Mulcair on his statements on water exports while he was Minister of Sustainable Development. Gotta go find some links...
Tue, 2012-01-24 09:40
#92
If you think that leadership is mostly about policy preferences or inclinations, or about who presents the best... then check out this.
Tue, 2012-01-24 09:43
#93
Ok, pro- and anti-Mulcair forces - here ya go - duke it out!
[url=http://www.canadians.org/publications/CP/2004/fall/water.html]Martin in the Middle: of Mulcair and Moratoriums (2004)[/url]
Tue, 2012-01-24 11:23
#94
Humm...
Year: 2004
Position: Minister of the Environment for the PLQ
LOL
Tue, 2012-01-24 11:35
#95
Ok, pro- and anti-Mulcair forces - here ya go - duke it out!
[url=http://www.canadians.org/publications/CP/2004/fall/water.html]Martin in the Middle: of Mulcair and Moratoriums (2004)[/url]
From the article dated June, 2004: "Although Mulcair appears to have backtracked on his statements, the water export debate could resurface in Quebec when its water preservation laws undergo review within the next two years."
Any idea what happened in the review, two years later, just about the time Mulcair was leaving the ministry in protest? Providiing that information might even forego the need to "duke it out."And providing his position in 2012 would be even more edifying.
Tue, 2012-01-24 12:08
#96
As a bit of a distraction, how do babblers feel the NDP establishment has been handling the party's performance in the House of Commons recently?
The OLO got you fired up? How about the party: organizer of official leadership debate(s), leadership rules, interim leader's tour of Québec (did you hear about it?), fundraisers, ad campaigns (i.e. long gun registry, campaign against Lise St-Denis)?
All's well on the good ship lollipop?
Here's a quote from today:
We come back from these five weeks in our ridings full of energy, united and ready to continue to fight to prevent Stephen Harper from ruining the society that Canadians have put so much effort into building
Love, Hope, Optimism? "ruining the society"?
I'd be kind of offended if I had voted Conservative last time. In fact, I'm kind of offended on behalf of my friends and coworkers that did.
Tue, 2012-01-24 12:18
#97
It is getting harder to paint Mulcair as "anti-labour"
"An Open Letter to NDP Members from Labour Leaders"
Tue, 2012-01-24 12:34
#98
John Fryer is back to claiming he is a New Democrat, is he? After running twice for the Green Party in BC, being their Labour critic, and managing Elizabeth May's pre-election campaign in Saanich-Gulf Islands? I see that, just like her, he can't resist adding the "Order of Canada" designation to his signature block every time it appears in print.
Nicky, Mulcair's folks on this board routinely avoid answering what the true concern was about that Mulcair interview with Daniel Leblanc. His comments about Ken Neuman were needlessly provocative, and were self-aggrandizing at the expense of a brother-in-arms, something that was completely unnecessary, except for perhaps a perceived need to prove that he was not a puppet of labour or some such thing that only reinforced the mainstream media narrative about our party. It was tone-deaf to what he would need to do to win the leadership, and lead all of our party. That he has stopped saying such things, at least signifies to me that his campaign understands that was a mistake. Also, that it's over.
And, yes, yes, Mulcair has some endorsers with a history in the house of labour. Not very many current ones, and all men. The major endorsements from CEP, UFCW, the PSAC and other centrals will be coming out probably towards the end of January. We'll see then where things stand, but Peggy Nash just picked up most of the larger provincial labour centrals today. Topp has Steel (though not everywhere), Dewar has NUPGE and the Manitoba Fed and Ottawa District Labour Council, Nash has the CAW and CUPE I guess. I'd guess PSAC goes to Dewar, Peggy gets the UFCW, and Topp and Nash flip for CEP.
Now, if Mulcair could produce some (current) Quebec labour endorsements, that would be something. Especially from unions not involved in the constructions contract scandals. I'm waiting to be impressed.
Tue, 2012-01-24 12:49
#99
I don't think I mentioned this before, but I got a call from someone working in the Cullen Camp. a few days ago. They were nice enough, they asked if I was supporting him in the Leadership Race and I said I hadn't really made up my mind yet. They said that was fair enough and reminded me to watch the next debate on Sunday.
Has anyone else gotten any calls from any of the Camps that they may or may not be supporting?
Tue, 2012-01-24 12:49
#100
Now, if Mulcair could produce some (current) Quebec labour endorsements, that would be something.
What might be even more interesting would be the Quebec labour endorsements going to other candidates.
Tue, 2012-01-24 12:55
#101
I don't think I mentioned this before, but I got a call from someone working in the Cullen Camp. a few days ago. They were nice enough, they asked if I was supporting him in the Leadership Race and I said I hadn't really made up my mind yet. They said that was fair enough and reminded me to watch the next debate on Sunday.
Has anyone else gotten any calls from any of the Camps that they may or may not be supporting?
Yes. Three.