My kit arrived this afternoon, one day past the postmark deadline.
I guess I have to vote online.
2nd thoughts, more 2nd thoughts, even more 2nd thoughts, about the various candidates...
Who are u supporting for NDP Leader, how will u mark your ballot, and why? #9
Tue, 2012-03-13 20:06
#52
Tue, 2012-03-13 21:24
#53
SD thanks - I phoned that number and they were quite helpful. They suggest that 80%-90% of the ballots have already been delivered
My ballot has arrived but my partner's not yet - was told hers is in the system, that all ballots should arrive by Thursday, and that it is not too late to vote by mail, if you priority post or courrier it in.
This column by Tieleman is interesting but just bear in mind the favourite sport out here in BC is bashing the federales. LOL 
Why does federal NDP allow voting to occur before final debate takes place in Vancouver? It feel like an old-style national election where BC votes don't count
http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-does-federal-ndp-allow-voti...
What is the 1-800 number to call bout your ballot?
BTW the deadline to cast your vote by mail was yesterday, so I believe it is too late to vote by mail now.
This is an email reply that I received:
Hi XXXXXXX,
Thanks for inquiring about your voting kit. If you do not receive your kit by Wednesday, March 14th, please call us at 1-8665252555 x8001 and we will see what is going on.
Best,
EXXX
Tue, 2012-03-13 21:51
#54
Just voted, in this order:
Nash, Ashton, Mulcair, Saganash, Cullen, Topp, Singh, Dewar.
Fingers crossed there won't be a 1st-ballot coronation.
Tue, 2012-03-13 22:00
#55
There is almost no chance for a 1st round win by anyone. It would be unprecedented in Canadian politics to pull that off in a contest with 7 candidates actively campaigning (and an 8th on the ballot). Tom's running a great campaign but that's simply an improbable result.
Tue, 2012-03-13 22:24
#56
My current preference is:
1. Niki Ashton
2. Brian Topp
3. Nathan Cullen
4. Thomas Mulcair
5. Peggy Nash
I will be voting real time and I'm planning to vote Niki Ashton on the first ballot.
My second ballot vote will depend largely on the first ballot results, and could go to any of those 5 candidates.
Tue, 2012-03-13 22:34
#57
Wage Zombie's tentative ballot looks really close to mine.
Tue, 2012-03-13 23:44
#58
Wrong thread. 
Wed, 2012-03-14 00:11
#59
My current preference is:
1. Niki Ashton
2. Brian Topp
3. Nathan Cullen
4. Thomas Mulcair
5. Peggy Nash
I will be voting real time and I'm planning to vote Niki Ashton on the first ballot.
My second ballot vote will depend largely on the first ballot results, and could go to any of those 5 candidates.
I think I have a similar side that wants to hold off to vote in real time, partly since I have so many second thoughts on alternate choices, and I think something happening at the convention might change my mind. But the other part of me thinks, what if I miss a ballot because the system is down, or we have a power failure or other calamity. In that case I would prefer to submit a ballot which has my preferred number one choice, just in case the candidate makes it to the final ballot.
Of course to get to that point, I still have to receive my balloting info/PIN in the mail.
Wed, 2012-03-14 07:59
#60
Received my ballot yesterday and stuck it in the mail this morning. The March 12 "deadline" seemed like a conservative warning to ensure all ballots are received on time.
Wed, 2012-03-14 09:40
#61
I did talk to someone in membership at 1-8665252555 x8001. If your ballot does not arrive by Friday, you can email membership and give apprroval to send your ballot information by email. You will need to provide your address and email to do so.
I also asked about voting online. You only get one chance to complete the ballot. You do not get to vote in round of voting on election day. The rules may be different if you are actually attending the convention. However, if you are not attending, you must complete your ballot once only. If you only rank one candidate, you do not get a second chance if your preferred candidate is eliminated or drops out from further balloting.
Wed, 2012-03-14 09:56
#62
Thanks SD, this is helpful.
Wed, 2012-03-14 12:02
#63
Vote here:
Wed, 2012-03-14 12:21
#64
Boom Boom
How many times can we vote? 
Wed, 2012-03-14 12:24
#65
Well done BB
Wed, 2012-03-14 14:55
#66
Interested Observer
I did talk to someone in membership at 1-8665252555 x8001. If your ballot does not arrive by Friday, you can email membership and give apprroval to send your ballot information by email. You will need to provide your address and email to do so.
I also asked about voting online. You only get one chance to complete the ballot. You do not get to vote in round of voting on election day. The rules may be different if you are actually attending the convention. However, if you are not attending, you must complete your ballot once only. If you only rank one candidate, you do not get a second chance if your preferred candidate is eliminated or drops out from further balloting.
Strange. You sure this person knew what they were talking about?
Vote online on March 23rd and 24th.It's the next best thing to being at convention. You can join the excitement live online and vote for the next leader of Canada's New Democrats at the same time as those on the convention floor.
You'll need to be ready to vote throughout the day in each round of balloting - as it happens. But don't worry, you can vote from any computer or smartphone - anywhere.
Please note that you will not be able to vote preferentially on this weekend. To participate, you will need to be following the convention at leadership2012.ca - and take part in each round of balloting.
Go to leadership2012.ca
Click "VOTE"
Log in using your Voter ID and PIN
Vote!
From: http://leadership2012.ndp.ca/convention/how-vote
Wed, 2012-03-14 15:24
#67
How is Mulcair pro-small government? He wants a national childcare, pharmacare, national transit, reduce aboriginal, senior, and child poverty set of programs.
How is Mulcair low taxes? He wants a progressive income and corporate tax system where the rich pay more and/or their fair share, a financial transactions tax, closing tax loop, eliminating corporate welfare/subsidies, a cap and trade taxation scheme, and has made left room for carbon taxes at the provincial level (which exist in BC and partially, as the gas tax, in all jurisdictions).
What will it be, unsubstantiated assertions or facts?
Wed, 2012-03-14 15:32
#68
How is Mulcair pro-small government? He wants a national childcare, pharmacare, national transit, reduce aboriginal, senior, and child poverty set of programs.
How is Mulcair low taxes? He wants a progressive income and corporate tax system where the rich pay more and/or their fair share, a financial transactions tax, closing tax loop, eliminating corporate welfare/subsidies, a cap and trade taxation scheme, and has made left room for carbon taxes at the provincial level (which exist in BC and partially, as the gas tax, in all jurisdictions).
What will it be, unsubstantiated assertions or facts?
How is Mulcair an advocate of "lower taxes" and "smaller government"? Well, you'd have to ask him; he's the one used those phrases.
The thing is, Howard, that while Mulcair isn't promising "lower taxes" and "smaller government" today now that he's a New Democrat, the fact that he enthusiastically praised that agenda—and atacked unions for opposing it—tells me that this is someone who is willing to change what he believes to fit the circumstances.
The next leader of the NDP, as I said in the other thread, will be under enormous pressure to fall into the Ottawa politics-as-usual culture. Only a leader driven by deep conviction can resist that. I don't see Mulcair as that leader.
Wed, 2012-03-14 15:42
#69
How many politicians do you know that would resign their cabinet position rather than give into corporate developers or who would turn down guaranteed power and prestige to run for a fourth place party?
I'd say Mulcair is the only candidate in the race whose principles have ever been seriously tested and both times he made the type of princpled decision that are disquietingly rare for a government figure. I know you would prefer a pitch perfect panderer, which Tom will never be but I've never doubted his conviction for a moment.
Wed, 2012-03-14 16:10
#70
- Mulcair - I feel he's best equipped to hold the Quebec gains as well as his own with Harper.
- Cullen - He's quick-witted, energetic, and appealing.
- Nash - She's committed, but not sufficiently forward-thinking in my mind.
- Topp - He's smart and able in French, although I found parts of his campaign to be off-putting.
- Singh
- Ashton
- Dewar - His lack of French is a deal breaker for me.
Wed, 2012-03-14 16:15
#71
I believe in the convictions of all the candidates.
None of them took the easy road. Topp proposed a tax increase. Cullen proposed an unpopular strategic cooperation agreement and stuck by it. Mulcair refused to give into a corporate developer and took his game to the last place party in his province. Ashton took down a sitting NDP MP over equality for LGBTQ people. Dewar and Nash have been repping our team since the dark days.
I don't think ANY of them are making false promises. And it erks me when people make that accusation.
Plus, breaking promises is terrible politics. It helps that I don't think any of the candidates are stupid either.
Wed, 2012-03-14 16:27
#72
I don't think ANY of them are making false promises. And it erks me when people make that accusation.
Plus, breaking promises is terrible politics. It helps that I don't think any of the candidates are stupid either.
You're right: breaking promises is terrible politics. And yet politicians do it all the time. It makes one wonder: why do they do it?
I don't think they do it because the promises were "false promises" that they never really intended to honor. I think it's because of the pressures that are put on them. As I've said, that's why values are important. It doesn't matter how good your promises are; if they aren't based on strong values, you'll bend to those pressures.
Wed, 2012-03-14 16:51
#73
TheArchitect, that's a fair comment. That being said, the Liberal party HAS made promises out of both sides of their mouth, and paid an enormous price for that. The Conservatives, like them or hate them, have been pretty darn good at delivering on their promises. Why is that? It's because they've been extremely cautious about what they promised. They haven't gone for it on abortion or same sex marriage (although they do eat around the edges). They focused on the wheat board, the crime bill, the vote subsidy. And they delivered. The key is that they haven't overpromised. I see most of our candidates as being very careful about that too, and no one has promised anything drastically more bold than the 2011 platform. If they have, I'm interested to know what you think it is that they'll cave-in on when the pressure finally comes.
Wed, 2012-03-14 18:06
#74
How many politicians do you know that would resign their cabinet position rather than give into corporate developers or who would turn down guaranteed power and prestige to run for a fourth place party?
I'd say Mulcair is the only candidate in the race whose principles have ever been seriously tested and both times he made the type of princpled decision that are disquietingly rare for a government figure. I know you would prefer a pitch perfect panderer, which Tom will never be but I've never doubted his conviction for a moment.
Damn right, that's why I put Mulcair first on my ballot, the polls are just gravey, important gravy, but gravy never the less.
Wed, 2012-03-14 18:16
#75
As of today we know who MP Bruce Hyer (NDP, Thunder Bay-Superior North) is voting for, as he released his preferential ballot vote rankings:
"I will be voting for only 3 nominees on the preferential ballot":
1) Nathan Cullen,
2) Thomas Mulcair, and
3) Paul Dewar.
Reference:
Wed, 2012-03-14 18:40
#76
Look at the discussion this week about Social Impact Bonds the government is considering -- think P3s for services with a twist-- all accountability can be handed over to social conservative religious organizations. This is a radical government in power now. Look at their approach to Canadian institutions and our electoral system.
My decision was made in large part by considering who would be most likely to beat Harper in the next election because if he gets another term after that then all the nice pure social democratic thoughts we can have won't mean a thing as there will be almost nothing left to build on. The candidates who I do not think are ready to go into the House and beat Harper, and then go into the next campaign and beat Harper are not on the ballot for me.
A new round of minority government with Harper hanging on because the BQ is back with the balance of power and the Liberals are making a slow comeback while we remain so pure, is not something we, or our principles, can afford. The Liberals could save themselves for another day but they are not going to storm back with Rae, or frankly anyone else, as leader and take the government from Harper. Also, pre-election deal with the Liberals will backfire as it will drive those who do not agree with the deal to the Conservatives.
If you don't want a Harper government after 2015 you need to elect a leader of the NDP capable of taking him down -- not learning how to do the job and at the very best coming up with what we got last May. No, you need to support a candidate, you believe can win in 2015 taking the government of Canada from the Conservatives.
The other niceties can wait.
All of these people are qualified, have good principles, have the right ideology or at least one that fits in our movement, but which of them can bring that to government? I am sorry to make it sound simplistic but I think it pretty much is that simple a choice. If you are a socialist, social democrat, progressive whatever label you have-- you want the NDP to take down Harper in the next election and we better not be considering anyone who cannot do that as leader. Not someone learning their second language, trying to get some experience or struggling to explain that they can run something.
Let's firmly recognize what is at stake for the country and that the NDP is the only opposition party capable of taking down Harper. We need to own and recognize that responsibility and make a choice that has that fact in the forefront. So if we disagree about who is best to beat Harper then let's go for it (I can be wrong about lots of things) but to drive a nail through our running feet based on purity questions about a person who was a fantastic environment minister some years ago, we are missing the point of what our choice means at this time in our history and in the history of Canada.
And if we can elect a lot of New Democrats then with their strength we can make sure our voices and our principles come through no matter what.
That is what it is about and why I chose Mulcair as leader. Not the best reason perhaps but the one I had to consider above all else because I see what this government is doing to Canada.
Wed, 2012-03-14 18:42
#77
It's great to see my first two choices on my ballot getting such a large amount of publicity this week.
Niki Ashton is the brightest light in the NDP leadership race
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1145712--niki-as...
Wed, 2012-03-14 23:16
#78
As of today we know who MP Bruce Hyer (NDP, Thunder Bay-Superior North) is voting for, as he released his preferential ballot vote rankings:
"I will be voting for only 3 nominees on the preferential ballot":
1) Nathan Cullen,
2) Thomas Mulcair, and
3) Paul Dewar.
Reference:
Good for Cullen. Hyer is actually an American who was so turned off by the US's right-wing politics that he moved north of the border. His profile on CPAC (Beyond Politics) is quite interesting. He lived for a few years on his own in the Northern Ontario wilderness in a teepee and then a log cabin he constructed himself. He was a high-level US public servant before hand and comes across as quite the non-conformist.
Wed, 2012-03-14 23:26
#79
How is Mulcair pro-small government? He wants a national childcare, pharmacare, national transit, reduce aboriginal, senior, and child poverty set of programs.
How is Mulcair low taxes? He wants a progressive income and corporate tax system where the rich pay more and/or their fair share, a financial transactions tax, closing tax loop, eliminating corporate welfare/subsidies, a cap and trade taxation scheme, and has made left room for carbon taxes at the provincial level (which exist in BC and partially, as the gas tax, in all jurisdictions).
What will it be, unsubstantiated assertions or facts?
How is Mulcair an advocate of "lower taxes" and "smaller government"? Well, you'd have to ask him; he's the one used those phrases.
The thing is, Howard, that while Mulcair isn't promising "lower taxes" and "smaller government" today now that he's a New Democrat, the fact that he enthusiastically praised that agenda—and atacked unions for opposing it—tells me that this is someone who is willing to change what he believes to fit the circumstances.
The next leader of the NDP, as I said in the other thread, will be under enormous pressure to fall into the Ottawa politics-as-usual culture. Only a leader driven by deep conviction can resist that. I don't see Mulcair as that leader.
Oh, Christ... here we go again. Really? This is getting old but it seems you love to repeat things even if they've been explained or refuted. Why?
Also, care to explain why Topp, who likes to wrap himself in the Romanow flag, doesn't have to answer for cuts, back to work legislation, and closing 52 hospitals in Saskatchewan?
Thu, 2012-03-15 00:36
#80
Does anyone know what the dealine is for voting in advanced online? I couldn't find it on the website or in my vote package.
Thu, 2012-03-15 00:40
#81
Oh, Christ... here we go again. Really? This is getting old but it seems you love to repeat things even if they've been explained or refuted. Why? Also, care to explain why Topp, who likes to wrap himself in the Romanow flag, doesn't have to answer for cuts, back to work legislation, and closing 52 hospitals in Saskatchewan?How is Mulcair pro-small government? He wants a national childcare, pharmacare, national transit, reduce aboriginal, senior, and child poverty set of programs.
How is Mulcair low taxes? He wants a progressive income and corporate tax system where the rich pay more and/or their fair share, a financial transactions tax, closing tax loop, eliminating corporate welfare/subsidies, a cap and trade taxation scheme, and has made left room for carbon taxes at the provincial level (which exist in BC and partially, as the gas tax, in all jurisdictions).
What will it be, unsubstantiated assertions or facts?
How is Mulcair an advocate of "lower taxes" and "smaller government"? Well, you'd have to ask him; he's the one used those phrases.
The thing is, Howard, that while Mulcair isn't promising "lower taxes" and "smaller government" today now that he's a New Democrat, the fact that he enthusiastically praised that agenda—and atacked unions for opposing it—tells me that this is someone who is willing to change what he believes to fit the circumstances.
The next leader of the NDP, as I said in the other thread, will be under enormous pressure to fall into the Ottawa politics-as-usual culture. Only a leader driven by deep conviction can resist that. I don't see Mulcair as that leader.
Don't take the bait. Architect likes to ignore your arguments then forward unsourced arguments of their own, that often do not bear the scrutiny of facts. Then there is the glass house that their favourite Brian Topp inhabits. Can someone help me find Brian Topp's comments on the garbage workers strike in Toronto and the nurses in Saskatchewan?
Thu, 2012-03-15 01:37
#82
Don't take the bait. Architect likes to ignore your arguments then forward unsourced arguments of their own, that often do not bear the scrutiny of facts. Then there is the glass house that their favourite Brian Topp inhabits. Can someone help me find Brian Topp's comments on the garbage workers strike in Toronto and the nurses in Saskatchewan?
I'm not sure how quoting Mulcair's comments about "lower taxes" and "smaller government" is either unsourced—the source is the edition of the Chomedey News published on May 5, 2005—or, for that matter, an argument. Mulcair himself has never denied making those comments. Criticizing me over the matter is just shooting the messenger. If you have a problem with comments about "lower taxes" and "smaller government," then the person to criticize is the guy who made those comments, and that's Thomas Mulcair.
Also, I don't think I've ever been dismissive of criticism of Topp—indeed, I've leveled some myself. While, based on his strong debate performances and his endorsements from New Democrats I respect, such as Bill Siksay, I ultimately have decided to support Brian Topp, I certainly would never deny that there are plenty of reasonable criticisms of Topp.
Thu, 2012-03-15 07:38
#83
I just voted in my first leadership race. And am now making my first babble post.
A bit of background as to where I'm coming from: I grew up in Ontario, and my initial political orientations where shaped there in my teen years in the late-90s. I've since spent the better part of the last decade living and mostly studying in Montreal. Though I've always seen myself on ‘the left', I lean much more towards anarchist/co-operative, green, and even pragmatic liberal tendencies than the old school social democratic left. I think the sorry state of the 90s Ontario and federal NDP had something to do with that. Meanwhile, coming to slowly understand (somewhat) Quebec political culture, the absence (and seeming disinterest) of the non-sovereigntist left was a real turn-off, too. I've since come on board with the NDP this past spring, and my vote here is shaped by what I outlined above: the general direction of the party (overcoming the false duality of principle vs pragmatism; continuing to contemporize what it means to be progressive in Canada in the 2010s), and the ability of the party to solidify its new roots in Quebec, while concurrently shaping new and healthy relations between the various regions of the country.
Here then are my rankings:
1 - Martin Singh (complementary vote)
2 - Nathan Cullen
3 - Thomas Mulcair
4 - Nikki Ashton
5 - Brian Topp
6 - Peggy Nash
7 - Paul Dewar
I've wavered back and forth on whether to give Singh (and before that, Saganash) an early ‘complimentary vote'. Though I've got my reservations about him - especially in the past week or so - I think he offers some interesting perspectives, and we need to continue to grow our tent, so to speak.
For most of the race I've been primarily behind Mulcair, and I still sort of am. But I've been a fan of Cullen for a while now; he and Mulcair are ultimately the only two candidates that I'm close to completely confident in. My only major concern with Cullen is his current lack of fluency in the French language and the culture of Quebec - but I think/hope his self-deprecating charm and street French basis are enough to get him by as he improves in the former, while he seems like he can listen and learn as far as the latter goes. Ultimately I'd love a final ballot between Mulcair and Cullen, and so that's why I've put Cullen on top. Mulcair's been discussed here ad nauseum; you can probably deduce from the rest of this why I support him.
And, you can perhaps also deduce why I'm to varying degrees uncomfortable with the candidates in the rest of my ranking. In any case, I doubt if any of them will be counted from my ballot, so it's sort of a moot point.
Thanks a lot everyone for the (mostly) great discussion in the various leadership threads.
(and sorry, I can't help but be a bit long-winded, no matter how I might try).
Thu, 2012-03-15 08:20
#84
How is Mulcair low taxes? He wants a progressive income and corporate tax system where the rich pay more and/or their fair share...
All very relevant what the man wants in his heart of hearts.
And if there is nothing about when, how, if it will be put into play....
Thu, 2012-03-15 08:24
#85
I don't think ANY of them are making false promises. And it erks me when people make that accusation.
Plus, breaking promises is terrible politics. It helps that I don't think any of the candidates are stupid either.
Yes. Much easier to "let" have people expectations about what you are going to do. Those arent promises.
Thu, 2012-03-15 08:29
#86
So if we disagree about who is best to beat Harper then let's go for it (I can be wrong about lots of things) but to drive a nail through our running feet based on purity questions about a person who was a fantastic environment minister some years ago...
Admittedly the bulk of opposition to Mulcair- or at least the most vocal part of it if- is on what could be called 'purity' grounds.
But I think he's a walking talking political liability. So why would I "hold my nose" and vote for him?
Thu, 2012-03-15 09:47
#87
As of today we know who MP Bruce Hyer (NDP, Thunder Bay-Superior North) is voting for, as he released his preferential ballot vote rankings:
"I will be voting for only 3 nominees on the preferential ballot":
1) Nathan Cullen,
2) Thomas Mulcair, and
3) Paul Dewar.
Reference:
Good for Cullen. Hyer is actually an American who was so turned off by the US's right-wing politics that he moved north of the border. His profile on CPAC (Beyond Politics) is quite interesting. He lived for a few years on his own in the Northern Ontario wilderness in a teepee and then a log cabin he constructed himself. He was a high-level US public servant before hand and comes across as quite the non-conformist.
Thanks for the background info on Hyer, Howard! Very interesting and non-conformist indeed...
While Nash is not a first-tier candidate for me, I do see her having a real chance at winning so not even including a potential candidate is a strong statement and/or not the most politically sensitive decision.
Thu, 2012-03-15 10:48
#88
I don't accept that Mulcair's lack of specifics is a liability at this point-- leadership is not about coming in with all ready detailed policies at least not leadership in a party you are committing yourself to listening to.
The concerns Ken is raising about him being a political liability-- that is the bigger one. I decided to take the risk because even knowing the risk I felt it was the best option. I wish we had someone else with Mulcair's up sides and without this risk but we don't have such a person in the race. And the choice is difficult among imperfect people.
Ken I respect your decision and your choice and I also recognize that you are making it taking in to account the same things I did just with different weight and math than me and not about some purity test. I hope that whichever candidate wins is the right one. No, I cannot provide the confidence of certainty in my choice. I can only share the conclusions and concerns that brought me to it. I had that confidence only with Saganash.
There are many issues in the choice-- how people will react to the candidate, the strongest assets the candidate has and if they will dominate or if the weaknesses will come out. Based on the field we have, I will admit freely that this is a risky choice-- not because of purity or past politics but based on personality, likeability, what the person might say, the confidence they will bring, whether voters will accept our choice as PM in 3 years, what they will do to bring up the party. I see some amazing potential in Mulcair. But also huge risk. And I am not alone in this. Some of the others I see amazing potential but it is too far off, I also see some risks in the others as well. And restricting the choice I fear the immediate reaction a unilingual candidate would cause.
My objective was not to say that Mulcair is with certainty the best choice. I am saying with more certainty that how we will do in the next election, capacity to immediately bring up the party in the minds of voters, the ability of the candidate to hold the gains in Quebec, to be accepted as PM, are the important questions separating the candidates at this point in our history. I ask people to consider the importance of those questions in the context of understanding this is a turning point in our history as a party and as a country.
Unfortunately I am also aware that if we ask these important questions with this particular field we may get different answers.
Thu, 2012-03-15 11:25
#89
I included Mulcair in top 3 because (as I've said before in some other thread) I feel he would be the toughest one of the pack in facing down Harper; because of his role in moving voters from BQ to NDP in Québec; and because his relative inscrutability makes him less vulnerable to specific attacks by the MSM and the other parties. But I also believe he is the one who would project the most "gravitas" as a potential statesman in the international arena. We need to be thinking about how the NDP's image will be represented abroad and in meetings of world leaders. Of all the current candidates, I think he is the most measured and canny of the bunch, and the one who can least easily be dismissed as irrelevant or "light". Alpha male for Alpha male, he'd be the best match for Harper and also for the leaders of other countries, the IMF, the UN, banks, etc.
IF, that is, his centrist-rightist leanings are kept on a tight leash by the party and he doesn't end up exercising full control over it.
Thu, 2012-03-15 11:26
#90
I agree that we cant know how the candidates will work out- and I dont mean that in the obvious absolutist sense.
Since its likely that Mulcair is going to be Leader, I hope to be wrong about him. But in the NDP, hoping for the best against my concerns has not worked out for me so far.
One thing that may work with Mulcair, is that being Leader hooks you up to working closely with other people. They may be sufficient antidote to his tendencies. Though even if you discount the stories of how he works with people- that is certainly not a strong suit of his. It still might work- with more at stake he may try harder. It's quite conceivable.
Thats enough for me to rank him higher than candidates I just cannot see working, period. But thats it.
Thu, 2012-03-15 11:29
#91
Nobody ever exercises full control over the party. Or even close.
Unfortunately, it takes much less than that for Leader and coterie to take the paty where they will.
Thu, 2012-03-15 11:36
#92
Here are the conditions under which I think Mulcair could be the best choice for getting the brass ring:
** IF the NDP is going to win government more or less by default. IE, Cons do themselves in, as often happens. In which case, playing it safe is the way to fly in.
** IF Mulcair is indeed playing it safe. That is currently being assumed to be true by close observers around here. To my mind, it is true [and I am mostly wrong] IF the opportunities he has oppened so far cannot be used against us or are not lethal damage, and he stops doing it.
Because so far, along with being "inscrutable", he also says some things that just are not thought through as to where they lead.
Thu, 2012-03-15 11:42
#93
And I'll say this not really as a knock on Mulcair.
I find it unfortunate this unfortunate worship of "gravitas".... as if its the only way for a political figure to have a visceral connection with a broad spectrum of voters. What Nathan Cullen has works every bit as well as "gravitas". Chretien is another of the many examples that has little or nothing to do with gravitas.
Thu, 2012-03-15 11:43
#94
I have been told by a few people that his staff is the same people who started working with him -- nobody has quit in his office or been fired. Does that count for something? I heard this from a few people and I did find some comfort in it.
Thu, 2012-03-15 11:51
#95
I have been told by a few people that his staff is the same people who started working with him -- nobody has quit in his office or been fired. Does that count for something? I heard this from a few people and I did find some comfort in it.
You can't mean that some of the innuendo is unfounded, Sean!! :) ("Though even if you discount the stories of how he works with people- that is certainly not a strong suit of his.")
Thu, 2012-03-15 11:58
#96
I've stayed away from this because its all heresay. But I think its no better haresaying that Mulcair has always worked with the same people in his staff.
My Hill contacts who I think are generally pretty neutral [more inclined to Romeo if anything] feel that Mulcair's reputation is deserved from the way he treats staff. FWIW, I didnt ask, but no one said they would not vote for Mulcair because of that, or indicated they really do not like the idea of him being Leader, or something that strong.
Thu, 2012-03-15 11:59
#97
Hoodeet (JW)And I'll say this not really as a knock on Mulcair.
I find it unfortunate this unfortunate worship of "gravitas".... as if its the only way for a political figure to have a visceral connection with a broad spectrum of voters. What Nathan Cullen has works every bit as well as "gravitas". Chretien is another of the many examples that has little or nothing to do with gravitas.
Point well taken. "Gravitas" isn't the end-all and be-all, but it does project more meaningfully than just a charismatic stage presence (which several of the other candidates do, of course) . However, I don't agree that Chrétien is an appropriate example of a leader without gravitas, because his idiosyncratic scrappy persona coupled with a shrewd political acumen was precisely one trait that made him stand out, and, correct me if my aging memory is failing me at such crucial moments, was he or was he not the anointed of the LPC after its unfortunate fling with Turner? He had Bay Street, the Québec élite, industrialists and the party machine behind him, plus the tacit backing of the international financial institutions who trusted him and his finance minister to do their bidding; any NDP leader would be swimming against that tide, and it would be a tide of sharks. Gravitas can at least be respected as a mark of a fellow-alpha male in the political and diplomatic spheres, and would make him a less obvious prey. That's all I meant to suggest.
Thu, 2012-03-15 12:10
#98
Don't take the bait. Architect likes to ignore your arguments then forward unsourced arguments of their own, that often do not bear the scrutiny of facts. Then there is the glass house that their favourite Brian Topp inhabits. Can someone help me find Brian Topp's comments on the garbage workers strike in Toronto and the nurses in Saskatchewan?
I'm not sure how quoting Mulcair's comments about "lower taxes" and "smaller government" is either unsourced—the source is the edition of the Chomedey News published on May 5, 2005—or, for that matter, an argument. Mulcair himself has never denied making those comments. Criticizing me over the matter is just shooting the messenger. If you have a problem with comments about "lower taxes" and "smaller government," then the person to criticize is the guy who made those comments, and that's Thomas Mulcair.
Also, I don't think I've ever been dismissive of criticism of Topp—indeed, I've leveled some myself. While, based on his strong debate performances and his endorsements from New Democrats I respect, such as Bill Siksay, I ultimately have decided to support Brian Topp, I certainly would never deny that there are plenty of reasonable criticisms of Topp.
How bizarre. Usually babblers provide a link to an article or some kind of online source when they have a point to raise, but you have the exact date of a newspaper with a circulation of maybe 20,000. Do you keep a news clipping on your bulletin board? Do you work for a rival campaign? Of course, you will not answer these questions.
Anyhow, how about this: a full quote, full context, full date and some explanation of how Mulcair's quote from 2005 has any relevance to what he is saying in 2011,
How is Mulcair pro-small government? He wants a national childcare, pharmacare, national transit, reduce aboriginal, senior, and child poverty set of programs.How is Mulcair low taxes? He wants a progressive income and corporate tax system where the rich pay more and/or their fair share, a financial transactions tax, closing tax loop, eliminating corporate welfare/subsidies, a cap and trade taxation scheme, and has made left room for carbon taxes at the provincial level (which exist in BC and partially, as the gas tax, in all jurisdictions).
Thu, 2012-03-15 12:23
#99
I have been told by a few people that his staff is the same people who started working with him -- nobody has quit in his office or been fired. Does that count for something? I heard this from a few people and I did find some comfort in it.
I've met some of his staff and they are quite fond of him. Take it for what it's worth :)
ETA: I have no doubt when he came to caucus as a "newbie", he stepped on some toes especially with regard to the party's view of Quebec.
I'm sure only speaking in French during caucus meetings was a culture shock as well.
Thu, 2012-03-15 12:27
#100
its no better haresaying that Mulcair has always worked with the same people in his staff.
This is something Mulcair has said himself, in speeches & interviews, including at his leadership launch. Has he said it at a debate as well?
Thu, 2012-03-15 14:21
#101
I just voted in my first leadership race. And am now making my first babble post.
Welcome to babble! : )