NDP Leadership #100

150 posts / 0 new
Last post
RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

And will we get any guidance from the honourable monsieur Saganash?

vaudree

Dewar considers himself a serious candidate. I want to get behind him but am hesitant. He has a lot of good people behind him, is good at grass roots and seems to be the one, more so than the rest, who can drop the plan once in a while and take on what is going on in the world outside of the leadership race.

So far, I like Nash best. She is tough, smart and has the politics of inclusiveness where one negotiates rather than dictates. She tends to have the British staidness where she needs to be more feisty. That slip up was Nash trying to respond to a question presented in shitty French and I don't think she heard all of it.

However, Mulcair can win me over if he can convince me that he can negotiate and keep a caucus full of strong personalities happy. This means being able to swallow his ego and let other egos shine. The friendly lobs won't convince me of that, but Mulcair can if he confronts the issue dead on.

The Middle East is only part of the issue (since even the leader is beholden to what has been decided at convention) - the bigger part is the tendency to defend himself where, as leader, he needs to be able to make his viciousness more maternal in defending his caucus against all else. They have all dealt with the Palestinian issue in coded language even when they bring up the two state solution - or human rights, as Ashton did in the French debate.

Ashton is still in consideration - she does tie in together quite well how Harper's policies affect her generation and talks about NAFTA etc. I am hoping that she repeats some of the things she said during the French debate.

Neither Topp and Singh have seats and that disqualifies both of them from consideration. Singh seems like he can both ask and respond to debate questions quite well, though he does seem a bit preoccupied with drugs. Topp, he may, like Dewar, be better from behind the scenes, but he needs something - besides a seat - to be considered leadership material. Like that all these Canadian actors, whom I didn't know were NDP, are supporting him. Explains why Harper is so against the Arts. I like Cullen but figure that his plan is too Liberal friendly.

Unionist wrote:
Yet, both Obama and Harper, like Mulcair, claim to support a "two-state solution".

Harper supports a two state solution - that is news to me.

Topp policy paper
4 of 10
(3) and (5) sounds like cap and trade.
(4) the retrofit is a very popular program

Stockholm wrote:
I'm not sure what makes you think Hoang mai wouldn't et re-elected in 2015. he won by a very wide margin and is in a good riding that is too franco- to go Liberal and not franco- enough to go BQ and he seems to be one of the more high profile new MPs etc...If he can't win again under Mulcair no one can - then what's the point of making mulcair the leader at all?

Impressed with Hoang Mai (and Lauren Liu - subsequent comment), though not reading his stuff on twitter any more since they deactivated the translate button on politwitter. The NDP are hedging their bet by making sure that their new MPs work hard in the riding - so that, even if the honeymoon with the NDP ends, they will still like their new NDP MP enough to vote for him/her. I think it is too soon to tell. LL was told by Megan Leslie that the balance between public and private life should be put on hold and that she should be everywhere, giving that prof some credibility but also presenting it as a hurdle that can be surpassed.

Laverdiere makes sense since, being on the Foreign Affair's committee would have put her in contact with Dewar and Dewar seems the sort to both be very helpful and to let the people around him shine. Dewar also did good on P&P getting his digs in while appearing above the fray.

note to self, start at #69

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Thanks for pointing it out Unionist. I missed it and I regret it. But, if I can say this respectfully, how can you have it both ways? You asked the question about Mulcair's straying from NDP policy. It's a teachable moment.  I really feel sometimes we use poor choice of words without being cognizant of intent. The problem is, a lot of our allies (myself included) need to learn to parse language as you can. It's very easy, when ignorant of the issues to go from Israel to Jews, say like Africa to black or Asian to Chinese. Not saying it's right, just saying it's hell where I live.

 

40% of Canadians voted Conservative. We have a lot of work to do. And likely, you do need to point it out as you do. Otherwise, we'll never get anywhere.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

vaudree wrote:
So far, I like Nash best. She is tough, smart and has the politics of inclusiveness where one negotiates rather than dictates. She tends to have the British staidness where she needs to be more feisty. That slip up was Nash trying to respond to a question presented in shitty French and I don't think she heard all of it.

 

I wanted to say this and was wondering why more attention wasn't paid to the unintelligible question Dewar posed?

 

Peggy really needs to shock the campaign a bit. Would love to see her bounce back.

flight from kamakura

well, the ethnic minorities thing in quebec is really complicated.  if the next campaign turns on leadership, it shouldn't matter all that much.  but if the next campaign is tight, or the bq manages to claw its way back up, candidate choice will make a difference, no doubt.

and as for nominations, i think it's essential that we have nomination battles.  we definitely have underperforming mps, no question (think lsd or tyrone benskin or well, yeah), and we also have mps who don't reflect the dynamism of their constituents (as in laurier-sainte marie), and every single one of our members should be open to challenges, that's the way the party has to work if it isn't to be a private club.  if these mps, in 4 years, can't develop their riding associations and memberships to a degree that they can protect their incumbency (try taking out libby or cullen or stoffer or even a newby like saganash in a nomination fight, you'd hardly get past them pronouncing your name), then it pretty much speaks for itself.

anyway, that's quite aside from the point that i don't at all speak for mulcair's campaign, and that i'm supporting him for my own reasons (i actually think i hate stephen harper's government and i'm desperate for a progressive change, and i love quebec and want our province front and center in government, unlike now).  if you're turned off by my comments, think of that desperation that i feel, and you'll get a better sense of what's guiding me.

 

Unionist

vaudree wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Yet, both Obama and Harper, like Mulcair, claim to support a "two-state solution".

Harper supports a two state solution - that is news to me.

No kidding? News to you?

Quote:

What is Canada's position?

Canada declared its opposition to Palestinian membership in July and on Sept. 20 Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters at the UN that the Palestinian move could be "counter-productive" to the peace process.

"I think there’s no likelihood of this initiative by the Palestinian Authority doing anything to further the peace process," he said.

The Canadian government says it supports a two-state solution reached through negotiations.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/09/19/f-palestinian-un-faq.html]... FAQ[/url]

So if Mulcair supports a two-state solution - and doesn't support immediate Palestinian membership in the U.N. - then he's right up there with Obama and Harper.

I think SDD is hopefully regretting that he called the CJPME statement "false" and is doing some further research into the question.

Mulcair's extreme pro-Israel stands are painfully on the record. One can hold one's nose and support him. But to deny the truth and launch accusations against those who tell the truth? That's a different matter altogether.

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

vaudree wrote:
Neither Topp and Singh have seats and that disqualifies both of them from consideration.

Wilf pointed out earlier that Mulroney, Chretien and Harper all didn't have a seat when they won the leadership. That's what? The PM's last 22 of 24 years?

Policywonk

dacckon wrote:

Topp has released his enviromental plan.

 

So what do you guys think? (I skimmed over it, do the work for me and debate it here)

 

And if Topp reappears on babble, what do you think of geoengineering?

 

Oh, and I guess I need to take out a last minute membership.

I didn't think it was very coherent. He mentions a National Energy Strategy which talks about transitioning to a low-carbon economy followed by Canadian Energy Strategy which says nothing about conservation, efficiency, or renewables.

A truly useful plan would be more comprehensive and address the links between climate change, ocean acidification and ozone depletion, and advocate biological carbon sequestration, such as biochar and diversified carbon-negative aquaculture. And these are no longer science-based targets; an 80% reduction by 2050 is inadequate as a global target, let alone a Canadian target, even if 1990 is used as a benchmark. These reductions were already in Party policy, and the goal should be a limit to the global mean temperature rise of say 2 degrees C and/or a carbon dioxide concentration (350 ppm would be a good one, although we have to get emissions on a downward trajectory before we can even hope to limit rising concentrations let alone reduce them). This would require taking a leading role in addressing climate change internationally, rather than merely meeting our obligations.

I also think we should be a bit beyond having a separate Environment Plan, particularly one that talks about energy policy. Most of this should be in an Economic Plan for a transition to a socially and environmentally sustainable economy.

Not that any of the other candidates have much of an integrated plan either, or recognize the need for one.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Policywonk wrote:

dacckon wrote:

Topp has released his enviromental plan.

 

So what do you guys think? (I skimmed over it, do the work for me and debate it here)

 

And if Topp reappears on babble, what do you think of geoengineering?

 

Oh, and I guess I need to take out a last minute membership.

I didn't think it was very coherent. He mentions a National Energy Strategy which talks about transitioning to a low-carbon economy followed by Canadian Energy Strategy which says nothing about conservation, efficiency, or renewables.

A truly useful plan would be more comprehensive and address the links between climate change, ocean acidification and ozone depletion, and advocate biological carbon sequestration, such as biochar and diversified carbon-negative aquaculture. And these are no longer science-based targets; an 80% reduction by 2050 is inadequate as a global target, let alone a Canadian target, even if 1990 is used as a benchmark. These reductions were already in Party policy, and the goal should be a limit to the global mean temperature rise of say 2 degrees C and/or a carbon dioxide concentration (350 ppm would be a good one, although we have to get emissions on a downward trajectory before we can even hope to limit rising concentrations let alone reduce them). This would require taking a leading role in addressing climate change internationally, rather than merely meeting our obligations.

I also think we should be a bit beyond having a separate Environment Plan, particularly one that talks about energy policy. Most of this should be in an Economic Plan for a transition to a socially and environmentally sustainable economy.

Not that any of the other candidates have much of an integrated plan either, or recognize the need for one.

 

Good grief, Charlie Brown? Can you speak NDP?

Policywonk

RevolutionPlease wrote:

vaudree wrote:
Neither Topp and Singh have seats and that disqualifies both of them from consideration.

Wilf pointed out earlier that Mulroney, Chretien and Harper all didn't have a seat when they won the leadership. That's what? The PM's last 22 of 24 years?

All of them had safe seats to parachute into that had been Liberal or Conservative/Reform for a long time I think.

Brachina

RevolutionPlease wrote:

vaudree wrote:
Neither Topp and Singh have seats and that disqualifies both of them from consideration.

Wilf pointed out earlier that Mulroney, Chretien and Harper all didn't have a seat when they won the leadership. That's what? The PM's last 22 of 24 years?

Both parties were well established governing parties with no expectation of a challenge to the rotating power arrangement, so they could afford that.

The NDP on the other hand is in a fragile situation, with the liberal just freshly having been displaced with many allies in the media that wish the return of the liberals. Plus thier is the BQ which hungers for its seats back.

In a decade or two we could afford someone unelected, but right now we don't have the time.

Plus I don't like the idea of somebody being forced out of cacus for either of them, it seems unfair.

Policywonk

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

dacckon wrote:

Topp has released his enviromental plan.

 

So what do you guys think? (I skimmed over it, do the work for me and debate it here)

 

And if Topp reappears on babble, what do you think of geoengineering?

 

Oh, and I guess I need to take out a last minute membership.

I didn't think it was very coherent. He mentions a National Energy Strategy which talks about transitioning to a low-carbon economy followed by Canadian Energy Strategy which says nothing about conservation, efficiency, or renewables.

A truly useful plan would be more comprehensive and address the links between climate change, ocean acidification and ozone depletion, and advocate biological carbon sequestration, such as biochar and diversified carbon-negative aquaculture. And these are no longer science-based targets; an 80% reduction by 2050 is inadequate as a global target, let alone a Canadian target, even if 1990 is used as a benchmark. These reductions were already in Party policy, and the goal should be a limit to the global mean temperature rise of say 2 degrees C and/or a carbon dioxide concentration (350 ppm would be a good one, although we have to get emissions on a downward trajectory before we can even hope to limit rising concentrations let alone reduce them). This would require taking a leading role in addressing climate change internationally, rather than merely meeting our obligations.

I also think we should be a bit beyond having a separate Environment Plan, particularly one that talks about energy policy. Most of this should be in an Economic Plan for a transition to a socially and environmentally sustainable economy.

Not that any of the other candidates have much of an integrated plan either, or recognize the need for one.

 

Good grief, Charlie Brown? Can you speak NDP?

Can you understand basic science?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Given Topp's  comments yesterday, I'd venture a guess Topp would ask Mulcair to step down. More booze and popcorn! Laughing

GregbythePond

@Winston post #80

Wow , cool out of context spin. Do you work at HQ for the Cons?

My quote, related to "planet babble", and I think you just demonstrated its accuracy - yet again.

flight from kamakura

i don't think there's any chance whatever that topp would ask mulcair to step down.  mulcair has the support of a large plurality/approaching majority of the caucus, he's the face of the party in quebec, and he's the best parliamentary performer.  topp would have to be out of his mind to do that.

though i hope mulcair wins, if topp wins, i hope he goes with jeanne-le ber, that would be a perfect fit.

Brachina

RevolutionPlease wrote:

I'm looking for the same guidance Hoodeet. FFK's comments about visible minorities in Quebec have also given me cause for concern. Especially with FFK's promises and ideas to take nominations away from sitting NPD MP's.

 

Wus up wit dat?

 

Tom has the inside track but I have this nagging stomachache with the way his supporters are acting. The strongest PR folk on babble are leaning to Topp or less so Cullen it seems. (waiting on Wilf) The win government is strongly in favour of Mulcair. He, along with Cullen seem most able to connect. (Dewar also seems to have this) I'm glad Singh is in the race but I've heard the spiel. With Romeo out (F***) I'm glad Ashton is still around but need to see more. Likewise, Peggy. I've really been disappointed with Nash. (Is this cutthroat stuby really just a man's game still? We need new politics) So my Ashton criteria just went back up. It's so hodge-podge.

 

I guess, overall, the historic gains by the party (thanks to Quebec) are what will ultimately determine my vote. But I'm less likely today than yesterday to assume that Mulcair can deliver that. And more likely to not write Dewar off. Folks should really think about how they do their politics. It may only be about 10 members that I influence but remember that old commercial? ... as so on and so on?

 

Jack Layton inspired Canada, Quebec and First Nations. He united us. That's what our next leader has to continue. There's lots of time for us to make up our mind. Keep your mind free and open and let's all be a better party for it.

 

 

For the record not all Mulcair supporters agree with FKK on vengefulness. I think Helena made a bad choice, but friendship can cloud the judgement of us all.

Still choosing Dewar over Mulcair is ignoring the voices of the vast majority of Quebecers on the hopes his french get much, much better super rapidly.

Still what will be will be, I respect the will of democracy.

Not that I'm worried, because if it looks like,Dewar might win, my bet is Nash and Top endorse Mulcair, they're smart enough to know what a Dewar win would mean.

vaudree

RevolutionPlease - re Nash - me too. I think she has energy but her upbringing tends to tone down the expression of it.

Re seats - when Cretien did not have a seat, the NDP were not deemed to be a threat to the Liberals so he could afford to got out and get his name known. The NDP have the Liberals and the Bloc nipping at our heels and media who are trying to help them regain ground. It is a different situation.

Unionist - I thought that, at the time of Libby's blunder, Jack established that Harper's policy has changed to a one state solution. Also, the piece that Avi Lewis put out for Fault Lines also hints strongly that Harper in no way shape or form embraces the two state solution. During the piece, Avi admits that he experienced racism at school as a child to the point where his father and mother took him and his sisters out of school for a bit. He figures he knows the difference between anti-semiticism and what Harper believes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ2MY58RunM

I think that you all know Avi's mother, father and wife.

 

DSloth

RevolutionPlease wrote:

vaudree wrote:
Neither Topp and Singh have seats and that disqualifies both of them from consideration.

Wilf pointed out earlier that Mulroney, Chretien and Harper all didn't have a seat when they won the leadership. That's what? The PM's last 22 of 24 years?

Yeah and they were all Grits and Tories. New Democrats like Jack and Alexa chose not to strong arm one of our duly elected MPs out of a seat.

Don't get me wrong if Topp wins he'll have to do just that, being without a Leader of the Official Opposition in the House is untenable, but it's going to leave a bad taste in my mouth.  For Mulroney, Chretien and Harper it was easy to get someone to fall on their sword, they always have plenty of cushy patronage to hand out, how is Topp planning on pushing out one of our MPs?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

flight from kamakura wrote:

i don't think there's any chance whatever that topp would ask mulcair to step down. 

 

 

I was kidding, which is why I added: "More booze and popcorn! Laughing "

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

So, it's just spin so far? Noone can acknowledge that perhaps the back seat gives a better view of the distance?

Unionist

vaudree wrote:

Unionist - I thought that, at the time of Libby's blunder, Jack established that Harper's policy has changed to a one state solution.

Look, I don't know what's in Harper's dark heart, I'm just talking about the government's official position. [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/01/30/pol-cp-baird-mideast-israe... is an example from Jan. 30:

Quote:
"The status quo is not an option. We support a two-state solution that is negotiated by the two parties in good faith and without preconditions," Baird said, largely steering clear of the main issues of contention between the two sides.

If this is the slightest bit different from Mulcair's official position, I'd like to see a link. Does Baird mean it? Nah, he supports Israel 150%, and doesn't ever want to see Palestine come into being. Prove to me that Mulcair's "real" intent is different.

Anyway, that's not the point. The CJPME, which is a very respected organization, has issued a press release distinguishing Mulcair from the other candidates by pointing out that he does not support Palestine's current bid for recognition at the U.N. - besides accusing him of bullying over the Gaza and similar issues. We all saw the bullying, big time, of Libby Davies. The CJPME has been accused in this thread of lying. That accusation should be backed up, or retracted.

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Policywonk wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

dacckon wrote:

Topp has released his enviromental plan.

 

So what do you guys think? (I skimmed over it, do the work for me and debate it here)

 

And if Topp reappears on babble, what do you think of geoengineering?

 

Oh, and I guess I need to take out a last minute membership.

I didn't think it was very coherent. He mentions a National Energy Strategy which talks about transitioning to a low-carbon economy followed by Canadian Energy Strategy which says nothing about conservation, efficiency, or renewables.

A truly useful plan would be more comprehensive and address the links between climate change, ocean acidification and ozone depletion, and advocate biological carbon sequestration, such as biochar and diversified carbon-negative aquaculture. And these are no longer science-based targets; an 80% reduction by 2050 is inadequate as a global target, let alone a Canadian target, even if 1990 is used as a benchmark. These reductions were already in Party policy, and the goal should be a limit to the global mean temperature rise of say 2 degrees C and/or a carbon dioxide concentration (350 ppm would be a good one, although we have to get emissions on a downward trajectory before we can even hope to limit rising concentrations let alone reduce them). This would require taking a leading role in addressing climate change internationally, rather than merely meeting our obligations.

I also think we should be a bit beyond having a separate Environment Plan, particularly one that talks about energy policy. Most of this should be in an Economic Plan for a transition to a socially and environmentally sustainable economy.

Not that any of the other candidates have much of an integrated plan either, or recognize the need for one.

 

Good grief, Charlie Brown? Can you speak NDP?

Can you understand basic science?

 

If that's basic science, no I can't. :(

 

And I don't think many of our supporters could either. I'm on your side, just looking for plain english.

vaudree

Judging by actions and not just words ...

When Jack picked Libby as Health Critic, the optics included the fact that she was a strong proponent of Insite.

What are the optics when Harper decides who does what in his cabinet?

That is one of the early acts of the new leader is to pick a shaddow cabinet - which will show the direction of the party.

marciam

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

dacckon wrote:

Topp has released his enviromental plan.

 

So what do you guys think? (I skimmed over it, do the work for me and debate it here)

 

And if Topp reappears on babble, what do you think of geoengineering?

 

Oh, and I guess I need to take out a last minute membership.

I didn't think it was very coherent. He mentions a National Energy Strategy which talks about transitioning to a low-carbon economy followed by Canadian Energy Strategy which says nothing about conservation, efficiency, or renewables.

A truly useful plan would be more comprehensive and address the links between climate change, ocean acidification and ozone depletion, and advocate biological carbon sequestration, such as biochar and diversified carbon-negative aquaculture. And these are no longer science-based targets; an 80% reduction by 2050 is inadequate as a global target, let alone a Canadian target, even if 1990 is used as a benchmark. These reductions were already in Party policy, and the goal should be a limit to the global mean temperature rise of say 2 degrees C and/or a carbon dioxide concentration (350 ppm would be a good one, although we have to get emissions on a downward trajectory before we can even hope to limit rising concentrations let alone reduce them). This would require taking a leading role in addressing climate change internationally, rather than merely meeting our obligations.

I also think we should be a bit beyond having a separate Environment Plan, particularly one that talks about energy policy. Most of this should be in an Economic Plan for a transition to a socially and environmentally sustainable economy.

Not that any of the other candidates have much of an integrated plan either, or recognize the need for one.

 

Good grief, Charlie Brown? Can you speak NDP?

Can you understand basic science?

 

If that's basic science, no I can't. :(

 

And I don't think many of our supporters could either. I'm on your side, just looking for plain english.

I understood the science and appreciate Policywonk's post!  However, I thought RevolutionPlease's Charlie Brown comment was a joke at the expense of the NDP, which has long disappointed me by failing to adopt a strong climate justice position.

CanadaApple

I sent e-mails out to both the Topp and Mulcair teams, asking if etiher of them would be in my area any time. Mulcair's team said no, but Topp's said they would be pretty close, but still a bit of a distance for me. Not sure if I'll be able to go, but I sure would like to. The real question is how? = P

Stockholm

I very much doubt that IF Brian Topp became leader, he would actually have to "ask" anyone to step down so he could run in a byelection. In fact, I would wager that someone has already made the offer and that if he becomes leader it will be a done deal on March 25. I'm sure there are at least a couple of NDP MPs from Quebec who didn't expect to get elected and may find that the job is more than they bargained for and want an "exit strategy". No one will be coerced into making way for him.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture
marciam

To refer back to thread #99...

Stockholm wrote:

FYI Marciam, Dosanjh did not "lose because of vote splitting" if you compare the results in Vancouver South in 2008 and 2011 you will note that it was one of the few ridings in BC where NDP support did not go up at all. Dosanjh lost in 2011 because people shifted from Liberal to Conservative. I think Liberals should quit trying to blame the NDP for their losses and instead think about how to win bak all the votes they lost to the Tories.

Btw: Dosanjh was a dreadful Health minister. In November of 2005, Layton made an offer to Dosanjh whereby the NDP would have given the Martin government another lease on life if only the Liberals would agree to actually enforce the Canada Health Act and crack down on private for profit clinics. Dosanjh refused and the rest is history!

@Stockholm, when I posted that comment about Vancouver South, I didn't mean I supported this member's views--it's just that this is the kind of thing I'm hearing from people, and I'm willing to work with these people to achieve common goals.

However, I can kind of see where this member was coming from with her vote-splitting perception. As trusty Wikipedia tells me, Dosanjh's support went down by 506 votes, but the NDP candidate's support went up by 1176 votes, and also increased as a percentage of the total. (The Green vote also dropped by 914.) The problem was that 3462 more people voted, and the Conservative vote went up by 3414 votes. Without knowing the votes of individuals in both 2008 and 2011, it's difficult for me to understand how we know that Liberal supporters mainly switched to the Conservatives (maybe you have that information?), but it's easy for me to see how some would perceive the Liberals and NDP to have split the non-Conservative vote and facilitated a Conservative win. Am I missing something?

Stockholm

...or maybe the Liberals and the Conservatives "split" the non-NDP vote?? Its weird that people in BC of all places keep spouting this myth of the Liberals as a progressive party. Take a hard look in the mirror, your premier Christy Clark is an unswervingly die-hard federal Liberal. She was a former ministerial assistant in Ottawa, she is a big Paul Martin fan and her estranged husband was  top organizer for Stephane Dion. She is also a fanatically rightwing premier whose top advisors are religious right nutbars like Ken Boessenkool and company. She is prancing around the province trying to be seen in public ith Stephen Harper at every opportunity and she is had the likes of Chuck Strahl and Stockwell Day singing her praises.

If the Liberals are such a "progressive" party - then why is Canada;s biggest federal Liberal booster - Christy Clark busily allying herself with the most reactionary Tories imaginable in a desperate bid to keep the NDP out and to make sure that BC continues to have a totally reactionary government???

The proof is in the pudding. When federal Liberals have to choose between allying themselves with the NDp or allying themselves qwith the Conservatives - they will always choose the latter.

marciam

No disagreement from me there.

I do, however, refuse to reject my neighbour as a valued NDP voter and member just because she said she liked a Liberal MP and was sorry to see him lose to a Conservative.

Stockholm

Dosanjh had a choice. When Michael Ignatieff decided to tear up the coalition agreement with the NDP and prop up Harper FOR THREE YEARS IN EXCHANGE FOR nothing - Dosanjh should have resigned from the Liberal caucus. By accepting Ignatieff's pro-Harper leadership - he relinquished any right to call himself a progressive and he richly deserved to be defeated. Dosanjh like Rae is an opportunistic "user" of people. He "used" the NDP for many years. Many people put time and money into volunteering for him and believing in him...then he betrayed them all by becoming a Paul Martin Liberal and on top of that he was more than happy to be the Liberal "attack dog" against the NDP in BC.

If Dosanjh is reading this I just want to say: YOU MAKE ME SICK!!!!!

Lord Palmerston

I think Dosanjh would have an easier time sneaking back into the NDP than Rae (who may very well want to).

Winston

Thank-you for posting this: it was a very good short documentary. 

vaudree wrote:

Unionist - I thought that, at the time of Libby's blunder, Jack established that Harper's policy has changed to a one state solution. Also, the piece that Avi Lewis put out for Fault Lines also hints strongly that Harper in no way shape or form embraces the two state solution. During the piece, Avi admits that he experienced racism at school as a child to the point where his father and mother took him and his sisters out of school for a bit. He figures he knows the difference between anti-semiticism and what Harper believes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ2MY58RunM

I think that you all know Avi's mother, father and wife.

socialdemocrati...

Unionist wrote:
I think SDD is hopefully regretting that he called the CJPME statement "false" and is doing some further research into the question.

Mulcair's extreme pro-Israel stands are painfully on the record. One can hold one's nose and support him. But to deny the truth and launch accusations against those who tell the truth? That's a different matter altogether.

It IS false that Mulcair is against a Palestinean state, because he's come out and said he's for it. I guess we can play semantics, as a lot of the Mulcair detractors like to do with a single word here or there, on the meaning of "in the near future". But to say he's against the long-standing NDP policy is false, because the long-standing policy is a two-state solution.

I think the point is there's room in the caucus for all kinds of opinions on the conflict, as long as you support a two-state solution. I'm not sure what we achieve when we take sides, thinking we're helping the good guys when we're really just inflaming the conflict. I say that just as much of Harper's unflinching support for Israel as I can for the urge to call Israel an apartheid state: maybe the shoe fits, but what are you accomplishing other than thumbing your eye in one of the parties we are asking to trust us as a neutral mediator and peacebroker?

Having said that, I'd like to get Mulcair on the record on the UN bid for statehood. That's an interesting question that I care about.

socialdemocrati...

And just for good measure, here's what Jack Layton had to say about the NDP on this issue:

Quote:
Our party has always been principled and constructive in how it addresses this complex issue; we recognize the right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peaceful co-existence in viable, independent states with negotiated, agreed-upon borders. We are committed to working with like-minded allies in the region to make concrete and lasting progress toward peace.

...

On issues that divide Canadians, New Democrats have tried to build as much common ground as possible around our caucus table. This kind of collegial approach builds a strong team, one that can stand up to Stephen Harper and speak as one voice on critical issues. By working together as a caucus, we achieve better results for progressive Canadians. And when we have different views on the way we approach an issue, it’s important that we work through those differences in a constructive manner, like a family. New Democrats will always work to create opportunities to build bridges between conflicting perspectives, as much as possible.

...

Our Deputy Leaders, Libby Davies and Thomas Mulcair, are key members of our caucus team, a team that has been so effective in holding Harper to account. Both Tom and Libby have my full confidence.

It's too bad these words will probably be dismissed as fluff. "Jack, if you were REALLY committed to peace, then you would denounce/demand..." But Jack's wise words here are incredibly important for the peace process.

Policywonk

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

dacckon wrote:

Topp has released his enviromental plan.

 

So what do you guys think? (I skimmed over it, do the work for me and debate it here)

 

And if Topp reappears on babble, what do you think of geoengineering?

 

Oh, and I guess I need to take out a last minute membership.

I didn't think it was very coherent. He mentions a National Energy Strategy which talks about transitioning to a low-carbon economy followed by Canadian Energy Strategy which says nothing about conservation, efficiency, or renewables.

A truly useful plan would be more comprehensive and address the links between climate change, ocean acidification and ozone depletion, and advocate biological carbon sequestration, such as biochar and diversified carbon-negative aquaculture. And these are no longer science-based targets; an 80% reduction by 2050 is inadequate as a global target, let alone a Canadian target, even if 1990 is used as a benchmark. These reductions were already in Party policy, and the goal should be a limit to the global mean temperature rise of say 2 degrees C and/or a carbon dioxide concentration (350 ppm would be a good one, although we have to get emissions on a downward trajectory before we can even hope to limit rising concentrations let alone reduce them). This would require taking a leading role in addressing climate change internationally, rather than merely meeting our obligations.

I also think we should be a bit beyond having a separate Environment Plan, particularly one that talks about energy policy. Most of this should be in an Economic Plan for a transition to a socially and environmentally sustainable economy.

Not that any of the other candidates have much of an integrated plan either, or recognize the need for one.

 

Good grief, Charlie Brown? Can you speak NDP?

Can you understand basic science?

 

If that's basic science, no I can't. :(

 

And I don't think many of our supporters could either. I'm on your side, just looking for plain english.

Still not sure what speaking NDP is. Most of what I wrote should be comprehensible to the average person. Biochar is something you can look up, as is ocean acidification and the link between climate change and ozone depletion.  Essentially Topp says nothing new, is far from comprehensive enough, his emissions targets are inadequate, and most of what he says, particularly on energy, should be in economic policy. As I said though, none of the other candidates have done any better.

nicky

Here is a recent letter from Tom on the Middle East:

Thank you for contacting my campaign regarding issues concerning the Middle East, which are of utmost importance to me—as they are to party members and Canadians alike.
 
 
As Leader of the New Democratic Party, my approach to the Middle East would be rooted in our party's long standing values and policies. As I outlined in my recent policy announcement regarding foreign affairs, I am committed to an approach to foreign policy that integrates trade, aid, military, human rights, and climate change policies. Canada should offer preferential trade and assistance to countries based on their commitment to human rights, labour standards and environmental protection. As Prime Minister I would also work to implement the recommendations of the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility to ensure Canadian corporations, especially in the mining and extracting industries, conform to international standards.
 
Canada's role in the Middle East should be, first and foremost, that of an honest broker representing our common values—supporting all those committed to the pursuit of peace, justice, democracy and economic development that benefits the average citizen, not only the elite.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a human tragedy that has continued for far too long. I reject the one-sided approach taken by the current government. Support for Israel and the Palestinians is not a zero-sum game. Support for Israel’s existence must not come at the expense of Palestinian national aspirations, and vice-versa. Both peoples have an absolutely equal right to self-determination.
 
Towards a two-state solution:
 
The NDP has a longstanding policy of support for a negotiated two-state solution which includes the right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace in viable, independent states with negotiated, agreed-upon borders. A State for Palestinians existing alongside a State for Israelis—two states for two peoples—is the best guarantor for peace, security, prosperity, democracy, and social justice for both Israelis and Palestinians. An NDP government must work with both Israelis and Palestinians to forge that comprehensive peace accord and mark a final end to this conflict.
 
As we work toward the goal of a negotiated peace, I would follow the path laid out by our party caucus: Canada should support efforts by the Obama administration and other governments to negotiate language at the United Nations that would recognize the right of both states to exist while reaffirming the need for a negotiated settlement to the conflict rather than simply walking away from the table as has been the case with the current government. If we are to be an honest broker—if we reject the current government's one sided approach—we must hold both sides in this conflict to the same standard.
 
Borders:
 
Israeli settlements in the West Bank have been one of the chronic impediments to peace and constitute a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. The consensus on how best to resolve this issue, as articulated by U.S. President Barack Obama, is through mutually agreed upon land swaps between Israel and the Palestinians in charting the definitive border between the two states. Based on UN Security Council Resolution 242, Israel must withdraw from territories occupied in 1967 in exchange for an end of conflict and acknowledgement of its right to exist in peace and security within recognized borders, free from threats or acts of force. An NDP government must push both sides to abide by Resolution 242 and reach a comprehensive peace agreement without delay.
 
Refugees:         
 
Canada, as the gavel holder of the Refugee Working Group tasked with finding a solution for Palestinian refugees, is well placed to take a leadership role on the world stage in resolving this fundamental aspect of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. With our history of peaceful dispute resolution, Canada can have a major impact in helping the parties to overcome this critical impasse, successfully ameliorating the situation of the Palestinian refugees and helping them to settle permanently, with dignity and full rights, in a Palestinian state or their host countries. Canada’s government must step up to the plate and play a more active role in solving this pressing problem.
 
The debate here at home:
 
The debate about issues in the Middle East is intense and yet highly sensitive to many of those involved. As leaders, we should encourage an open and constructive debate. Canada can regain its reputation as a bridge builder. The NDP position on this issue, which is and always has been my position, seeks to achieve a lasting peace. That should be the only goal.

Thomas Mulcair

Winston

Thomas Mulcair wrote:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a human tragedy that has continued for far too long. I reject the one-sided approach taken by the current government. Support for Israel and the Palestinians is not a zero-sum game. Support for Israel’s existence must not come at the expense of Palestinian national aspirations, and vice-versa. Both peoples have an absolutely equal right to self-determination.

...

If we are to be an honest broker—if we reject the current government's one sided approach—we must hold both sides in this conflict to the same standard.

...

Israeli settlements in the West Bank have been one of the chronic impediments to peace and constitute a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention.

...

Based on UN Security Council Resolution 242, Israel must withdraw from territories occupied in 1967 in exchange for an end of conflict and acknowledgement of its right to exist in peace and security within recognized borders, free from threats or acts of force.

...

The NDP position on this issue, which is and always has been my position, seeks to achieve a lasting peace. That should be the only goal.

Doesn't sound like an Israeli shill to me.  Not to mention the fact that he sounds a lot more versed on the topic than some of our leadership contenders.

KenS

The problem is that it is more subtle than that.

He's not an [absolute] shill for Israel. But that's a very low bar. You could say the same thing about Canada's overtly Zionist organizationss.

I think Unionist is right. And maybe I can put it differently. Mulcair has numerous times, in practice undermined the NDP's position on Palestine and Palestinians, which is more than just the limited formal policy. He just always remains this side of formally and explicitly contradicting it.

I have not put the effort into it, but I would not be surprised if you would find it questionable whether he has even faithfully stayed within the NDP's formal positioning. He hs just never to my knowledge flat out explicitly contradicted it.

Winston

KenS wrote:

I think Unionist is right. And maybe I can put it differently. Mulcair has numerous times, in practice undermined the NDP's position on Palestine and Palestinians, which is more than just the limited formal policy. He just always remains this side of formally and explicitly contradicting it.

How so?  By not using the word, "apartheid"?  I doubt you'll find very many statespersons (on the Left, the Right, whatever) anywhere in the world who will resort to using that language.

There's plenty of hatred and blame to go around on both sides of that conflict, albeit with one side holding considerably more power (hence the difference in tactics).  Our response as a VERY BIT PLAYER needs to be nuanced and appeal to the moderates on both sides.  I don't want a one-sided "Palestinian" PM of Canada any more than I want a one-sided "Israeli" one.

Beyond that, do we not have enough problems here in Canada to work on resolving (by winning power and implementing CANADIAN POLICY), or are we going to select our leader based solely on falsely-perceived differences on MIDDLE-EAST policy, over which Canada has next to no influence?

Give your head a shake!

Unionist

Thanks, Winston and sdd, for digging up material that proves:

1. Mulcair supports Obama's policies (which includes, of course, opposition up to the threat of veto to Palestine's current bid for recognition at the U.N.);

2. Opposition to Israeli implementation of Resolution 242 (which is to withdraw to their pre-1967 borders and end the unlawful occupation) unless they get something in exchange from the Palestinians (this is even worse than the U.S.'s official policy);

3. Silence on the blockade of Gaza.

Not that any of that is surprising. I voted and worked for Mulcair knowing all that and holding my nose, because there's more to life than one person's opinion on the Middle East.

The only little thing that disturbs me is that in the course of a knock-down drag-'em-out say-anything-at-all so-called leadership race, that sdd would accuse the CJPME for making a false statement, when that statement is literally true - namely, that Mulcair has not supported Palestine's bid for statehood at the U.N.

What further bothers me now is to read Winston's statements suggesting that we should take a balanced position as between Israel and Palestine. That's not acceptable on an anti-imperialist discussion board. But of course, "anti-imperialist" is still a matter for debate and interpretation here. If Canada sends troops to attack Libya, or Afghanistan, or whoever is next, it's all debatable. Especially if the NDP supports it.

And sdd, maybe you could quote, one more time, and I mean QUOTE, which excerpt from the CJPME statement you are calling "false". Or, you could retract your charge and then complete your investigation. There's always time left to call them liars if in fact you ever find any evidence.

 

Winston

Unionist wrote:

What further bothers me now is to read Winston's statements suggesting that we should take a balanced position as between Israel and Palestine. That's not acceptable on an anti-imperialist discussion board. But of course, "anti-imperialist" is still a matter for debate and interpretation here. If Canada sends troops to attack Libya, or Afghanistan, or whoever is next, it's all debatable. Especially if the NDP supports it.

Leaving Libya aside (I tend to agree with you on that one), I happen to agree with a balanced position vis a vis Israel and Palestine.  And if that makes me not "anti-imperialist" enough for this board, then I suggest you flag my comments as offensive and have me suspended (we do have a precedent for that, I believe).

Quite frankly, I occasionally find some of the anti-Israel sentiment here as offensive as I find the pro-Israel sentiment coming out of Harper's office.  If the NDP adopted the approach and tactics some babblers do on this issue, its doubtful I could support it. 

If people want the NDP to focus exclusively on this issue in making their leadership determination, then they can have at it.  Fortunately, I believe that most New Democrats don't think everything boils down to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and think that there are pressing matters here at home over which we have some power to affect that require more of our focus.  

Unionist

Winston wrote:

Quite frankly, I occasionally find some of the anti-Israel sentiment here as offensive as I find the pro-Israel sentiment coming out of Harper's office. 

That's becoming obvious. That's sad. I consistently try to refer to the Israeli regime as war criminals, mass murderers, and international pariahs. I guess that sounds over the top to you.

Quote:
If the NDP adopted the approach and tactics some babblers do on this issue, its doubtful I could support it.

And that's the difference between you and me. I didn't vote against Mulcair, even though I knew about his pro-Israel extremism long before you did. You, on the other hand, are capable of saying this in one post:

Winston wrote:
Beyond that, do we not have enough problems here in Canada to work on resolving (by winning power and implementing CANADIAN POLICY), or are we going to select our leader based solely on falsely-perceived differences on MIDDLE-EAST policy, over which Canada has next to no influence?

... and then immediately after, saying might withdraw your support from the NDP if it adopted an approach on the Middle East that you didn't like!

I think, with respect, Winston, that there's a struggle going on within your politicial conscience that could lead you to say, in one breath, that it's really not that important, and in the next, that it could change your political partisanship. I hope you resolve that dilemma. I suffer from the same contradiction, and I explained to you how I resolved it in the case of Mulcair. But one thing is impermissible - lying to oneself or to others. That's my message to sdd.

Quote:
If people want the NDP to focus exclusively on this issue in making their leadership determination, then they can have at it.  Fortunately, I believe that most New Democrats don't think everything boils down to the Israel/Palestine conflict, and think that there are pressing matters here at home over which we have some power to affect that require more of our focus.  

There you go again. Now it's not that important. I wish you luck with this.

 

KenS

KenS wrote:

I think Unionist is right. And maybe I can put it differently. Mulcair has numerous times, in practice undermined the NDP's position on Palestine and Palestinians, which is more than just the limited formal policy. He just always remains this side of formally and explicitly contradicting it.

Winston wrote:

How so?  By not using the word, "apartheid"?  

Terribly reductionist,trivializing, and misrepresenting of positions.

FWIW, its known I dont support Mulcair. But I'm also with Unionist on this: if I were considering him [and I suppose I am since he's probably my second or third choice], what Mulcair has done on this front would not in itself drive me towards not supporting him.

 

Unionist

KenS wrote:

KenS wrote:

I think Unionist is right. And maybe I can put it differently. Mulcair has numerous times, in practice undermined the NDP's position on Palestine and Palestinians, which is more than just the limited formal policy. He just always remains this side of formally and explicitly contradicting it.

Winston wrote:

How so?  By not using the word, "apartheid"?  

Terribly reductionist,trivializing, and misrepresenting of positions.

 

Exactly - and the hallmark of lack of conviction. Equivalent to namecalling.

Gaian

quote:"Terribly reductionist,trivializing, and misrepresenting of positions."

Great Gaia. The chutzpah :)

Gaian

Hopefully someone will be able to bring forward a quote from Tom Mulcair to end this endless misrepresentation and self-aggrandizement.

Winston

I guess I am just not extremist enough for your tastes.  I suppose that means I fail the purity test in spite of my 20+ years in the Party.

The NDP has never been a party of extremes on the Middle East or any other issue; it has been about advancing the cause of working people and finding common ground with people.  If it becomes solely a soapbox for those who want to peddle absolutes, then I might have to question my allegiance.

That said, notwithstanding the views of some of you, I am pretty certain that all of the leadership candidates' views on the Middle East are closer to Mulcair's than to yours.

MegB

CFL

Pages

Topic locked