NDP leadership thread #118

Wouldn't his choices as a potential leader, if he got back in at some point, require further scrutiny then?

Is that Saganash's full statement? It's not exactly a persuasive argument, but it does mean a little bit coming from him.

I understand that my presumptions about all the candidates being markedly consistent on policy and direction is not shared by everyone but within the spectrum of Canadian Politics I am of the opionion that there really isn't that much daylight between Topp, Nash, Dewar, Ashton or Cullen or Mulcair.

With that as a starting point it becomes a question of who helps us advance those policies most effectively. Within the context of electoral politics at the Federal level, that becomes a question of electability and specifically electability in Quebec. That Harper has found the non-Quebec formula for a majority government doesn't make it a desirable strategy to emulate.

I do NOT accept the narative that only Mulcair can hold Quebec or that only Tom can beat Harper but I don't dismiss the polls (including the one noted in the last thread) suggesting we are talking about a Mulcair-led NDP starting from a more advantageous position in Quebec (and hence across the country).  Yes, it's 2012 and not 2015.  That is a lot of time to catch-up but it would be helpful to know that we are much closer, in my mind, to working on winning the next 70 seats under Mulcair than we are to undertaking that same task under any one else.

I don't think that my perception is too different from many other rank and file NDPers who were thrilled at Tom's first win in Quebec and the promise that it offered to get our long-sought for Quebec break-through.  We fullfilled that promise under Jack but this was years in coming with a leader as committed to the task as anyone we had ever had.  Even still, it took how many campaigns to get our Orange Wave?  Can it be replicated with a Topp?  With a Nash?  With a likeable Dewar?  Perhaps it can, but it won't be easy.  It won't be easy for Tom to hold what we have there and to build on it - but it will be easier, and that is the point.

Name recognition, which Mulcair has (and not only in Quebec), means nothing if it isn't backed up with something substantial but if we can assume that every one of the candidates will attempt to increase thier visibility and define themselves for Canadians right away isn't it easier to do so with a bit of a headstart?

was going to post this on the other thread, but since it's likely to die soon and i don't want this thread to sink into a "saganash supports mulcair" triumphalism, i'll post here:

damn, this race is so unpredictable.  looking at the polls that the two camps released, we have a pretty convincing case for mulcair scoring 25+% support on the first ballots, then picking up ~5% on each subsequent ballot to win at just over 50%.  but then we also have a pretty compelling scenario in which a large portion of everyone's 2nd and 3nd choices go to nash, and that she wins a convincing number over 50%, likely on the 5th ballot.

THEN we have the really crazy scenarios.  like one where topp goes out before dewar and cullen, and his support is spread out to pretty much everyone about evenly.  if this is the case, than it'd be because cullen AND dewar over-performed, so that nash would have trouble making it to the next ballot and, in that case, the fight would probably be between dewar and mulcair, assuming that nash's 2nd choicers, topp's 3rd choicers and the odd bits of ashton support still floating around would go for dewar massively over mulcair or cullen.  this is a scary scenario, as cullen's supporters might not put mulcair over the top.  in the case that just dewar over-performed, then nash likely wins out.  if just cullen over-performs, then mulcair likely wins out.

there's also the scenario where mulcair underperforms in the first round and topp overperforms.  this is what the brainiacs on the hill are hoping for, as we then have a scenario where mulcair's supporters would keep topp in the race, push out dewar, and maybe even push cullen above nash (though that doesn't seem likely as dewar's supporters would keep nash in it).  so then the battle is nash vs. topp on the final ballot, a wet dream for the crew on laurier street.  but i don't think that this is very likely.

the saganah endorsement is coming at a time where it can still sink in, but i don't think it'll move many votes (even if i bet that mulcair brings it up at the debate).  the more interesting aspect of that endorsement will be how it affects the way the campaigns react.

going back to the montreal debate, i have the feeling that the attacks on mulcair really do indicate that the candidates fear that he's getting too far ahead, something that topp probably decided about the others a few weeks ago, hence his moving earlier than the others to the 'drawing contrasts' phase of his campaign.  topp must be frustrated by the way this is shaping up, especially if cullen cannibalizes a lot of hit first ballot support in the west and ends up knocking him out early - his support among the behind-the-scenes types in the ndp is shockingly deep, and though this group is small, it's very very insular, to the point that i can't even talk with some people i know (including a family member) because they're in this scorched earth campaign to preserve the ndp exactly as it exists today.  they don't seem to realize that we can't do that AND keep the quebec seats and implant ourselves permanently into the quebec scene, we can't do that AND defeat harper.  they just have this feeling like they've crossed off all the boxes and topp is perfect, and it's very frustrating to them that party members, quebecois and canadians don 't seem to agree.  i feel like the saganash endorsement only serves to reinforce this.

Hoodeet wrote:

Maysie:  What are your main objections at this point?   I would very much value your opinion.

 

Yes, are you daft? How can anyone "at this point" raise any objections to Mulcair?

Making all the correct moves, Mulcair back in BC again:

http://www.pentictonwesternnews.com/news/141778703.html

SD, re: Debater....LOL!!!!!

Arthur Cramer wrote:

SD, re: Debater....LOL!!!!!

Love it!!

If electability were not a factor I wd agree with you SD, but it is so I don't.

I'm pretty sure Mulcair is going to get it. 

josh wrote:

Hoodeet wrote:

Maysie:  What are your main objections at this point?   I would very much value your opinion.

 

Yes, are you daft? How can anyone "at this point" raise any objections to Mulcair?

Hoodeet didn't say thier was no possible objections at this point, Hoodeet just asked her what her objection was, for clarification.

man, it's funny, i was just chatting with a cpc apparatchik, he was all dismissively laughing at me thinking that the ndp could ever win government, no matter who we ran.  a very revealing look into the mind of a harper minion, and the utter contempt and derision they feel for us.  i hate those guys, and it's going to feel great when we stuff these guys (and yes, they're practically all men) into a rocket and fire them off to the great unemployment line in the sky.

josh wrote:

Hoodeet wrote:

Maysie:  What are your main objections at this point?   I would very much value your opinion.

 

Yes, are you daft? How can anyone "at this point" raise any objections to Mulcair?

The name-calling was quite unnecessary.    I was genuinely interested in Maysie's reasoning because, like a number of other people, I don't believe we should be electing anyone by acclamation.

Maysie wrote:

I don't think we need someone to "beat Harper". We need someone to be representative of what the NDP is supposed to stand for. If we build it, they will come. Ha ha.

I have to register my disagreement with that. We need someone to beat Harper - possibly or probably in alliance with others, and not just electorally. We need to uproot and make right everything Harper has done and is planning to do.

As for being "representative of what the NDP is supposed to stand for", I have no clue what that means. I look at individuals, organizations, and movements, and try to divine from their character and practice what they stand for. Do you mean the Regina Manifesto? They repudiated that when they created the NDP. Do you mean their electoral platform? It's pretty hard to take. Do you mean rhetoric about "working for families"? I know you don't.

So, I'll happily take individuals, organizations, and movements that can "beat Harper". A movement like that must be built and can be built. Whether it succeeds or not, it can invigorate progressive politics in a way that nothing else has in many years (including the sudden surge in NDP seats on May 2, which doesn't seem to have inspired anything anywhere, other than a 6-month joke of a leadership contest).

In the building of such a movement, the crowning of some individual as NDP Leader cannot be the decisive element. In my respectful opinion.

http://ottawa.openfile.ca/blog/curator-blog/curated-news/2012/dewar-laun...

I think this artical jumps to conclusions, not al
South Asian dippers support Singh, I believe has major endorsements from that community as well.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The polls aren't meaningless. It's just that basing your opinion on polling is basing your opinion on something that can change very rapidly. Polls three years in advance.

What's more reliable are the things that can't change. Bilingualism doesn't typically get worse. (Mulcair, Nash, Topp have it.) Charisma and debating ability don't typically get worse. (Mulcair, Cullen have it... Topp and Nash sometimes.) Reputation tends to be a good indicator of future performance. (Many candidates have it.)

I have no issue with people wanting to support Mulcair. I just wonder if they realize how much their approach isn't just ineffective, but counter-productive.

 

You're basing your decision on what candidate to support from debate on babble?

interesting.  though i think that they're both toronto-based past party presidents with long behind-the-scenes experience, a combined three years of elective office, and bases of support from inside the ndp deep structure, does tend to lead the uninitiated to assume a natural affinity.

eta: a lot of dog-whistles in that article, intended to smear mulcair.  or maybe just lazy journalism.  and this: Topp has been particularly aggressive, saying Mulcair hasn’t been in the party long enough to lead it and is too centrist.   uhh... what would people have said if topp suggested this of saganash?

http://ottawa.openfile.ca/blog/curator-blog/curated-news/2012/dewar-laun...

I think this artical jumps to conclusions, not al
South Asian dippers support Singh, I believe Topp has major endorsements from that community as well.

Wilf Day wrote:

Howard wrote:

The last table on this pdf is the most interesting to me. It shows the regional strength in each candidate's fundraising.

Yes, fascinating.

Peggy Nash raised $5,720 in Quebec; 4.7% of Quebec donations, 3.5% of her receipts. Not much more than Singh, who was not far ahead of Dewar. Not healthy.

Cullen got only $1,770 in Quebec. And Niki Ashton, despite hitting the Montreal Greek community, got only $906.

It's a two-man race in Quebec. Well, we already knew that, eh?

Mulcair's running fourth in Ontario despite his Toronto lawyer fans. Odd.

Nash is third in Ontario, although this is her base. Fourth in BC, fourth in Manitoba, fourth in Alberta, third in Nova Scotia, fourth in Saskatchewan.

Am I reading that right Wilf when it says Martin Singh got the 2nd highest total in BC? Wow.

Also interesting is that Muclair raised more money in BC than Topp (BC suppose to be according to some Topp country).

those numbers for cullen in bc are eye-popping - i don't think there's any doubt that he's bc's candidate in this race.

Socialist Caucus endorses Niki Ashton:

Quote:

Dear Friends,

 

Over the past week, members of the NDP Socialist Caucus throughout the country have debated the leadership race and several proposals on who the SC should collectively support as the next leader of the NDP.  After days of voting by email, on Facebook and by phone, the majority of Socialist Caucus members supported the position below, which urges people to vote for Niki Ashton, with no recommendations for a second, third or further choice.

 

 

Niki Ashton – the Best Choice for NDP Leader

Statement by the NDP Socialist Caucus Federal Steering Committee

 

  As the race for New Democratic Party federal Leader draws to a close it is painfully evident that none of the seven remaining candidates proposes a clean break with the pro-capitalist direction of the party. Keep in mind that this is the fourth year of the global Great Recession.  Crippling austerity measures, rising environmental havoc, and the growing threat of a widening war in the Middle East loom on the horizon. The party's current course is a recipe for disaster.

Under the circumstances, in our estimation, the best hope for progressive change in the NDP's top office is represented by Niki Ashton, MP for Churchill (Manitoba).

  In contrast to the other candidates, Niki campaigns for closer NDP identification with the working class. She excoriates any electoral pact with the parties of big business. She denounces the imperialist war drive, insisting that Canadian troops "be brought home now." Although Ashton does not demand 'Canada Out of NATO' (the NDP position since the 1970s), at the Socialist Caucus-sponsored leadership debate in Toronto, on March 1, she denounced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Ottawa, and defended freedom of speech for advocates of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions aimed at the Zionist apartheid state.

  While Ashton does not advocate public ownership, she praised the successful effort of the Socialist Caucus at the NDP federal convention in Vancouver, in June 2011, to keep "socialism" in the party's constitution.  In answer to a question, Ashton cited Manitoba's practice of no public funding for Catholic or any religious schools as a model for Canada.

  Frankly, we like Ashton's willingness to rock the boat. She did that when she challenged an NDP incumbent MP in 2005 who opposed equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.  Niki won the nomination, and was elected MP in 2008 and 2011.

  In our book, her age, 29, and her bold feminism, add to her appeal, and increase the potential for her to move to the left.

 

Where The Other Candidates Fall Short

  Sadly, the other contenders have contributed heavily to a dull and dumbed-down leadership campaign that wallows in the status quo, or is heading downhill. Running chiefly on their resumes, they have inspired few and raised the consciousness of even fewer.

  In terms of regression, the worst offenders are Thomas Mulcair and Nathan Cullen.

  Mulcair, the ex-Liberal cabinet minister from Quebec, who also considered joining the Conservatives, wants the NDP to "move to the center."  This would make it the New Liberal Party of Canada.  Rather than save the NDP's newly-won seats in Quebec, he is likely to lose them by being outflanked on the left by the resurging Bloc Quebecois.

  Mulcair's 'Israel right or wrong' policy is odious by any standard.  He joined Harper in attacking MP Libby Davies when she stated that the occupation of Palestine began in 1948.  He also has accepted a donation to his campaign from Peter Munk, CEO of Barrick Gold, the Canadian mining giant that daily despoils acres of indigenous land across Latin America and beyond.

BC MP Nathan Cullen is notorious as the prime advocate of a non-compete electoral pact with the Liberal Party.  By obscuring the class question, by obsessing on Harper, Cullen fosters illusions in the system that caused the Great Recession, the system that enables the rulers to substitute another arrogant dirty trickster for the current P.M. at a moment's notice.  Cullen's opposition to the XL pipeline coursing through British Columbia indigenous lands is overshadowed by his allegiance to the sanctity of big business control of the resource sector.

Ottawa MP Paul Dewar proposes to give city governments more say, even a seat at federal-provincial ministers' meetings – merely an exercise in optics at a time of massive cuts.  When he was the NDP Foreign Affairs Critic in Parliament, Dewar championed the bombing of Libya by Canadian Forces. He supported the Canada-U.N. occupation of Haiti, opposed the Canadian Boat to Gaza, and he rejects boycott, sanctions and divestment aimed at the Zionist apartheid state – topics he disingenuously tried to avoid during the leadership race.

  As for Martin Singh, his entrepreneurship mantra is little needed in a party which, both at the provincial and federal levels, is already overly concerned with the plight of business.  Although he stressed the need for a federal Pharmacare program, he failed to pose the urgency of increased taxes on the rich - nor did he call for abrogation of the North American Free Trade Agreement - both necessary to establish a public drug-care system.

  That brings us to the elite party-machine politicians Brian Topp and Peggy Nash.  They were at the helm over the past decade. They steered the starboard course charted by deceased Leader Jack Layton.  They 'professionalized' (i.e. super-centralized) the NDP, minimized the policy in-put of members, and maximized its fund-raising capacities, while shaping its agenda to the needs of big business control of every aspect of the economy.

Recall the Tory bail-out of the banks and the auto giants, which they hailed with enthusiasm.  Ex-CAW negotiator Nash would go further, calling for even more public money to bribe Canuck companies to generate a few jobs.  Yet what we need is not economic nationalism or corporate welfare, but a massive job creation program through public ownership under workers' and community control, and reduction of the workweek with no loss in pay or benefits.

Both also favoured the removal of "socialism" from the NDP constitution. Topp moved to refer the proposal back to the secretive federal executive, just to save face, only after the Socialist Caucus and other leftists won the debate at the Vancouver convention in June 2011.

Topp campaigns to tax more heavily the top 1%.  Nash agrees, and supplements that call with good arguments for Proportional Representation in Parliament.  But neither proposes to go far beyond reversing the latest Tory corporate tax cuts.  Both decry 'foreign' ownership, but not the system that makes Capital a global monster on the prowl for the lowest wages and the highest profits, at the expense of nature and humanity.

  Topp is handicapped by his 'insider' conceits.  Nash is hobbled by the CAW's treacherous and failed 'strategic' voting orientation.  Neither offers the anti-capitalist path so desperately needed. 

Together with most of the other candidates, they showed their contempt for democracy by shunning the March 1st SC leadership debate.  In fact, Brian Topp, Peggy Nash, Thomas Mulcair and Paul Dewar didn't even respond to our numerous invitations to them.  Niki Ashton, on the other hand, was quick to respond, and happy to participate.  

  Many New Democrats argue, correctly in our view, that there is altogether too much emphasis placed on the position of Leader and the selection process. A more collective kind of leadership, and a much greater emphasis on policy and principles is needed.

  But wouldn't it be a serious error for NDP socialists and progressives to ignore the current leadership race, solely to agitate for socialist policies and greater democracy in the party, and just hope for the best?  Clearly, we need to be engaged in all facets of making positive change in the NDP.

  As a result, the Socialist Caucus urges NDP members to vote for Niki Ashton for Leader.  We do not recommend a second, third, or further choice.  Ashton opens the door for progressive change.  The others do not.

  The Need for Socialist Democracy

  At the same time, the need for a socialist alternative inside the NDP and the labour movement has never been more urgent.  It will come by winning more working people, youths, women, Quebecois, Acadians and aboriginal peoples, immigrants, LGBT folks, the poor and the dispossessed, to the party – and to socialist policies and action.

  Solidarity knows no borders.  So our fight for socialism must go beyond the polling booth, into the streets and work places.  Organize the unorganized.  Stop the capitalist austerity drive.  No labour concessions.  Make big business pay for the crisis of their system. Nationalize the commanding heights of the economy under workers' and community control.

  On May 2, 2011 over 4.5 million Canadians and Quebecois voted for the NDP/NPD. Since then party membership has nearly doubled to 130,000.  Without winning a majority of those voters and new members there will be no socialism, and all the past labour, social and environmental gains of the past may be lost.  Winning that majority is the goal to which the NDP Socialist Caucus is dedicated.  We invite you to join us now to achieve it.  Better sooner than later.

I found the bolded part particularly poignant, similar to what Unionist said here in another thread:

Quote:

Unionist wrote:

My main beef is about a party which spends six months tearing itself apart to choose a Dear Leader, but would never dream of spending six minutes in a real honest well-organized membership-wide (and even beyond members) consultation as to which direction the party should take on crucial issues of the day and the era.

You arent sure because you got lost somewhere.

Me too.

[and my memory works a lot more poorly when i get drowzzzzzy...]

Nathan's numbers in BC were a big surprise to me. He is pretty charismatic. I just keep thinking of him as a non-starter, I guess, because of the whole nomination scheme. Apparently there's more appetite for that sort of thing out here than I realised, and more life left in his campaign than I've been giving him credit for.

My problem with him is not the idea itself, despite my personal conviction that it's utterly unfeasable and not worth wasting a jot of political capital or energy on. It`s that he really should have known that he would be turning the whole party against him from the get-go, and kill his chances of winning this race. If he's just running to bring up some issues that he feels should be talked about in the leadership then he`s done a great job, but he's not a serious candidate and I shouldn`t treat him like one. If he really is running to win, then he seems to have very poor political instincts.