NDP leadership race #119

I think some of the attacks on Cullen, questioning his loyalty to the party and that sort of thing on the basis of his joint nomination proposal is unfair and inaccurate.  Same with the arguments that his plan is undemocratic and denies the rights of New Democrats to vote for NDP candidates.  If a majority of New Democrats pick Cullen as their leader when this is the most important plank in his platform, and if it is later adopted as official NDP policy at convention, then you can make an argument that the democratic will of the majority of the membership has been expressed.  It's been called "mandatory strategic voting" which makes it undemocratic, but parties choose all the time where to field candidates and what ridings they seriously invest in.  And the NDP member can still vote for whomever they want in that riding even if there is no NDP candidate.  But again, I think Cullen's plan is myopic and wont' work.

Is anyone experiencing a delay in receiving their ballot?

I received mine last Thursday but have several friends, also in Toronto, who have not yet received theirs. Most of them are recent members so perhaps that makes a difference.

No ballot here yet, yesterday the Party sent me an email saying that it had been shipped. 

No ballot, and no party email...

BTW the March 12 deadline to mail-in ballots seems a bit short given that some people haven't even received their ballot yet.

I too haven't recieved my ballot. Hell I'd be happy with a email with a link allowing me to vote online. I'm starting to see what Mulcair means by organizational changes, this is unacceptable.

Here's a question in relation to what Brian Topp has been suggesting to voters:

If we are to assume that Tom Mulcair is more of a centrist New Democrat (for better or worse), does that essentially mean the party will be indistinguishable from the Liberals (running on a platform similar to the Liberals, while emphasizing that they'll actually keep their promises if elected). And if so, would Brian's suggestion that if faced with two Liberal parties, will voters will choose the real thing? If not, what would a Mulcair led NDP campaign look like, in terms of distinguishing them from the Liberal Party?

I received my ballot Monday and mailed it in yesterday. And I'm in a very isolated village, no road* or rail connection to the rest of Quebec, let alone Canada.

I saw a post on FB yesterday responding to Nathan that said the Liberal Party completely rejects any co-operation in Nathan's joint nomination plan.

*A road has been under construction here for the past four years, and by 2014 we should be able to drive out of Kegaska to the rest of Quebec and Canada.

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

Romeo Saganash is on my ballot.  If I vote for him will my vote be counted in the first round.  I'd like to be able to express my support for his vision.

Imagine if enough people vote for Saganash to carry him to a first ballot victory!

Unionist - thanks for the "party" emoticons in the last thread - funny!

Oh - and thanks to whoever sent me the info on the 'secret handshake' for the babble elite!

clambake wrote:

Brian's suggestion that if faced with two Liberal parties, will voters will choose the real thing? If not, what would a Mulcair led NDP campaign look like, in terms of distinguishing them from the Liberal Party?

...another hypothesis is that if the voters were faced with two seemingly "liberal" parties - they will vote for the one with 103 seats rather than the one with 34 seats!

Hello everyone,

I'm a brand new babbler as of today, though I've followed the site for many years.  I've been a more frequent reader since last year's election campaign, and I've found the opinions and correspondence regarding the leadership campaign to be informative and illuminating.

Here is how I'm going to be voting:

1) Tom Mulcair.  For some reason, I just can't shake the notion that he is simply the obvious choice.  Fluently bilingual, from Quebec and popular there.  I believe holding our gains in Quebec next election is fundamentally the most important focus for the long view of the NDP.  I'm not sure government is attainable next election, but I am sure that it will be attainable the one following if we hold and grow in Quebec.  I also believe Mulcair to be the most eloquent debater of the group, and doesn't have any public persona quirks that the casual political observer / participant will find unbecoming.  While I probably do represent the "moderate flank" of the NDP - if it can be described as such - I don't buy any of the rhetoric suggesting Mulcair might take the NDP too far to the centre.  I think he'll take it right to where it should be - a party with left leaning principles that will govern pragmatically but make decisions from a place of principle not from a place of contrived populism.

2) Nathan Cullen.  I like his style.  If he were perfectly bilingual, and had not raised the issue of cooperation with the Liberals, I may see him as Mulcair's equal.  As such, I think for now I have him as the natural successor to Prime Minister Mulcair.  I like the idea of Cullen as Mulcair's "pacific lieutenant", so to speak.  He is obviously popular among BC New Democrats, and I think there will be both personal and political motivation for him to see that the party continues to grow in that province.

3) Niki Ashton.  Niki is an impressive breath of fresh air.  She represents my generation, and I find her personality and persona appealing.  She is a great representative of the west and of rural Canada.  She is not yet ready to be Prime Minister, and needs to add more substance to her impressive public style.  She should embrace a role of "western lieutenant", with an eye toward a resurgence for the party in that region.

4) Peggy Nash.  I see Peggy as the best among the rest, and am not overly excited by her candidacy.  I believe the NDP would be in trouble if it chose her, but I'll put her ahead of Dewar because of the language issue.  Dewar would be preferable otherwise, but the NDP leader must, must, must have french.

Beyond this I'm not sure - not sure who I'll choose, and not sure if I'll mark my ballot at all.  I understand there is really no downside to marking a ballot, but as of right now I'm not sure I'd want any of them more than any other. 

I'm not in favour of Brian Topp as leader, despite his impressive fluency in french. Despite his never holding office before, for me he represents that bureaucratic aspect of the party, which, coming from Saskatchewan, tends to turn me off.  I see several parallels between his campaign at that run by Dwain Lingenfelter in Saskatchewan's NDP leadership contest a few years ago.  That campaign and candidate failed miserably, and I suspect the same would happen to the federal party under Topp's leadership.

Anyway, I look forward to following the continued discussion.

Michelle wrote:

And then, when people like the folks in the Socialist Caucus actually take their advice and become active in the party and try to promote their values and policy ideas, they quickly learn that what the Dipper centrists actually meant was, "You owe us your votes and your money and your envelope licking during election campaigns.  But while you're busy emptying your wallet and pounding the pavement, could you maybe shut up so we don't have to listen to your stupid left-wing crap?  Kthxbye."

Unionist wrote:

But what would you suggest I do with this:

Quote:

Nash is hobbled by the CAW's treacherous and failed 'strategic' voting orientation.

WTF?????

And how about this:

Quote:

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.

Or this:

Quote:

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.

It's rare when the best arguments against someone consist of just quoting what they say without comment.

The contrast between the "hey poor socialist caucus" narrative and Unionist's quote of their endorsement, without comment, is extremely stark to me.

The reason I called them the "so-called socialist" caucus is because I consider myself a socialist. I'd like to see nationalized companies back on the table for a few key industries that might benefit from it (telecom, utilities, generic drugs, auto insurance at the provincial level). I'm opposed to imperialism and would like to see a truly balanced approach to the middle east that doesn't feel the need to demagogue. I'd like to see enable a transition to more worker-owned-controlled-and-operated companies, using present-day Brazil as a model. I think a reduced workweek is an excellent idea to improve quality of life with minimal impact on efficiency, and probably a beneficial environmental impact too.

And I also endorse Ashton for leader. The shakeup in the race I'm waiting for never seems to come, so she'll probably be #1 on my first ballot.

But read the SC's "six of the candidates are traitors, so we pick one by default" endorsement. If they're marginalized, they're marginalized by choice. You get the impression that if the shoe were on the other foot and this tiny enclave had any influence over the party, they would expel everyone but the socialist caucus from the NDP. Then they'd expel me, because even though I might sympathize with them, I'd be accused of being an imperialist neoliberal apologist for believing we ought to create a big leftward tent.

I'm almost loathe to give them any more attention than they deserve, for the little good that their endorsement will do for Ashton. But read the endorsement again and ask yourself if this sounds like a group who is trying to reach out to the rest of the party.

I got a human being calling me from the Mulcair camp yesterday, I am happy to say. :)

My impression of Mulcair is that he listens to people, and that helps him to function in debate. Listening to people is a requirement of good leadership here. I like that he heard people appreciate personal phone calls and was responsive to it. I feel way more secure answering polls by a person, than by a machine. With a machine, I suspect Tories, though I s'pose a human could do it too, it just doesn't seem to be their style.

mtm wrote:

Re: Saganash.

That is how it will work if someone drops off at any stage in the process, it is defined in the rules as decided in November by federal council.

For example, if after the first round, Candidate F has 6% and candidate G has 4%, technically, only candidate G has to drop off.  But seeing the writing on the wall, and knowing that they can't win from 6%, candidate F may also drop out too.  For the 2nd round, all those candidate F first choice ballots would disappear and go to their #2 choice (or #3 if they were for candidate G).

Given that Saganash has dropped out before the ballots are even counted, he has already succumbed to that process.  I will be shocked, stunned and quite frankly questioning the entire party's adherence to process if there is any count of Saganash's first choice ballots provided.  In addition to the process arguments, it would be embarrassing because that number would be even lower given he dropped out and his supporters largely would go elsewhere.

 

FWIW, I think it is likely many will drop off before they are actually officially eliminated in order to set into action their 2nd choice ballots in an attempt to end it earlier, once it becomes mathematically clear that there aren't paths to victory.

So it's just your interpretation and a somewhat loosey-goosey one at that.  Glad I contacted the former candidate in my riding. 

josh wrote:

clambake wrote:

Here's a question in relation to what Brian Topp has been suggesting to voters:

If we are to assume that Tom Mulcair is more of a centrist New Democrat (for better or worse), does that essentially mean the party will be indistinguishable from the Liberals (running on a platform similar to the Liberals, while emphasizing that they'll actually keep their promises if elected). And if so, would Brian's suggestion that if faced with two Liberal parties, will voters will choose the real thing? If not, what would a Mulcair led NDP campaign look like, in terms of distinguishing them from the Liberal Party?

 

 

Good question. I suspect that other than the Quebec question, you'd need a microscope to tell the difference between Tom Mulcair and Bob Rae. Or is it Tom Rae and Bob Mulcair?

Based on what? It's hard to find many differences between our own candidates without a microscope. Rae left us, Mulcair joined us when the prospects in Quebec were dim.

josh wrote:

clambake wrote:

Here's a question in relation to what Brian Topp has been suggesting to voters:

If we are to assume that Tom Mulcair is more of a centrist New Democrat (for better or worse), does that essentially mean the party will be indistinguishable from the Liberals (running on a platform similar to the Liberals, while emphasizing that they'll actually keep their promises if elected). And if so, would Brian's suggestion that if faced with two Liberal parties, will voters will choose the real thing? If not, what would a Mulcair led NDP campaign look like, in terms of distinguishing them from the Liberal Party?

Good question. I suspect that other than the Quebec question, you'd need a microscope to tell the difference between Tom Mulcair and Bob Rae. Or is it Tom Rae and Bob Mulcair? As Mulcair, should he win, nudges the party more to the right, it will become increasingly difficult to rationalize having two parties no more than a couple of degrees apart. Unless the Liberals themselves decided to lurch to the right. I suspect that's where this thing's heading should Mulcair win and the Liberals stay stationary. Which wouldn't be entirely bad, I guess.

Speaking of Bob Rae.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

What happened to years of New Democrats complaining that Liberals campaign on NDP platforms but then ditch them when elected? Now according to Brian, there's fear we'll sound like Liberals? Right.

Exactly, if the NDP and liberals have any simularities, it will be because the liberal have been ripping us off for years. I mean when someone else expressed concern about that we might sound like liberals only we actually mean it, well that actually huge, its everything.

There is no idea they can't steal, because they have no plan to keep it, what does that leave us but our word, our honesty?

Stockholm wrote:

Actually Josh, it is an interesting hypothesis to consider what impact the winner of the NDP leadership contest will have on the Liberals. Here is my hypothesis FWIW:

If the NDP picks someone who is characterized (rightly or wrongly) as being "old-school NDP" who may have to spend a vast amount of time trying to shore up Quebec (ie: Topp, Dewar, Nash) - the Liberals would probably see a golden opportunity to go after support in Quebec and also to go after NDP/Liberal swing voters who they probably think only voted NDP because of Jack's personality. This would probably lead them to stick with Bob Rae.

In the unlikely event that the NDP chose Cullen, it would create major confusion in Liberal ranks as they would have to decide on how to respond to the NDP "quasi peace-offering" and someone would probably run for the Liberal leadership on a similar "join nomination" platform...who knows who would pick up that sceptre. Rae could find this a dicey situation since he is already regarded by many Liberals as a "closet dipper" who cannot be trusted.

If Mulcair wins, the Liberals would probably conclude that any window of opportunity for them in Quebec has been slammed shut. They would also probably conclude that it would be increasingly hard to attack a Mulcair led NDP using the usual anti-NDP myths that Liberals tend to use...I think they would probably conclude that the NDP was now sucking up a lot of the centre-left terrain and they would need to find a new niche for themselves. I don't know what they would do...I guess they might either go back to being the Trudeauite strong central government "let's put Quebec in its place" party. Or they might move to the right with a Scott Brison...hard to say.

I would love for the liberals to be lead by a Scott Brison or Andrew Coin, someone economically right wing, but not to an extreme level, but socially leftwing. It would suck votes out of the Tories hard and free up votes and,space for the NDP. Another good reason to vote Mulcair.

josh wrote:

Unless the Liberals themselves decided to lurch to the right. I suspect that's where this thing's heading should Mulcair win and the Liberals stay stationary. Which wouldn't be entirely bad, I guess.

Josh, with all due respect - how the hell does it help anyone if anyone "lurches to the right"?

I realize that if all the parties moved toward the left, it would make it even more difficult for the NDP to distinguish its quasi-neo-liberal brand from the rest.

But if the Liberals "lurch to the right", it will only be because the progressive movement has utterly failed to put enough pressure on all the parties to stop that trend. It will be because  they waste months of their time electing a Head Honcho Dictator for their party, after using microscopes in a vain effort to distinguish between the Bobbsey Septuplets.

Come on josh. Do you really think the difference between Mulcair and Topp is bigger than the difference between Mulcair and Rae? Gimme a break. 

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Come on josh. Do you really think the difference between Mulcair and Topp is bigger than the difference between Mulcair and Rae? Gimme a break. 

I could buy the argument on a personal level.  Bob Rae and Tom Mulcair both have that "statesman" quality about them - the idea of watching either shake hands with other world leaders is not so much of a stretch.  Brian Topp is probably the furthest of all the NDP candidates from that sort of image.

Of course I'm not suggesting that image should be everything (or anything, really), but in reality it does matter, and I see more similiarities between Rae and Mulcair than I do between Topp and Mulcair.  And if you listen to Mr. Topp, he seems to be trying his damndest to paint Mulcair as in lock-step with Rae and the Liberals politically as well.

Liberals have shown themselves to be poor strategists -- at least at the Federal level, outside Ontario. I think a lot of them still think they won in the 1990s because they were popular, instead of noting the huge fragmentation among the opposition. They pissed off Quebec (too centralized), the Prairies (too elitist), and the city cores (too lazy-faire) -- all because they thought it would great to squeeze out the Progressive Conservative party. Now all they have left is a few bluish-red suburbs.

There isn't enough room in the big red tent for the waffly PCs and waffly New Democrats. They pick someone in the mold of Belinda Stronach, and NDP will murder them on the left. They pick someone in the mold of Bob Rae, and Harper will murder them on the right.

The only thing that can save the Liberal party is if the other parties screw up.

This is our election to lose.

Back to the mail-in ballot package, I haven't received mine yet here in BC, although my partner did a few days ago. She actually called in to cancel her membership after Saganash dropped out, having only signed up to vote for him, but either that doesn't really do anything or it takes a while for her name to fall off various lists it started to appear on.

I, on the other hand, who signed up last summer have yet to receive the mail-in ballot. However, I do get Paul Dewar e-mail spam all the time, so I must be a member, right?