Who are u supporting for NDP Leader, how will u mark your ballot, and why? #6

NorthReport wrote:

AC

Now that the NDP is in serious contention to form government in Ottawa we need to be attracting a more complete cross-section of Canadian voters.

We need small business people, first nations people, visible minorities, and women voting for the NDP as well. We need to bring a lot of these folks off the back pages and onto the front pages. We need these talented people in positions of leadership within the NDP and we need to do it now. What better opportunity do the rank and file members have to push for this than during the current NDP Leadership Race?

 

 

NR, I couldn't agree more with anything that you wrote. I agree on all of it. But I just don't see how Singh can be the face of that message. What am I missing here? Is he capable of growing into the job? For me it isn't about who looks like what now, but who can grow into the job, keep our gains, and expand the base. I guess that is what is driving my thinking right now regarding all of these candidates. And certainly, it seems to me putting many of these kinds of voices out there, front and center, couldn't be a better idea. You'll get no argument from me. There is no doubt that Canada is becoming increasingly Cosmopolitan, at least in outlook. I think kids today in fact are very lucky. It beats my day as a kid when you looked around the room and all you saw were a "bunch of white kids". And frankly, it gives me hope for tomorrow. Maybe we'll overcome our differences despite our worst instincts to the contrary.

 For me, my real handicap is I don't really understand in depth some of the things that have been observed here. I mean, especially regarding Quebec. I wish someone could spell it out for me in a way that I could get it. Aside from 6 months studying French, and having a few French Canadian Navy buddies, I really didn't spend much time in Qubec, nor do I really know much more about what it is "that makes Fench Canadians tick". I simply don't. What do we need to know; can someone spell it? I don't know, maybe this has already been spoken about, or maybe this isn't the right venue, I don't know.

Anyone want to take a stab at this?

Stockholm wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Election after election we ran on "tax the rich". How is it bold now? Jack dropped that plank and rhetoric... and he was advised by Topp... the same Topp who takes credit for writing the 2011 election platform. Was "tax the rich" in there?

That was then and this is now. The whole issue of income inequality has become a major concern across the western world. Even "mainstream" parties like the Democrats in the US are talking about it. I think that Topp quite rightly points out that because of a long series of massive cuts mainly benefitting the rich that started under Paul Martin and accelerated under Stephen Harper - the federal government is broke and has no money to do anything. Unless you have a strategy to give the government revenue to be able to gtackle problems - there is no point being in government because there is no revenue to do anything. The rightwing strategy in canada and the US is the so-called "starve the beast" strategy. Bush did it in the US - you bring in massive tax cuts, then you point to the inevitably soaring deficit and you start to peddle the idea that we "must" cut pensions and health care etc... to balance the budget...of course the budget would be balanced in the first place had it not been for all the reckless tax cuts that sharply reduced government revenue. 

I'm not saying the Topp's proposal is the only way to get there, but I think that every candidate for the leadership needs to give us some idea of where they plan to find the extra revenue to pay for their promises. For months now, I keep hearing that Mulcair is going to put out a policy on taxation. When is it happening? After the votes have been cast? I want it NOW!

I don't disagree with you, Stock. But I'll say income inequality is the same today as it was last year when Brian Topp co-wrote the platform. And the real issue is one of corporate income taxes going down and down. I think we get too caught up on one bracket of the income tax code as if it's a solution. I'll say again, in NS, someone who makes $250,000 plays 29% federal income tax and a 21% rate provincially.

Polls in 2003 also told us that Paul martin would get 60% of the vote in Quebec and polls also told us that if the Liberals ditched Stephane Dion and replaced him with one Michael Ignatieff - they would sweep Quebec.

I'm not saying that Mulcair would not make a good leader or that he would not sweep Quebec - but we are comparing apples to oranges. Mulcair is well-known in Quebec and the other candidates are not. If Mulcair, Topp, Nash and Dewar were all household names in Quebec and equally well known - then Mulcair was that much more popular, then the poll would be much more meaningful to me.

Well, I guess I'll have to disagree with the near total apparent acceptance of the "logic" of chosing a leader based on the perceived preferences (opinion polls) of a single province or a single subset of members or a particular group of endorsements.

I would say this if we were talking about Saskatchewan or PEI too!

It's great that at least one of our leadership candidates has name recognition in Quebec. Does that make him the "natural" leadership choice for all progressives? No.

And that is a "no brainer".

Stockholm wrote:

Polls in 2003 also told us that Paul martin would get 60% of the vote in Quebec and polls also told us that if the Liberals ditched Stephane Dion and replaced him with one Michael Ignatieff - they would sweep Quebec.

I'm not saying that Mulcair would not make a good leader or that he would not sweep Quebec - but we are comparing apples to oranges. Mulcair is well-known in Quebec and the other candidates are not. If Mulcair, Topp, Nash and Dewar were all household names in Quebec and equally well known - then Mulcair was that much more popular, then the poll would be much more meaningful to me.

except that mulcair has come out of the meat-grinder that is quebec provincial politics.  nash and topp (and dewar haha) have nothing to do with quebec, as a fanatical new democrat, i'm glad they (aside from dewar, obv) can speak french, but i think it's hard for ndpers to realize how different quebec is.  these seats could have gone to a radical right-wing party, they could have gone to the bq again - our majority depends on holding ~60 seats in quebec, and there's no way that happens without the perfect quebec federal leader.  as i said before, i wish i could do a vulcan mind-meld with every member here so that i could transfer the politics of quebec to everyone on this board.  as much as we all follow politics in canada, that's how i follow politics in quebec, i'm a stalker.  and i'll tell you, mulcair fits.  i hate to say this but we won't become government without what he brings (quebec, where he's the most popular politician in the province).

all of this completely aside from the fact that he's our best parliamentary performer, our best spokesperson, our best face, and that he's perfectly at home everywhere in canada.

1. Mulcair

2. Topp

3. Dewar

4. Cullen / Nash

I still maintain that voting on the first ballot for the person who happens to be in the lead (right now, Mulcair, by several noses, it seems) can send the wrong message, granting him or her the right to rule the party rather than lead in consultation and cooperation; to exclude rather than include differing party veterans.    Especially, I say, if that person who is in the lead is the most likely to play footsy with the establishment and try to pull, push or prod the NDP into any "Third Way".  

Times of economic crisis (global, since Canada isn't quite there yet) and of political turning points (like the one the Cons are screwing us with), it is helpful to read the Communist critiques of Social Democracy in Europe before WW I and refresh one's knowledge of the duplicitous and destructive role the social democrats have played at various points in different countries (from Germany in the 30s to Chile in the 60s and more recently) and decide how far to the centre you're willing to go, and how much of an attack or marginalization of the Left within the NDP you're willing to countenance.

So, back to the topic of the thread, which seems to have devolved into a general policy discussion.  Right now, for the bookies who are keeping tabs, my ranking is (no surprise after the 2-paragraph rant above):

1. Ashton

2. Nash

3. Mulcair

Skinny Dipper wrote:

My rankings so far:

Dewar, Nash, Cullen, Ashton, Topp, Singh, Mulcair.

If the Mulcair campaign can send me a short (or long) decent email reply, then I will place Mulcair first or second.

So, I take it that being able to communicate in French is a low priority for you?

Anyone received their voting package yet?

Leadership hopefuls flood NDP mailboxes with flashy pamphlets

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/leadership-...

After the last debate, for me, Ashton and Cullen moved up while Nash and Topp moved down:

1- Mulcair

2- Ashton

3- Cullen

4- Nash

5- Topp

6- Singh

7- Dewar

Boom Boom wrote:

JKR wrote:

After the Winnipeg debate:

1 - Cullen.

I'm curious how you reconcile his co-operation plan - he was so defensive about this in Winnipeg. I dropped him from consideration entirely after yesterday's performance.

His co-operation plan is no big deal. At the very most, very few ridings associations, NDP or Liberal, will even consider it. On the other hand his co-operation plan opens up the possibility of attracting centre-left voters to the NDP. Most people who consider voting for the NDP are not wed to any party, they just want to see politicians put the people first and cooperate with each other for the common good. Cullen is that kind of politician, as Layton was. Like Layton, Cullen's up-beat positive pesonality is a vote winner that can transcend partisan politics.

I like Topp and Mulcair, my second and third choices, but I think that to the average voter they come off as being stuffy partisan career politicians.

If I am interpreting your subtle argument correctly, JKR (and Stockholm), the poll lthat has Mulcair at 58% in Quebec, and no one else more than 3%, can be safely ignored.?????

Or are you saying that it is proof positive that Mulcair will crash and burn and that Dewar will convert his 1% into a Quebec landslide????

Mulcair, Ashton, Cullen. Biggest dissapointment, Nash.

Saw Mulcair last night and am convinced he is the best choice. He spoke about PR, but didn't say much. I think he is open to consideration on it, but really, the party will decide this. It isn't up to the leader to dictate this. I think that with more seasoning, Ashton and Cullen assure us a bright future.

I was particulalriy impressed by Mulcair's handling of an individual with obvious mental health issues who showed up at the end of the town hall and asked a question. Mulcair handled it with humility, humanity, dignity and seriousness. I was impressed by his immediate read, and how kind he was. I thought to myself that is a guy who can talk to people. He isn't necessarily as warm as was Jack (blessed be his memory), but I think he is genuine, and "has it". I am prepared to trust him to lead us going forward, and to take him at his word.

My thoughts folks. I gave Tom some cash for his campaign. My mind is made up, and thanks to everyone for all of your help and input in helping me sort through this. I can say my biggest dissapointment was Peggy Nash. I really, truly wanted to be "wowed" by her. But both during the Winipeg debate, and at her after debate party, I just felt unimpressed. She is warm and sincere, but "wishy-washy". At least that is my take. Still, she will make a wonderful cabinet member in a Mulcair government. If there is any surprise for me at all in all of this, it is that I would seriously consider Niki for leader if Tom wasn't running. She is dynamite, dynamic, capable, and truly a very bright spot for us! I have no doubt at all she is going to grow, and is very able to speak to and resonate with Quebec voters. She is remarkable.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

My thoughts folks. I gave Tom some cash for his campaign. My mind is made up, and thanks to everyone for all of your help and input in helping me sort through this. I can say my biggest dissapointment was Peggy Nash. I really, truly wanted to be "wowed" by her. But both during the Winipeg debate, and at her after debate party, I just felt unimpressed. She is warm and sincere, but "wishy-washy". At least that is my take. Still, she will make a wonderful cabinet member in a Mulcair government. If there is any surprise for me at all in all of this, it is that I would seriously consider Niki for leader if Tom wasn't running. She is dynamite, dynamic, capable, and truly a very bright spot for us! I have no doubt at all she is going to grow, and is very able to speak to and resonate with Quebec voters. She is remarkable.

Would you consider voting for Niki Ashton on the first ballot before moving over to Mulcair on the 2nd?  That is, if you will be voting in real time.

1) Mulcair

2) Ashton

3) Nash

4) Cullen

5) Topp

6) Dewar

7) Singh

Despite lingering concerns over his foreign policy and temperament (to a lesser extent, sometimes a bit of an edge can be an asset), I’ve settled on Mulcair. Not only is he the best bet to hold on to Quebec, he comes across as being the most “prime ministerial”. There’s an intangible star quality about him that some of the other candidates (for all of their strengths) lack. He’s an eloquent communicator and his experience as a cabinet minister cannot be overlooked.

Ashton has impressed me a great deal during the campaign. I think she might need a bit more polish and seasoning before becoming leader though. I was keen on Nash early in the campaign but I’m not so sure anymore. I haven’t really found her compelling.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Skinny Dipper wrote:

My rankings so far:

Dewar, Nash, Cullen, Ashton, Topp, Singh, Mulcair.

If the Mulcair campaign can send me a short (or long) decent email reply, then I will place Mulcair first or second.

So, I take it that being able to communicate in French is a low priority for you?

Sorry, Skinny... but isn't it rather self-centred to think a leadership campaign that's busy as hell trying to reach out to over 100,000 New Democrats across the country should be so concerned about one email that god knows the topic? And to place a candidate last over it?

I do think Paul Dewar's French will improve over the next two or three years.

As for Thomas Mulcair's campaign not replying to any of my emails, I worry that by not replying to my emails, Thomas Mulcair won't give a damn about what social democrats want for Canada.  Yes, Mr. Mulcair would make a very strong opponent of Stephen Harper.  However, I don't know if he will make the NDP a social democratic party in name only.  I have asked for his view on proportional representation.  I have received no response.  I would have to wonder if he would be committed in bringing proportional representation if he gets an NDP majority government.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Saw Mulcair last night and am convinced he is the best choice. He spoke about PR, but didn't say much. I think he is open to consideration on it, but really, the party will decide this. It isn't up to the leader to dictate this.

Different leaders have different priorities. If we ever form government, we aren't going to be able to implement everything in the Policy Book in the first year, or even the first term. Maybe ever.

So that's why people are looking for a clear committment from the candidates on electoral reform. "Not saying much" or merely signalling tepid agreement with party policy on the biggest fundamental problem with politics in Canada just doesn't cut it.

It is a huge squandered opportunity, especially for Thomas Mulcair: if he really does want to reach out to other progressives to bring them in the tent, committing to fixing the voting system in the NDP's first government so their first parties aren't shut out will bring many Greens, Liberals, and others on board. Besides which, proportional representation is just the fair thing to do.

I would actually have him at or near the top of my ranking if he just came out to lead on this issue a bit, that's all I would need. Take a stand like the other candidates. But as it is, he is near the bottom of my list.

I'm not alone in that concern. Mulcair is really not doing so good in the latest rankings for candidate positions on electoral reform.

Well we all know now who Chisholm is voting for but who are you voting for?

And will you be voting in the advance polls which state today, or will you wait until Decision day which is Saturday, March 24?

Anyone received their voting package yet?

NDP leadership vote begins Thursday with advance polls

Two-thirds of voters expected to cast ballots ahead of convention

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/leadership+vote+begins+Thursday+with...

probably more like mulcair isn't very tech-oriented.  have you seen his website?  it's the pits.

well flight, I think that others take care of his website. And I think he can type and I think that is an excuse.

i just mean that he may not really get that there's an entire website our there with the sort of fora that we frequent here.  i've always found older lawyers to be extremely out of the tech loop.

I'm still hopelessly undecided.

Based on policy positions, including tax reform (income inequality has bounced back as a huge issue) proportional representation (progressives of all stripes want the FPTP ditched) and foreign policy (especially with the growing war cries for an attack on Iran), I'm leaning towards Topp and Cullen. Nash has fallen in my esteem because she seems pretty wishy washy about raising corporate taxes.

Based on endorsements from MPs that I respect immensely, I am leaning towards Topp, Cullen and Dewar.

The debates leave me meh for the most part.

Does anyone recall who helped Jack write his brilliant farewell letter? I'd be curious to see where their support lies. That letter inspired so many across the country, proving that the NDP doesn't have to play safe (aka centrist) to play smart.

Stockholm wrote:

I take the view that a successful leader is 30% public performance and charisma and 70% all the things that are invisible to the naked eye like caucus management, organization, being able to hire the right people, being able to unite and build consensus within the party, having god strategic antennae...Its easy for us all to evaluate candidates in terms of the first 30% - but who is best at the other 70%?

As for that 70% Tom has experience both provincially and federally with being house leader so that's a good start.