Would Mulcair move the NDP to the right?

No.

Christ. Short answer, no, certainly no more than *any single other candidate for the leadership would*, and I'm not sensing a move afoot from any of them. Tony Blair pretty openly campaigned for a policy shift in the Labour Party in the UK. Mulcair has done *no such thing* yet myriad motives  - seeeeeecret motives...scary scary seeeeecret motives - have been ascribed to him. I certainly don't buy it. 

If Mulcair moves the party to the 'right', he will be following in the footsteps of Jack Layton and every other leader since the founding of the NDP in 1961.  In fact, the founding of the NDP itself was a shift to the right.  Among the present candidates for leader I don't think any of them would do anything to stop the shift to the political centre (sorry, I mean the 'right').

Let's face it: anyone who thinks we can count on the NDP to build socialism is drinking something a hell of a lot more potent than kool-aid.  I support the NDP, not because they're socialist, but because there's no other party out there who has at least some sense that unfettered capitalism is barbaric.  Therefore, by all means let's not airbrush socialist language out of our vocabulary; it reminds us of what we're not.  However, let's not get too sanctimonious about the 'centrist' tendencies of one candidate or another.

Rather, let's accept that the NDP has a role to play in fighting for people's rights but that fundamental change will require a broader coalition of activists from the social justice, environmental and other progressive movements.  If we want socialism, we'll probably have to drag the NDP along, kicking and screaming in favour of incremental change.

Erik Redburn wrote:

Any statements regarding making NAFTA (which he says he supports) more worker and small business friendly?   Anything tangeable about discouraging more tar sands development?   Anything to qualify his hostlity towards raising upper income tax brackets for anyone making over 200 Gs a year?    You tell me, I'd actually like to be reassured on this.

I'm going off the top of my head, but if you want me to verify some of these I can.

NAFTA: Nobody in the NDP wants to eliminate NAFTA, including Jack Layton by the end of it. Mulcair tries to score easy "centrist" points by pointing this out. "Anyone who tells you we're going to get rid of NAFTA isn't being realistic." A lot of people get really upset when they hear this, as if they just found out Santa Clause isn't real. But they usually miss the other part: that Mulcair wants to add labor and environmental standards to pretty much every international trade agreement and body, including the WTO.

TAR SANDS: Mulcair supports Cap and Trade, and wants to be even more aggressive than we were in 2011. The policy under Layton was to make the largest X (I want to say 500?) companies in Canada pay for their pollution. Mulcair actually said we should make it X+Y (I want to say 700?) companies. None of the candidates want to shut down the tar sands.

TAXES: I think you might have to qualify/verify "hostility". Every candidate -- other than Brian Topp and Nathan Cullen -- have taken a dodge on this issue. All of them focus more on closing tax loopholes, reducing oil subsidies, and so on. All of these candidates, including Mulcair, haven't ruled out a tax increase so much as saying it's preferable to avoid it, and to wait until 2015 when we have an actual budget in front of us. Those same candidates still support rolling back corporate tax rates.

Erik Redburn wrote:

Any other progresives here want to ask a few hard questions about the possible next PM Canada?

Sure.  What's his stand on Israel/Palestine (there aren't enough threads already dedicated to that)?  

I believe Tom wants to continue on Jack's path of renewal and being relevant in the 21st century. I also think if elected leader, many New Democrats that had reservations about Tom (too centrist, etc.) will come to support him when they realize he's a lot more progressive than painted in this race.

I think that neoliberalism's main strategy is to throw the country and people into debt as a ruse for cutbacks and privatisations. And clearly the NDP is to the left of those policies. Mulcair said in 2010 that the Harpers have made wrong choices for economic recovery by robbing from the EI fund to pay for corporate tax cuts to profitable banks and the fossil fuel industry and virtually nothing for the sectors where job loss has been the worst ie. manufacturing and forestry. 

Neoliberalism is all about throwing the country into unnecessary indebtedness, and throwing just enough workers into unemployment and poverty as to avoid losing elections by thread-barest of margins. They know that neoliberalism is undemocratic and have since learnt to play this game on a knife's edge. And the bad electoral system and even election rigging are relied upon even more than ever before.

Three comments on NAFTA:

1) Even if you actually do support making changes within the NAFTA framework, ruling out abrogation is a bad idea.  Why?  Because it's the strongest card we have in our hand.  Suppose the NDP wins government and asks the Americans to "renegotiate" NAFTA.  Chances are, the Americans say no.  And then what do we do?  Well, if we've taken abrogation off the table, we can't do anything, and we're forced to live with NAFTA forever.  But if we lay down the ultimatum to the Americans that if they refuse to renegotiate, then we'll abrogate the agreement, the Americans will come to the negotiating table.  Because while the American government might rather have NAFTA in its current form than a renegotiated agreement, they'll take a renegotiated agreement over no agreement at all.

2) Working within the NAFTA framework is a bad idea, anyway.  Why?  Because it's binding for Canada, but non-binding for the United States.  The US does not regard NAFTA as a treaty.  Under the U.S. Constitution, treaties must be ratified by the Senate; NAFTA never was.  Thus, while Canadian courts enforce NAFTA arbitration as binding, American courts don't.  Furthermore, contrary to the suggestion of some that NAFTA is basically a good document with a few bad aspects, the reality is that NAFTA is basically a bad document with a few good aspects.  Only a tiny portion of what's in NAFTA should be kept.

3) Conservative must be much scarier if you think that their decisions can't be reversed.  Frankly, I would expect an NDP government to change a lot of things that have been done by past governments.  Why should NAFTA be any exception?  The CWB is over 75 years old, and the Conservatives don't think that prevents them from killing it.  (I live in hope that the CWB monopsony to be restored by a future NDP government.)  NAFTA will, in 2015, be just 21 years old.  It's not as if it's such a fundamental part of Canada that we can't get rid of it.  In fact, if we want to save the Canada we love, we'd better get rid of it.

The answer is yes.  He has to.  And Layton already did.  The NDP has been moving away from the left and towards the centre.  This was discussed on last week's 'At Issue' on CBC.  If the NDP is to have any chance of increasing its support, it has to become more centrist.

The irony of course is that on other threads here, the Liberals regularly get attacked for not being 'progressive' enough when in reality the new NDP is moving closer and closer to being the Liberals.  If the NDP is to replace the Liberals, they essentially have to become like New Labour.

I think you're missing the point.

The Liberal Party fell from power because of the Sponsorship Scandal, and then because of bad leadership decisions.  It was not because Canadians rejected 'liberalism' or 'centrism'.  Canada remains primarily a centrist, moderate, liberal country.  Don't confuse the Liberal Party with liberalism.

All parties who want to get into power have to occupy the centre - the ground between the left and the right.  it may be closer to the right under a Conservative government or closer to the left under a Liberal government, but it remains in the centrist quadrant of the political spectrum.

Therefore, what the NDP is doing is positioning itself as the new 'liberal' party - a party of the centre that is moderate and not too far left.

Debater wrote:

The irony of course is that on other threads here, the Liberals regularly get attacked for not being 'progressive' enough when in reality the new NDP is moving closer and closer to being the Liberals.  If the NDP is to replace the Liberals, they essentially have to become like New Labour.

The NDP would have a long way to go before duplicating Liberal and new Labour lows in government. Think about it.

Quote:

“Canadians who are going to be making a choice in the next election … have to be reassured that the person who is asking them for their votes and says they want to form a government — that person has to look the Canadian voter in the eye and say … ‘The last thing that is going to be imposed on you as an individual is more taxation unless there is no other way,” he said. Mulcair said even if the tax bracket was pegged at $1 million, “the only thing the voter will hear ‘is these guys want more taxes.’”

YES.

In answer to the OP: Probably, but will we notice?

The question is how MUCH party policy actually gets put to the road.

Its never more than partial. We get ATM fees and other quickie positing, and some of the party policy.

If someone is more of a centrist, odds are very high we'll get LESS of party policy with them as Leader- including the things they personally promoted during the leadership race.

And it is not simplictically from, "well yeah, we have to make sure we can win on what we put out there."

For pragmatists who want the most we can get, it is a question of how much 'oomph' and finesse you put into 'what we need to do to win.' And Mulcair is all about positioning of the moment, unlike Jack who aced that, but always had his eye on more. That is what we stand to lose.

Personally, I do think Thomas Mulcair will move the NDP in a rightward direction.  How far?  I don't know.  I don't think that if he becomes the leader that he will move the party right-of-centre.  I do think that he or any other future leader will need to attract Canadians who have voted Conservative.  That means that the NDP will have to frame policies that uses conservative sounding language.  "Ordinary Canadians" and "Tax the rich" will be out.  "Canadians" and "Re-evaluating spending policies" will be in.  If Mr. Mulcair does become the leader, watch him switching from "Tar Sands" to "Oil Sands" or "Alberta Sands."

I do think that the NDP will become more leader-centric no matter who becomes the leader.  Under Mr. Mulcair's leadership, he will likely take the NDP members' policy platform under advisement, and then set his own priorities.  Mr. Mulcair does have a lot of charisma.  It would be difficult for party members to seek to remove him if he refuses to follow official party polices to a "T."  Mr. Mulcair will definitely lead the NDP and not follow party dictates.

Le Parti, c'est moi.

KenS wrote:

The question is how MUCH party policy actually gets put to the road.

Its never more than partial. We get ATM fees and other quickie positing, and some of the party policy.

If someone is more of a centrist, odds are very high we'll get LESS of party policy with them as Leader- including the things they personally promoted during the leadership race.

And it is not simplictically from, "well yeah, we have to make sure we can win on what we put out there."

For pragmatists who want the most we can get, it is a question of how much 'oomph' and finesse you put into 'what we need to do to win.' And Mulcair is all about positioning of the moment, unlike Jack who aced that, but always had his eye on more. That is what we stand to lose.

I disagree completely. I think that Mulcair is the candidate who is the least focused on the positioning of the moment and the one who takes the longest view in every move he makes. And there is no doubt the man has a drive to win. He will be putting everything he's got into winning every battle, because he's just scrappy like that. You can see it in his eyes. He hates to lose and has no intention of doing so. Every ounce of "oomph" and finesse will be present.

And I disagree even more strongly with your assertion that the candidate who is the most centrist is the one who will get the least results, and I've been meaning to write something about this for a while.

From the moment the NDP takes office, there will be strong, constant, aggressive rightwing pressure. The media will be hounding them. The business community and lobbyists will be meeting with them. The opposition will be heckling them. Every policy they attempt to enact will be followed by a right-wing shit storm requiring the party to waste tons of time in damage control and perception management. You think there's anything our opponents won't stoop to? Look to the ill-fated BC NDP government who had their leader in handcuffs on the front page of the paper because he might have had a deck built too cheaply. That's what we're up against and that will be the grinding excrutiating struggle of trying to get the simplest legislation passed in Ottawa without wearing it as an albatross for the next election.

This is why the ideological purity of the leader is practically irrelevent. The NDP is not going to be able to accomplish a fraction of what people here seem to be expecting. The party platform will not be implemented in a fell swoop, or even in large chunks at a time. It will be done slowly and carefully, piece by piece, in a defensive posture. The first term of the new NDP government will be a lot like trench warfare in WWI.

What is relevent is the effectiveness of the leader. Their abilty to deflect the attacks, to maintain their dignity in a swirl of accusations and smear jobs. Their ability to out-maneuver their opponents and lead their aggressive posturing into positional traps. Their ability to take the fight back when the time is right. This is why I want Mulcair to be the leader, because I look at all the other candidates and I see dead meat. Harper would tear these people to shreds. If they managed to win, they would spend their whole term trying to survive and get virtually nothing done.

I doubt Mulcair and I agree on a whole lot, if we came to matching politics. I want to see the end of capitalism, I think the CIA is an international crime ring, and I think the world should stop using petroleum as quickly as it possibly can. He doesn't reflect my values, no, but he does represent a crucial piece of my long term political goals. We need an NDP goverment in place, and Mulcair's the guy who can get the job done. Then we can get started on the really hard job of saving the country before everything falls to shit.

Well, he's not an activist, I'll give you that. It is something he's lacking. No he's not Jack and doesn't have the full package that Jack did, but we're making do with what we've got. I think we need Mulcair's retail political skills right now in the leader's chair more than anything else.

And he doesn't build movements, but he does build support. Frankly, I don't think we should look to the NDP to build movements. That should be our job. The NDP's focus on getting elected makes them ill-suited to this task.

Thanks J22 for your 2 previous posts here.

Indeed, very well said.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

This is why the ideological purity of the leader is practically irrelevent. The NDP is not going to be able to accomplish a fraction of what people here seem to be expecting. The party platform will not be implemented in a fell swoop, or even in large chunks at a time. It will be done slowly and carefully, piece by piece...

Since you are ostensibly at least, replying to me, point to a single thing I said that justifies framing your reply in response to the sraw person of 'ideologival purity'. Not to mention I explicitly addressed that it is not about getting everything or 'going centrist'... that we always at best get piece by piece.

But there's a legitimate question whether we get ANY pieces other than crumbs we could get from the Liberals.

Erik Redburn wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

FWIW, tax the rich has been out for at least 10 years now... although I support the candidates who want to bring it back in, there's only two of them who have been bold enough to admit it.

Been 'out' -according to who, the Post and Mail?

http://www.ndp.ca/platform

Only two candidates have proposed a tax increase. The rest, including Mulcair, want to close loopholes, and wait until 2015. No one has ruled a tax increase out.