NDP Leadership #94

Boom Boom wrote:

ETA: comparing Tom Mulcair to Bob Rae is laughable.

I'm not so sure about that.  First of all, contrary to the partisan sour grapes, Rae was never out of sync with the NDP mainstream; his government was to the left of the current Manitoba and Nova Scotia NDP govts.  

Also, Mulcair's critique of the NDP - that it's stuck in the past, isn't serious about governing, hasn't "modernized" is the same as Rae's critique.

DSloth wrote:

TheArchitect wrote:

I think that if Dewar were chosen as leader, there would be a serious movement to oust him due to his poor French, but I don't think Dewar is the only candidate who would face serious internal dissent as leader.

It's clear that Mulcair has enemies within the party, and, whether one thinks it's fair or not, it's clear that he is distrusted if not outright disliked by much of the party. Meanwhile, if anyone else is chosen as leader, there will likely be rumors of plottings to oust that leader in favor of Mulcair which, whether founded or not, will surface in the media every time anything goes wrong for the leader.

 

 

I don't think Dewar would win but if he did we'd have to live with him straight through the next election and that goes for any leader. 

Mulcair is not distrusted or dislike by "much of the Party", he's leading the contest and has the most combined support in his opponent's internal poll. A small cadre of paranoics* think he's Tony Blair reborn because he comes from a different political culture and they never really got on board with thinking of Quebec as a different nation with different political nomenclature. If he wins, they will discover he still supports the Party he took a huge chance to run for in 2007 and the broad sweep of its platfrom, he won't institute a stalinist purge and they'll start to wonder what all the fuss was about.

*There are of course people who prefer other candidates for perfectly legitamate reasons and I'm not meaning to paint everyone with the same brush. 

To dismiss those who are seriously concerned about Mulcair's values "paranoics" [sic] seems to me to be grossly unfair.

Let me say that I liked having Mulcair as Deputy Leader.  At the beginning of the leadership race, I was expecting to rank Mulcair fairly highly; I didn't expect to put him first, but I certainly thought he'd be closer to the top of my list than to the bottom.

However, his comments during the course of the race praising NAFTA and free trade completely tuned me off of the idea that he is fit to be leader.

The Liberals used to be against unfair trade deals.  Then they sold out.

It would be a terrible loss for Canada if the NDP were to do the same.

I don't insist on absolute ideological purity within the NDP.  There is a diversity of opinions within our party, and that's fine.  However, when it comes to the leader, there cannot be any doubt about the person's belief in our social democratic agenda.  There are a number of people who I'm glad to have in our party but who I don't trust to be leader.  Thomas Mulcair is such a person.

Mulcair: "We have to renew. We’re one of the only social democratic parties to never have renewed itself. One of the things that we did in Quebec was that we reached out beyond our traditional base.We identified ourselves as progressives but we didn’t stick with some of the 1950s boilerplate."

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1129700--ndp-lea...

Rae: “Every other successful social democratic party in the Western world has had to abandon certain central premises of the democratic socialist narrative and so far the NDP has not done so,”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/20/what-about-bob/

Let's revamp our slogans (especially in a culture where they make little linguistic sense) isn't the equivalent of lets "abandon certain central premises."

janfromthebruce wrote:

Ruth-ellen is known better than most NDP MPs. Thus it's not relevant. Oh, and p.s. I like that Ruth-Ellen is so well known - she is doing a great job and I'm so glad she got elected.

I think I am supporting old goat's thoughts here - like him I did not join the party until after Bob Rae and like him, campaigning has been so difficult with the "ghost of Bob".

I will admit that Bob Rae was a disaster (and I was a member of the NDP before AND after Bob Rae), if you will admit that he was always a (federal) Liberal.

Thomas Mulcair was NEVER a federal Liberal; he was a member of the only federalist option in Québec.  There are lots of good reasons to support Brian Topp - maybe even a few valid ones not to support Mulcair - but this is most certainly NOT one of them.

People who continue to promote this tired meme show their abject ignorance of Québec.

I agree with this point, and will "defend" Mulcair here.  He never "crossed the floor", it was the only federalist party in Quebec at the time.  And running for the NDP in 2007 was not in any way "opportunistic" - quite the contrary.  This kind of critique of Mulcair is stupid.

It's what he's saying now - that he wants to emulate Gary Doer, that he'll stand up to union bosses, that the NDP is stuck in the 1950s, that he supports NAFTA, etc., that disturbs me.  

(BTW: why does he point to the 1950s?  This shows his ignorance of the history of Canadian social democracy.  The CCF of the 1950s was impacted by Cold War conservatism.  The party actually moved to the left during the late 1960s and 1970s).  

Very true.  It says something about the difference between Quebec and ROC when a Cabinet minister in the "right-wing" Charest govt. can make such an easy transition to running for the national leadership of the social democratic party.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Very true.  It says something about the difference between Quebec and ROC when a Cabinet minister in the "right-wing" Charest govt. can make such an easy transition to running for the national leadership of the social democratic party.

Canada needs more Québec!

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Mulcair: "We have to renew. We’re one of the only social democratic parties to never have renewed itself. One of the things that we did in Quebec was that we reached out beyond our traditional base.We identified ourselves as progressives but we didn’t stick with some of the 1950s boilerplate."

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1129700--ndp-lea...

Rae: “Every other successful social democratic party in the Western world has had to abandon certain central premises of the democratic socialist narrative and so far the NDP has not done so,”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/20/what-about-bob/

Forgive me for noticing, but those two quotations arent the same at all.  If you put the interview in context, what Mulcair was talking about is how we can make our social democratic principles real - and that is by forming a government.  Modernizing our language and the way we speak with the electorate (rather than to them) is exactly what Jack was doing, and there are several candidates in this race who are harkening back to the old NDP I originally joined in 2002, that would just yell at everyone for "not getting it".

What Mulcair is talking about, and I think is the best part of his message is something I've been saying for years to people I meet and try to get involved with the party:  "New Democratic values are Canadian values".  We just need to get better at communicating how our values are shared by the large number of people who don't vote for us, even though it would be in their best interest to do so.

This is what Mulcair brings to the party as its next leader.  He is not in ANY way Bob Rae, and I think its laughable to be presenting that argument.

We do not have to "abandon certain central premises of the democratic socialist narrative" to win.  We have to show people that they are indeed democratic socialists at heart by speaking to them in their own language.  We win nothing by preaching to them about the virtues of socialism and the evils of neoliberalism, and by telling them their worldview is misguided (which believe me, most people at the doorstep have NO idea what neoliberalism is or why it is bad).

I'm going a bit beyond Mulcair here into my own analysis, but the whole "bringing the centre to us" thing, is not so much that as much at is making Canadians see that the nation is actually skewed left, and that the common ground is actually more left of centre than what anyone in the media defines as "centre" or "centrist", which I find to be very right wing.  Does this make sense...I hope you catch my drift on that one as I admit I am wading into the obscure. Hopefully KenS, you'll forgive me for wading into your territory.

FYI Pierre Dionne-Lebelle is backing Mulcair now. He announced the day after Saganash's exit.

Updated caucus endorsements, listed in order of time in office, and, where there are ties, in order of last name:

ASHTON
    1.    Niki Ashton (Churchill, MB, 2008-)
    2.    Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON, 2008-)
    3.    François Choquette (Drummond, QC, 2011-)
    4.    Jean-François Larose (Repentigny, QC, 2011-)
    5.    Francine Raynault (Joliette, QC, 2011-)

CULLEN
    1.    Brian Masse (Winsor West, ON, 2002-)
    2.    Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC, 2004-)
    3.    Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, BC, 2006-)
    4.    Fin Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC, 2009-)

DEWAR
    1.    Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, ON, 2004-)
    2.    Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, ON, 2006-)
    3.    Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, ON, 2006-)
    4.    Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, AB, 2008-)
    5.    Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, ON, 2008-)

MULCAIR
    1.    Wayne Marston (Hamllton East—Stoney Creek, ON, 2006-)
    2.    Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, QC, 2007-)
    3.    Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, BC, 2008-)
    4.    John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON, 2008-)
    5.    Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, ON, 2008-)
    6.    Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, QC, 2011-)
    7.    Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, QC, 2011-)
    8.    Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, QC, 2011-)
    9.    Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, QC, 2011-)
    10.    Ruth Ellen Brosseau (Berthier—Maskinongé, QC, 2011-)
    11.    Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC, 2011-)
    12.    Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL, 2011-)
    13.    Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC, 2011-)
    14.    Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, QC, 2011-)
    15.    Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, QC, 2011-)
    16.    Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, QC, 2011-)
    17.    Réjean Genest (Shefford, QC, 2011-)
    18.    Jonathan Genest-Jourdain (Manicouagan, QC, 2011-)
    19.    Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, QC, 2011-)
    20.    Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, ON, 2011-)
    21.    Sana Hassainia (Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC, 2011-)
    22.    Pierre Jacob (Brome—Missisquoi, QC, 2011-)
    23.    Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, ON, 2011-)
    24.    François Lapointe (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC, 2011-)
    25.    Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC, 2011-)
    26.    Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, QC, 2011-)
    27.    Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, QC, 2011-)
    28.    Marie-Claude Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC, 2011-)
    29.    Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC, 2011-)
    30.    Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC, 2011-)
    31.    José Nunez-Melo (Laval, QC, 2011-)
    32.    Annick Papillon (Québec, QC, 2011-)
    33.    Claude Patry (Jonquière—Alma, QC, 2011-)
    34.    Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC, 2011-)
    35.    Manon Perreault (Montcalm, QC, 2011-)
    36.    François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, QC, 2011-)
    37.    Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, QC, 2011-)
    38.    Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, QC, 2011-)
    39.    Djaouida Sellah (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC, 2011-)
    40.    Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeline, QC, 2011-)
    41.    Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC, 2011-)

NASH
    1.    Denise Savoie (Victoria, BC, 2004-)
    2.    Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, ON, 2006-2008, 2011-)
    3.    Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, QC, 2011-)
    4.    Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC, 2011-)
    5.    Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC, 2011-)
    6.    Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC, 2011-)
    7.    Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC, 2011-)
    8.    Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC, 2011-)
    9.    Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, ON, 2011-)

SINGH

TOPP
    1.    Libby Davies (Vancouver East, BC, 1997-)
    2.    Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NB, 1997-)
    3.    Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC, 2004-)
    4.    Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, ON, 2006-)
    5.    Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, QC, 2004-2006 as Liberal, 2011-)
    6.    Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, QC, 2011-)
    7.    Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC, 2011-)
    8.    Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC, 2011-)
    9.    Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC, 2011-)
    10.    Jasbir Sandhu (Surrey North, 2011-)
    11.    Jinny Sims (Newton—North Delta, BC, 2011-)
    12.    Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, BC, 2011-)

UNALIGNED
    1.    Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, MB, 1997-)
    2.    Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS, 1997-)
    3.    Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, ON, 2000-)
    4.    David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, ON, 2004-)
    5.    Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, BC, 2004-)
    6.    Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NT, 2006-)
    7.    Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, ON, 2006-)
    8.    Jack Harris (St. John's East, NL, 1987-1988, 2008-)
    9.    Malcolm Allen (Welland, ON, 2008-)
    10.    Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON, 2008-)
    11.    Megan Leslie (Halifax, NS, 2008-)
    12.    Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, QC, 2011-)
    13.    Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC, 2011-)
    14.    Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC, 2011-)
    15.    Andrew Cash (Davenport, ON, 2011-)
    16.    Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS, 2011-)
    17.    Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, QC, 2011-)
    18.    Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, QC, 2011-)
    19.    Mylène Freeman (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC, 2011-)
    20.    Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC, 2011-)
    21.    Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, QC, 2011-)
    22.    Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC, 2011-)
    23.    Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC, 2011-)
    24.    Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, ON, 2011-)
    25.    Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, QC, 2011-)

Having attended one forum and several kitchen table talks I have come to appreciate Mulcair's candour. He never pandered to people and wasn't afraid to tell them things that may be uncomfortable but need to be said. No one is going to abrogate NAFTA and the fact that Mulcair said it should be to his credit.

I appreciate all the candidates but I would have trouble living with Cullen and Dewar.The lack of ability in French and the joint nominations are non-negotiables for me. It is too soon for Ashton. Nash I find much to dull of a speaker. I also had trouble with her health care comment. Not so much because I believe that she wouldn't defend medicare because I believe she would. However, it does show that she can't think on her feet in French. Sing is a non starter for me because of his lack of political experience. Topp is someone who I would consider but his lack of experience in running for office is a consideration. So, in the end I am for Mulcair but certainly not fanatically so.    

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

Winston wrote:

Wow...with that e-mail the Dewar campaign put out, it almost seems like they are trying to export their Manitoba tactics to the rest of the country.  They had to have planned the release of this poll, knowing in advance that Dewar would bomb the French debates and planned on using it as a diversion.  Dewar could have taken his lumps from the debate, and like Chisholm shown some dignity and recognize his limitations.  Instead, with the wheels falling off their campaign, they pull this stunt trying to take out the Topp campaign while they were at it.  It was a slimy tactic and reeks of scorched earth politics.  I have zero respect left for the man or his campaign.

I didn't have quite this strong a reaction to it, but I admit that my reaction to the poll was: "if this is true, then I guess Topp really needs my vote." I have also been going back and forth on whether or not to rank Dewar at all (his French is so bad! but it's gotten so much better! but it's still so bad!), and am much more strongly leaning toward "not" after this.

I wonder if this is a common reaction.

My problem with evaluating the French of the candidates is that my French is so bad that I have to rely on the opinion of others. I do believe proficency in French is an important quality for our leader.

Thanks for your  very thoughtful reply mtm.  = D

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

I didn't have quite this strong a reaction to it, but I admit that my reaction to the poll was: "if this is true, then I guess Topp really needs my vote." I wonder if this is a common reaction.

Niki Ashton may not get my first-round vote after all?

Some scattered early morning observations in response to some overnight comments:

1. No one , not even the "whisperers" has said Tom wd "purge progressives", as Michelle says. The most his opponents have said is that he would clean house among the "organizers". This is what Dewar's email suggests. I do remember this said way back in August as the same time the "temper" and "doesn't play well with others" themes were floated in an attempt to wrong-foot him out of the race. I must say I have never heard anything from Mulcair or his camp that even remotely suggets he would purge organizers but at one point this at least some of his detractors were saying this.

2. The comparison with Bob Rae's government is far fetched, especially the prediction that a Mulcair government would inevitably lead to the horrors of a new Harris type government. First, we NOW have the horrors of a Harris type govrnment. Rae replaced a relatively benign Liberal government which had in fact legislated much of thepopular planks in the NDP progrm. Remember the Accord? Mulcair would be replacing the most regressive government in our history. Much of his focus would necessarily be repairing the damage done by Harper, rather than implementing the Nw Jerusulem right away. Also Rae's evolution in political thinking was steadily from left to right. Mulcair's is the opposite. To measure the ideological differences between the various leadership candidates you need callipers.

3. Dewar clumsily attempts through the leaking of his poll to polarize the so-called "anti-Mulcair" vote. The opposite may happen. The two polls (as well as the endorsements and the Forum and Abacus polls) all indicate that Tom is the substantial frontrunner. The next 3 or 4 are tightly bunched and must all hope that they can emerge in second place. But they are all so close that  they will want to play things through rather than combine early.

4. Mulcair has significant second choice support, less than Nash or Dewar, depending on the poll, but not much less. Combined with a substantial first ballot strength the others may well make the calculation that an alliance to stop him will fail or at most result in a  closely and perhaps bitterly split party. Worse, they may think that the split will be laregly on regional or linguistic fault lines. Many of Topp's and Nash's backers have long roots in the party and must care for its future. I am hopefull that when they look at the contours of the race they will see that an anti-Mulcair gang-up , firstly, is scarely assured of success, and, secondly, potentially very destructive of the party. The polls therfore give me hope that the gang-up will not occur, particularly given that the ideological differences are more imaginary than real.

Idealistic Prag..., the "whispers" by the detractors about purges were in August and September. The couple comments you referenced were long after that and not made by anyone speaking on behalf of the Mulcair campaign.

mtm wrote:

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Mulcair: "We have to renew. We’re one of the only social democratic parties to never have renewed itself. One of the things that we did in Quebec was that we reached out beyond our traditional base.We identified ourselves as progressives but we didn’t stick with some of the 1950s boilerplate."

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1129700--ndp-leadership-hopeful-thomas-mulcair-we-have-to-renew

Rae: “Every other successful social democratic party in the Western world has had to abandon certain central premises of the democratic socialist narrative and so far the NDP has not done so,”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/20/what-about-bob/

 

Forgive me for noticing, but those two quotations arent the same at all.  If you put the interview in context, what Mulcair was talking about is how we can make our social democratic principles real - and that is by forming a government.  Modernizing our language and the way we speak with the electorate (rather than to them) is exactly what Jack was doing, and there are several candidates in this race who are harkening back to the old NDP I originally joined in 2002, that would just yell at everyone for "not getting it".

What Mulcair is talking about, and I think is the best part of his message is something I've been saying for years to people I meet and try to get involved with the party:  "New Democratic values are Canadian values".  We just need to get better at communicating how our values are shared by the large number of people who don't vote for us, even though it would be in their best interest to do so.

This is what Mulcair brings to the party as its next leader.  He is not in ANY way Bob Rae, and I think its laughable to be presenting that argument.

We do not have to "abandon certain central premises of the democratic socialist narrative" to win.  We have to show people that they are indeed democratic socialists at heart by speaking to them in their own language.  We win nothing by preaching to them about the virtues of socialism and the evils of neoliberalism, and by telling them their worldview is misguided (which believe me, most people at the doorstep have NO idea what neoliberalism is or why it is bad).

I'm going a bit beyond Mulcair here into my own analysis, but the whole "bringing the centre to us" thing, is not so much that as much at is making Canadians see that the nation is actually skewed left, and that the common ground is actually more left of centre than what anyone in the media defines as "centre" or "centrist", which I find to be very right wing.  Does this make sense...I hope you catch my drift on that one as I admit I am wading into the obscure. Hopefully KenS, you'll forgive me for wading into your territory.

I hate Bob Rae. Note: I know this is a silly comment, its just I REALLY HATE BOB RAE!

jjuares wrote:

Having attended one forum and several kitchen table talks I have come to appreciate Mulcair's candour. He never pandered to people.

I've made the comment before that bluntness is often assumed to be candour. As with Elizabeth May, it only means a proclivity to say what you like. And one of the restraints that is shed is checking, or caring, whether what you siad adds up. Elizabeth May could get away with that because of the very limited scrutiny she faced. If the not adding up does not jump right out instantly at a reporter, it sails right by. By contrast, if it were Jack Layton, it goes under the microscope.

Mulcair has, and will most likely through the whole leadership race, never face that kind of scrutiny. So he gets the same kind of pass on what he puts out there.

And maybe putting out a key policy pronouncement that does not and will not add up, like using cap and trade for general revenues, does not fit some hair splitting definition of pandering. But whats the difference?

mtm wrote:

CanadaApple - I understand what you mean.

I take Mulcair's stance on the whole "Topp Tax" issue as being exactly what you're talking about. I think he has respect for the party members setting of policy, which could be a big reason why he isn't going to back it, and lock the Party into a course of action without having it properly passed into policy.

So we have a 5 year standing NDP policy on cap and trade, which in two election platforms strongly emphasises that ALL cap and trade revenues will go into green initiatives. Then Mulcair says a better way to go instead of raising taxes on the rich to stabilize Harper [and Paul Martin] starved social programs is to use cap and trade revenues for that.

This is respecting party policy?

[Let alone the demolishing of the political protection that is the reason for guaranteeing all cap and trade revenues go to green initiatives.]

mtm wrote:

In fact, I think this is a common strain with Mulcair's policies at large. Often (and believe me I've seen him at a few meet and greets now), when anyone comes at him with an axe to grind, or a policy to debate, he just points to the official party policy (that Israel/Palestine thing is a very good example of where he is directly in line with the official platform, and Jack).

If its a difficult policy area for him viz where the party is, and/or Mulcair has said things that make people wonder where he stands, it's "I support party policy." You know he actually supports it in a way you expect from the Leader if during the campaign he calls it 'my policy'. [IE, cap and trade]

mtm wrote:

Taking this to its natural arc, while Mulcair has launched some new policy, it mainly follows exactly what is in existing NDP policy and either stresses particular parts of it that he would "emphasize" as leader, or some tweaks to whats already in our policy (like the Pension proposal), he doesn't back off of what has been our official line under Jack, and in the 2011 platform. It really is quite incredible discipline. And his cap-and-trade is all about putting the issue back on the table - something that was already in the policy book that he wants to make his bread and butter, obviously with some particular customizations.

When you look at Topp's tax plan, it is a fundamental shift in our previous tax program that we've offered the people of Canada in 2011. It really is a new idea, and something that, I think, I don't want to hear from a leadership contestant in the midst of a race. I'd rather this be debated on the floor of a policy convention, rather than used as a bargaining chip. I don't know if that is Mulcair's problem with it, but it is certainly a concern of mine.

You cant square that natural arc with his linking of taxes to cap and trade. THAT is a fundamental shift.

Topp's suggestion is exactly the kind of thing that starts with Caucus/Leader, and does not come from Convention policy processes. [As was also true of the entire climate change package.] It IS a departure as far as strategy to date goes. And that's certainly something that should be pondered and discussed. But the discussion is much more about how we win elections... which is the fodder of a leadership race and contrasting visions.

A new day dawns and thankfully, the anti-Dewar rhetoric seems to have died down - so mission accomplished.

Good to see the Toppites are back to slagging the Mulcairites.

For all the old goats out there, I would like them to point me to some legitimate examples  of "perfectly legitimate complaints against him" - other than the second language issue (which as I have already pointed out amounts to discrimination based on first language). The words used in post #9 of this chapter (#94) are an example of the sort of "bad language"/name calling  that I was objecting to and that other people get away with here, all the time. Seems to me that as in all things the (socialist?) elites appear rule the roost and are quite happy to dispensate with impunity against the those of "lesser" language and/or discussion skill.

Looking at the broader challenge of leading a party that often appears to be so self destructive, self interested and diverse (thankfully), I think Paul Dewar's experience in the union movement, human rights, etc. make him uniquely qualified to be leader.

Prominent human rights leaders in Quebec say:
"We are impressed by Paul’s deep commitment to social justice, his drive to be fair and yet forceful, and his charismatic personality. As Quebecers, we cherish his commitment to Quebecois values of justice, rule of law, respect for human rights and diversity, and of course his deep respect for Quebec’s unique place in Canada. We sincerely hope to see him as the leader of the NDP."

There are lots of other endorsements provided at his website, which I'm sure you can find and disassemble at will.

Gregbythepond, I'm an oldgoatite and I've always respected his opinion on babble.