NDP Leadership #100

Whoa, check this out from the Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East:

[url=http://bit.ly/zrWYFf]Thomas Mulcair unlikely to defend NDP policy on the Middle East[/url]

Quote:

NDP policies -- defined democratically by the grassroots members at the 2006 convention after thorough discussion -- commit the party to opposing Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories and to upholding international law by opposing Israeli colonies (a.k.a. "settlements"), the Wall and all attacks on civilians. Yet, as deputy leader, Mulcair discouraged the caucus from publicly criticising Israel's assault on Gaza in 2008-09, which killed about 1400 Gazans, the majority of them civilians, including 344 children, and injured thousands more. Even after that lethal assault, Mulcair is still reluctant to speak up against Israel's colonization of Palestinian land, the Wall and Israel's blockade of Gaza. [...]

All of the other leadership candidates who have spoken on the Middle East have unequivocally supported traditional NDP policy on the Middle East.  For example, Niki Ashton, Brian Topp, Paul Dewar, Peggy Nash and Martin Singh have all publicly proclaimed support for Palestinian membership in the UN this year.

Unionist wrote:

Whoa, check this out from the Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East:

I can already tell you the article is inaccurate.

"In candidates' meetings across Canada, Mulcair has answered questions on the Middle East evasively, and has refused to commit to supporting the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the near future."

I went to a Mulcair event to specifically ask him a question about PR, and I heard him say he "supports the official party policy", which is a "two state solution". Presumably, a two-state solution would include establishing an independent Palestinean state. Unless Mulcair means that Israel should be sectored into the two ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the CJPME article is false.

flight from kamakura wrote:

if dewar wins, i'll definitely do everything i can to keep the wheels on the bus, but i'll definitely take a few months off to get my bearings, because the task in quebec will be enormous and mostly out of my hands.

with a mulcair leadership, basically, it's about converting our support to boots on the ground and organizing around a popular ndp.  with dewar in there, it's about trying to convince people that the ndp is much more than its leader, that the press is wrong about him, that he'll eventually learn french, that the ndp is still quebec's party, etc.  a depressingly uphill fight that i think a lot of us are really discouraged at the thought of having to undertake.  the lower ndp support sinks in quebec, the less the media will pay attention to us, and the death spiral begins.

also a promise that i'll make right now:  if dewar becomes leader, i will organize ceaselessly to take laverdière out in laurier-sainte marie in the nomination battle, including - if necessary - becoming the candidate myself.  there are two bastions of ndp support in montreal, and she's representing one of them, and the more i think of it, the more outrageous i find her support of dewar.  she's literally the only montrealer i've met who even remotely prefers him as leader.

I'm with you. I'll support whichever leader is nominated, including Dewar, despite my strong concerns that it will send us sliding backwards. I'm interested why you think it's so important to take Laverdiere out, though. It's possible that organizational effort would be better served taking out another Liberal seat.

flight from kamakura wrote:

if dewar wins, i'll definitely do everything i can to keep the wheels on the bus, but i'll definitely take a few months off to get my bearings, because the task in quebec will be enormous and mostly out of my hands.

with a mulcair leadership, basically, it's about converting our support to boots on the ground and organizing around a popular ndp.  with dewar in there, it's about trying to convince people that the ndp is much more than its leader, that the press is wrong about him, that he'll eventually learn french, that the ndp is still quebec's party, etc.  a depressingly uphill fight that i think a lot of us are really discouraged at the thought of having to undertake.  the lower ndp support sinks in quebec, the less the media will pay attention to us, and the death spiral begins.

also a promise that i'll make right now:  if dewar becomes leader, i will organize ceaselessly to take laverdière out in laurier-sainte marie in the nomination battle, including - if necessary - becoming the candidate myself.  there are two bastions of ndp support in montreal, and she's representing one of them, and the more i think of it, the more outrageous i find her support of dewar.  she's literally the only montrealer i've met who even remotely prefers him as leader.

It is really nice to see that the childishness that infected past and maybe even current Liberal leadership races isn't showing its face in the NDP leadership race.

laverdière and mulcair own the two most left-wing seats in the entire province of quebec, likely the most left-wing seats east of the danforth.  we should have a libby or pat martin or megan leslie-style mp here, a huge figure, not a virtually unknown retired foreign affairs bureaucrat.  this is should be one of the safest ndp seats in the country, and that laverdière would go with dewar just shows me that she doesn't at all understand what the enjeux are, how to consolidate our gains, what we're even looking at.  with the right leader she could own a new ndp fortress, and she's going with a guy whose name she can't even properly pronounce and who can't understand the majority of her contituents if they speak quickly or use a real montreal accent.  it's very irksome.  i hope luc ferrandez or someone gets in, takes her out, and becomes the real francophone face of the party.  and if noone wants to do it, i'll invest the time and the money to take a shot at it, that's for sure, i'm no wilting flower.

Wasn't there a radical economist who ran for the NDP prior to Mulcair in Outremont?  Maybe he'd be interested.  

flight from kamakura wrote:

laverdière and mulcair own the two most left-wing seats in the entire province of quebec, likely the most left-wing seats east of the danforth.  we should have a libby or pat martin or megan leslie-style mp here, a huge figure, not a virtually unknown retired foreign affairs bureaucrat.  this is should be one of the safest ndp seats in the country, and that laverdière would go with dewar just shows me that she doesn't at all understand what the enjeux are, how to consolidate our gains, what we're even looking at.  with the right leader she could own a new ndp fortress, and she's going with a guy whose name she can't even properly pronounce and who can't understand the majority of her contituents if they speak quickly or use a real montreal accent.  it's very irksome.  i hope luc ferrandez or someone gets in, takes her out, and becomes the real francophone face of the party.  and if noone wants to do it, i'll invest the time and the money to take a shot at it, that's for sure, i'm no wilting flower.

Beating Gilles Duceppe in his home riding is no small feat. But it might suport what you know: that the riding is more willing to support someone left-wing. I'm glad to see people getting off this board and getting active. Keep us posted with your involvement.

The babble bubble (or planet babble, as I like to think of it), exists (I think).

Its existence is demonstrated by the ease in which contributors are willing to throw hard working fellow party members under the metaphorical bus and is inhabited by those whose objectivity is occassionaly tainted by their enthusiasm.

Further evidence is presented when said babblers write things like posts #2 & 7.

Understandably, emotions run high on the planet, since it is very small.

Double post.

And for those interestered who are in the Lower Mainland, Peggy Nash is going to at the CAW' Hall in New Westminster this Saturday evening. That's tomorrow nite.

wage zombie wrote:

I got a call from the Peggy Nash campaign.

After talking a bit about my preferences, the caller reminded me to renew my membership.  I said that I didn't know what she meant, because I had donated money during the last federal election, and that I was under the impression that memberships are active until one year after the last donation.

She said that she didn't know or have access to any of that, all that she could tell me was that I was on their campaign list of memberships that would expire before the convention.

It would be really crappy to have slogged through these hundred threads and then not get to vote.  Does anybody have advce for me?  Should I not worry about it?  I don't think calling my riding executive today is going to yield quick results.  Maybe I should just pay a $5 donation today for a new membership just in case.

I don't think your understanding is right, although it may be different in different provinces.  I also don't think making a donation is the criteria.  We have regular donors in our riding who are adament about not being members, so I don't think it is an automatic thing.

If you want to vote and have a credit card I would recomend you do it online today to make sure.

I just called the BC NDP and they told me my membership is in good standing until August.

I subsequently asked about membership expiration and they confirmed that in BC at least, memberships are active until one year after the last donation.

Not sure how to explain the Nash campaign having me on the expired list.  Glitch in the matrix I guess.

Thanks for the suggestions BA and Lou.

GregbythePond wrote:

The babble bubble (or planet babble, as I like to think of it), exists (I think).

Its existence is demonstrated by the ease in which contributors are willing to throw hard working fellow party members under the metaphorical bus and is inhabited by those whose objectivity is occassionaly tainted by their enthusiasm.

Further evidence is presented when said babblers write things like posts #2 & 7.

Understandably, emotions run high on the planet, since it is very small.

it's just that you don't live in quebec, obviously don't understand what the stakes are, and don't seem realize the extent to which our success hinges on our selection of the right leader.  there's absolutely no question that we'll be losing seats in quebec in 2015 with anyone other than mulcair.  if it comes down to topp or even cullen as leader, i'm alright with losing 10-25 seats if we can somehow make them up elsewhere.  for instance, i could see a cullen leadership bringing us another 10 seats in the west and potentially 10 more in ontario.  i think we could probably retain opposition status under topp, cullen or nash.  under dewar, i just don't see it.  we'll lose almost everything in quebec, no question, the slide that begain in september will continue on until we're at 14% or so, by which time it won't matter if dewar learns how to speak french, the bq and rae will be the ones dominating the narrative and knowing that the cause is hopeless in quebec, dewar will be forced to focus extra hard on the rest of canada.  and that's that.  even if you think that scenario is exaggerated, it's not even plausible with mulcair, like there's no chance of it happening.  for me, the distance between the two candidates is so radical that when someone like laverdière endorses the guy, assuming she's doing so in good faith it just signals to me that she hasn't any idea what the stakes are.  and she's the one representing a legendarily left-wing set of neighborhoods, one of only two naturally ndp seats in the province.  nothing 'babble bubble about it, it's just plain bad thinking, bad strategy.

plus, on a personal level, i think laverdière is too way old to represent the youngest riding in the province, too low-key to make the riding a fortress to last for years, and insufficiently high-profile within the ndp to really make her the sort of sort of figure than mulcair has become - or that we see with virtually every other ndp mp that holds a similarly natural ndp riding.  with her as our mp, the ndp could just as easily be swept right back out of there, bad for her, worse for us.  so her endorsement of dewar is the last straw for me.

Since when did Rex Murphy become the headline writer for the punditsguide.ca?

The Push, the Pin, the Polls, the Plea, and the Counterpunch

great to see them getting involved, they even provide info on joining and websites and that. nice.

assessment:

A: Représente exactement les positions de l’AFPC-Québec
B: Représente bien les positions de l’AFPC-Québec
C: Représente l’inverse des positions de l’AFPC-Québec
D: Représente une position diamétralement opposée à celle de l’AFPC-Québec

mark_alfred wrote:

PSAC-Quebec sent a survey to all the leadership candidates, and just recently released their results.  Apparently only three responded, those being Nathan Cullen, Thomas Mulcair, and Brian Topp.  The survey concerned how well candidates understand both labour and language issues in Quebec.  The score was as follows: Nathan Cullen was graded "B", Thomas Mulcair was rated "B+", and Brian Topp was rated "A+".

Good to see the labour movement in Quebec getting involved in the race.

I'm so glad those survey organizations are getting involved. That will let us get passed speculation and dig into people's actual stances.

The grades aren't entirely based on their responses though. My friench is mediocre, but reading the report, they justified their B for Cullen with "We see nothing to oppose in his response, but it doesn't show a strong understanding of Quebec", and they justified their B+ for Mulcair with "We like his repsonses and he understands Quebec, but we have to take into account his remarks back in October." Topp got the unqualified "we like his responses and he understands Quebec". Their feeling about Topp and Mulcair seems almost indistinguishable except for his remarks from October.

I'd really like to read what the candidates sent them, and not just the summary and grade. Topp remains high on my list for sure, but as with everyone, I have my reservations.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Hunky Monkey wrote:

Interesting to note that some volunteers for Tom in Nova Scotia would be considered on the left of the party. I also know a "Romanow New Democrat" supporting Peggy.

And some of our most left MPs such as Philip Toone are supporting Tom.

Your comments may be based on the babble bubble?

I'm tired of this "babble bubble" line.  We're in 100 NDP leadership threads and you've been more active in them then I.

If anything, Nash has less support on babble than I've seen on the street.  Granted "the street" is in Toronto but I don't see why opinion in Toronto is any less representative of NDP opinion than Nova Scotia or rural Southwestern Ontario.  

Can we stop with this "babble bubble" BS? 

There are of course many, many Nash supporters out there (she's almost certiainly running second nationally and first in Ontario), but your doing Nash supporters a disservice if you're insinuating they all suffer from Mulcair Derangement Syndrome, most Nash supports I've talked to, like most Mulcair supporters and most of the supporters of each candidate are backing the person they like best without the corresponding need to dump all over one of the other 6 candidates, each of whom has more than proven themselves a hard working asset for our Party.

If the Babble bubble has a characterization it's excessive vitriol and paranoia.  Thank goodness, by the way, it's not like this out there or we'd be well on our way to becoming the Liberals. 

I think Cullen may be the only candidate able to collect enough late ballot support to compete with Mulcair.  In some ways his nomination plan may be less unattractive than the other candidates negatives.  People may think it's less of a gamble than Dewar's French or Topp's awkwardness or [what is the knock against Peggy Nash again?].  His joint nomination plan could be something easily rationalized.  For me, I'd still be concerned about how he'd do in Quebec...but I think he'd do well enough compared to Nash and Dewar that he could get a lot of their 2nd choice votes.

Maybe there will be a lot of ranked ballots voted ahead of time, but Cullen's oratory skills mean he could be most likely to pick up undecided at various rounds of voting.

I'll be voting Ashton on my first ballot.  I'd love to see her go all the way, but I'm hoping she'll at least get a lot of first ballot votes.

If Dewar's French weren't as bad as it is I'd be giving him a closer look.  I think if he can do significantly better in the next French debate then he will hold a lot of his support.

Wilf Day wrote:

Interesting answer to the question of Topp not having a seat. (Note: I'm not endorsing anyone, I just thought it was a good answer):

Quote:

Fun fact: the last three leaders of the opposition who went on to become prime minister weren’t MPs when they won their party leaderships.

Stephen Harper was elected leader of the Canadian Alliance in March 20, 2002 and then ran in a by-election to fill the seat for Calgary Southwest that was left vacant when Preston Manning resigned in January of that year. Not until May 21, 2002 did Mr. Harper make his first appearance in the House as the leader of the opposition.

Jean Chretien was elected leader of the Liberal party on June 23, 1990. Fernand Robichaud, the Liberal MP for Beausejour, resigned, so that Mr. Chretien could run in a by-election there. Mr. Chretien then took his seat as the leader of the opposition on Dec. 21, 1990.

Brian Mulroney was elected leader of the Progressive Conservatives on June 11, 1983. Elmer MacKay (father of Peter) then stepped down, allowing Mr. Mulroney to run in Central Nova. Mr. Mulroney then took his seat as the leader of the opposition on August 29, 1983.

Interesting. Good point.

I think because of all the minority governments and snap elections over the past decade, we're used to thinking of the political situtation as really stable, with the voting percentages only moving a few at a time. But these guys all made/rode waves. What makes me nervous, though, is that the electoral system was a big part of those waves. Chretien won easily because his main opposition split, and Harper got back on track because that same opposition re-united.

Still, my intuition is people are too busy to pay attention to leaders outside of election season. Nobody would really notice or care that Topp wasn't in parliament, as long as he acts as a decent mouthpiece for the party and gets a few headlines during off-season.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Wilf Day wrote:

Interesting answer to the question of Topp not having a seat. (Note: I'm not endorsing anyone, I just thought it was a good answer):

Quote:

Fun fact: the last three leaders of the opposition who went on to become prime minister weren’t MPs when they won their party leaderships.

Stephen Harper was elected leader of the Canadian Alliance in March 20, 2002 and then ran in a by-election to fill the seat for Calgary Southwest that was left vacant when Preston Manning resigned in January of that year. Not until May 21, 2002 did Mr. Harper make his first appearance in the House as the leader of the opposition.

Jean Chretien was elected leader of the Liberal party on June 23, 1990. Fernand Robichaud, the Liberal MP for Beausejour, resigned, so that Mr. Chretien could run in a by-election there. Mr. Chretien then took his seat as the leader of the opposition on Dec. 21, 1990.

Brian Mulroney was elected leader of the Progressive Conservatives on June 11, 1983. Elmer MacKay (father of Peter) then stepped down, allowing Mr. Mulroney to run in Central Nova. Mr. Mulroney then took his seat as the leader of the opposition on August 29, 1983.

Interesting. Good point.

I think because of all the minority governments and snap elections over the past decade, we're used to thinking of the political situtation as really stable, with the voting percentages only moving a few at a time. But these guys all made/rode waves. What makes me nervous, though, is that the electoral system was a big part of those waves. Chretien won easily because his main opposition split, and Harper got back on track because that same opposition re-united.

Still, my intuition is people are too busy to pay attention to leaders outside of election season. Nobody would really notice or care that Topp wasn't in parliament, as long as he acts as a decent mouthpiece for the party and gets a few headlines during off-season.

My concern would be... what seat is safe in Quebec? Still on shaky ground with regard to organization and now polling.

And it will be up to the PM to call a by-election if one of our MPs steps down. I don't want to wait longer to have our new leader in the House or have to worry about focusing on a by-election.

NorthReport wrote:

Now let's not be too harsh on Unionist. He just wants to ensure the NDP doesn't have too boring a Leadership race. lol!

Sorry, what are you talking about? My linking to a press release from the Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East? Perhaps I missed a joke somewhere. I'm usually pretty good at picking up on humour.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Whoa, check this out from the Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East:

I can already tell you the article is inaccurate.

"In candidates' meetings across Canada, Mulcair has answered questions on the Middle East evasively, and has refused to commit to supporting the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the near future."

I went to a Mulcair event to specifically ask him a question about PR, and I heard him say he "supports the official party policy", which is a "two state solution". Presumably, a two-state solution would include establishing an independent Palestinean state. Unless Mulcair means that Israel should be sectored into the two ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the CJPME article is false.

Sorry, you forgot to bold the essential part: "in the near future". The CJMPE release says, specifically, that "Niki Ashton, Brian Topp, Paul Dewar, Peggy Nash and Martin Singh have all publicly proclaimed support for Palestinian membership in the UN this year." There's a motion to that effect before the United Nations, as I'm sure you are aware. Harper's Canada, like Obama's U.S., is publicly opposed to that bid for recognition.

Yet, both Obama and Harper, like Mulcair, claim to support a "two-state solution". So do most Israeli politicians. But they [b]oppose[/b] the Palestinian Authority's bid for membership and recognition [b]now[/b]. So before dumping on the CJMPE and calling their statement "false", why not do a little careful reading and thinking?

 So, SDD and FFK and whoever else weighed in, now that you understand what CJMPE said a little better, can you answer this? Where does Mulcair stand on the current bid for U.N. membership by Palestine?

Ive heard that two Quebec MPs have now thrown their support behind Dewar, those being Hoang Mai and Hélène Laverdière.  Is this true?  If so, that's a good thing for Dewar.