Chajusong writes:
"So what's the insinuation here? The the MP is being manipulated by their SO? That the MP believes Mulcair would be a better choice, but is irresponsibly putting doing a favour to their SO before the good of the party?"
I could not possibly say, but you might well think that.
Mulcair keeps cool in face of mounting attacks
NDP's perceived front-runner denies he wants to push party to centre
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/17/pol-ndp-thomas-mulcair.html
I will agree with Socialdemocraticmiddle that Thomas Mulcair has run a positive campaign and that his supporters should be careful about polarizing the vote for or against Mr. Mulcair.
Do I think that the next leader should be from Quebec? No.
Do I think that the next leader should understand the needs of Quebeckers? Yes.
Do I think that the next leader should understand the needs of Canadians living outside Quebec? Yes.
Do I think that the next leader should have a strong commitment to social democracy? Yes.
Do I think that the next leader should have the skills to battle Stephen Harper and his Conservatives? Yes.
Based on the question listed about, who will I pick on the first ballot? Thomas Mulcair.
Do I think that Thomas Mulcair is the only one who can perform effectively as leader of the NDP? No. I think others can also perform admirably.
I would strongly advise Mr. Mulcair's supporters to stick with the positives about their preferred candidate.
I've been thinking about Edmonston's comments and I really don't think it can be put in the same league as Broadbent's . What he said was a statement of fact. Even "Topp-firendly" journalists admit that a Mulcair loss would be seen as the "anglo-establishment" sticking it QC. Just listen to Daniel Leblanc on "The House" yesterday. http://www.cbc.ca/thehouse/ (The NDP leadership race: 13:50)
Everyone agrees Nash or Topp would initially be poorly recevied iin QC. The key questions are: Do you believe that he/she has a good chance of making up lost ground? And are Mulcair's faults big enough to justify this gamble? Some might legitimately answer "yes" to those questions and vote for either of those two candidates with their eyes wide open. Personally, I'm not willing to take the risk.
I feel the same way. Julian would have been an amazing and unifying candidate. He was my first choice since the beginning. I also wish Megan Leslie would be also running.Everyday this campaign goes on makes me wiish that much more that Peter Julian & Alexandre Boulerice ran...
I saw Megan Leslie speak recently, and she is a really great speaker. I knew who she was before but had never heard her speak, really. Very warm, down-to-earth, funny, and conversational. She would have made an excellent candidate.
James Laxer is a Mulcair supporter, right? What a surprise, that Mulcair supporters would want people to reject Broadbent's comments.
I think Topp is a smart and compassionate guy, and even though I have policy disagreements with him, I've been grateful he's on our side. But this just stinks to me, and I'm afraid it's not entirely just the media blowing smoke.
The leadership must not be an entry-level position. I'd be happy to see him stand for party's nomination of Toronto Danforth. Not leader.
Machinations from party insiders to isolate and undercut Mulcair could send the party back three years. Which is a lifetime ago. I can't believe such a self-inflicted wound is even on the radar.
Backroom boys start losing their smarts when they leave the backroom. We don't need another Hugh Segal.
This is such bad mojo for the party. I hope Topp seriously rethinks.
Jeff went on to be an impassioned supporter of Romeo Saganash.
Here is the convention agenda as set out on the NDP webapge.
It seems somewhat sparse. Does anyone know more details? Particularly, when are the candidates's speeches? When does balloting end?
Friday, March 23
Saturday, March 24
What if there's a tie?
In the week before the funeral, some NDP insiders began touting Brian Topp as a contender, and I was annoyed to see media speculation about the next leader beginning before the funeral. At the time, though, I thought it was mostly media generated. Then it was revealed this weekend that Brian Topp is considering running for leader. I feel angry at the possibility that he may have worked behind the scenes to get his name in the media while everyone else in the caucus and the party was maintaining a respectul silence on the subject. In fact, I read somewhere that Mulcair hasn't even spoken to the media since Jack's passing.
More evidence of these kind of graceless and self-aggrandizing tactics on the part of Topp (if indeed he is somehow behind these "NDP insiders" talking to reporters), and he will never get my vote.
I'm curious about something regarding the voting.
People who vote by mail have a ranked ballot. But people who vote in real time get to vote in every round.
So, does this mean that the people who vote by ranked mail-in ballot don't have the opportunity to vote for their preferred candidate in each round if they survive - they can only vote for them in the first round of voting?
Say, for example, I'm a Mulcair supporter (heh) and I go to Convention, or I vote in real time online. I can vote for Mulcair in the first round. Then I can vote for him again in the second round. Then in the third round, or however many rounds they have.
Will they make it so that people who mail in ranked ballots can do the same thing?
Example, let's say this is my ranked ballot choice (clearly hypothetical!):
1. Singh
2. Ashton
3. Mulcair
4. Topp
5. Nash
So, my ballot gets counted in the first round as a vote for Singh. Then Singh drops off the ballot after the first round. My ballot should then be used again in the second round as a vote for Ashton. Then in the third round, let's say Ashton survives. My ballot should be used AGAIN, as another vote for Ashton. Then in the fourth round, let's say Ashton and Topp both drop off, and it's Mulcair against Nash and this is the final round. So my ballot should be used again for Mulcair.
Is this how it's going to work? So if I only put one name on my ballot - let's say, for argument, Dewar - and Dewar makes it to the third round. Will my vote for Dewar count in all three rounds or just the first round?
Mulcair keeps cool in face of mounting attacks
NDP's perceived front-runner denies he wants to push party to centre
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/17/pol-ndp-thomas-mulcair....
My understanding Michelle is that your first round choice whether you have one name, or 7 names on the ballot, will get counted for a vote each and every vote unrtil that person has dropped off or wins.
I'm curious about something regarding the voting.
People who vote by mail have a ranked ballot. But people who vote in real time get to vote in every round.
So, does this mean that the people who vote by ranked mail-in ballot don't have the opportunity to vote for their preferred candidate in each round if they survive - they can only vote for them in the first round of voting?
Say, for example, I'm a Mulcair supporter (heh) and I go to Convention, or I vote in real time online. I can vote for Mulcair in the first round. Then I can vote for him again in the second round. Then in the third round, or however many rounds they have.
Will they make it so that people who mail in ranked ballots can do the same thing?
Example, let's say this is my ranked ballot choice (clearly hypothetical!):
1. Singh
2. Ashton
3. Mulcair
4. Topp
5. Nash
So, my ballot gets counted in the first round as a vote for Singh. Then Singh drops off the ballot after the first round. My ballot should then be used again in the second round as a vote for Ashton. Then in the third round, let's say Ashton survives. My ballot should be used AGAIN, as another vote for Ashton. Then in the fourth round, let's say Ashton and Topp both drop off, and it's Mulcair against Nash and this is the final round. So my ballot should be used again for Mulcair.
Is this how it's going to work? So if I only put one name on my ballot - let's say, for argument, Dewar - and Dewar makes it to the third round. Will my vote for Dewar count in all three rounds or just the first round?
Ah, okay! That makes perfect sense. Thanks for enlightening me...I wondered how it was going to work with what seemed to be two completely different voting systems! :)
Is this how it's going to work? So if I only put one name on my ballot - let's say, for argument, Dewar - and Dewar makes it to the third round. Will my vote for Dewar count in all three rounds or just the first round?
Each ranked vote counts in each round until the candidate drops. The vote count shifts as people voting by round weigh in, and as candidates drop off overall votes. Lower-ranked candidates rise up on preferred ballots as higher-ranked candidates drop off.
So, if you vote for only one candidate, that vote counts until the candidate drops off. Then you have no say.
Makes perfect sense - thanks writer and NorthReport! I saw rr's ballot and wondered how they were going to do that.
But Michelle my understanding is preferential voting only lasts up until Thursday, March 22nd. After that, we are actually into convention time voting which begins online on Friday, March 23rd at 2 or 5 PM I think depending on which time zone you live in. At that time you can vote online but then you can only vote for one candidate on each ballot, until one of the candidates win 50% + 1 of the votes.
Here is the convention agenda as set out on the NDP webapge.
It seems somewhat sparse. Does anyone know more details? Particularly, when are the candidates's speeches? When does balloting end?
Friday, March 23
- 9:00 AM - Registration
- 12:30 PM - Call to Order
- Candidate Showcases
- Opening of First Ballot Voting
- 7:00 PM - Tribute to Jack Layton
Saturday, March 24
- 9:00 AM - Closing of First Ballot Voting
- 10:00 AM - Announcement of First Ballot Results
- Voting to continue throughout the day
- Unity - Leadership celebration
1. Mulcair asked about Broadbent allegations:
http://www.globalnews.ca/video/index.html?v=Gh_mapDqdC_eWPxy55Mcqpyf8KAM...
2. Alice Funke and Pat Martin on Question Period this am
It is frustrating that they were given only about 5 minutes but still some points of interest:
- Pat Martin will not endorse anyone publicly
- PM says "most people are not too impressed w Ed coming out so forcefully." "A lot of people on the ground didn't like the tone."
- AF: "people are guessing" Mulcair has 30% on 1st ballot
- chance of a candidate winning on the first ballot: PM says 50%, AF says 40%
-PM says, perhaps inconsistently, that 50% chance someone other than the frontrunner might win.
-AF: Cullen has shown real growth since November when he changed his campaign team. He has recently raised a lot od $ but is handicapped because he does not have time to spend it.
-AF: Very important to many members in ROC how strong a candidate will run in Quebec.
-AF: Look to time immediately after first ballot to see if any moves are made.
I'm actually pretty excited to vote in real-time. Only wish my finances were a little better, so I could actually go to the convention. But for 20 bucks, I can hole myself up in my apartment with a pile of snacks. The life of a secret political junkie.
Thanks nicky - one of your quotes from Alice says a lot.
Un appui de plus pour Mulcair
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-droit/actualites/sur-la-colline-parlementai...
I will deferr to Alice's judgement there is a 40% chance of a first ballot victory. But I have always thought it was not a lot better than remote.
But for 20 bucks, I can hole myself up in my apartment with a pile of snacks. The life of a secret political junkie.
Dumb question maybe, but is there a $20 fee, or is that for the snacks? I know the fee is unlikely, but making sure.
I have always assumed the "Candidate Showcase" is the candidate speeches. Right featured time slot, etc.
I will deferr to Alice's judgement there is a 40% chance of a first ballot victory. But I have always thought it was not a lot better than remote.
But for 20 bucks, I can hole myself up in my apartment with a pile of snacks. The life of a secret political junkie.
Dumb question maybe, but is there a $20 fee, or is that for the snacks? I know the fee is unlikely, but making sure.
I have always assumed the "Candidate Showcase" is the candidate speeches. Right featured time slot, etc.
Yeah, $20 worth of snacks. :) Already paid for my membership card, so I guess I should factor that into my calculations.
I'm prejudiced, but I still think the way Mulcair handles it is pretty easy, and indicates nothing.
You are well in front, you wake up every day and say 'discipline, discipline.' And you're having a grand time to boot. [As are the others by the way.] Where is the challenge?
1. Mulcair asked about Broadbent allegations:http://www.globalnews.ca/video/index.html?v=Gh_mapDqdC_eWPxy55Mcqpyf8KAM...
You know, I watched this video, and I don't regret sticking my neck out for Mulcair running a positive campaign. I sometimes worry he might go nuclear, just judging by the number of his supporters who are absolutely furious. Nobody wins in a nuclear war.
The most remarkable part to me is they asked him about the future of the party if he doesn't win the leadership. He didn't take the bait, he said it's up to the membership to decide, and then talked about in a really upbeat way about his work as an MP. He talked about building up the party in Quebec, working on issues like Asbestos...
It's interesting to see how Mulcair handles a media feeding frenzy. You can tell a lot about someone by how they conduct themselves in a time like this. Very smart: unifying, positive, principled.
I'm prejudiced, but I still think the way Mulcair handles it is pretty easy, and indicates nothing.You are well in front, you wake up every day and say 'discipline, discipline.' And you're having a grand time to boot. [As are the others by the way.] Where is the challenge?
I think for me and you, this approach looks like common sense. But common sense isn't all that common. I guess that's why he's the candidate.
"Wow" is all I can say nicky.
I hope everyone takes the time to see this global interview of Tom, who is so positive, upbeat, polished, articulate, intelligent, aware, charasmatic, and prime ministerial in keeping above the fray. He is absolutely a 100% social democrat, who has no, zero, da nada intention of moving the NDP to the middle, which is just code for Liberal. This is the identical person I saw a couple of weeks ago in Vancouver, the guy who can beat Harper, and keep our cherished NDP values intact at the same time.
1. Mulcair asked about Broadbent allegations:
http://www.globalnews.ca/video/index.html?v=Gh_mapDqdC_eWPxy55Mcqpyf8KAM...
2. Alice Funke and Pat Martin on Question Period this am
It is frustrating that they were given only about 5 minutes but still some points of interest:
- Pat Martin will not endorse anyone publicly
- PM says "most people are not too impressed w Ed coming out so forcefully." "A lot of people on the ground didn't like the tone."
- AF: "people are guessing" Mulcair has 30% on 1st ballot
- chance of a candidate winning on the first ballot: PM says 50%, AF says 40%
-PM says, perhaps inconsistently, that 50% chance someone other than the frontrunner might win.
-AF: Cullen has shown real growth since November when he changed his campaign team. He has recently raised a lot od $ but is handicapped because he does not have time to spend it.
-AF: Very important to many members in ROC how strong a candidate will run in Quebec.
-AF: Look to time immediately after first ballot to see if any moves are made.
Hi Michelle,
I was told that if you vote by mail or email, you must rank your choices (or as many as you want). You do not get to vote one round at a time. If you vote only for "X" and that candidate drops out, you do not get to vote again.
If you are at the convention, and you vote for "X", you can vote for another choice on the next ballot. I will guess that if you attend the convention and your first candidate remains on the ballot for the next round, you must vote again if you want your vote to count.
I'm not sure to what degree that the chatter in the Twitter #ndpldr has a true pulse on the race, but it seems amongst the younger voters Tom's answer on the decriminalization of pot is creating a Twitter backlash. It might be just a lot of noise from people who were already on the stop Mulcair wagon but it could scare away some who are undecided.
I saw Megan Leslie speak recently, and she is a really great speaker. I knew who she was before but had never heard her speak, really. Very warm, down-to-earth, funny, and conversational. She would have made an excellent candidate.
Agreed, she has the charm and humour of Cullen, the youthful vitality of Niki Ashton without being seen as too young, and the toughness of a Peggy Nash or Mulcair, the cunning of Brian Topp. She would have been first on my ballot had she run. Instead that honour went to Mulcair.
Looks like the speculation was right about Singh:
NDP's Jack Harris joins Singh in Support for Mulcair.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/14/pol-martin-singh.html
So maybe Mulcair hasn't been quite so 'statesman-like' towards other front-runners after all. I wonder if he'll keep campaigning for the party if he loses, or refrain from any outbursts about the NDP being anti-Quebec or remaining a merely 'Western-based movement' -old Liberal code word for the same.
Agreed, she has the charm and humour of Cullen, the youthful vitality of Niki Ashton without being seen as too young, and the toughness of a Peggy Nash or Mulcair, the cunning of Brian Topp. She would have been first on my ballot had she run. Instead that honour went to Mulcair.I saw Megan Leslie speak recently, and she is a really great speaker. I knew who she was before but had never heard her speak, really. Very warm, down-to-earth, funny, and conversational. She would have made an excellent candidate.
I've heard good things about her too. If she works on her French somemore maybe she could run for leadership the next time around.
Mulcair's lucky I already voted. [url=https://twitter.com/#!/journo_dale/status/181399407684628480]This[/url] would probably have been enough to knock him in third on my ballot, behind Cullen.
@journo_dale: Mulcair claims pot is "so potent as to cause mental illness" as his reason for opposing decriminalisation. #WestBlock #cdnpoli
Mulcair's lucky I already voted. [url=https://twitter.com/#!/journo_dale/status/181399407684628480]This[/url] would probably have been enough to knock him in third on my ballot, behind Cullen.
@journo_dale: Mulcair claims pot is "so potent as to cause mental illness" as his reason for opposing decriminalisation. #WestBlock #cdnpoli
You should watch the Global interview where the quote comes from and see it in its' context before you start frothing at the mouth.
Mulcair's lucky I already voted. [url=https://twitter.com/#!/journo_dale/status/181399407684628480]This[/url] would probably have been enough to knock him in third on my ballot, behind Cullen.
@journo_dale: Mulcair claims pot is "so potent as to cause mental illness" as his reason for opposing decriminalisation. #WestBlock #cdnpoli
You should watch the Global interview where the quote comes from and see it in its' context before you start frothing at the mouth.
I have. Regardless of the hedging he does afterwards, it's simply plain and unambiguously wrong that pot is linked to mental illness.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/03/16/thomas-mulcair-is-mr-angry/#.T2NqYN7j...
In the closing weeks of the campaign, as Mulcair has pulled away from the pack, his feelings toward the party and where he wants to take it have come under closer scrutiny. In a meeting with the Toronto Star’s editorial board last month, he said the NDP “never renewed itself” and that the party must move past “some of the 1950s boilerplate” language around social democracy. Though he’s been accused of wishing to take the party to the political centre, he has insisted he wants to bring the centre to the party. Pressed by rival candidates to explain himself during last weekend’s NDP debate in Vancouver, Mulcair deferred to the path of modernization already followed by Layton. Even so, some remain uneasy. Jean Crowder, a veteran MP, says she was disappointed with Mulcair’s comments on the party. “I think over the last eight years Jack and the team did a pretty incredible job of getting us to the place where we are as the official Opposition,” said Crowder, who has endorsed Topp. “I think a lot of us have invested a lot of time and energy and passion in the party and to have it dismissed that way [in the newspaper article] was pretty disappointing.”
Beyond ephemeral questions about the NDP’s reason for being, Mulcair, as leader, would have to grow into the new role as the face of the party, becoming both a unifying, consensus-building presence within, and a strong, assertive figure on the public stage. Concerns about his aggressive style will have to be assuaged. Former Winnipeg North NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis wouldn’t comment on Mulcair’s temperament. “We had a good working relationship,” said the long-time Manitoba MP, who resigned in 2010. When asked why she is supporting Brian Topp, the former MP said, “Brian Topp can take on Harper in a style similar to Jack, that is not personal, ugly or distasteful.”
But the case for Mulcair is that however controversial his presence, he is also the most obviously ready to fill the chair directly opposite Stephen Harper in the House of Commons. “Leaders have to carve our their own way of doing things,” says Davies. “And I think Tom’s ability to be smart and articulate and direct and to present a clear alternative—and he’s absolutely got steely resolve to take us to government—I think is carrying on Jack’s tradition in a different sort of package.”
I'm not sure to what degree that the chatter in the Twitter #ndpldr has a true pulse on the race, but it seems amongst the younger voters Tom's answer on the decriminalization of pot is creating a Twitter backlash. It might be just a lot of noise from people who were already on the stop Mulcair wagon but it could scare away some who are undecided.
Yeah, I caught that part of the interview. It surprised me. Another reason to consider other candidates.
(For those who missed it... Mulcair said he wouldn't support decriminalization at this time. He wants another commission first, to study the harmful effects of drugs, and get opinions from health experts and law enforcement experts on the best approach for each case. It's not dealbreaker territory, but it's certainly a huge bureaucratic delay, and takes away the advantage of bold honesty of just going straight for decriminalization.)
I have to say I was really impressed with the Cullen interview on CTVs Question Period. Too bad about his kooky strategic voting stand.
Yup, promoting pot is going to the number one ballot issue and will definitely get us elected. Jeesh!
In the 2015 debate, I don't want the only guy on stage to support decriminalisation to be Bob Rae. I think that'd make us lose a good chunk of our youth vote.
You Mulcair supporters aint doing your candidate any favours by your dismissive attitudes towards...well pretty much any issue most progressives care about.
I have to say I was really impressed with the Cullen interview on CTVs Question Period. Too bad about his kooky strategic voting stand.
His voting stand could easily be amended and refined, but has little to no chance with other potential partners anyhow. I believe he was mostly speaking to the large number of progressive voters more concerned about Harper than inhouse politics.
NDP leadership candidate Thomas Mulcair answers your questions
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/03/ndp-leadership-candidate-th...
Gosh, three whole questions handpicked by CBC staff.
NDP leadership candidate Thomas Mulcair answers your questions
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/03/ndp-leadership-candidate-th...
"Thomas Mulcair is Mr. Angry"
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/03/16/thomas-mulcair-is-mr-angry/#.T2NqYN7j...
and if you read this puff abit closer you might see how our pals in the rightwing media will be framing him if elected leader.
Getting all wimpy on marijuana is one way in which the NDP gets blurred with the Liberals. We don't want to be outflanked by Bob Rae.
Jack earned a reputation for being courageous and honest. It wasn't just because he smiled a lot and carried a cane. He was willing to stick his neck out, again and again, and had the intelligence to know where Canadian opinion was ready to move to him. Marijuana is one issue -- important for some voters, completely trivial to otehrs. But in aggregate, a bunch of stances (end the war in Afghanistan, LGBTQ rights now, etc.) do add up to give you a portrait of who Layton was. Even for people who didn't care about marijuana, they heard Jack Layton cut right through the BS politicla speak and just say "yes", and peoples' trust and admiration for him skyrocketed.
I like Mulcair, and I think he'd be a solid leader, and a great PM. But in aggregate, what do you get when you add up "we shouldn't talk about taxes right now", "i'm against decriminalization until we have another study"...
There are some people who appreciate that kind of old politics of "we'll sit a whole bunch of very smart people down in an office somewhere you can't visit, and I promise that in four years I'll be able to answer your question".
But it's really uninspiring for a lot of other people, especially young people like myself.
What I heard is that Mulcair wants a commission, like the LeDain Commission from 1972, to take a look at all "recreational drugs". Get recommendations by experts on how to proceed. Makes sense. While I support legalization, it's not something that can be done overnight and with little thought.
I'm sure Layton, Mulcair, and even myself wanted/wants pot legalized as much as anyone else. But the best way to do that is to form government.
"Your bull in the china shop" approach to it would spell political problems particularly for the NDP.
And another thing, you don't have the market cornered on "progressive" and I get tired of the nonsensical labeling.
You Mulcair supporters aint doing your candidate any favours by your dismissive attitudes towards...well pretty much any issue most progressives care about.
- chance of a candidate winning on the first ballot: PM says 50%, AF says 40%
-PM says, perhaps inconsistently, that 50% chance someone other than the frontrunner might win.
Is Pat saying that, if Mulcair doesn't win on the first ballot, he will never win? Being "neutral" in theory, what is he in fact advocating here?
