And the long time established NDP habit is that when you have no policy with which to engage on an issue- or much more likely, you dont want the risks of getting concrete- then you just stick with the aspirational general goals.
Those keep the base happy. And no one else hears or remembers if they do hear.
[This was actually cross-posted, but I think it makes sense anyway.]
Having a discussion with voters is not like a discussion between 2 people, or a discussion in a seminar, or a lecture.
It may make logical sense- and it is the habit of many, though not all, university educated people- to 'begin at the beginning' by talking about 'outcomes'
'We want greater social / income equality." And why we want it, etc.
Although there of course needs to be some of this in political discourse, political communications does not work as 'first course: outcomes and goals. Next, how we get there."
Most people- and this even includes the slice of the population that pays more attention to policy and the civic space in general- most people relate to those general questions via the concrete.
If the do not have concrete proposals to sink their teeth into, its just rhetorical noise.
A funny thing about that poll; it was Nanos. I don't really have much use for him but none of those Red-Neck CTVers had problems with any of his other polls, like the ones showing the Tories and Libs ahead, and the NDP down in Quebec and the rest of Canada. On that website people are suddenly posting remarks like "sure those results are true for those 1000 people polled for this poll". Its comical.
KenS,
Your comments make sense, and I would argue that we don't do enough to position our messaging around the aspirational goals. If we did, more Canadians would have been voting for the NDP for a long time. The aspirational goals of the NDP are very much mainstream Canadian goals. Broadly speaking, the vast majority of Canadians [i]want[/i] - I believe - less in justice and greater equality of opportunity. What they're not convinced of, I don't think, is that the only way to achieve that is to raise taxes and nationalize all our industries. Part of the NDP's challenge is a perception challenge (that we've been painted as tax and spenders when we're really not) but part of it is our own fault, in my opinion.
We need to show people that our end goal - fair and just society, for the purposes of this argument - is more important than the means we're suggesting will best achieve it. This is what I think Mulcair meant by his (much maligned) comment about tax increases only happening if absolutely necessary. Of course we should try to avoid raising taxes when other ways of achieving our goal present themselves. And when they don't, then we need to do the hard work of leading the "mainstream" to a place where they understand that raising taxes is necessary because we've exhausted the other means to achieving our end goal.
Nanos Research. Nik Nanos is a right-leaning pollster for the Globe and CTV.
I know there is a lot of trash on CTV but I think your work filter needs an adjustment. 
Canadians open to NDP taking power, poll finds
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120323/ndp-leadership-co...
This link is blocked by my work filter, which is claiming pornography.
Which poll does the article cite?
Well said Mucker, I agree.
KenS,
Your comments make sense, and I would argue that we don't do enough to position our messaging around the aspirational goals. If we did, more Canadians would have been voting for the NDP for a long time. The aspirational goals of the NDP are very much mainstream Canadian goals. Broadly speaking, the vast majority of Canadians [i]want[/i] - I believe - less in justice and greater equality of opportunity. What they're not convinced of, I don't think, is that the only way to achieve that is to raise taxes and nationalize all our industries. Part of the NDP's challenge is a perception challenge (that we've been painted as tax and spenders when we're really not) but part of it is our own fault, in my opinion.
We need to show people that our end goal - fair and just society, for the purposes of this argument - is more important than the means we're suggesting will best achieve it. This is what I think Mulcair meant by his (much maligned) comment about tax increases only happening if absolutely necessary. Of course we should try to avoid raising taxes when other ways of achieving our goal present themselves. And when they don't, then we need to do the hard work of leading the "mainstream" to a place where they understand that raising taxes is necessary because we've exhausted the other means to achieving our end goal.
There are two [main] problems with the position on taxes of Mulcair, and the other 4 besides Topp and Cullen.
1.] There is an opportunity in gaining votes when this is aimed right. And our traditional mincing on the issue and never saying tax increase is not necessarily even the safest way to go.
2.] The fiscal status of the government is so wrecked by Harper [building on Paul Martin] that there is so amount of 'smarter/better tax collection' that is going to fix the situation. If we are not able to begin raising at least some taxes, we will as government be consigned to managers of the continuing cuts.... as is the case with the Nova Scotia government.
Unfortuanately, let alone broad public discussion, we dont even have a discussion among NDP activists about the latter reality. Which leaves Topp reduced to selling his tax agenda as a 'nice thing to do.'
Which is how people are taking it. Yes, that would be nice, but....
That and the pure delusion that once we get to government we can raise taxes. When we didnt want to talk about it before the election. Right. That has worked so well.
Wow all the talk about a disaster in Quebec without Mulcair in the previous thread is pretty silly. Mulcair will still be around if hes not leader and have the same role in Quebec as he did in the surge. Mulcair supporters act like he'll disapear. What, is he planning on trying to join the Tories again if he loses?
There are two [main] problems with the position on taxes of Mulcair, and the other 4 besides Topp and Cullen.
1.] There is an opportunity in gaining votes when this is aimed right. And our traditional mincing on the issue and never saying tax increase is not necessarily even the safest way to go.
I question whether there is a measurable number of Canadians who are both: a) absolutely certain that taxes need to be increased; and b) supporters of a federal party other than the NDP. I'm unconvinced that a message proposing that taxes be raised (as an end rather than a means) would in itself gain us any more votes.
2.] The fiscal status of the government is so wrecked by Harper [building on Paul Martin] that there is so amount of 'smarter/better tax collection' that is going to fix the situation. If we are not able to begin raising at least some taxes, we will as government be consigned to managers of the continuing cuts.... as is the case with the Nova Scotia government.
This is probably true, but its an argument that we don't make effectively, because we just say "rich people need to pay their fair share" and then we stop. At least this is how I think "soft Liberals" with NDP sympathies would describe our position and the reason they don't vote for us.
And re:the gop race, Mulcair is the Romney of this race except he probably wont win. The base will be alienated and dont trust him. Its why Romney will lose the general. Why McCain the moderate lost. Why Kerry the wishy washy centrist lost against Bush whom fired up evangevicals and conservatives despite a high disapproval rating in the general public. The gop base hated Dole and HW Bush for being moderates but loved Reagan. Same with Ford too. Theres a pattern here which underlines why Mulcair could be the weakest candidate in 2015.
And re:the gop race, Mulcair is the Romney of this race except he probably wont win.
The attacks against Romney by the GOP are probably the best reason to give him any shot against Obama in November. The mistake he's made (or maybe had to make in order to win the primary) is to aggressively refute the allegations against his "moderate" philosophy. The difference between his campaign for the nominate, and Mulcair's campaign for the leadership of the NDP is that Mulcair hasn't taken the bait. He's not presently engaged in a battle to be the "most left" of all the candidates. He's stated highlighted his moderate social democratic philosophy and gambled that the base of the party is close enough to him that he can win on those grounds. This sets him (and the party) up well for the next election, if we're smart enough to choose him. If we don't, we get to let the Tories paint us as the party that rejected the view most closely associated with mainstream Canada.
When they hear us say "we need to raise taxes on the rich" they're not always hearing "we want a more fair and just society" they're hearing "we don't want you to get rich, and if you do, we'll take more of your money away than the other guy". They worry, I think, that we're blind to other potential means to increasing justice in society and reducing inequality and would blindly raise taxes even when there [i]might[/i] be other ways to achieve those same ends (or at least ways that could be used in combination with more traditional NDP policy planks).
This is true.
But it does not mean the antidote is 'better' didactic explanation.
Political discourse is complex, mediated, and directionally meandering. It doesnt replicate the natural linear progression of the way people think and talk.
So raising taxes on the rich is both making everything concrete, so that we can have a discussion in the first place; and it is a starting point for raising all those questions. We get to all of them in due time.
Astute politics is when you know the conditions of the public space are ripe for you being able to start a public conversation, with confidence it will go in the right direction. There have to be more than wishes and 'will' behind that pragmatic assesment.
That is essentialy what Topp and Cullen decided: that it is time for this, and it will work for us. Yes, it has always been something we are with good reason defensive about. But we and Canadians in general are ready now.
Theres a pattern here which underlines why Mulcair could be the weakest candidate in 2015.
bwahahahaha. yeah, because the problem that new democrats have always had is that we're not left enough. #selfparody
When they hear us say "we need to raise taxes on the rich" they're not always hearing "we want a more fair and just society" they're hearing "we don't want you to get rich, and if you do, we'll take more of your money away than the other guy". They worry, I think, that we're blind to other potential means to increasing justice in society and reducing inequality and would blindly raise taxes even when there [i]might[/i] be other ways to achieve those same ends (or at least ways that could be used in combination with more traditional NDP policy planks). [/quote
Where is your evidence to support that "they" think this way? Other than swallowing talking points from the right-wing media hook, line and sinker.
Libby Davies reiterates her view that Brian Topp is best placed to continue the work begun by Jack Layton. She says that Mulcair's talk about the need for the NDP to modernize implicitly questions existing NDP policies and belittles the strides the party took under Layton's leadership.
Just as neo-liberals have hijacked the term "reform" as a cover for retrograde economic policies, the term "modernization" as used in recent years in social democratic parties is almost invariably a codeword for Blairism.
There is plenty of evidence that the swing voters we also depend on DO think that way.
But that doesnt say how much it in the end defines their thinking, or on what basis they will vote.
I question whether there is a measurable number of Canadians who are both: a) absolutely certain that taxes need to be increased; and b) supporters of a federal party other than the NDP.
Erroneous dichotomy there.
It isnt a question of whether they already think, or even are ready to think, that taxes need to be increased.
Most have never heard the question posed.
The existing thinking to be built on:
** the social fabric is generally at risk. and government plays a necessay role in that.
** the pendulum has been going too much to the right and in the direction of cutting.
Those generic opinions cut across party lines. They include people who have voted Conservative and for Harper.
The opening is not big enough that we could go talking about generalized tax increases.
But our problem has always been that in recent decades even talk of raising taxes on the rich is taken as a tax increase for everyone. And the strategic assesment is that things have changed enough that we will not be bit by that.
Many changes in public opinion play into that. But most of them are variations on things have gone too far to the right. You see it in widespread support for Occupy for example.
That and the fact that the NDP has quietly gone building credibility and capital around taxation. Under Jack's leadership, corporate taxes were played very well. We did not advocate a corporate tax increase. But make no mistake- up until then rolling back a decrease would be harped on as tax increase. The Cons left us alone, and the Liberals 'me too'ed because we were astute in our timing. That was an important step, and we could start cashing in on it now. And I think Jack would have.
Libby Davies reiterates her view that Brian Topp is best placed to continue the work begun by Jack Layton. She says that Mulcair's talk about the need for the NDP to modernize implicitly questions existing NDP policies and belittles the strides the party took under Layton's leadership.
Just as neo-liberals have hijacked the term "reform" as a cover for retrograde economic policies, the term "modernization" as used in recent years in social democratic parties is almost invariably a codeword for Blairism.
+1
Another unfortunate opinion piece by Derrick O'Keefe (whom I respect greatly - but not so much on this topic):
[url=http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/derrick/2012/03/crossroads-will-it-be-mu... a crossroads: Will it be Mulcair or the Maple Spring?[/url]
It's not his warnings about Mulcair that bother me. It's his sustaining and nourishing and propping up of imaginary (or microscopic) differences between Mulcair and (e.g.) Topp.
For example:
The candidates with the best chance of defeating Mulcair this weekend have shown signs that they understand which way the winds of change are blowing. Brian Topp, virtually alone, has made an increase in taxes on the rich and a more general emphasis on tax fairness a centrepiece of his campaign.
Derrick harps on how bad Mulcair was when he was a Liberal minister, and how disconnected he is from social movements. Well, when Topp was co-managing the Saskatchewan government, [b]did he propose/implement higher provincial taxes on the wealthy?[/b] Or did he have a revelation since then that the rich should pay, not the poor? Or does he only make these grand pronouncements when he is relatively certain that he will not be the one who has to implement them later on?
And how exactly would Brian Topp as leader tax the rich if the party isn't in agreement? Or, how exactly will Mulcair as leader not tax the rich if the party demands it?
Likewise with Peggy Nash:
Peggy Nash has made repeated references to the Occupy movement and to working with social movements in general, and her personal history lends sincerity to these words of solidarity.
So Peggy will re-erect the tent encampments? What exact content is there to this attempt to distinguish the candidates?
And Derrick, of course, doesn't question the notion that the LEADER decides everything.
Hence, the content of his article can be summed up as follows:
"Vote for anyone but Mulcair. I haven't got a single word of criticism for the others. Any of the others will do. But if Mulcair wins, it's the end for all of us."
I know, for a fact, that Derrick can do a lot better than that.
Where is your evidence to support that "they" think this way? Other than swallowing talking points from the right-wing media hook, line and sinker.
My evidence is most assuredly anecdotal, as would be any evidence to the contrary. I do believe, though, that NDP values are Canadian values, yet somehow we've failed to get Canadians to vote for us in large quantities. That is some level of evidence, in my opinion.
Things that are hard to refute:
1) Most Canadians would rather not pay more taxes if they don't have to.
2) Most Canadians would prefer a more fair and just society with increased equality of opportunity.
One of these things squares with the traditional perception of the NDP, and one of them doesn't, if we keep making the "tax for the sake of taxing" argument, and not the "improve fairness and equality, and tax if necessary to do this" argument.
There is absolutely no comparison.
Romney IS miles from the loonies in the Republican Party. They are no small number- and the 'winning numbers' include people who are half way there. You cant make indications in both the direction of the diehard base and 'moderate'.... as you can in the NDP.
With the analog to Mulcair's positioning, Romney would have been gone long ago.
Where is your evidence to support that "they" think this way? Other than swallowing talking points from the right-wing media hook, line and sinker.
My evidence is most assuredly anecdotal, as would be any evidence to the contrary. I do believe, though, that NDP values are Canadian values, yet somehow we've failed to get Canadians to vote for us in large quantities. That is some level of evidence, in my opinion.
Things that are hard to refute:
1) Most Canadians would rather not pay more taxes if they don't have to.
2) Most Canadians would prefer a more fair and just society with increased equality of opportunity.
One of these things squares with the traditional perception of the NDP, and one of them doesn't, if we keep making the "tax for the sake of taxing" argument, and not the "improve fairness and equality, and tax if necessary to do this" argument.
1. The evidence need not be anecdotal. Simple polling questions as to whether people will support higher taxes, on whom, and under what circumstances can be readily obtained.
2. Acccepting that most people do not want to pay higher taxes if they don't have to, does not mean that they would not support higher taxes if most of them did not have to pay them.
It isnt a question of whether they already think, or even are ready to think, that taxes need to be increased.
Most have never heard the question posed.
The existing thinking to be built on:
** the social fabric is generally at risk. and government plays a necessay role in that.
** the pendulum has been going too much to the right and in the direction of cutting.
Those generic opinions cut across party lines. They include people who have voted Conservative and for Harper.
I think this is a good observation. I don't think that either points to the [i]necessity[/i] of tax increases. That is to say, I don't think (from a purely A=B logical standpoint) the risk to the social fabric can only be abated by a tax increase. I personally believe that a tax increase is needed, but I'm not sure that everyone has necessarily drawn that line. That said, this is a very good place to being the argument from. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but what I'm arguing for is a continued propping up of these outcome-type arguments (that we need to stem the threat to our social fabric) and be open to all the possible ways of achieving that outcome (aside from an auto-pivot to taxation in all our communication).
The opening is not big enough that we could go talking about generalized tax increases.But our problem has always been that in recent decades even talk of raising taxes on the rich is taken as a tax increase for everyone. And the strategic assesment is that things have changed enough that we will not be bit by that.
Many changes in public opinion play into that. But most of them are variations on things have gone too far to the right. You see it in widespread support for Occupy for example.
That and the fact that the NDP has quietly gone building credibility and capital around taxation. Under Jack's leadership, corporate taxes were played very well. We did not advocate a corporate tax increase. But make no mistake- up until then rolling back a decrease would be harped on as tax increase. The Cons left us alone, and the Liberals 'me too'ed because we were astute in our timing. That was an important step, and we could start cashing in on it now. And I think Jack would have.
I can't disagree with any of this.
i really didn't like cullen's speech, very much drawing on the american baptist preacher tradition that obama sort of used sometimes. we'll have to wait and see how the others do. i'm really looking forward to the speeches by topp and mulcair, will probably skip the others (I do have to work, hehe).
i really didn't like cullen's speech, very much drawing on the american baptist preacher tradition that obama sort of used sometimes. we'll have to wait and see how the others do. i'm really looking forward to the speeches by topp and mulcair, will probably skip the others (I do have to work, hehe).
I wouldn't say that Cullen's speech was in the Baptist preacher tradition. Baptist preachers are more exciting.
I thought Cullen's speech was poor and unfocused.
Who are these awkward dudes singing for Dewar?
Wow - apparently Charlie Angus. Guess I should have been watching on "full screen". That was...interesting?
Another unfortunate opinion piece by Derrick O'Keefe (whom I respect greatly - but not so much on this topic):
I thought this was bang on:
This very recent history lends credence to the fears that a Mulcair-led NDP would become a different and worse party. To state this is not to "be negative" or to deny that the NDP has for some time campaigned on a tepid version of social democracy; it is, rather, only to state the obvious. During this campaign Mulcair has made no secret of his desire to "modernize" the party. As anyone who has ever listened to or read Tony Blair knows, the mantra of modernization is code for denuding social democracy of its remaining features that threaten establishment interests.
As was his description of Hebert as an "uber-cynic."
Thanks Paul. I didn't think it was possible to like you less. But you've shown me that anything is possible.
I'm back! 
I preferred Cullen's speech to Dewar. Something about Dewar bothers me.
dewar, i like him, but there's something unconvincing in his rhetoric, it seems too obvious and unnuanced, like student council-level. very 'rah rah' without any sort of sense that he's the guy to bring it together. and the french is still very difficult to understand, how can you blow reading a teleprompter?
and no, you're not the candidate with "the broad appeal to win rural, urban and suburban votes" or "increase, yes increase our seats in quebec."
recycled a lot of old ndp rhetoric, said virtually nothing, and felt tone deaf.
The Charlie Angus musical performance was probably the strangest and most surreal thing I've ever seen at an NDP convention.
With that said, Paul Dewar just gave an EXCELLENT speech.
haha, yeah, that was one of the weirdest things i've ever seen in politics, that angus song thing.
very much looking forward to topp's speech, now that i'm virtually certain that dewar is going out early, it'll be very interesting to see how ready he is for the big show.
rosie barton interview with dewar, he actually just said "hélène de lavardière", reason that he thinks he's the guy to take on stephen harper: "because i know how." vaudeville cane to pull this guy off the stage, please.
wow, shirley douglas is an amazing speaker.
Dewar in his interview with Rosie Barton said his French is fine and he has no problem with it.
Yes Brian Topp we get it- you are the super-duper insider.
The Pinsett voice over is way, way too much.
Topp just moved to 2nd last on my ballot, only beating out Singh if it ever came to that rather unlikely scenario. Topp is the exact thing the NDP doesn't need. Okay maybe it is Topp and Dewar that are the exact things the NDP doesn't need, if for different reasons.
topp starts very weak, really picks it up in french, hitting his stride, oh yeah, hitting the red meat (of grilled seitan) with some broad specifics, finishing strong with principles. vastly improved speaking skills, but a very very strange smirk/smile thing though, and a very odd bearing. very much a speak written for me.
glad that he's my 2nd choice.
Brian did a good job. Very positive. Upbeat.
Topp gave a good speech - remains to be seen if it was enough.
I was very happy with Brian's speech. He really looks ready for primetime. More than ever before, I think he's the only person in the race who can beat Harper.
Oh, and Shirley Douglas was amazing.
Just as neo-liberals have hijacked the term "reform" as a cover for retrograde economic policies, the term "modernization" as used in recent years in social democratic parties is almost invariably a codeword for Blairism.
Not necessarily so. Last time the New Zealand Labour Party "modernized" it moved moderately left.
@Unionist Thanks for your confidence in my analysis on issues other than this one...
But no, of course I was not suggesting Topp didn't work in a Blairist provincial government in Sask, or that Nash will be leading re-occupations in Canadian cities this spring. I think I make it pretty clear throughout the article that I think the NDP's current version of social democracy is weak and inadequate to the great challenges of our times: defeating neo-liberalism and building alternatives to global capitalism. But I made note of ways in which Topp and Nash have indicated, however subtly, that they oppose a further rightward drift and/or understand that the times call for moves to the left and towards working with or at least identifying with the ideas of social movements. I'm simply arguing that there are some important distinctions in this race, and that the outcome matters.
I find utterly unconvincing the argument made by the likes of James Laxer that because the NDP is no longer a vigorous left party that somehow that justifies their endorsing a centre-right liberal with a record of attacking social movements when in power (in Quebec) and attacking the left within the federal caucus (ie then fellow Deputy Leader Libby Davies over the issue of Palestine). One doesn't need to think that the NDP is some kind of radical left party in order to oppose Thomas Mulcair moving the party even further to the right. This line of argument is specious and, when it's coming from a former Waffle leader like Laxer, a bit pathetic.
@Unionist Thanks for your confidence in my analysis on issues other than this one...
But no, of course I was not suggesting Topp didn't work in a Blairist provincial government in Sask, or that Nash will be leading re-occupations in Canadian cities this spring. I think I make it pretty clear throughout the article that I think the NDP's current version of social democracy is weak and inadequate to the great challenges of our times: defeating neo-liberalism and building alternatives to global capitalism. But I made note of ways in which Topp and Nash have indicated, however subtly, that they oppose a further rightward drift and/or understand that the times call for moves to the left and towards working with or at least identifying with the ideas of social movements. I'm simply arguing that there are some important distinctions in this race, and that the outcome matters.
I find utterly unconvincing the argument made by the likes of James Laxer that because the NDP is no longer a vigorous left party that somehow that justifies their endorsing a centre-right liberal with a record of attacking social movements when in power (in Quebec) and attacking the left within the federal caucus (ie then fellow Deputy Leader Libby Davies over the issue of Palestine). One doesn't need to think that the NDP is some kind of radical left party in order to oppose Thomas Mulcair moving the party even further to the right. This line of argument is specious and, when it's coming from a former Waffle leader like Laxer, a bit pathetic.
Wow, so now Mulcair's not just an evil "centrist" now he's "centre right". I'm sorry but how much hyperbolic bullshit are we expected to take? And "attacking the left"? Are you serious? An ill-advised salvo at Libby, which I thought was wrong, makes him someone who "attacks the left" in caucus? Nonesense. And offensively so. Do a little homework and try to think beyond the simplistic, absurd, and frankly, unreservedly, boorishy wrong.
I liked Topp's speech a lot. I really like how he doesn't limit himself to activist language, he's not preaching to the choir, but he is not reneging on principles either. He is merely expressing his views in a language that everyone can understand, and based on concrete policies.
It made me question a bit my choice to put him in second place instead of first. This is a pretty big step in my selection... Mulcair is first. It's a terrible decision I agonized over actually. It was like Jack had split in two, Mulcair inheriting his skills and charisma, Topp inheriting his principles. I ended up deciding for the leader most ready for primetime and most able to reach out to new voters.
Topp gave a good speech - remains to be seen if it was enough.
You folks must have been watching a different channel than me. I found him stiff and decidedly uninspiring. He also strikes me as a pouter. If he doesn't win he will go off and pout. That is not someone who could handle the cut and thrust in the House.
Ashton: "I am proud to be a part of the Jack Layton generation". What does that mean, anyway??? 
A brief update from the convention floor.
Cullen unexpectedly fat but well received, esp when he decried litmus test.
Dewar just bad
Topp relatively upbeat but few backers on the floor. Notewworthy that
majority gave him either no or minoim$al support. People like him for his divisive campaign.
Ashton has limited suppory buit os being well received.
Muilcair and Nash supporters are the most visobe here w M supporters predomionating over N by abt 3 to 2
@Charles Yes, attacking your fellow deputy party leader via the National Post does make you someone who attacks the left in caucus. And, ok, I should have written 'someone who has a record of governing as a centre-right liberal,' to be precise. Still, I think I have 'done my research' and so there's no need for the hyperbolic adjective-bombing. If you have a substantive response to my piece's arguments I'm all ears.
Yeah, I'll be surprised if Topp wins. I feel the same way about Ashton, Singh and Dewar. So that leaves just Mulcair, Nash, and Cullen.
Mulcair up next, then Nash - and Singh gets to close.
