I like this fella!
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/news/2012/02/15/election-coope...
NDP Leadership #97
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:20
#52
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:20
#53
Jack modernized the party in more ways than fundraising and organization. I doubt he would have stopped in his tracks in May.
What Mulcair talks about is what happened in Quebec... how we got rid of the yes, the old boilerplate language... and talked to voters in a new and inclusive way. He wants to use that model in the rest of Canada.
Ok...I thought there were a few factors in the orange wave. Not in any particular order here, just trying to get a basic list
1. Quebecers trusted Jack.
2. The NDP addressed the national question in a satisfactory way
3. Quebecers were tiring of the streategy of voting Bloc, and felt it didn't have much to offer in terms of changing the Harper agenda
4. Quebecers believed that the NDP had a shot to win government
5. The NDP ran an optimistic campaign, focussing on hope rather than fear
I can see how number 5 is influenced by campaign language. For the rest of it, I'm not so sure.
Can you explain a bit what you mean about talking to voters in a new and inclusive way? What exactly is this model?
And how much of it came from Jack, how much came from Mulcair, and even, to what extent is Topp all over this too? I can understand the boilerplate criticism applied to Nash, but I think Topp has a keen sense of messaging.
One example: up until recently, we literally translated our English press releases into French mechanically, promising that we'll deliver Child Care to all Canadians. So when I hear someone saying we need to drop the boilerplate, I take that quite literally, and think it's a good idea.
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:21
#54
Don't blame Mulcair for what Tony Blair and the third wave did, he had nothing to do with it. He supports childcare, pharmacare, cap and trade, he mentioned how he want to push Canada into a more value added economy like how Quebec banned the export of raw logs, he's made his support for fair trade and treaty protecting the enviroment, worker rights, and human rights clear, fighting against war rape, a fincial transaction tax, and still people make him out to be a crazy rightwinger.
"He supports childcare, pharmacare, cap and trade"--great! I support those things too. But that actually tells people very little about what to expect. Has Mulcair put out a pharmacare plan? Or mentioned anywhere that he'd put in pharmacare? It's like a listing of buzzwords.
So what does that mean, pushing Canada into a more value added economy? What steps would he take to do that?
How would he support fair trade? What does he think we need to change about NAFTA to protet the environment, workers rights, and human rights? If he's not willing to renegotiate NAFTA, are there other ways to make gains in these areas?
A financial transaction tax sounds great? How would it work? What would it look like? Has Mulcair ever mentioned it before the last debate? Has he mentioned it since?
So no...I don't think he's made things very clear at all.
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:28
#55
He had been minister of the environment with the Quebec Liberals, but then was demoted by Charest to a lesser post (I can't recall what post exactly.) Anyway, annoyed, he quit. Later he ran for the NDP.
He was Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks with the only federalist party in Quebec. He passed North America's first Sustainable Development Act including amending Quebec's Human Rights Charter to include the right to live in a clean environment. He left when he wouldn't play ball with Charest turning over a provincial park to developers so they could build condos. You're slamming him for that?
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:28
#56
One example: up until recently, we literally translated our English press releases into French mechanically, promising that we'll deliver Child Care to all Canadians. So when I hear someone saying we need to drop the boilerplate, I take that quite literally, and think it's a good idea.
Ok, that's a fair point, but it really only applies to our french communications. It's a poor idea to literally translate. What about the material that doesn't get translated?
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:29
#57
Here's another stat: how are those in the NDP Quebec caucus who ran in or before 2006 (prior to Mulcair coming on board) endorsing?
Guy Caron, neutral
Christine Moore, undeclared
Raymond Cote, undeclared
Alain Giguere, Brian Topp
François Pilon, Thomas Mulcair
François Choquette, Niki Ashton
Denis Blanchette, undeclared
Philip Toone, Thomas Mulcair
No consensus there, eh? I could add Hoang Mai who was Quebec Party Treasurer before Mulcair came in (undeclared), and Francine Raynault (her partner ran in previous campaigns), an Ashton supporter.
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:30
#58
So no...I don't think he's made things very clear at all.
To be fair, I find most of the candidates proposals lacking great detail... including Topp's for example when he talks about a national nutritional program for children.
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:33
#59
It's called leadership.
http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=185260
Mulcair is said “not to work well with others.” Sometimes this is called commitment and charisma; Pierre Trudeau wasn’t terrific at getting along, but his persona was electrifying, and he was electoral gold for a generation despite his somewhat disagreeable approach to colleagues. Maybe Mulcair just knows what he wants.
I wish the NDP would use some better quality control over the pictures we're using of our leadership canidates.
Here's Peggy "Doesn't Look a Day Over Thirty" Nash followed by Paul "Hospital Haircut" Dewar...
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:34
#60
One example: up until recently, we literally translated our English press releases into French mechanically, promising that we'll deliver Child Care to all Canadians. So when I hear someone saying we need to drop the boilerplate, I take that quite literally, and think it's a good idea.
Ok, that's a fair point, but it really only applies to our french communications. It's a poor idea to literally translate. What about the material that doesn't get translated?
How about this one?
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1008690--ndp-leaving...
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:34
#61
If the guy wanted to win, there were THREE parties where it would have been easier for him to go for the power grab. There's a reason Jack reached out to him, and there's a reason he went with a fourth-party.
Who in their right mind would become a New Democrat in Quebec before 2011, unless they genuinely agreed with what we were doing?
I'm fully aware that Mulcair decided to support the NDP rather than the Liberals or the Conservatives. So what? That by no means is sufficient to show that he is deeply commited to the values of the social democratic movement in Canada.
After all, 30% of voters chose to support the NDP in the last election. Do I think that 30% of voters are profoundly commited to a social democratic philosophy? Of course not.
The fact that one's beliefs are closer to the New Democratic Party's positions than to the Liberal Party's positions or the Conservative Party's position does not show that one really believes in a social democratic philosophy—much less that one is strongly commited to that philosophy and to the principles and values that define it.
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:35
#62
It's called leadership.
http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=185260
Mulcair is said “not to work well with others.” Sometimes this is called commitment and charisma; Pierre Trudeau wasn’t terrific at getting along, but his persona was electrifying, and he was electoral gold for a generation despite his somewhat disagreeable approach to colleagues. Maybe Mulcair just knows what he wants.
I wish the NDP would implement some better quality control over the pictures we're using of our leadership canidates.
Here's Peggy "Doesn't Look a Day Over Thirty" Nash followed by Paul "Hospital Haircut" Dewar...
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:36
#63
Good grief...every candidate supports the NDP policy manual that was adopted in Halifax and is amendable only by the Convention. Every candidate shared Jack's vision for the country (they were candidates under his leadership, he recruited them)
This purity shit is really starting to bore me. I am bloody tired of having new members and people wanting to get involved turned away because of the holier-than-thou purity test BS, and now we're applying it to our leadership contenders! Jack's biggest triumph was ridding us of the exclusion that results from ideological purity tests and instead uniting us around a set of shared values that we can use to draw new people in.
Every one of the contenders (and every MP), to my mind, supports our policy manual and understands that the policy manual is decided and amendable only at convention. If a candidate wins with nothing more than the ideological purity tests of the past on offer, we're done. I don't want to return to the pre-Jack days!
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:37
#64
If the guy wanted to win, there were THREE parties where it would have been easier for him to go for the power grab. There's a reason Jack reached out to him, and there's a reason he went with a fourth-party.
Who in their right mind would become a New Democrat in Quebec before 2011, unless they genuinely agreed with what we were doing?
I'm fully aware that Mulcair decided to support the NDP rather than the Liberals or the Conservatives. So what? That by no means is sufficient to show that he is deeply commited to the values of the social democratic movement in Canada.
After all, 30% of voters chose to support the NDP in the last election. Do I think that 30% of voters are profoundly commited to a social democratic philosophy? Of course not.
The fact that one's beliefs are closer to the New Democratic Party's positions than to the Liberal Party's positions or the Conservative Party's position does not show that one really believes in a social democratic philosophy—much less that one is strongly commited to that philosophy and to the principles and values that define it.
What does it take for Mulcair to be "one of us"?
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:43
#65
HM My neighbours have lived in the community for almost 40 years, yet their home is still called the Smith farm by some. I expect, for some people, Mulcair will only be considered one of us when some succeeding generation of Mulcair (if he has kids) takes on a leadership role.
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:44
#66
If the guy wanted to win, there were THREE parties where it would have been easier for him to go for the power grab. There's a reason Jack reached out to him, and there's a reason he went with a fourth-party.
Who in their right mind would become a New Democrat in Quebec before 2011, unless they genuinely agreed with what we were doing?
I'm fully aware that Mulcair decided to support the NDP rather than the Liberals or the Conservatives. So what? That by no means is sufficient to show that he is deeply commited to the values of the social democratic movement in Canada.
After all, 30% of voters chose to support the NDP in the last election. Do I think that 30% of voters are profoundly commited to a social democratic philosophy? Of course not.
The fact that one's beliefs are closer to the New Democratic Party's positions than to the Liberal Party's positions or the Conservative Party's position does not show that one really believes in a social democratic philosophy—much less that one is strongly commited to that philosophy and to the principles and values that define it.
What does it take for Mulcair to be "one of us"?
A hair cut like Tommy Douglas and to enact Mouseland via shadow puppets. Or was I the only one to be made to do that in order to join the party? :p
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:46
#67
If the guy wanted to win, there were THREE parties where it would have been easier for him to go for the power grab. There's a reason Jack reached out to him, and there's a reason he went with a fourth-party.
Who in their right mind would become a New Democrat in Quebec before 2011, unless they genuinely agreed with what we were doing?
I'm fully aware that Mulcair decided to support the NDP rather than the Liberals or the Conservatives. So what? That by no means is sufficient to show that he is deeply commited to the values of the social democratic movement in Canada.
After all, 30% of voters chose to support the NDP in the last election. Do I think that 30% of voters are profoundly commited to a social democratic philosophy? Of course not.
This is the saddest comment I've read in my brief time here.
First of all, it shows a lack of faith in the voters.
Second of all, it almost laments the fact that we won. "We got all these votes, but they don't REALLY share our philosophy."
Taking this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, if 30% of the vote is diluting our philosophy, then 40 or 50% of the vote is selling out.
The only legitimate way to grow our share of the popular vote is to pop our more kids, indoctrinate them from birth, and wait 70 years.
It's like you guys WANT to lose.
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:47
#68
If the guy wanted to win, there were THREE parties where it would have been easier for him to go for the power grab. There's a reason Jack reached out to him, and there's a reason he went with a fourth-party.
Who in their right mind would become a New Democrat in Quebec before 2011, unless they genuinely agreed with what we were doing?
I'm fully aware that Mulcair decided to support the NDP rather than the Liberals or the Conservatives. So what? That by no means is sufficient to show that he is deeply commited to the values of the social democratic movement in Canada.
After all, 30% of voters chose to support the NDP in the last election. Do I think that 30% of voters are profoundly commited to a social democratic philosophy? Of course not.
The fact that one's beliefs are closer to the New Democratic Party's positions than to the Liberal Party's positions or the Conservative Party's position does not show that one really believes in a social democratic philosophy—much less that one is strongly commited to that philosophy and to the principles and values that define it.
You don't live in Nanimo do you?
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:49
#69
I think you're missing the qualifier "profoundly committed". I don't think there's any evidence that 30% of people are "profoundly committed" to social democracy, nor probably to any particular political ideology.
If we were to have 20% of voters profoundly commited to social democracy and 20% open to giving it a shot we'd do great.
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:49
#70
This is really quite pitiful and shows a complete absence of awareness of what actually took place. Sleazy comments actually. Sometimes I wonder who people are pimping for.
He had been minister of the environment with the Quebec Liberals, but then was demoted by Charest to a lesser post (I can't recall what post exactly.) Anyway, annoyed, he quit. Later he ran for the NDP.
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:51
#71
Okay, I've asked a few questions about to the Mulcair supporters here, now I want to ask a question to the Topp supporters and other people who have him as one of their top (no pun intended) choices. How do you view his "retail skills", with only a little over a month to go 'till the convention? Personally, without ever having met or seen him in person, I think they're pretty good. But of course, I want to know what the rest of you think. What do you think of him in front of a camera? Giving an interview? During the debates? Giving speeches? Doing meet and greets? Kissing? ; ) Is their any differences in him between in english and french?
All answers welcome!
Wed, 2012-02-15 23:51
#72
He had been minister of the environment with the Quebec Liberals, but then was demoted by Charest to a lesser post (I can't recall what post exactly.) Anyway, annoyed, he quit. Later he ran for the NDP.
This is really quite pitiful and shows a complete absence of awareness of what actually took place. Sleazy comments actually.
Yeah I agree. He took a stand and should be commended for it.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:03
#73
This is the saddest comment I've read in my brief time here.
First of all, it shows a lack of faith in the voters.
Second of all, it almost laments the fact that we won. "We got all these votes, but they don't REALLY share our philosophy."
Taking this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, if 30% of the vote is diluting our philosophy, then 40 or 50% of the vote is selling out.
The only legitimate way to grow our share of the popular vote is to pop our more kids, indoctrinate them from birth, and wait 70 years.
It's like you guys WANT to lose.
Most voters are not especially ideological. They vote for a party because they trust it and think that it will work for the interests and priorities of people such as themselves. And there's nothing wrong with that!
I have not expressed a lack of faith in our voters, are called their support illegitimate.
I merely am saying that most NDP voters don't vote for the NDP because of some sort of philosophical belief in social democracy.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:09
#74
This is the saddest comment I've read in my brief time here.
First of all, it shows a lack of faith in the voters.
Second of all, it almost laments the fact that we won. "We got all these votes, but they don't REALLY share our philosophy."
Taking this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, if 30% of the vote is diluting our philosophy, then 40 or 50% of the vote is selling out.
The only legitimate way to grow our share of the popular vote is to pop our more kids, indoctrinate them from birth, and wait 70 years.
It's like you guys WANT to lose.
Most voters are not especially ideological. They vote for a party because they trust it and think that it will work for the interests and priorities of people such as themselves. And there's nothing wrong with that!
I have not expressed a lack of faith in our voters, are called their support illegitimate.
I merely am saying that most NDP voters don't vote for the NDP because of some sort of philosophical belief in social democracy.
Except that we weren't really having a conversation about the voters, or why they vote for the party. You were trying to make a point about Mulcair, and where he's taking the party. What it has to do with the voters, and where he's taking it, you didn't make it clear to me. But I'd be interested to hear you put it more clearly.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:09
#75
Boom Boom
A hair cut like Tommy Douglas and to enact Mouseland via shadow puppets. Or was I the only one to be made to do that in order to join the party? :p
I had to exchange blood, and recite the Internationale.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:10
#76
"What is democratic socialism? The philosopher would say that it's an ideology of collective responsibility and common good. The professor of political science would say that it is a set of government policies. The activist would say that it is about defending specific issues or groups, or challenging the current social order. The union member would say that democratic socialism is about defending workers' rights. The opposition MP would say that it is about attacking the right wing agenda in Parliament. All of these assumptions are partly true. But they are missing the basic idea. And that is that democratic socialism, in Michael Harrington's words, is, before anything else, a hope. It is the true hope of humankind for a fair, fraternal and free future." —Pierre Ducasse
Most voters who choose the NDP don't vote for us because of some belief that our ideology is "the true hope of humankind for a fair, fraternal and free future." That's fine. There are hundreds of great reasons to support the NDP.
I happen to believe, though, that the leader of the New Democratic Party should be someone who believes deeply in that last basic idea.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:13
#77
This is the saddest comment I've read in my brief time here.
First of all, it shows a lack of faith in the voters.
Second of all, it almost laments the fact that we won. "We got all these votes, but they don't REALLY share our philosophy."
Taking this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, if 30% of the vote is diluting our philosophy, then 40 or 50% of the vote is selling out.
The only legitimate way to grow our share of the popular vote is to pop our more kids, indoctrinate them from birth, and wait 70 years.
It's like you guys WANT to lose.
Most voters are not especially ideological. They vote for a party because they trust it and think that it will work for the interests and priorities of people such as themselves. And there's nothing wrong with that!
I have not expressed a lack of faith in our voters, are called their support illegitimate.
I merely am saying that most NDP voters don't vote for the NDP because of some sort of philosophical belief in social democracy.
Except that we weren't really having a conversation about the voters, or why they vote for the party. You were trying to make a point about Mulcair, and where he's taking the party. What it has to do with the voters, and where he's taking it, you didn't make it clear to me. But I'd be interested to hear you put it more clearly.
Some have argued that the fact that Thomas Mulcair chose to support our party rather than supporting the Liberals or Conservatives is enough to erase any doubts that we may have about his ideological commitment.
What I'm saying is that merely choosing the NDP over the other parties is not proof that one is deeply commited to a social democratic philosophical position.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:21
#78
He had been minister of the environment with the Quebec Liberals, but then was demoted by Charest to a lesser post (I can't recall what post exactly.) Anyway, annoyed, he quit. Later he ran for the NDP.
This is really quite pitiful and shows a complete absence of awareness of what actually took place. Sleazy comments actually.
Yeah I agree. He took a stand and should be commended for it.
What I don't get if that I'm pretty sure mark_alfred said in previous threads that he liked Mulcair and donated to his campaign. And then he says this? If I'm wrong, please correct me mark_alfred.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:25
#79
Some have argued that the fact that Thomas Mulcair chose to support our party rather than supporting the Liberals or Conservatives is enough to erase any doubts that we may have about his ideological commitment.What I'm saying is that merely choosing the NDP over the other parties is not proof that one is deeply commited to a social democratic philosophical position.
Except when I decide to vote NDP instead of another party, I do so by secret ballot, and I go back to my job regardless of what happens.
When a candidate joins a fourth party polling single digits in Quebec, and that party has basically never won a seat, he's basically willing to risk political ostracism and a retirement from his chosen career.
It's not decisive proof. But it's far better evidence that Mulcair is committed to social democracy than the random misquotes and conspiracies that suggest otherwise.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:28
#80
I am also getting very tired of the tribalism of the NDP. There is a historical opportunity here. I am sorry but the canddidate who has the best shot of beating Harper is going to be near or at the top of my list. For me that is Mulcair. I understand that some might dispute my analysis and believe other candidates may best be positioned to win. That I can accept but what I find really difficult to take is the ideological purity (as someone else here said) test.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:31
#81
This is the saddest comment I've read in my brief time here.
First of all, it shows a lack of faith in the voters.
Second of all, it almost laments the fact that we won. "We got all these votes, but they don't REALLY share our philosophy."
Taking this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, if 30% of the vote is diluting our philosophy, then 40 or 50% of the vote is selling out.
The only legitimate way to grow our share of the popular vote is to pop our more kids, indoctrinate them from birth, and wait 70 years.
It's like you guys WANT to lose.
Most voters are not especially ideological. They vote for a party because they trust it and think that it will work for the interests and priorities of people such as themselves. And there's nothing wrong with that!
I have not expressed a lack of faith in our voters, are called their support illegitimate.
I merely am saying that most NDP voters don't vote for the NDP because of some sort of philosophical belief in social democracy.
Except that we weren't really having a conversation about the voters, or why they vote for the party. You were trying to make a point about Mulcair, and where he's taking the party. What it has to do with the voters, and where he's taking it, you didn't make it clear to me. But I'd be interested to hear you put it more clearly.
Some have argued that the fact that Thomas Mulcair chose to support our party rather than supporting the Liberals or Conservatives is enough to erase any doubts that we may have about his ideological commitment.
What I'm saying is that merely choosing the NDP over the other parties is not proof that one is deeply commited to a social democratic philosophical position.
Nothing will erase your doubts, because you don't want them erased. Guilty until proven innocent is rotten way to treat people.
Anywho not worth going in circles.
Looking forward to March 24th.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:32
#82
He was Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks with the only federalist party in Quebec. He passed North America's first Sustainable Development Act including amending Quebec's Human Rights Charter to include the right to live in a clean environment. He left when he wouldn't play ball with Charest turning over a provincial park to developers so they could build condos. You're slamming him for that?He had been minister of the environment with the Quebec Liberals, but then was demoted by Charest to a lesser post (I can't recall what post exactly.) Anyway, annoyed, he quit. Later he ran for the NDP.
Not at all. His standing up against developers was a great thing. However, the scenario you describe conflicts with the assertion that he "left a prestigious job to join the NDP because he believed in them", which is what I was responding to in the original post.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:32
#83
My beef isn't even the ideological purity test, although I agree it's stupid in the first place.
My beef is that there isn't a shred of daylight between the candidates on any issue -- except maybe Topp's tax on the wealthy, or Cullen's proposed electoral strategy -- and people just go ahead and invent reasons to fail the ideological purity test anyway.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:34
#84
Some have argued that the fact that Thomas Mulcair chose to support our party rather than supporting the Liberals or Conservatives is enough to erase any doubts that we may have about his ideological commitment.
What I'm saying is that merely choosing the NDP over the other parties is not proof that one is deeply commited to a social democratic philosophical position.
How about if after taking a career gamble with a 4th place party and miraculously getting elected the guy was than presented with the equally trepidatious task of growing support for that party which had still never won a seat in a general election? Results by the way, the Quebec caucus increased 5800%.
How about that Jack Layton trusted Tom with the duties of Quebec lieutenant, finance critic and deputy leader?
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:35
#85
Some have argued that the fact that Thomas Mulcair chose to support our party rather than supporting the Liberals or Conservatives is enough to erase any doubts that we may have about his ideological commitment.What I'm saying is that merely choosing the NDP over the other parties is not proof that one is deeply commited to a social democratic philosophical position.
Except when I decide to vote NDP instead of another party, I do so by secret ballot, and I go back to my job regardless of what happens.
When a candidate joins a fourth party polling single digits in Quebec, and that party has basically never won a seat, he's basically willing to risk political ostracism and a retirement from his chosen career.
It's not decisive proof. But it's far better evidence that Mulcair is committed to social democracy than the random misquotes and conspiracies that suggest otherwise.
It seems probable that most people hold views which place them closer to some parties than others, but which are not so close to any one party that the person would be an appropriate leader for it.
If Thomas Mulcair was to go into federal politics, he had to choose a party. Probably, Mulcair was not an ideological New Democrat or an ideological Liberal or an ideological Conservative—after all, most people aren't. But he had to choose a party. Indeed, were he to continue seriously in politics, he genuinely absolutely HAD to choose a party—in contrast to voters, who have the option of staying home on election day without having to change careers.
He chose the NDP. I'm perfectly willing to believe that this was because he thought his views were closer to the NDP's position than to the positions of the other parties. However, I see no reason to believe that he believes that the NDP's philosophy is "the true hope of humankind for a fair, fraternal and free future."
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:43
#86
Nothing will erase your doubts, because you don't want them erased. Guilty until proven innocent is rotten way to treat people. Anywho not worth going in circles. Looking forward to March 24th.
"Guilty until proven innocent" is the wrong metaphor. "Unqualified until proven qualified" is the right metaphor.
Suppose you needed sophisticated eye surgery. If you were to meet a random person in the street who you have NO PROOF ISN'T a brilliant opthamologist, then is this sufficient for you to accept them your eye surgeon?
Sorry, but I'm not going to assume that everyone is profoundly commited to social democracy until I see evidence that they aren't, just as I'm not going to assume that everyone is qualified to perform eye surgery until I see evidence that they aren't.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:43
#87
I am also getting very tired of the tribalism of the NDP. There is a historical opportunity here. I am sorry but the canddidate who has the best shot of beating Harper is going to be near or at the top of my list. For me that is Mulcair. I understand that some might dispute my analysis and believe other candidates may best be positioned to win. That I can accept but what I find really difficult to take is the ideological purity (as someone else here said) test.
Its not everyone in the NDP, its a minority.
Sadly they are being encouraged by Brian who I have great respect for and Paul Dewar who I also have great respect for, but who are thinking only short term.
They don't think about how the Liberals will take this purity stuff into thier commericials to make it clear to non traditional ndp voters how unwelcome they are in the NDP.
I understand thier ambitious, but for example if Nash wins Charlie Angus' quote on healthcare will end up in Liberal attack ads.
I know that the press has been whining about how boring the race has been, but remember that the,press is made up of 2 years olds and personal attacks, aka not respectful disagreements over positions, may keep them enterained, but every,circus has a price.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:44
#88
It seems probable that most people hold views which place them closer to some parties than others, but which are not so close to any one party that the person would be an appropriate leader for it.If Thomas Mulcair was to go into federal politics, he had to choose a party. Probably, Mulcair was not an ideological New Democrat or an ideological Liberal or an ideological Conservative—after all, most people aren't. But he had to choose a party. Indeed, were he to continue seriously in politics, he genuinely absolutely HAD to choose a party—in contrast to voters, who have the option of staying home on election day without having to change careers.
He chose the NDP. I'm perfectly willing to believe that this was because he thought his views were closer to the NDP's position than to the positions of the other parties. However, I see no reason to believe that he believes that the NDP's philosophy is "the true hope of humankind for a fair, fraternal and free future."
Let's stop here and partially agree.
Mulcair is most "at home" in the NDP.
Is he a committed social democrat?
- There's no actual evidence to suggest that he isn't.
- There are other candidates with more detailed records on this test. (I'm looking at Peggy Nash.)
I'm a committed social democrat. I'll wear that philosophy proudly, and I'll accept what little rejection I'll encounter in life over my political philosophy. I'd like the Nash campaign to catch fire. But if Mulcair wins, I won't be upset, because I don't see any evidence he wants us to stop being a social democratic party.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:44
#89
I could care less why Mulcair joined the NDP. Or why Topp, Cullen, Nash, Dewar, Ashton, or Singh joined. Their websites, meet and greets, debate performances, proposals, etc., will be the factors to focus on.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:44
#90
What I'm saying is that merely choosing the NDP over the other parties is not proof that one is deeply commited to a social democratic philosophical position.
One of our candidates recently mis-spoke and said she wouldn't endorse the Canada Health Act, this after working years for a union whose leadership repeatedly encouraged people to vote Liberal. Should we not accept her years in the Party and in activism as proof enough that she shares our values?
Another one of our candidates has been accepting money in this leadership campaign from Bay Street types and presided as a senior strategist for a government that closed 50 hospitals. Should we not accept his lifelong committment to social democracy in Canada as proof that he shares our values?
Yet another of our candidates voted against the gun registry and is now saying that we should voluntarily cede ground to our competitors. Do his exemplary work in his community and for the environment not prove his committment to social democracy?
And we have another candidate who was in government under a right-wing (by Quebec standards, mind you) but federalist leader, but who was a cabinet minister in a government that kept anti-scab legislation intact, provides $7/day child care and has the lowest tuition fees in the country and who quit on a progressive matter of principle.
I trust all of their committment to the Party and to the cause of social democracy, fairness and justice in Canada. I just happen to think that one of them is most likely to be able to win government in order to finally act on that committment.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:52
#91
This hits the nail on the head:
Well at the very least he could have tried not living in Quebec!
No true born New Democrat would ever join the PLQ, after all it has the word Liberal in there, just because it was the height of the secession crisis as in 1994 is no excuse.
Likewise any Quebecker who wasn't fighting for the federalists in the Referendum better scurry off as well. We're a federalist Party here and no seperatist is going to get elected in the ROC.
Sorry, Province of Quebec, thanks for the MPs but unfortunately your citizenry has all failed our purity test.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:56
#92
What I'm saying is that merely choosing the NDP over the other parties is not proof that one is deeply commited to a social democratic philosophical position.
One of our candidates recently mis-spoke and said she wouldn't endorse the Canada Health Act, this after working years for a union whose leadership repeatedly encouraged people to vote Liberal. Should we not accept her years in the Party and in activism as proof enough that she shares our values?
Another one of our candidates has been accepting money in this leadership campaign from Bay Street types and presided as a senior strategist for a government that closed 50 hospitals. Should we not accept his lifelong committment to social democracy in Canada as proof that he shares our values?
Yet another of our candidates voted against the gun registry and is now saying that we should voluntarily cede ground to our competitors. Do his exemplary work in his community and for the environment not prove his committment to social democracy?
And we have another candidate who was in government under a right-wing (by Quebec standards, mind you) but federalist leader, but who was a cabinet minister in a government that kept anti-scab legislation intact, provides $7/day child care and has the lowest tuition fees in the country and who quit on a progressive matter of principle.
I trust all of their committment to the Party and to the cause of social democracy, fairness and justice in Canada. I just happen to think that one of them is most likely to be able to win government in order to finally act on that committment.
Yes, I agree. I have been a constituency president, a candidate, and a member of the party for 37 years. yet, I doubt I would pass some of the purity tests. I am not sure one can be a social democrat in a capitalist society without having to put some water in your wine at least some of the time.
Thu, 2012-02-16 00:58
#93
What does it take for Mulcair to be "one of us"?
Well at the very least he could have tried not living in Quebec!
No true born New Democrat would ever join the PLQ, after all it has the word Liberal in there, just because it was the height of the secession crisis in 94 is no excuse.
Likewise any Quebecker who wasn't fighting for the federalists in the Referendum better scurry off as well. We're a federalist Party here and no seperatist is going to get elected in the ROC.
Sorry, Province of Quebec, thanks for the MPs but unfortunately your citizenry has all failed our purity test.
Thu, 2012-02-16 01:05
#94
Just got an email from the Nash campaign:
Town Hall with Peggy Nash
Monday, February 27
7:00 pm - 8:30 pm (doors open at 6:30 pm)
Church of the Holy Trinity, 10 Trinity Square, Toronto
(just west of the Eaton Centre, between Dundas & Queen subway stations)
Free and open to everyone, this will be a special opportunity for us to come together to discuss issues of importance to Toronto and the GTA. Please mark your calendars and notify your friends and neighbours to do the same. We will forward you more details closer to the event.
Thu, 2012-02-16 01:10
#95
He was Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks with the only federalist party in Quebec. He passed North America's first Sustainable Development Act including amending Quebec's Human Rights Charter to include the right to live in a clean environment. He left when he wouldn't play ball with Charest turning over a provincial park to developers so they could build condos. You're slamming him for that?He had been minister of the environment with the Quebec Liberals, but then was demoted by Charest to a lesser post (I can't recall what post exactly.) Anyway, annoyed, he quit. Later he ran for the NDP.
Not at all. His standing up against developers was a great thing. However, the scenario you describe conflicts with the assertion that he "left a prestigious job to join the NDP because he believed in them", which is what I was responding to in the original post.
He was offered another cabinet post! They wanted him out of Environment. He still would have been an MNA and a cabinet minister. He gave that up and left. Wow.
Thu, 2012-02-16 01:16
#96
He was offered another cabinet post! They wanted him out of Environment. He still would have been an MNA and a cabinet minister. He gave that up and left. Wow.He was Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks with the only federalist party in Quebec. He passed North America's first Sustainable Development Act including amending Quebec's Human Rights Charter to include the right to live in a clean environment. He left when he wouldn't play ball with Charest turning over a provincial park to developers so they could build condos. You're slamming him for that?He had been minister of the environment with the Quebec Liberals, but then was demoted by Charest to a lesser post (I can't recall what post exactly.) Anyway, annoyed, he quit. Later he ran for the NDP.
Not at all. His standing up against developers was a great thing. However, the scenario you describe conflicts with the assertion that he "left a prestigious job to join the NDP because he believed in them", which is what I was responding to in the original post.
He rightly felt he deserved better treatment from Charest.
Thu, 2012-02-16 01:34
#97
And yes, that historic victory involved some amount of modernizing under Jack Layton, including such reforms as killing affiliated membership.
What the heck are you talking about? We still have affiliated members. Check the federal Party Constitution.
Thu, 2012-02-16 01:36
#98
And yes, that historic victory involved some amount of modernizing under Jack Layton, including such reforms as killing affiliated membership.
What the heck are you talking about? We still have affiliated members. Check the federal Party Constitution.
My mistake. I mangled that one -- I meant to say the special voting quota for affiliated members.
Thu, 2012-02-16 01:45
#99
This got my attention:
Ew. I'm voting for a candidate with better taste in furniture.
I'm sure that Steve and Chris would TOTALLY agree with you. Who wants a Canada filled with ugly chesterfields?...
Thu, 2012-02-16 01:55
#100
For those interesting in the Israel/Palestine issue, I took a couple hours to compile an outline of the various candidates positions and statements regarding Israel/Palestine. Nash seems to be the most supportive of palestinian rights, Mulcair the most supportive of Israel: http://progressiveproselytizing.blogspot.com/2012/02/ndp-leadership-candidate-policy.html
Thu, 2012-02-16 01:57
#101
And yes, that historic victory involved some amount of modernizing under Jack Layton, including such reforms as killing affiliated membership.
What the heck are you talking about? We still have affiliated members. Check the federal Party Constitution.
My mistake. I mangled that one -- I meant to say the special voting quota for affiliated members.
That was part of an evolution from delegated Conventions.