I cant imagine it really matters, but I do not think, and I would probably remember this, that anyone has ever 'attacked' or even 'positionaly marked' Mulcair for Dominic Cardy being a supporter- who very few around here would know a thing about his politics.
You missed it then. Check post #12 in this thread.
As for NPI, if you look at the people supporting that and the people supporting Peggy Nash right now, I think you will connect the dots. She is NPI's heir.
Libby Davies is supporting Topp, and Alexa McDonough is supporting Nash, so I'm not sure the dots are quite as clear as you portray. I feel the general tone of Nash's campaign is more left than is the general tone of the other campaigns, which may result in her being perceived as the "NPI's heir".
Anyway, both NDProgress and New Politics Initiative are old defunct movements, so who really cares?
I don't have issue with any of Brian's history. But there seems to be a double standard in this race. What he's campaigning on now doesn't jive with his history (even under the Layton NDP to be fair) but no questions are asked. Why?
Topp has said things that he will not be able to back away from. He will be forced to defend positions that he's taken. These positions act as commitments. He's showing that he's willing to defend these policies.
Really? Picture it... 2015... NDP form government... "The economy is doing much better than when I proposed this tax plan in 2011. People have jobs. Revenue is rolling in. I don't see a need to raise income taxes at this stage." Or pre-election 2015 if the economy picks up.
Simple as that.
If there are candidates better aligned with the ideas of NDProgress, there are also no doubt candidates aligned with the 2001-2004 era "New Politics Initiative" internal NDP grouping.
Do you pay any attention to what people contribute here?
Like I said, there were a bunch of us who supported both NDProgress and the NPI. Where do we fit in your pigeon holes, and the strained point you are trying to make?
From the wikipedia article:
"When Jack Layton won the NDP leadership in January 2003, it was taken as a victory by the NPI, with whom Jack Layton had sympathized, but never joined."
Nikki Ashton, for all her failure to explain herself, just went up 4 places in my candidate ranking.
The great authority of Wikipedia means more than particpants recounting the history to you?
Anyway, the bulk of those most active on NDProgress supported Jack Layton.
And its a real stretch that because Nikki uses the words New Politics it has anything to do with the NDP.
Topp has said things that he will not be able to back away from. He will be forced to defend positions that he's taken. These positions act as commitments. He's showing that he's willing to defend these policies.
Really? Picture it... 2015... NDP form government... "The economy is doing much better than when I proposed this tax plan in 2011. People have jobs. Revenue is rolling in. I don't see a need to raise income taxes at this stage." Or pre-election 2015 if the economy picks up. Simple as that.
You work from an assumption that it does not matter much what the candidates propose now. They tell us what their preferences are, maybe. Then we get elected, maybe. And if we are in government, we'll see what we get.
Then there is the approach that you tell the electorate where you are going before the election- both because it is demanded of us, and because we need a mandate.
Topp will be held to his promise that we will CAMPAIGN on tax increases from the day he becomes leader. Neither the Conservatives or the media will leave any possibility it can be swept under the rug as incovenient.
Brian Topp knew that there was no turning back when he put it out into circulation. And you should know it too, whether or not you think its a good idea.
At any rate what Topp advocates is that this will be a winner for us, as well as the country simply needs it.
In the same way that KenS says the Nash campaign has failed to extend itself beyond tradional leftwing concerns,
That is not the way I would put it, nor I beleive the person who first raised it and I was following up on.
Ideological perspective is not the concern. Its who you in practice speak to, which in turn is determined a lot by how you go about it.
Wikipedia says the 5 aims of NDProgress were/are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDProgress
- Introducing a one member one vote system to elect the party leader;
- Banning union and corporate donations to the party;
- Changing the relationship of the party with the Canadian Labour Congress;
- Separating the provincial and federal wings of the party;
- Changing the party name.
#3, some in the NDP are still hoping to formally sever the relationship with the labour movement.
#5, prior to Convention 2011, a move to change the party's name to "The Democratic Party", mirroring the US party, seemingly comes out of nowhere
There are reasons to be suspect of where some in the NDP wish to steer the party. You may find yourself asking, is this the NDP I know? Third Way? Blair-ite?
Evaluate the candidates CAREFULLY!
I think we should ignore your conspiracy theory notions. I'll just say it would be including a big swath of the party that has had some participation in NDProgress, including members of the Socialist Caucus.
The notion back then of changing the party name was just because it was old, and the general idea was Social Democratic Party. Deep agenda behind that. Totally new and unrelated crowd behind the latest idea of DP. [Nor do I think that came from the centre of the party, let alone including Topp. As far as I could see, that was Ian Captsticks baby. Ian has his own drummer and agenda.]
The relationship with the CLC has already changed, formally and informally, and I doubt there is a single individual- even Dominic Cardy- who is looking for a further formal change.
he [Mulcair] thinks that a national pharmacare program isn't just the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do economically...
I can't find anything in his policy backgrounders that he's posted on his site that say this.
he [Mulcair] thinks that a national pharmacare program isn't just the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do economically...I can't find anything in his policy backgrounders that he's posted on his site that say this.
Not all of his proposals have been released. He's said it many times on the campaign trail. Actually, if I recall, he mentioned it in the debate saying its the next "phase" in medicare (those are my words, not his... paraphasing here). He thinks we could save a lot of money as well by making sure Canadians receive their medication instead of ending up in hospital.
Thanks for the info, HM. I look forward to reading it (along with the tax policy document he promised).
You also mention that Mulcair "supports a national child care program". The 2011 platform stated, "We will work with the provinces and territories to establish and fund a Canada-wide child care and early learning program, enshrined in law". Mulcair's backgrounder states, "Provide funding and a national framework to assist provinces to adopt a quality, low cost, universal child care program". This hints to me that he's backing away from the "enshrined in law" portion of the former platform promise, and moving to a more voluntary set-up with the provinces (IE, if provinces wish to set up child-care programs in their province, some federal funding will be given.) That I'm not comfortable with. Topp, by contrast, does commit to the spirit of the 2011 platform, and expands it with a National Student Nutrition program.
I don't think his vision is one of voluntary participation in a national program. You could write a simple email to his campaign asking for claification.
For me, the only candidate that was quick to release a response to a number of Harper's recent actions was Saganash. I will miss him.
I don't get why we don't here these candidates express opinions of the issues of the day. For example, our pension system isn't broken and doesn't need to be restructured or changed - more investment in what's working is always welcomed. So Mulcair's weird pension proposal leaves me cold.
I am also very concerned with Canada's current position with respect to foreign policy. I want to hear whether these candidates support NATO intervention in Syria (like Libya) or another pre-emptive war (like Iraq). I also want to know whether they would undo the potential harm that will come from the Harper omnibus crime bill. Additionally, I want to hear what they will do to ensure that unions aren't busted or rendered useless and how they will turn around this race to the bottom in terms of jobs created.
So Mulcair's weird pension proposal leaves me cold.
Which part? Doubling the maximum benefit? Increasing the GIS?
The part where he proposes an alternate mechanism for pension investment that was briefly discussed in one of the earliest leadership threads.
The part where he proposes an alternate mechanism for pension investment that was briefly discussed in one of the earliest leadership threads.
That is in addition to CPP... not an alternative.
Why is that necessary if you put more money into the CPP?
For me, the only candidate that was quick to release a response to a number of Harper's recent actions was Saganash. I will miss him.
The race certainly is lesser with Saganash's absence. We talk about bringing Aboriginal voices to the table, but Saganash's voice was unique, because he has a foot in the camps of Canada's 3 founding Nations (First Nations, French, and English) and is uniquely well-suited to reconcile that relationship which has been strained for centuries. Very few other leaders could accomplish the same thing.
Agreed.
CBC is now conducting a leadership poll on their website. And speaking of the CBC what is their excuse this time, apart from being Liberal front people that is, for not carrying tomorrow's leadership debate or are they?
Since you asked: I joined the "NDProgress" listserv for the same reason I joined rabble. I had been appointed national campaign director, and wanted to read what people in the party were saying about our election strategy. I picked up a couple of good ideas there, and others here. I respect Mr. Cordy but have never agreed with his "modernizing" proposals, since I have never been a Blairite. He and I had a conversation along these lines early in this campaign. He later got involved in Thomas Mulcair's campaign as his co-chair -- and has clearly been an important influence there. All the best Bt
Since you asked: I joined the "NDProgress" listserv for the same reason I joined rabble. I had been appointed national campaign director, and wanted to read what people in the party were saying about our election strategy. I picked up a couple of good ideas there, and others here.
Commendable. One of the things I liked best about Jack was how he would solicit, listen to, and ocassionally act on opinions from people all over the party. That was good leadership.
Since you asked: I joined the "NDProgress" listserv for the same reason I joined rabble. I had been appointed national campaign director, and wanted to read what people in the party were saying about our election strategy. I picked up a couple of good ideas there, and others here. I respect Mr. Cordy but have never agreed with his "modernizing" proposals, since I have never been a Blairite. He and I had a conversation along these lines early in this campaign. He later got involved in Thomas Mulcair's campaign as his co-chair -- and has clearly been an important influence there. All the best Bt
Well said, Brian. I've always liked reading your stuff on Rabble.
Now, quick, change the channel, Mulcairites!
Nothing to see here, right?
..........
As a non-member of the Party, but as someone interested in who will be the next leader of the Official Opposition, I had hoped that the contest would have been winnowed down to three or four candidates by now. A narrower field would allow for a greater focus on the distinctive 'nuances' that are often proffered by the NDP, in contrast to the obtuse policies of the other federal parties, especially in regard to the quintessential. National Question. Perhaps the MSM (including the CBC) would take a greater interest if there was something interesting to report to people other than policy wonks.
Perhaps the MSM (including the CBC) would take a greater interest if there was something interesting to report to people other than policy wonks.
Suggestions?
Since you asked: I joined the "NDProgress" listserv for the same reason I joined rabble. I had been appointed national campaign director, and wanted to read what people in the party were saying about our election strategy. I picked up a couple of good ideas there, and others here. I respect Mr. Cordy but have never agreed with his "modernizing" proposals, since I have never been a Blairite. He and I had a conversation along these lines early in this campaign. He later got involved in Thomas Mulcair's campaign as his co-chair -- and has clearly been an important influence there. All the best Bt
Boom, there it is. So much for the 'conspiracy theories'. When the Blair-ite, Third Way, modernizers get done with the NDP, the left wing members won't even recognize the party anymore.
Since you asked: I joined the "NDProgress" listserv for the same reason I joined rabble. I had been appointed national campaign director, and wanted to read what people in the party were saying about our election strategy. I picked up a couple of good ideas there, and others here. I respect Mr. Cordy but have never agreed with his "modernizing" proposals, since I have never been a Blairite. He and I had a conversation along these lines early in this campaign. He later got involved in Thomas Mulcair's campaign as his co-chair -- and has clearly been an important influence there. All the best Bt
Boom, there it is. So much for the 'conspiracy theories'. When the Blair-ite, Third Way, modernizers get done with the NDP, the left wing members won't even recognize the party anymore.
Wow 1springgarden, that's desperate. You can't point to a single policy you don't like so now it's out with stories of bogeymen. What's next?
Perhaps the MSM (including the CBC) would take a greater interest if there was something interesting to report to people other than policy wonks.
Suggestions?
Verily, I suggest that the leadership candidates explain and address their Party's substantial (note that I refrained from using: precipitous) drop in support in Quebec, without alienating voters, and Party members, in either Quebec, or the rest of the country. Such frisson might excite passion beyond the chattering class, and penetrate the body politic.
Wow 1springgarden, that's desperate. You can't point to a single policy you don't like so now it's out with stories of bogeymen. What's next?
Like Mulcair, I'm holding back, there's still 6 more weeks to go in the campaign.
Wow 1springgarden, that's desperate. You can't point to a single policy you don't like so now it's out with stories of bogeymen. What's next?
Like Mulcair, I'm holding back, there's still 6 more weeks to go in the campaign.
???
With Saganash out, my choice is now between Mulcair and Topp. I'm hoping to vote in real time over the internet during the convention.
The NDP created expectations in Quebec, and concerns in the rest of Canada. When will the leadership candidates address those expectations and concerns? It seems, from the latest polls, that Quebec is recalibrating.
Currently, I am placing Thomas Mulcair in fourth position on my ballot because his campaign has not replied to any of my emails under my real name. If Mr. Mulcair's campaign cannot communicate with me, then should I give him my first or second choice vote?
Brian Topp joined the discussion list some time later- but some years ago- for the same reason as a lot of other people.... its a place you can go for a good discussion. Pretty much the same reason Brian was always on Babble. The difference being that the Babble discussion is wilder, so that Brian was mostly a lurker here. [Not that he ever said a lot on NDProgress.]
Just like me, I guess.
I actually didn't support any of the five objectives Wikipedia lists, except OMOV but I supported the labour carve-out and I wanted equality of ridings to weight the votes.
Perhaps the MSM (including the CBC) would take a greater interest if there was something interesting to report to people other than policy wonks.
Suggestions?
Verily, I suggest that the leadership candidates explain and address their Party's substantial (note that I refrained from using: precipitous) drop in support in Quebec, without alienating voters, and Party members, in either Quebec, or the rest of the country. Such frisson might excite passion beyond the chattering class, and penetrate the body politic.
I'm not sure that theorizing on this will do much good for the NPD in Quebec or ROC. At this point, my theories are:
1) easy come, easy go (Orange Wave crests and crashes on rocky shore)
2) maybe the NPD is coming across like "BQ Lite" (eg. that promise to guarentee a fixed percentage of seats in the House of Commons because Quebec is a "nation", - a prroposal straight out of the Charlottetown Accord which was quite decisively rejected in Quebec. Quebecers might rather embrace the real BQ when given that choice.
I certainly don't know the answers on "how to win Quebec", but I hope that in its efforts to "win Quebec", the NDP doesn't continue embracing policies which alienate a base its held in other parts of Canada for over sixty years.
I liked Ashton's performance today and I am giving Singh a second look as well.
Now that unfortunately Saganash has dropped out, I may be giving Singh my first ballot vote, and my second ballot vote will go to Ashton. Eventually I will be voting for Mulcair.
Of the three so-called 2nd tier choices, my hunch is that Nash came out better today than Dewar and Topp.
I also liked Ashton's performance today and so I donated $75 to the Niki Ashton campaign.
Funny though, Brian... how do you square your work in Saskatchewan... your support from Roy Romanow... with your new apparent opposition to "third way" politics?
my order as of today:
1) mulcair
2) topp
3) nash
i've been having a really tough time choosing between nash and topp in the event that mulcair doesn't make it to the final ballot, and the gut feeling i have that topp would be a better leader than nash was only reinforced today with topp's serious issues-oriented performance in contrast with nash's vague slogans. i'm seeing more and more why so many party insiders think this guy could be a credible leader. i'm certain to vote mulcair until he's out (or leader!) but i think we'd probably lose fewer seats with topp as leader than nash.
as an aside to brian - imo, you're progressing well as a communicator, and clearly you've a finger on the activist pulse, as it were. i like the balance you strike between substance and vision - if you do end up with mulcair on the final ballot, it'll be because the rest of the candidates clearly didn't have your command of the issues that would suggest a leader's bearing. but at this point, i think that mulcair is probably rolling to the leadership, essentially because we can taste power and he seems, far and away, the one most likely to deliver it. you need to challenge him a lot more directly, don't even bother win any other candidate. don't get super negative, obviously, but ask him about every inconsistency, force him to demonstrate his progressive credentials, ensure that he's on the same page that we all are. i'm supporting the guy, but this sort of shift in your campaign would help you, it would help the party, and if mulcair does end up as leader, it would help him be better than maybe he'd be if he comes out the winner of a campaign where everyone's fighting for second place in hopes of an anti-mulcair coalition.
I respect Mr. Cordy but have never agreed with his "modernizing" proposals,
What are the modernizing proposals you disagree with?
Here is one assessment of the candidates' French ability:
Jean Lapierre@Jean_Lapierre
Following
NDP debate: My personal rating for their fluency in French: 1-Mulcair 2-Topp 3-Singh 4-Ashton 5-Nash 6-Cullen 7-Dewar #cdnpoli
What is the Quebec press saying?
If Lapierre is right Nash had a bad day, not to mention Dewar.
Still voting for Topp, though I expect Mulcair to take this. Reservations aside, he'll do well for the NDP, politically.
I really wish that Megan Leslie were running.
For me it's Peter Julian.
With Saganash out, I guess my top two choices are once again Mulcair first, and now followed by Ashton. I think I picked those two last October, although maybe back then it was Nash instead of Ashton. For me, Nash has fallen, and Ashton has soared. There are things about Mulcair that bother me, but I think he's the best to take on Harper. In the middle are Cullen, Nash, and Topp. I could never bring myself to pick Dewar or Singh as leader.
The debate tactics as assessed by FFK seem to reflect what Alice Funcke et al said on Question Period this morning.
Mulcair in the lead with the next three bunched together somewhere back. Topp, Nash and Dewar are battling each other to get onto the last ballot as Mulcair's final opponent.
That explains why they sought to undermine each other and leave Mulcair alone. Especially because his language skills would have made tackling him in French a perilous proposition.
But this rivalry may make it more difficult for their supporters to coalesce around an anyone-but -Mulcair survivor.
The debate tactics as assessed by FFK seem to reflect what Alice Funcke et al said on Question Period this morning.
Mulcair in the lead with the next three bunched together somewhere back. Topp, Nash and Dewar are battling each other to get onto the last ballot as Mulcair's final opponent.
That explains why they sought to undermine each other and leave Mulcair alone. Especially because his language skills would have made tackling him in French a perilous proposition.
But this rivalry may make it more difficult for their supporters to coalesce around an anyone-but -Mulcair survivor.
I think there's a significant chance that someone else will be on the final count or ballot with Mulcair, even if there are less than four on the final count or ballot. Very hard to read though.
That explains why they sought to undermine each other and leave Mulcair alone. Especially because his language skills would have made tackling him in French a perilous proposition.
I think it is what FFK said: that they dont want to give Mulcair the air time, not the fear of being bested by him. And that they are not trying to undermine the others to be on the last ballot. That doesnt work. What works is going after the second and third ballot choices. Thats the focus. Not that I'm sure exactly how people are striving to do that.
Here is one assessment of the candidates' French ability:
Jean Lapierre@Jean_Lapierre
Following
NDP debate: My personal rating for their fluency in French: 1-Mulcair 2-Topp 3-Singh 4-Ashton 5-Nash 6-Cullen 7-Dewar #cdnpoli
What is the Quebec press saying?
If Lapierre is right Nash had a bad day, not to mention Dewar.
I have to disagree a bit with Lapierre. I think that Ashton and Nash were better in French than Singh...though he aquitted himself well. I also thought Cullen was very comfortable in French. he made the odd mistake, but he was endearing.
What is the Quebec press saying?
Chantal Hébert's take (via Twitter):
Dewar n'a pas gagné son pari linguistique (Dewar did not win his linguistic bet)
She also re-tweeted this comment from someone else:
Bon, Paul Dewar me fait penser à la parodie de Wayne Gretzky par RBO
OUCH!
Nice to see you back, Winston.
