Who are u supporting for NDP Leader, how will u mark your ballot, and why?

Stockholm wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

4.)  Mulcair -- competent.  Seems capable.  I don't agree that it would be effective to soft-sell social democracy as a means to getting power, however.  Using revenue from cap and trade to fund other non-environmental programs seems hypocritrical since we criticized the Dion Liberals on that aspect of their green shift proposal.

My recollection is different. I don't remember the NDP attacking the "green shift" on the grounds that it would raise revenue that would be used for other things...

They sort of did, but you're right, that wasn't the main attack.  From an old Globe article:

old Globe article wrote:

As for the Liberal plan, said Mr. Layton, it doesn't set a target for reducing emissions. “Unfortunately it doesn't force the big polluters to pay. And perhaps most unfortunately, it doesn't take any of that money and put it into the investments in the solutions that people need,” said Mr. Layton, citing public transit as one of those requirements.

I was pretty sure he also emphasized that revenue from the NDP plan would be used specifically for those "solutions" (IE, home retrofits, public transit) that he referred to in the article -- though I may be wrong.

[later edit...]

I'm not wrong.  I checked the 2008 platform, and it clearly states, "All revenue will be applied to environmental solutions."  So if Mulcair is proposing that some revenue will go to something other than environmental solutions, then this is a change from our past policy.  And clearly Layton was critical of the Green Shift for putting revenue into stuff other than environmental solutions.

Maybe.

But there was no justification given. Nor is there one implicit.

And it was not just Jack critiquing the Liberals on that. More deadly was that treating carbon tax revenues as a new cash cow painted a big fat target on the Libs for the Cons to blast away at.

I think what makes this thread interesting is people simply saying their preferences and maybe a BIT what that is based on, and others mostly leaving it at that.

When the thing about cap and trade came up it was already discussion verging away from that. So I moved my comment to the endless thread for discussing that.

The last couple posts, I thought that we were in that endless NDP leadership thread. If people want to continue on this issue, maybe take it up there.

Caissa:

Me too, pretty much every day. Those are huge shoes. And that doesn't even include those that were once worn by Woodsworth and Douglas, Blessed Be their memories.

As a hero of mine always says, Alan Grayson, courage! Or as Jack would say, "My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world."

Was there a more gracious person on the face of the planet?

Still mulling over how I will rank my ballot. I may even consider voting online ballot by ballot but not sure how long of a commitment that would entail. My top three contenders are Cullen, Nash & Saganash (alpha order for now). I'm assuming that with a ranked ballot, having less than 8 candidates ranked will not result in a spoiled ballot. Can anyone confirm this to be the case? 

Stockholm wrote:

In politics you only have to justify what you are saying today.

Agreed.  The problem with basing the funding of long term expenses like childcare, healthcare, pharmacare, etc., upon any sort of carbon pricing system, is that the intention of the carbon pricing system (in this case, cap and trade) is to lower carbon emissions, and thus to ultimately lower revenue from the carbon pricing system.  So, basing the funding of long term growing services upon something that is meant to shrink (specifically carbon emissions, and thus revenue from them) is poor policy that can't be justified.  I expect that most of the leadership candidates are staying with the past platform of the NDP that stipulates that all revenue from cap and trade will be applied to environmental solutions.

And he does depend on people like Michael Byers, project leader with ArcticNet (a consortium of Arctic scientists to advise on that as a workable policy to lower emissions in the battle against climate change.Some people may now believe that decades down the road, success in this venture will mean that social assistance systems will collapse, but then, they may be too dependent on the alignment of the planets to begin with.

Oh, you can make it very clear what you propose in the way of taxation. Selling the idea and achieving power is another ball of wax.

And as the post says, Michael Byers is project leader with ArcticNet (a consortium of Arctic scientists) and a solid New Democrat. Tyee quotes him, and I'll bet google would fetch him in a heartbeat.

Although he didn't show too much charisma, and i am concerned how he would be percieved next to Harper and Rae, but I was really sold on Topp in the mini debates he had with Saganash and Mulcair. Saganash did bring up a legitmate concern in regards to how the propoganda machine would attack Topp's tax idea, but Topp correctly stated that it was an argument they must win. And there's no reason they can't if they emphasize the details (those making $250, 000, capital gains, etc.).

I really want to like Mulcair, but the fact that he basically dimissed the idea as something that "sounds good in a debate" (or something along those lines) really irked me. Topp is bringing the policy and is seemingly emphasizing the socialist/social democratic ideals the most. 

Picking up on the cap and trade talking point, I'm becoming quite uncomfortable with Mulcair's strong support for a cap and trade system. Such a system can be VERY convoluted, and without tariff penalties, would likely hurt our manufacturing sector relative to those of other countries. The party will also keep getting hit over the head with the fact that we'll have no idea to what extent prices will increase (the large corporations will surely pass on greater costs to the consumer than are warranted, rake in the extra profits and blame the "incompetent socialist government" for the price increases). Of course, with a carbon tax, we don't know to what extent GHGs will be reduced, but at least the system will be transparent and we will know the cost (I'm partial to James Hansen's "fee and green cheque" proposal which is very simple, effective, and progressive). In any case, the world is already blasting past the worst case scenarios for climate change and very soon the positive feedbacks (e.g., methane from melting permafrost) are probably going to ensure that nothing but massive technological changes save us. We have to get off of coal and oil quickly. Right now, we need to change our building codes (provincial jurisdiction, but the feds can provide incentives), invest in conservation, geothermal projects and fourth generation nuclear power (see George Monbiot's article: http://www.monbiot.com/2011/12/05/a-waste-of-waste/). Solar isn't yet worth the investment until the technology becomes much cheaper (i.e., from 2000-2008, Germany spent $35 billion Euro on solar power to provide a grand total 0.7% of the country's electricity supply, while coal remains at 46% of the supply - almost the same level as the US).

I do hope that we see a few drop out after the first-ballot results come in. I am reasonably sure Singh will come in last and get eliminated first. I think the remaining seven will each have enough votes that their elimination could make a substantial difference in the final tally, but anyone who is clearly not going to win should save us all some exhaustion and prevent it from becoming a six-round convention.

Of course, because of the advance preferential ballot - if some candidate wants to throw their support over to another, they really have to make that decision in advance of the convention day, before most members have filled in their ballots. Otherwise, doing so on the day of would have a relatively minor impact.

And as I watch these white dudes mouth the same platitudes, I feel you. It's weird how we're programmed to see "different" as not up to the job, much as we all complain about the same old politics.

I am supporting Mulcair because in the end this is an historic opportunity for us to really make an impact by winning. I believe he is by far the best choice using this criteria. Nash is my second choice for the same reason. I want to drive the Tories from power.

I'm still very much undecided but my impressions of the Halifax debate are helping to shape my thoughts here.

Was pleasantly surprised by the field - even Ashton and Singh.  Perhaps I haven't paid enough attention to tire of them yet but for "also rans" they impressed.  Ashton, in particular, has done a great job in advancing her profile for down the road.

Was a little disappointed with Saganash's performance.  Someone above mentioned that the passion, while there, didn't come out and I too miss that.  The bio is impressive and he would certainly present a contrast to Harper, but I'm not sure that he gets us to the government benches.

Topp, Dewar and Nash were fine but they all left me wanting more.  I think I would have preferred had they had more of a go with Mulcair in the mini-debates.  He is, if only the media's mind, the one to beat and if they can't best him directly then any win would seem suspect.

Mulcair played the role of front runner (whether he is or not I don't know if anyone can say) and performed well.  Certainly the safest choice on the competence front.  No doubt he could go toe to toe with Harper but I'm not sure he can keep his powder dry or his anger targetted at the right people.  I though his retort to Dewar on the bulk water exports was fantastic in pitch and tone but I don't know if we can ever get a bon-Jack spell out of him on the campaign trail.

The biggest, and for me most unexpected surprise, had to be Cullen.  Was really impressed with his poise, humour and delivery.  Have no expectation that he will win or if he could make shore us up in Quebec enough to build elsewhere but on the day, his performance was the one I noticed the most.

So I am left wanting more but encouraged that we have a good mix to pick from.  I think that Jeffrey Simpson was right when he suggested that neither the Liberals or the Conservatives could field as capable a stage of contenders, and that has to give us cause for some optimism.

Some commenters have argued that they want their particular socialist/social democratic vision implemented or they are quite willing to lose the next election to ensure they get the candidate they want in the election after that. That's a nice luxury for people who can wait that long (including myself) but for the poor and other groups suffering major disadvantages, such a wait could be catastrophic. Can you imagine how much more damage Harper can do in 8 years? We need to take our best chance at defeating Harper now. The policy differences between candidates all lie within the same ballpark (with the exception of Cullen's Liberal/NDP joint venture and, even with that against him, he may become my second choice because of his ability to reach people in a manner similar to Jack).

We have to hit Question Period floor running after the leadership convention, or we are likely to lose both media and Quebec battles since much more is expected of as the Official Opposition and the largest party in Quebec. A series of polls are already showing us dropping significantly in Quebec as we drift under Turmel's  leadership (she is doing what she can with little background as MP and an inadequate command of English but it is not enough, which only emphasizes my point even more). I think Mulcair gives us the best chance to win these battles and introduce major reforms in 2015 because of his ability to present compelling arguments well, to stand up to Harper, to argue forcefully for a progressive agenda, and to engage Quebec voters.

Make your own narrative.

I'm a dreamer but I'm not alone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q0Eyw3l3XM

jerrym wrote:

Some commenters have argued that they want their particular socialist/social democratic vision implemented or they are quite willing to lose the next election to ensure they get the candidate they want in the election after that.

Not "some" commentaters. One.

And I knew the moment it was out that many would be seizing on that as the explanation for everyone with reservations about Mulcair.

jerrym wrote:

We have to hit Question Period floor running after the leadership convention, or we are likely to lose both media and Quebec battles since much more is expected of as the Official Opposition and the largest party in Quebec. A series of polls are already showing us dropping significantly in Quebec as we drift under Turmel's leadership (she is doing what she can with little background as MP and an inadequate command of English but it is not enough, which only emphasizes my point even more). I think Mulcair gives us the best chance to win these battles and introduce major reforms in 2015 because of his ability to present compelling arguments well, to stand up to Harper, to argue forcefully for a progressive agenda, and to engage Quebec voters.

There are quite a few of us who do not think that we are most likely to beat Harper with Mulcair as leader.

In 2003 I voted for Jack Layton.  Not because I campaigned for him during his Toronto mayoral run, not because he was always willing to lend his voice to a cause (he participated in a number of actions and events I was involved in), but because he was the logical choice.  He was the consummate politician -- he and Olivia could work a room like nobody's business.  My heart was with Joe Comartin, who is a man of enormous moral strength, but I voted Layton because I knew he would take the party forward and really bring it to the national stage.  He did that, at first, and then disappointed me by listening to PR handlers who misread the sort of person he was.  When he became ill, his core of strength went front and foremost and captured people's imaginations. 

Romeo Saganash is my top pick because he appeals to both my heart and my head.  He has the background and experience to do the job, but more importantly he has the ability to capture the imaginations of Canadian voters. 

Thomas Mulcair may be the most talented politician of the bunch, but his moral compass puts him at the bottom of my list, for many reasons.  I can vote for someone I personally dislike, but I can't vote for someone I can't trust.

Peggy Nash is a strong, brilliant and capable woman, but I can't see her truly engaging the Canadian voting public.  That's the only reason why she's my second choice.

Brian Topp is many things - smart, able to negotiate party politics, and I feel he is a genuinely decent human being, but he's spent too much time in the background to make enough of an impression upon Canadian voters.  That's why he's my third choice.

The remaining four candidates have my respect, but they haven't engaged me in any way so I suspect that they'll be moving to their various allegiances after first ballot.  I don't want to be dismissive, but I feel they need more exposure and more credible records of voting in the House before they can realistically be leader of the party.

Gaian wrote:

I "trust" the reasons will be forthcoming. Otherwise it has all the impact of "because."

Quoi?

Mulcair's astonishing attack on Libby Davies, his colleague and co-deputy leader, has been well-documented on these boards. There is no way I could support a party leader with a moral compass that allowed him to do that. I know many NDPers who feel the same.

At the moment, I would rank them as followed:

- Mulcair (my really concern with Mulcair, like I pointed out on this board a few times is that I really need to see him chill out a little bit. His temper keeps popping from time to time. I know Mulcair wouldn't change the party and he has been really trustful to our policies for a long time. Even in Charest cabinet, it's was well known in the party insiders that Mulcair was more of the centre-left of the party than on the center right. So apart from his position on Israel and Palestine, I totally trust the man. I also consider that we have to keep that balance and stay more of a pragmatical party than going back to a more ideological one)
- Nash (apart from a few flat lines, she was ace on last Sunday debate, IMO. For once, she was clear with clear points and a lot more engaging than in previous debates. Nash knows the party would make a brilliant leader. I just really wish she would be engaging all the time, she has it in her.)
- Saganash (he was my dream candidate. I know the guy's reputation in Quebec. Due to poor debater and communication skills, I can't rank him #1... That's really unfortunate. Even though is comment on Quebec territory was pretty fair, it shows a big lack of political skills to say something like that out loud...)
- Topp (Brian is brillant and the more I hear and see him, the more I have his intelligence and knowledge high in my ranking. But everytime I see him, the way he debate and interact, I always feel there is something really arrogant about him. He really has to find a balance to win me over)
- Ashton (she is really giving it her best and can be really ace with her political flair. I really admire her guts, but half of the time, Niki sounds like a tape repeating the same messages over and over and I am still wondering what this "new politics" is more than what the NDP and Jack have been saying and supporting for the past few years)
- Cullen (due to his recent comments and his liberal-NDP collaboration pack, I cannot rank him higher. It's pretty sad because Cullen is easily, IMO, the most engaging speaker of the bunch and the most Jack-Layton-like)
- Dewar (his French is not good enough. Therefore, Dewar cannot be higher).
- Singh (he was a lot better in the last debate but I still see him a two-trick-poney. I wish he would be able to talk more about other things he would do as a leader).

If Saganash was really changing overnight and become an amazing public debater and speaker in both langage, I could change my mind, but at this stage, I am pretty sure Nash and Mulcair would be #1 and #2. Still a little bit undecided on the ordre for these two.

Jack never attacked Libby personally. Mulcair's personal attack on Libby was aimed at marginalizing her and it has to some extent probably done so.

As deputy leader, Mulcair's centrist approach was balanced off with Libby's social democratic approach. So there is a worry that if Mulcair becomes leader this balance may be weakened.

One of Mulcair's biggest weaknesses is that he seems too centrist, too Liberal. Mulcair should be trying to dispel these perceptions but instead he seems to be reinforcing them as he did over the weekend by saying that instead of increasing taxes on the 1% and richest corporations, cap and trade will provide sufficient revenues.

If Mulcair wants to win the leadership race he should start sounding a lot more like a social democrat and a lot less like a Liberal.

flight from kamakura wrote:

yeah, that story about mulcair standing up and applauding with the cpc and lpc mps is nuts.  even if mulcair secretly harbored a passionate hatred for libby davies (which seems absurd), it's not in the guy's dna to do something so utterly destructive to both his party and himself.  so what did he do?  he pointed out that he didn't agree with libby and that it wasn't party policy.  "moral compass"... uhhhh?  what?

In our party, many members think of Libby as some god that can do or say no wrong. And don't get me wrong, I like Libby a lot. But if it had been another member who said something out of line and Mulcair made a statement on it, it wouldn't have been an issue. Or if Mulcair was the one who phoned the Israeli ambassador to apologize instead of Jack, the same people would have gone apeshit at Mulcair... but it was Jack so it was no big deal.

Good grief, gender magnet? How about bonafide progressive credentials magnet?