NDP Leadership #115

118 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ippurigakko

For me, believe that he would endorse Ashton or Mulcair.

 

Let me ask you if he endorse Dewar, are you shock/surprise?

Michelle

No worries, Rebecca West, I knew what Unionist meant.  I wasn't completely clear in my post that I had caught the timing, and I took it in the spirit it was intended.  Unionist has always shown lots of respect for my point of view and contributions here (even when we disagree). 

But I understand where you're coming from re: the horserace threads and guys.  The horserace culture of leadership races is kind of a male mode of campaigning and politics and punditry, sort of like sports coverage is, even though there are lots of women who get caught up in it just as much as the guys.  But it will probably always be more of a "guy thing" because the very parameters have been shaped by "guy culture".  Not sure if I'm saying this well or not.  Oh well.  The thread will close soon anyhow. :)

Hunky_Monkey

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Hopefully he'll jump to the Liberals.

Yes, let's push everyone away who doesn't recite the Regina Manifesto by heart. Maybe we should have all NDP members recite it before joining? And before a committee? And make sure it's done before voters go into the ballot box if they intend to vote for us. If not, instruct them to vote for another party.

Sound good, Lord? :)

Howard

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Hopefully he'll jump to the Liberals.

Considering that Martin Singh has been in the NDP for a very long time, is a long time member of the Faith and Social Commission, and a donor to the party I doubt he is leaving anytime soon. Most of his comments about a businessman making a good Prime Minister/Leader were set up as a contrast to PM Harper, who Singh says likes to talk about what a good economic manager he is and how good he is for business but has never run a business. Singh likes to point out how pro-business Harper has spent virtually his whole life as a lobbyist or politician and has almost no experience in the private sector.

Brachina

Lord Palmerston wrote:

My assessment of the debate today: Niki Ashton impressed me the most.  The best part of the debate for me was when she took on Dewar's "no negative campaigning" which she rightly pointed out is really a means of stifling any discussion of his poor French. She pointed out that her mother tongue is Greek and her constituency is 96% anglophone, yet she learned French and that Dewar despite representing bilingual Ottawa and thus had far greater opportunities never bothered to take advantage of ample opportunities to do so. And Martin Singh's performance was disgraceful, his closing remarks were mainly attacks on 2 candidates and he kept repeating the right-wing line that business people are more qualified to govern than anyone else. Hopefully he'll jump to the Liberals.

I wasn't able to see the debate, what sort of insults did Singh hurl and at who?

socialdemocrati...

I'm okay with Singh. He's making an important point and doing it badly. We have a perception problem when it comes to the economy, and the way he talks about it, he makes it sound like we have a genuine management problem. I don't think that makes him some kind of turncoat. He should run to become an MP. I wish all pharmacists believed in national pharmacare.

Unionist

Michelle wrote:

No worries, Rebecca West, I knew what Unionist meant. 

As usual. Smile

Quote:
I wasn't completely clear in my post that I had caught the timing, and I took it in the spirit it was intended. 

Actually, I thought the full account of the timing was in the comments, which I hadn't posted - that's why I said what I said. But maybe, subconsciously, I was doubting your analytical abilities... Unintended, and I'll think about that.

Quote:
Unionist has always shown lots of respect for my point of view and contributions here (even when we disagree).

Especially when we disagree. Cool

I'm not sure I've said this before, but thanks for being here, Michelle.

 

Lord Palmerston

In Singh's concluding statement, he trashed Nash (for never living in Quebec) and Topp (for supposedly implying that he wasn't a "real NDPer" for opposing his tax plan).  

Stockholm

I forgot about Singh's comments about Nash. I thought it was very dumb of him to start pointing a finger at Peggy and denounce her for saying she had any understanding of Quebec on the grounds that "no one who had never lived in Quebec could possibly claim to have any understanding of Quebec". If that's the case, then i guess Singh also is admitting he doesn't know anything about Quebec since he has never lived there either. What a stupid thing to say!

AnonymousMouse

Lord Palmerston wrote:

In Singh's concluding statement, he trashed Nash (for never living in Quebec) and Topp (for supposedly implying that he wasn't a "real NDPer" for opposing his tax plan).  

I don't think Singh was attacking Nash at all. I think he was using her comment about the importance of understanding Quebec as a jumping off point to talk about whether HE could credibly claim to understand Quebec given that HE'S never lived in Quebec. Otherwise the comment makes absolutely no sense because, as he himself pointed out, he's not from Quebec either. It was just badly executed.

Topp, on the other hand, Singh really was attacking.

socialdemocrati...

I guess Singh has nothing to lose. May as well see if he can gain some traction by landing some punches.

I hope he stays in the race. Not just for his sake but for everyone else's sake. If he ended up dropping out and endorsing someone now, he'd almost certainly be seen as a "sockpuppet" for those attacks.

mabrouss

I know I'm probably going to be attacked by someone for saying this however I'm going to anyway.

 

I've watched all of the debates and have been following this vote every day and I have always been having trouble deciding on a candidate. I think that I know why that is. Now I know that there is no way that we could ever replace Jack and we shouldn't be trying to find someone who is the exact same as him. But there is one quality that I found he had that for some reason I feel lacking so far into the contest. Whenever I listened to Jack talk there was always this sense of compassion. This feeling that you knew he really cared about the common person and would do everything in his power to do some good. Hearing him speak he would talk about the parts of our society that have been left out of our political system and would talk about issues for those who did not have a voice. Now maybe it is because this is a really close race and who knows what can happen with this kind of multi ballot voting but I feel that none of these candidates have been able to engage in that way. They feel much more like traditional politicians and not one of us fighting for us.

 

Hopefully I'm wrong and we find a candidate that can not only win but can also inspire. A leader that can not only beat Harper but can remind us that what it is that we are striving towards is right.

Wilf Day

Chajusong wrote:
People from the Mulcair and Nash and Cullen camp are crying foul because the Topp camp came in trampled over the opposition. . .

With 14 instamembers. Apart from Michelle's point -- don't we want new members? -- I'm still waiting for the answer to my earlier question -- how did Topp get so much youth support that 14 members put him over 50%?

Unionist wrote:

I was disgusted to hear about USW endorsing Topp, CAW endorsing Nash, SEIU endorsing Mulcair... who the fuck do they think they are? By "they" I mean the leadership cliques of these unions, plus those candidates who bask in the glow of snagging an endorsement? How dare some small groups in charge of organizations of hundreds of thousands of workers express an official preference, on behalf of the entire union, for a candidate?

Why does no one question such things, which I find borderline obscene?

Maybe it's a question of openness. As far back as 1970 the Steelworkers leadership was visibly working for Stephen Lewis in the contest between him and Walter Pitman, while Pitman had some support from CUPE and other unions. There was no official endorsement by Steel, but it was pretty obvious. I was working for Pitman, but I found nothing wrong with Steel's tendency to solidarity. I'm sure the Steelworkers caucused at every CLC convention, and no one complained. But this is the first race I've ever seen official endorsements. I don't know why or how it happened, but yes, I question it, with some diffidence since I have no business complaining about what the Steelworkers or any other union does. I do wonder if Quebec CAW members are happy with the Nash endorsement, for example.

mabrouss wrote:
Hopefully I'm wrong and we find a candidate that can not only win but can also inspire. A leader that can not only beat Harper but can remind us that what it is that we are striving towards is right.

What she/he said.

nicky

Threehundredeight.com has now posted the full figures from the recent Forum Research poll on Quebec's preferences in the leadership debate.

Among Quebecers as a whole:

Mulcair. 46
Topp. 5
Dewar. 2
Cullen. 2
Nash. 2
Ashton. 2
Singh. 1

Among NDP supporters:

Mulcair. 58
Topp. 6
Nash. 2
Dewar. 1
Cullen. 1
Ashton. 1
Singh 1

Leaving out the undecideds, 82% of NDP supporters in Quebec back Mulcair.

Anyone want to argue this is just name recognition? Stockholm?

Lord Palmerston

With all these union endorsements, I'm assuming Mulcair's views have evolved since 2005:

Thomas Mulcair wrote:
So it's a simple question of management. We have a business-like approach; we're managing the government. The PQ doesn't know how to manage. So what people will have at the time of the next election is a smaller government, lower taxes, better services. A winning solution.

Who's against this? Who's out there fighting? The unions. To give you an example: in some hospitals we had as many as 50 unions or accreditation units. You were paying with your tax dollars union representatives to be off all the time because when they work at the hospital then they go off for a day of reunion, they get paid for it. So we're going to be saving $50 million dollars. But the unions aren't happy because the $50 million doesn't transit through them anymore.

So they're giving us a tough fight but unions don't rule the province, our government does. And in another three years, you'll see the public will be on our side because they'll have realized that we delivered on all our key promises.

http://www.the-news.ca/tln/papers/Ch13-09.pdf (p. 19)

Of course people can change, and maybe he can be excused because he was just repeating his party's talking points and didn't really believe them? 

KenS

From quite a ways back:

nicky wrote:

The stories also say that Topp has received 150,000 in personal loans. I am curious about a couple things. Perhaps Ken S can help because he seems on top of funding intricacies. How do the personal loans play into this? Has Topp really got a war chest of 333,000? Or can he only spend what he actually takes in from individuals and repay his loan from that. What if he does not take in enough to cover his loans? Can he still spend that? It seems that candidates have to file every two months, although I am not certain of this. do they need to reveal all of their contributions before the vote? If they have controversial contributors can they hold back on those till after Feb 29 so we may not know about them before the 24th?

 

I'll stick to short[er] answers, ninimize the nerd stuff. And it will have to be scattered over a number of posts.

Brachina

Lord Palmerston wrote:

With all these union endorsements, I'm assuming Mulcair's views have evolved since 2005:

Thomas Mulcair wrote:
So it's a simple question of management. We have a business-like approach; we're managing the government. The PQ doesn't know how to manage. So what people will have at the time of the next election is a smaller government, lower taxes, better services. A winning solution.

Who's against this? Who's out there fighting? The unions. To give you an example: in some hospitals we had as many as 50 unions or accreditation units. You were paying with your tax dollars union representatives to be off all the time because when they work at the hospital then they go off for a day of reunion, they get paid for it. So we're going to be saving $50 million dollars. But the unions aren't happy because the $50 million doesn't transit through them anymore.

So they're giving us a tough fight but unions don't rule the province, our government does. And in another three years, you'll see the public will be on our side because they'll have realized that we delivered on all our key promises.

http://www.the-news.ca/tln/papers/Ch13-09.pdf (p. 19)

Of course people can change, and maybe he can be excused because he was just repeating his party's talking points and didn't really believe them? 

I guess the labour leaders and the union leaders believe he's changed, or at least the ones that have endorsed him.

I have a theory. I do think Mulcair has evolved over time, I think he started out fighting for federalism and said some shit and defended some shit that he shouldn't have, because his boss told him too and that was just the way Quebec politics was, but once in power, it wasn't just smack talk, he had real power and it stopped being just about fighting for federalism, he had to figure out what he believed in beyond that and his dipper roots from his young woke up and this in time lead to the clash with Jean Charest, because I think he realized his true values beyond federalism did not match Charest's. And in the end he left the QLP and joined the NDP which at the time did not seem a route to power, but rather a place where he could be true to himself, both as a federalist and as a social democract.

In a way Mulcair was the exact opposite of Martin and Chrien, ran towards the right, but governed (his ministery) to the left. Said to be the most progressive enviromental minister in North American history.

I glad he's found his true home.

KenS

Topp's campaign is the only way that filed what MIGHT be what Elections Canada asked for. Given who the financial agent is, that does not surprise me.

Most campaign managers do not want their opponents to have access to this information. [Let alone whether they think of the possible PR effects.] They will know, or can find out from someone, the EC is not scrutinizing. That all that really matters is the information you put on the final and definitive. That you can tell the truth that you had that loan since October, and that it will not even be mentioned you did not report it in the periodic reports.

I would only file some trivial piece of information. It is pretty clear that is what the rest of the campaign have done around loans. With the possible exception of Dewar- and even they at a minimum did not file literaly what is asked for.

Brachina

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Lord Palmerston wrote:

In Singh's concluding statement, he trashed Nash (for never living in Quebec) and Topp (for supposedly implying that he wasn't a "real NDPer" for opposing his tax plan).  

I don't think Singh was attacking Nash at all. I think he was using her comment about the importance of understanding Quebec as a jumping off point to talk about whether HE could credibly claim to understand Quebec given that HE'S never lived in Quebec. Otherwise the comment makes absolutely no sense because, as he himself pointed out, he's not from Quebec either. It was just badly executed.

Topp, on the other hand, Singh really was attacking.

Sounds like a communication error, except for the attack on Topp, I wonder where this feud came from.

KenS

I think it unlikey Topp still has both the $100K loan and the $50K line of credit oririnaly filed for. I think he probably just has the $100K personal loan / loan facility.

For the resons stated, we have no idea what the other campaigns have. For all we know, both Mulcair and Topp could have in the range of $200K in personal loans available.

All the campaigns run the race and will end the race with debt. It is not feasible to do otherwise. They keep raising the funds after the race is over. Could one of them dip massively into spending debt? There is nothing to stop them, but the consequences are not trivial and I'll go a bit into that.

KenS

The law says that any loan not repaid is deemed a contribution, and is therefore in violation. This is what caught the Liberals. The law has been changed, but it is still not clear what is supposed to happen to violators. But the PR costs to the party are nasty anyway.

None of the campaigns is going to raise during the race anything close to the spending limit [travel costs have to be covered by fundrasing but do not count in the limit]. So theoretically, you could substantially outspend your opponents with debt and bank on rasining the money after.

You can be certain the party has told all the campaigns that they WILL only go into debt what they can repay quickly. They may even have clubs they will use. No campaign is going to go there lightly. Might one of them make a decision to go for broke anyway? Possibly, but I dont think so.

 

KenS

For semi-arcane reasons I wont go into I think Mulcair might be the only possible exception to that. But I cannot see any reason why he would go there.

 

Contributions are different than loans. This IS a central concern of EC, and the party is directly involved and responsible. So while a campaign could play games with when they report contributions to keep them off the rport we just got, I doubt that it happened.

KenS

I think Martin's 'feud' with Topp is both simple and pretty trivial.

Martin found a flaw in Topp's tax proposal. No proposal like that is going to cover everything nad its guaranteed will have to be at least tweaked and fine tuned.

Topp's last answer to Martin is the right one: it would be easy to exempt charitable donations. His policy already explicitly made other exceptions. My guess is that when Martin first made the point, it surprised Topp, and he did not roll with it well. There isnt a big deal in that.

I didnt see this last debate, but it sounds like Martin got a bit carried away. "Why did you lie?" Etc. Sounds like Martin thought he had his moment and wasnt going to let go.

Doesnt sound like a feud to me. Sounds like the proclivity the debates have for schoolyard foolishness that the principles soon forget.

Wilf Day

KenS wrote:

I think Martin's 'feud' with Topp is both simple and pretty trivial.

I think he has decided his second choice is Mulcair, and is picking fights with others so that his recruits will make Mulcair their second preference. His real reasons for not wanting Topp to win are almost certainly less trivial than the capital gains tax rate and charitable donations.

KenS

Mulcair may be his second choice, but No to the rest. This is still Martin Singh's platform for him in the NDP.

DSloth

KenS wrote:

Topp's campaign is the only way that filed what MIGHT be what Elections Canada asked for. Given who the financial agent is, that does not surprise me.

Most campaign managers do not want their opponents to have access to this information. [Let alone whether they think of the possible PR effects.] They will know, or can find out from someone, the EC is not scrutinizing. That all that really matters is the information you put on the final and definitive. That you can tell the truth that you had that loan since October, and that it will not even be mentioned you did not report it in the periodic reports.

I would only file some trivial piece of information. It is pretty clear that is what the rest of the campaign have done around loans. With the possible exception of Dewar- and even they at a minimum did not file literaly what is asked for.

Wow, KenS you're latest line of attack is straight out of the Karl Rove playbook, your candidate has an obvious liability so you accuse his opponent of the same fault first, complete lack of evidence notwithstanding.

 Brian Topp has an obvious problem cashing a 100K loan from his CEO friend so you assume everyone else must have done so as well.  Both Dewar and Mulcair did list the (modest) lines of credit they received (from regular banks) if you're going to accuse them of doing so fraudulently I'd like a little more evidence than what your gut tells you. 

KenS

I'm guessing that Martin's enthusiasm is pretty apparent even to people who do not know him.

He's infectuous. And I have never known him in any other forum to be tiresome. Just reflect a moment on what it must take for him to not be totally ignored... even with that personality to draw on.

When Martin went into this the hope was that he could light things up and ride his own wave. When you know you have not done that, and you were always in this for the distance come what may, then you work with what is available to you. Its not going to be perfect.

josh

Lord Palmerston wrote:

With all these union endorsements, I'm assuming Mulcair's views have evolved since 2005:

Thomas Mulcair wrote:
So they're giving us a tough fight but unions don't rule the province, our government does. And in another three years, you'll see the public will be on our side because they'll have realized that we delivered on all our key promises.

Well, I guess we know which side he is on.

 

KenS

You are really, really full of shit. And that is a personal attack for which I ought to flag you.

I did not say anyone was fraudulent. I did not even imply anyone was fraudulent.

I said that there are no consequences to witholding this information, and that there is good reasons for the campaigns to do it- nothing to do with public optics.

And without explaining why, I said that I can tell none of the other campaigns reprted the full story. When I did give the reasons for that opinion in another thread, you heaped the same shit on me.

Nicky asked a question of me, I answered it in good faith. You have nothing to offer but your support of your candidate and the venom that seems to drive you into.

KenS

But since you brought it up Sloth I will offer my explicit tame defence of Topp.

Topp reported that he has a personal loan of $100,000 he can draw on. It is not reported that he has drawn on it. But I dont have a problem treating that as essentially money in the bank, whether it is there or not.

There are no consequences to being incomplete in your reporting about your loans to Elections Canada at this stage of the game. [Unlike with donors.] And there are standard non-devious reasons for any campaign to want to keep that information from opponents.

Take those two facts together, and it means that we have no reason to rely on or make comparisons about campaign reporting of loans. [Plus, I know that 2 of the campaigns reported max loan amounts that could not possibly have covered the most minimal travel costs, staffing and office expenses before the contribution levels were more than a trickle.]

So all we know is that Topp has a $100K loan. Any number of campaigns could easily have similar amounts. That does not say they do. But it does say there is no reasonable basis for singling Topp out as the only one with loans like that.

doofy

Another element struck me about the Montreal debate:

As in QC city, Mulcair was the only one to show real sensitivity to QC nationalism. He rattled off a whole list of concrete measures  recognizing the QC nation.

Even Josee Legault (hard-line pequiste) gave Mulcair credit for this.

http://voir.ca/josee-legault/2012/03/04/la-politique-dominicale/

Le Devoir picked up on this as well. Notice what Manon Cornellier says about Nash.

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/344325/code-npd

Mulcair does this instintctely, while the others (even Topp) have a tendency to imagine they are talking in French to "progressives" in Toronto or Vancouver. The QC audience is completely different, and so the discourse must change. Mulcair can do that, w/o appearing to say one thing in English and the opposite in French. This is a critical skill to have for the next leader, and Mulcair appears alone in possessing it.

***

On another note, I will post yesterday's the "coulisses du pouvoir" when it comes on-line. The panel (Chantal Hebert, Alec Castonguay and Pierre Duchesne) is unanimous in thinking Mulcair is best placed to hold the gains in QC , and openly laugh at Topp  pretending he can do the same. I understand people hate listening to journalists, but at a certain point you have to present evidence that your candidate can defy expectations. Otherwise, you are just asking us to rely on blind faith.

***

Wilf, where did you get the #14? I read the facbeook account of the QC youth meeting, and couldn't find it. All I could see was that " Topp filled the room with puppets". From the previous thread (post 96), it also says that "most Topp supporters could not speak French very well". If that's Topp's base of support in QC, forgive me for saying that it does not increase my confidence in his ability to win the nationalist francophone vote.

TheArchitect

Thomas Mulcair wrote:
So it's a simple question of management. We have a business-like approach; we're managing the government. The PQ doesn't know how to manage. So what people will have at the time of the next election is a smaller government, lower taxes, better services. A winning solution.

Who's against this? Who's out there fighting? The unions.

Recently, Thomas Mulcair has been telling us we have to update our approach if we want to win government—and that he offers us a winning solution.

Well, now we know a bit about what Thomas Mulcair thinks a "winning solution" looks like: "smaller government," lower taxes," and misleading people into thinking that they can have "better services" in spite of cuts to those services.

If I want a "business-like approach" to politics that focuses on "smaller government" and "lower taxes" then I'll vote Conservative.

TheArchitect

In other news, CUPE National President Paul Moist has endorsed Peggy Nash.

http://peggynash.ca/2012/cupe-national-president-paul-moist-endorses-peg...

Unionist

josh wrote:

Lord Palmerston wrote:

With all these union endorsements, I'm assuming Mulcair's views have evolved since 2005:

Thomas Mulcair wrote:
So they're giving us a tough fight but unions don't rule the province, our government does. And in another three years, you'll see the public will be on our side because they'll have realized that we delivered on all our key promises.

Well, I guess we know which side he is on.

 

The above quote was made when Mulcair was a minister in the cabinet of the reactionary Charest government (or has anyone out there forgotten that Mulcair was a Liberal lol). Furthermore, what he is obviously talking about is the multiplicity of bargaining units, and the fact that collective agreements allow for paid union leave (a very rare privilege, speaking from personal experience in the private sector!), leading to what he whines about being a huge expense when part-time union reps take off work, on salary, to attend union meetings. He then brags about how they have saved money - I don't know whether they did it by hard bargaining on paid union leave, or on getting the labour board to consolidate bargaining units.

Either way, it's a really really hard stretch to expose Mulcair as being anti-union. Sounds like knowmulcair.com tarring him with every anti-people action of the Charest government.

Do you think St. Jack was unaware of all this when he blessed Brother Thomas and welcomed him into the fold and made him Deputy Leader?

This is the kind of sectarian and petty partisan bullshit which is characteristic of a party that doesn't really want to lead a movement.

On the other hand, an obscure quote of Mulcair saying "I am an ardent support of Israel under all circumstances" is fair ball - why? Because his actions shows that he is still a rabid pro-Israel champion. The same cannot be said about his attitude towards workers and unions.

Six-month divisive back-biting careerist-showcasing self-destructive extreme-fighting horse races tend to bring out arguments like these. As I have stated repeatedly, progressive movements don't operate like this. They try to find ways to unite people (even bad bad bad people like Thomas Mulcair, yeah) in the common cause. And that's one impulse that we have to give Jack credit for. It appears not to have survived him.

R.E.Wood

Nice interview with Nathan Cullen in Xtra! Think it's worth sharing here:

 

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Meet_NDP_leadership_candidate_Nathan_...

Unionist

TheArchitect wrote:

In other news, CUPE National President Paul Moist has endorsed Peggy Nash.

http://peggynash.ca/2012/cupe-national-president-paul-moist-endorses-peg...

I have a lot of time for Paul Moist.

Note the difference between [url=http://cupe.ca/paul-moist/paul-moist-peggy-nash-leader-federal]this[/url]:

Paul Moist wrote:

The NDP leadership contest is perhaps the most important political event taking place in Canada today and after months of keen study of the platforms and watching the debates, I have chosen to give my personal endorsement to Peggy Nash, MP for Parkdale-High Park.

... and this:

[url=http://www.caw.ca/en/10972.htm]CAW President Re-joins NDP to Support Peggy Nash [/url]

So far, so good. But then:

CAW wrote:
The union has thrown its support behind Nash and will be encouraging all registered CAW members to pick Nash as their number one choice when they cast their ballot next month.  Many CAW members and staff across the country have rejoined the party to support Nash.

That's quite a leap - and I'm not singling out the CAW for criticism, because the USW, SEIU, CEP and maybe others have all thrown their union's support behind a candidate, which is so wrong.

 

TheArchitect

Double post.

TheArchitect

Thomas Mulcair wrote:

Smaller government, lower taxes, better services. A winning solution.

Who's against this? Who's out there fighting? The unions.

I must say I'm surprised to see anyone here defending Mulcair's comments.

Conservatives advocate for smaller government.  New Democrats advocate for a stronger, more expansive government that gets results for people.

Conservatives advocate for lower taxes.  New Democrats understand that governments need revenue, and tax cuts always lead to either structural deficits or cuts to services—both of which New Democrats oppose.

Liberals lie and tell people that they can have better services in spite of cuts to those services.  New Democrats understand that cuts to services don't make services better—cuts hurt people.

And while I am not, and have never been, a member of a union, if unions are standing up and fighting back against the "smaller government, lower taxes" agenda, than I'm proud to stand and fight together with Canada's unions for a fair, fraternal and free future.

Clearly, if Mulcair really believes in the "smaller government, lower taxes" agenda, he's unfit to lead the only major federal party in Canada that opposes that agenda.  But if he doesn't really believe in that agenda, and was just saying it in spite of not believing in it, then why should we believe anything else he says?

Unionist

TheArchitect wrote:

I must say I'm surprised to see anyone here defending Mulcair's comments.

So am I. Where did you see that?

Quote:
Conservatives advocate for smaller government.  New Democrats advocate for a stronger, more expansive government that gets results for people.

Uh oh, stump speech alert.

Quote:
Conservatives advocate for lower taxes.  New Democrats understand that governments need revenue, and tax cuts always lead to either structural deficits or cuts to services—both of which New Democrats oppose.

I wasn't aware of that.

Quote:
Liberals lie and tell people that they can have better services in spite of cuts to those services.  New Democrats understand that cuts to services don't make services better—cuts hurt people.

Um, didn't you forget to say: "New Democrats always tell the truth"? Are you suggesting that while "Liberals lie", you're not ready to defend New Democrats against the same charge? Why are you indirectly accusing the NDP of being liars? Hmmmm?

Quote:
And while I am not, and have never been, a member of a union, if unions are standing up and fighting back against the Conservative-Liberal-Mulcair "smaller government, lower taxes" agenda, than I'm proud to stand and fight together with Canada's unions for a fair, fraternal and free future.

Ah, still my throbbing heart! Stand and applaud!!!

Quote:
Clearly, if Mulcair really believes in the "smaller government, lower taxes" agenda, he's unfit to lead the only major federal party in Canada that opposes that agenda.  But if he doesn't really believe in that agenda, and was just saying it in spite of not believing in it, then why should we believe anything else he says?

If St. Jack had seen this quote, he would have consigned Brother Thomas to hellfire and damnation. Thank God we found it, before elevating Thomas to the post of the new Prince of Peace.

Wait a second...

I get it...

You're saying you're Doubting Thomas, right?

 

Unionist

Actually, how did the NDP allow this union-bashing privatizer to be Deputy Leader for so long?

Or member of the caucus?

Or member of the party!?

... when some simple Google searches would easily have revealed his Dark Heart?

 

Rakhmetov

Lord Palmerston wrote:

With all these union endorsements, I'm assuming Mulcair's views have evolved since 2005:

Thomas Mulcair wrote:
So it's a simple question of management. We have a business-like approach; we're managing the government. The PQ doesn't know how to manage. So what people will have at the time of the next election is a smaller government, lower taxes, better services. A winning solution.

Who's against this? Who's out there fighting? The unions. To give you an example: in some hospitals we had as many as 50 unions or accreditation units. You were paying with your tax dollars union representatives to be off all the time because when they work at the hospital then they go off for a day of reunion, they get paid for it. So we're going to be saving $50 million dollars. But the unions aren't happy because the $50 million doesn't transit through them anymore.

So they're giving us a tough fight but unions don't rule the province, our government does. And in another three years, you'll see the public will be on our side because they'll have realized that we delivered on all our key promises.

http://www.the-news.ca/tln/papers/Ch13-09.pdf (p. 19)

Of course people can change, and maybe he can be excused because he was just repeating his party's talking points and didn't really believe them? 

Mulcair in his heart of hearts probably never shared a lot of the reactionary positions of the Charest government, but when you're in cabinet like that you have an obligation to at least publicily support your government's policies.  On the question of unions however, I don't believe he's "evolved" enough, given some of his explicit and incontrovertible attacks on the labour movement in this race.  For instance when he designated them as special interests and outrageously claimed that we can't broaden the base of the NDP if we keep close relations with them: "We have to recognize the importance of the work.... and the heavy lifting done by the union movement to help the NDP, but I also know that we have to connect with Canadians as widely as possible, and that the only interest we should be serving is the public interest."  Really contemptible rot, as if working with democratic institutions that legitimately represent the interests of working people, a majority of society, somehow marginalizes us and is not in the public interest.  The fact that he has been endorsed by former labour federation presidents and a few unions does not prove he is pro-union.  Unfortunately, some of these labour folks have deluded themselves into thinking that Mulcair's evolved on this issue, and that's he's going to win this race anyway and is the best candidate to take on Harper.  Historically many labour leaders have supported anti-union politicians.  Mulcair's labour support is kind of analogous to when PATCO supported Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election.  Or the unions that supported Bob Rae in the '95 Ontario election. Or even the UAW supporting Obama in 2012.  One of the first things Obama did was engage in massive unionbusting, blackmailing and slashing off a pound of flesh from the UAW, dismantling the auto industry and trying to eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs (counting auto, suppliers, dealerships, and secondary/tertiary jobs), many of them union jobs, in the heart of the manufacturing sector and economy during a major recession.  

And incidentally the context for the quote you cited here Lord Palmerston is very important and an issue that Mulcair has gotten a completely free ride on.  Charest and Mulcair tried to privatize health care in Quebec and were engaged in maybe the worst attacks on public heath care in recent Canadian history, escalating their attacks in the aftermath of the Chaoulli vs. Quebec ruling.  Mulcair on privatizing health care at the time: "why should [procedures] always have to go through something that belongs to the government?... What were saying is that you could always get efficiencies from the private sector because it is always more efficient than the public sector. So you could make partnerships between the public sector and the private sector for provision of services."

Unionist

Hang on... wait for it... I've got some evidence that St. Jack never said a single word against our war in Afghanistan for almost 5 years after we first sent in the troops...

... And hang on a bit more... it seems he was in favour of Harper's Omnibus Crime Bill and disciplined the sole MP to vote his conscience against it...

And I know this sounds totally unbelievable, but there are indications that he led the caucus in supporting the NATO action against Libya!

And don't get me started on Roy Romanow crushing workers' strikes with Brian Topp as his right-hand person...

Conclusion: If I can hold my nose firmly and look at the big picture, so can people who are more forgiving of the NDP's sins than I am.

The big picture (in the short and medium term): Stopping Harper. I advocate unity with whatever forces are ready to join in that struggle.

Rakhmetov

Unionist wrote:

Actually, how did the NDP allow this union-bashing privatizer to be Deputy Leader for so long?

Or member of the caucus?

Or member of the party!?

... when some simple Google searches would easily have revealed his Dark Heart?

Well you can be facetious all you want, but his comments are on the record.  Frankly Layton should have demoted him after his despicable tirade against Libby Davies for her accurate comments about the Nakba.  It is useful to have Mulcair in the party and he obviously played an important role in the Orange Crush in Quebec, but that's quite distinct from letting him take over the party.

Stockholm

Regarding Martin Singh's tactless comments at the end of the debate yesterday when he accused Topp of lying. I think that part of what probably happened is that people are often less self-aware and inhibited about saying inappropriate things when speaking a language they don't speak very well. Singh probably would not have dared to say "You lied" in English...but speaking in French he probably didn't know the right words for "What you said two weeks a go was misleading" in French...so he fell back on saying "tu as menti" and didn't realize how bad that sounds in French.

Unionist

Rakhmetov wrote:

Well you can be facetious all you want,

Thanks!

Quote:
... but his comments are on the record.

Yes, and his comments reflect the brutal anti-worker anti-union policy and practice of the government of which he was a member. I will suspend judgment on his true nature, just as I will on Brian Topp and others who have been personally involved in attacking worker and union rights in the past. But if we exclude them all, there will be no one left except those who haven't had time to betray yet.

Quote:
Frankly Layton should have demoted him after his despicable tirade against Libby Davies for her accurate comments about the Nakba. 

Frankly, it was only a concerted effort by many people that stopped Libby from getting dumped for her correct and principled stand. As for Layton, you will recall his abject "apology" to the Israeli ambassador. Should Layton have been demoted for that? Why are you taking such an inconsistent stand on these matters?

Quote:
It is useful to have Mulcair in the party and he obviously played an important role in the Orange Crush in Quebec, but that's quite distinct from letting him take over the party.

Now there we have it. From the start, I blasted this horrendous horse race as being a beauty contest to select a new dictator for the party. I openly questioned why the NDP needs a Dear Leader, when Québec solidaire has shown that we can do just fine without one. One of the reasons I tore up my NDP membership many years ago was the youthful realization that it is the Leader and hir clique of advisors that say and do whatever they damn well please, not the membership. I was naive.

But thank you, so much, for confirming that this horse race is about choosing a single individual who will "take over the party" - because that's exactly what is under way.

 

Rakhmetov

Unionist wrote:

Hang on... wait for it... I've got some evidence that St. Jack never said a single word against our war in Afghanistan for almost 5 years after we first sent in the troops...

... And hang on a bit more... it seems he was in favour of Harper's Omnibus Crime Bill and disciplined the sole MP to vote his conscience against it...

And I know this sounds totally unbelievable, but there are indications that he led the caucus in supporting the NATO action against Libya!

And don't get me started on Roy Romanow crushing workers' strikes with Brian Topp as his right-hand person...

Conclusion: If I can hold my nose firmly and look at the big picture, so can people who are more forgiving of the NDP's sins than I am.

The big picture (in the short and medium term): Stopping Harper. I advocate unity with whatever forces are ready to join in that struggle.

Romanow's record is pretty awful, and Mulcair wants to go in that direction (and ironically Topp doesn't seem to want to).  I really don't like some of those positions that Layton took, but it's kind of irrelevant.  Despite embracing some more "moderate" polices, and dropping things like talking about inheritance taxes, etc.., Layton overall moved the NDP to the Left when he took over after McDonough.  The NPI felt happy enough about him moving the NDP back to the Left that they disbanded.   

The big picture is that Mulcair is moving the party backwards to the 90s and the right, is divisive and will have the hardest time bringing the party back together, and he will probably alienate the Left-wing base of the NDP in 2015 and cost us the election. 

Stockholm

The "leftwing base' of the NDP is much much smaller than most people want to admit and i hate to say it but when they have a choice between Mulcair and four more years of harper, they will vote Mulcair - better half a loaf than no loaf at all.

Rakhmetov

Unionist wrote:

Rakhmetov wrote:

Well you can be facetious all you want,

Thanks!

You're welcome.

Quote:

Yes, and his comments reflect the brutal anti-worker anti-union policy and practice of the government of which he was a member. I will suspend judgment on his true nature, just as I will on Brian Topp and others who have been personally involved in attacking worker and union rights in the past. But if we exclude them all, there will be no one left except those who haven't had time to betray yet.

I quoted his unequivocal anti-union comments in this race as well. 

Quote:
Frankly, it was only a concerted effort by many people that stopped Libby from getting dumped for her correct and principled stand. As for Layton, you will recall his abject "apology" to the Israeli ambassador. Should Layton have been demoted for that? Why are you taking such an inconsistent stand on these matters?

Right, it's a credit to those folks who stopped Libby from getting dumped when she was right.  I'm not being inconsistent at all of course.  You can't demote Layton when he's leader, doesn't mean he shouldn't have apologized to the ambassador.

Quote:
Now there we have it. From the start, I blasted this horrendous horse race as being a beauty contest to select a new dictator for the party. I openly questioned why the NDP needs a Dear Leader, when Québec solidaire has shown that we can do just fine without one. One of the reasons I tore up my NDP membership many years ago was the youthful realization that it is the Leader and hir clique of advisors that say and do whatever they damn well please, not the membership. I was naive.

But thank you, so much, for confirming that this horse race is about choosing a single individual who will "take over the party" - because that's exactly what is under way.

Well no single individual is going to literally take over the party, but unfortunately a lot of power of course is centralized in the leadership.  That's the reality, and I agree with you it's not pretty.

doofy

Here is the clip from "coulisses du pouvoir". Watch their attitude towards Mulcair vs. Topp  in terms of saving the NDP in QC (starts at about 9 min)

http://www.radio-canada.ca/emissions/les_coulisses_du_pouvoir/2011-2012/...

 

Rakhmetov

Stockholm wrote:

The "leftwing base' of the NDP is much much smaller than most people want to admit and i hate to say it but when they have a choice between Mulcair and four more years of harper, they will vote Mulcair - better half a loaf than no loaf at all.

Disagree with you about the NDP base, and I hope you're right that they will hold their noses and vote Mulcair, but it doesn't usually happen.  You win elections by playing to your base, and their enthusiasm and energy will win over the centre and independents.  Carole James tried what Mulcair is advocating and it was a disaster.  As Tielemen has pointed out, 5000 NDP voters in key ridings from 2005 stayed home in 2009.  We would have won just if we had the same 2005 votes but James was unable and unwilling to mobilize the base and instead tried to reach out to people who would never support her.  Mulcair, James and their ilk like to talk about "broadening the base" but what they really mean is that they are shrinking the party.  Mulcair has said nothing at all that will win over the centre more than the other candidates, but he is going to shrink the base.  The Tea Party were pretty far right but they managed to broaden the Republican base and win over the centre and independents in 2010.  Same with Obama against McCain (with the latter being hated by GOP activists).  Bush was radical right-wing but animated his supporters and won in 2004 against Kerry who wasn't very popular with rank-and-file Democrats.  Same with HW Bush and Gerald Ford. etc.. etc..

Pages

Topic locked