NDP leadership race 2

A nice new article on Jagmeet Singh:

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/10/08/leaderless-ndp-looks-...

Here are the latest results from the various fansites of potential candidates (last updated on Sept 29).  If anyone is aware of new fansites for different candidates, do share.  Note, none of the candidates have any connection to these sites.  They are run by fans not connected to the candidates.

1. Bring Back Tom Mulcair (now 3336, up from 3010 likes) --> Mulcair has said he's not running.
2. Draft Jagmeet Singh for NDP Leader (now 1585, up from 1549 likes) --> seems open to the idea of running.  There also is a link to a petition on this page, but the petition doesn't indicate how many have signed on.
3. Draft Niki Ashton for NDP leader (now 321, up from 294 likes) --> hasn't ruled out running.
4. Ruth Ellen Brosseau: NDP Leader (now 295, up from being a group page with 294 members) --> hasn't ruled out running.
5. Recruit Sid Ryan for NDP Leader (now 208, up from 201 likes) --> unknown if he's interested (or if he speaks French)
6. Avi Lewis: run for NDP leader! (unchanged from last time at 147 members) --> it's a group page so it's members rather than likes; contains a petition with 58 signatures, which is unchanged from last time --> Lewis says he's not running.
7. Draft Charlie Angus (unchanged from last time at 99 likes) --> hasn't ruled out running.
8. Draft Megan Leslie for NDP Leader (unchanged at 94 likes) --> Leslie says she's not running.
9. Appuyons Guy Caron à la chefferie - Let's support Guy Caron 4LDR (now 25, up from 6 likes) --> Caron has not ruled out running.
10. DRAFT Rebecca Blaikie for NDP Leader (now 2, up from zero likes) --> Blaikie has not ruled out running.

But not any new options for her, unless she intends to "unofficially" not run or whatever.

More promotion for Jagmeet Singh to run for leader from The Star...

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/10/13/how-jagmeet-singh-cou...

mark_alfred wrote:

The federal scene is a lost cause right now.  I think Singh should stick around Ontario and prepare himself to take over the reigns there.  Federally I hope someone smart like Guy Caron takes over.  Sure, he'd never win -- no one right now will -- but at least there would be some good ideas put forth.

That's defeatist and dangerous. Too many people in the NDP saying shit like this and the Liberals will take that blank cheque right to the bank.

We need a person to attack the Liberals on their retreats from all the nice talk they showered Canada with last year. We need a strong opposition now. and we need to not have it just about partisan advantage but also fighting for what Canadians need.

What a joke NDP supporters are here -- paranoid accusations in one thread over whether I am working for the Liberals for demanding attacks to be of better quality backed by evidence and now here, a desire to concede the field.

Garbage. The NDP's first step is not to concede the field to the Liberals and put up a strong prinicpled opposition. It is not a lost cause becuase the Liberals are providing many good reasons to challenge them. Broken promises will not bring attention to themselves. You need a party to fight hard and never consider a future election lost.

The NDP could learn from the Liberals on this point: The Liberals were worse off than the NDP is now but they did not concede -- and guess what happened.

I want a leader prepared to be competative in the next election. Even if all the NDP could get is balance of power to force some issues this is better than rolling over. I think it is a long shot but the only elections that are a lost cause are the ones that are over.

Seems to me a few Canadians are already seeing that the Liberals sold them out.

But what the fuck -- you guys think I am a Liberal.

A very interesting & lengthy article on the leadership race in the Hill Times, includes these snippets:

Five names of likely candidates are currently floating around, including NDP MPs Niki Ashton (Churchill-Keewatinook-Aski, Man.), Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay, Ont.), Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette-Témiscouata-Les Basuqes, Que.), and Peter Julian (New Westminster-Burnaby, B.C.), as well as Ontario NDP deputy leader Jagmeet Singh, the MPP for Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Ont. ...

“I’m expecting people to announce and membership are expecting people to announce soon. The fiscal year is closing, so in terms of taping into the donor base and the support base, there’s only two months and a half left for 2016,” said the insider, adding right now there’s “a bit of a cat-and-mouse game going on with the leadership candidates … a bit of wait-and-see approach.” ...

The source close to the NDP said many were expecting Mr. Mulcair to make plans to step down as leader by the end of the year, as it’s “tricky” holding a leadership contest with“implicit or explicit” criticisms of the outgoing guard while they’re still in place. This person said a lack of timeline for Mr. Mulcair’s exit is part of the reason for the delay in candidates. ...

During the fall caucus retreat, there were “huge rumblings” with “more than a dozen caucus members who spoke out strongly in that discussion about trying to find a way forward that didn’t involve either Tom having to leave immediately or staying until next summer, and he just turned them down.” ...

Link:  http://www.hilltimes.com/2016/10/17/ndp-race-slow-start-five-names-float...

I think Niki Ashton looks like she is testing the waters for a run. 

NDP House leader Peter Julian is dropping his role as NDP House leader, suggesting the B.C. MP is gearing up for a leadership bid. 

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/10/19/peter-julian-dropping-critic-role/ 

Hasn't Mulcair sat for long enough already to get his MP's pension?

Brian Glennie wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

A very interesting & lengthy article on the leadership race in the Hill Times, includes these snippets:

 

The source close to the NDP said many were expecting Mr. Mulcair to make plans to step down as leader by the end of the year, as it’s “tricky” holding a leadership contest with“implicit or explicit” criticisms of the outgoing guard while they’re still in place. This person said a lack of timeline for Mr. Mulcair’s exit is part of the reason for the delay in candidates. ...

I hadn't thought of it in those terms but it does seem to make a lot of sense. 

By hook or by crook Tom's going to get his pension money.

So? Why is this bad? Why shouldn't he. OK with the 135K Sheila Copps get every year?

..and this. but other than that there is no vision how to get there. i believe there is a need to make closer links to community struggles. the ndp is begining to respond along the bc coast and i apprieciate that. i'm suggesting that needs to be expanded.

quote:

There is room for an effective opposition, especially an effective NDP opposition. Just consider some of the issues that have arisen in recent months: cozy relations and arms deals with countries that abuse human rights; health-care funding and climate change targets identical to those of Harper’s Conservatives; approval of the high greenhouse gas-emitting Petronas liquefied natural gas project; status quo on the security law, Bill C-51, and marijuana laws; increased refugee deportations and citizenship revocations; failure to ban asbestos; broken promises on First Nations funding; and no strategy for infrastructure spending, while the economy remains stagnant.

These are just some of the issues available to opposition parties. Most of them are red meat for New Democrats, yet we are failing to punch through the rosy glow around our PM.

josh wrote:

NDP House leader Peter Julian is dropping his role as NDP House leader, suggesting the B.C. MP is gearing up for a leadership bid. 

 

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/10/19/peter-julian-dropping-critic-role/ 

Peter Julian wrote:

Today I resigned as NDP House Leader to explore the possibility of a leadership bid. Over the past few months, I have had many exciting conversations about the future of our party. I am now looking forward to the opportunity to continue those conversations with colleagues and Canadians across the country about their vision for our party and our country.

In the months ahead, my hardworking caucus colleagues deserve a House Leader who is able to focus full-time on our important work in the House. Thank you to our Leader, Tom, and our fantastic caucus for the tremendous honour of serving as NDP House Leader for the past two and a half years, and to my staff in the NDP House Leader’s office for their incredible work. It has been a privilege and a pleasure.

Good to see him taking a real step towards having at least one candidate running.  He is a potential winner.

These words from Ian Capstick are exactly what makes me leery of potential leadership candidates who were/are too close to Mulcair in political outlook (such as Peter Julian):

"This is not a job for somebody who believes that they are walking into 24 Sussex," says Capstick. "This is a job for a builder.… Our leader needs to be a lot more like Jack Layton than Tom Mulcair."

Link:

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/10/20/what-conservatives-ndp-need-...

A new leader for the NDP will change nothing. First, the NDP needs a set of policies, then a leader that enthusiastically supports those policies. The clear statement of policy has to come first.

I mentioned earlier (perhaps on the other NDP thread) that I was reading " Building the Orange Wave" by Brad Lavigne. One of the things that the book made very clear was that the NDP abandoned policy and stressed their leader (during the 2011 election). That may have been a good idea at the time, but it only works when you have a leader that has that sort of popularity.

The book was written before the 2015 election, and should be required reading for everybody who supports the NDP. It show how seductive the 'leadership' focus is. Which worked fine with Layton (and a variety of other factors), but didn't work at all with Mulcair.

I am sorry to say, but after reading the book I have decided to never vote NDP again. Building the orange wave consisted of taking one person and turning them into the party, completely abandoning policy, and democracy, in the effort.

If that is what the NDP is now, then I'm sorry, but I cannot continue to support them. All the chatter over who would make the best leader, when it's clear the party has no direction in terms of policy, is just a waste of time. 

I see the leadership campaign as a big, broad discussion about the future policy direction of the party. Do we want a leader who wants to follow the centrist-Liberal politics of Mulcair? Or do we want a leader who has a Leap agenda? Or do we want a leader who sees another different path forward for the NDP?

The campaign will be that discussion, and it can engage all party members across the country, in a much broader way than just having policy set at a convention, where only those in attendance can vote.

It's a democratic and exciting process. Well, at least I hope it will be... but that will depend on who enters the race, and what policies and direction they propose, and the ensuing discussion the campaign sparks.

The Leap has the aspirational target of a completely clean economy by 2050.  But the Leap's actual target is the same as what the NDP advocated last election, that being 80% reduction of GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2050.  The interim target also corresponds to what the NDP advocated (in fact, it was even less ambitious).  See the backgrounder to the Leap (pg 6) and compare it to the last proposed NDP Climate Change Accountability Act from 2014.

Mulcair had been talking about it since 2012 and continued up to and during the election.  The end target was as I previously mentioned, and the interim target was "34 per cent below 1990 levels by 2025-2030" (from the Star) compared to the LibCon target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, or compared to the Leap backgrounder target of "2025 target of a 26-28% reduction in GHG emissions relative to our 2005 levels," -- the end target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 was the same for the Leap and NDP (again, the actual Leap target from the backgrounder rather than the aspirational target -- also note that I've yet to hear the Liberals state what the target for 2050 is).  Anyway, Mulcair had been talking about this for years using the example of reducing acid rain as a comparison.  Regarding the renewal process, I found it difficult.  So, I'm not weeping over its end.  It went on more than long enough for me.  Anyway, the useful thing about it for me was truly discovering how difficult it is for people to come to consensus on issues.  Online, you can have a spat, and then move on to another topic or go search the internet to find some other place where your ideas are better reflected.  In real life, the option of finding agreement at the click of a mouse doesn't exist.  It's a tough haul coming together on an election program that strives to simultaneously win and challenge the status quo.  Other parties that simply look to keep the corporate power structure in place have it easy.  People interested in better government should ease up on the NDP, IMO.  The Liberals already have enough allies in the corporate sector.  No need for regular people interested in a better Canada to also be their allies by joining in and attacking the NDP.

mark_alfred wrote:

Mulcair had been talking about it since 2012 and continued up to and during the election.  The end target was as I previously mentioned, and the interim target was "34 per cent below 1990 levels by 2025-2030" (from the Star) compared to the LibCon target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, or compared to the Leap backgrounder target of "2025 target of a 26-28% reduction in GHG emissions relative to our 2005 levels," -- the end target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 was the same for the Leap and NDP (again, the actual Leap target from the backgrounder rather than the aspirational target -- also note that I've yet to hear the Liberals state what the target for 2050 is).  Anyway, Mulcair had been talking about this for years using the example of reducing acid rain as a comparison.  Regarding the renewal process, I found it difficult.  So, I'm not weeping over its end.  It went on more than long enough for me.  Anyway, the useful thing about it for me was truly discovering how difficult it is for people to come to consensus on issues.  Online, you can have a spat, and then move on to another topic or go search the internet to find some other place where your ideas are better reflected.  In real life, the option of finding agreement at the click of a mouse doesn't exist.  It's a tough haul coming together on an election program that strives to simultaneously win and challenge the status quo.  Other parties that simply look to keep the corporate power structure in place have it easy.  People interested in better government should ease up on the NDP, IMO.  The Liberals already have enough allies in the corporate sector.  No need for regular people interested in a better Canada to also be their allies by joining in and attacking the NDP.

I'm not sure what renewal process you're referring to. At Convention we voted to hold meetings to discuss whether or not there was anything in the LM that we should include in the party's policies. That process, apparently, lasted four or five months, including the summer months when folks are not as likely to be available, so I'm not sure what there is to be "tired of".

What happens now? Does the party prepare a report, based on whatever input it might have received? Was the report written before the submissions so that the authors of could plug in a few quotes that supported the conclusion the party had already reached? The LM isn't the issue. The issue is how the party communicates with the membership and the extent to which the party hierarchy respects the will of Convention.

Maybe the deadline in the Discussion Guide is an error, so maybe there's some other deadline. In that case, perhaps there's no problem - I don't know. However, if people truly are "interested in better government", as you suggest, don't the actions of the party give some indication of how it would govern? Sorry to pee in your cornflakes (there's an image for you), but I'm just looking for some kind of clarification of how the resolution, passed at convention, is being implemented.

Quote:

I'm not sure what renewal process you're referring to. At Convention we voted to hold meetings to discuss whether or not there was anything in the LM that we should include in the party's policies. That process, apparently, lasted four or five months, including the summer months when folks are not as likely to be available, so I'm not sure what there is to be "tired of".

I was referring to the same process that you were.  I was answering your post.  Regarding your assertion that people are less available for volunteer activities during the summer than they are during the winter, I find that a bizarre statement.  School's out, businesses generally wrap down during summer, which allows greater time for volunteering for such things as EDA activities.  And five months was more than sufficient to allow EDAs to do this.  The NDP need time to process this feedback, along with preparing for the leadership contest and the convention, and then the next election.  As I said, my experience with it was an eye opener in how difficult achieving consensus can be.  There's as many different opinions as there are people, it seems.  The attempt the NDP is making in reaching out to the EDAs in this way is great, I feel.  Coming together on a consensus from the ground up and moving forward is not an easy task, but at least they're making the effort.  And again, the GHG reduction targets the NDP advocated were pretty well identical to the targets that Leap advocated (actual target rather than aspirational target), and the program for achieving it (national cap and trade with binding legally enforced targets) was often discussed by the NDP as I pointed out in post #436.

R.E.Wood wrote:

I see the leadership campaign as a big, broad discussion about the future policy direction of the party. Do we want a leader who wants to follow the centrist-Liberal politics of Mulcair? Or do we want a leader who has a Leap agenda? Or do we want a leader who sees another different path forward for the NDP?

Just out of curiosity - did you actually follow the last leadership race? Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the policy differences between Mulcair and any of the others (except of course that pharmacist dude who wanted the party to embrace small business owners).

Please refresh my memory.

The NDP should consider eliminating the "leader" role, and adopting a system like that of Québec Solidaire. Unless of course we geniuses think the masses are so stupid that they will only ever vote for a shiny-faced star. In which case, drop the policy pretence and get on with the beauty contest.

Rev Pevsky wrote: "What the party has to do is try and sell policy instead of leader. The process is really no different. They're both 'products'."

That argument would be a whole lot more compelling if there was a shred of evidence to support the thesis that a policy-driven approach to election campaigning is more effective than a leader driven approach.  The 2015 campaign would seem to suggest very much the contrary, as would the NDP wave in 2011, even though the Rev cites it himself.

In both cases, voters seemed to make choices based on perceptions about leaders - their style, their trustworthiness, their credibility, etc - more than anything significant or substantive policy-wise. Indeed I cannot remember a substantive policy / issue driven election since the 1988 NAFTA campaign.   

On reflection, maybe Kim Campbell had a point .... 

Unionist wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

I see the leadership campaign as a big, broad discussion about the future policy direction of the party. Do we want a leader who wants to follow the centrist-Liberal politics of Mulcair? Or do we want a leader who has a Leap agenda? Or do we want a leader who sees another different path forward for the NDP?

Just out of curiosity - did you actually follow the last leadership race? Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the policy differences between Mulcair and any of the others (except of course that pharmacist dude who wanted the party to embrace small business owners).

Please refresh my memory.

The NDP should consider eliminating the "leader" role, and adopting a system like that of Québec Solidaire. Unless of course we geniuses think the masses are so stupid that they will only ever vote for a shiny-faced star. In which case, drop the policy pretence and get on with the beauty contest.

I don't recall all the policies of that leadership campaign, no. I didn't realize you'd be giving a quiz about it in 2016, or I might have studied harder.  Your frequently-repeated hope that the party not elect a single leader is simply not going to happen in our system at this time.

But I stand by my aspirational hopes for the current leadership campaign, and the results it may bring once some interesting people are in the running.

Unionist wrote:

lagatta wrote:

Hasn't Mulcair sat for long enough already to get his MP's pension?

Yes of course he has. Please let's not honour these pathetic innuendos with a response. Or next, they'll dig up a glass of orange juice he expensed for $8.95.

But while I'm at it, it's the NDP convention delegates who voted to delay any challenge to Tom's leadership until 2017. They could have called for a much earlier convention. Also, they never voted "non-confidence" in his leadership. So the unmitigated contempt for Tom (by some of the same folks who demanded unmitigated loyalty before) is, at best, misplaced.

Tom is going to decimate the NDP. Fundraising is in the toilet and he continues to run abysmal byelection campaigns.

He should have stepped aside by now. Instead he'll lead the party over the coming year which is good for Tom because he gets paid to be a Leader in the House of Commons and that bumps up his MP pension but it's bad for anybody who cares about the NDP.

Tom's got both feet in the trough and it'll be good to see him step down and hopefully soon.

Mark_alfred, it might have been a detailed process, but they seem to have forgotten to let at least some riding associations in on those details, including the deadline, since the Discussion Guide got lost on its way to the ridings.

It's hard not to conclude that the party didn't go out of its way to solicit input from members. Sadly, this process appears to be business as usual for the NDP. The apparatchiks do a backroom deal that marginalizes dissenting points of view. I've seen this movie too many times.

If the party is not careful, it will drive members to 'greener' pastures.