NDP Leadership $116

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

DSloth wrote:

flight from kamakura wrote:

weird, christine moore just endorsed dewar!  i hope to god that saganash doesn't do the same, 

Seems likely, given the timing. 

Heaven forbid. I'm hereby officially taking up religion and praying to all the gods that Roméo doesn't do anything as vile as is suggested above.

Forgive me, Lords, for my decades of errant atheism. I have strayed, but I am returnèd unto the Fold. Accept my prayers in the spirit of self-deprecation in which they are proffered.

Your humble and worthless supplicant,

Unionist

Hunky_Monkey

Catchfire wrote:

Hunky_Munkey wrote:
And that was an attack? Priceless. Absolutely priceless.

Yes. It's an attack to accuse someone of signing up just to "tear down" a candidate they don't like. Some people are actually invested in this race because they care about politics, not partisanship. And your "ridiculous" comment alludes (as you always do, without accusations, only innuendo) to the anti-Mulcair conspiracy on babble--which somehow incompetently lets 50% of the leadership threads get taken up with endless Mulcair propaganda.

I didn't say he/she signed up to do that. Nice try. Endless Mulcair propaganda? I think it's time you removed yourself as a moderator from these NDP leadership threads.

NorthReport

Quite the article which is totally biased news reporting.

 

The NDP, echoing the PQ

The tensions and the nationalist-friendly policies remind me of a show I’ve seen before

http://www.montrealgazette.com/echoing/6253648/story.html

socialdemocrati...

Saganash endorsing Dewar would do less to help Paul and more to embarass Romeo.

I'm not counting on it.

Rakhmetov

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Rakhmetov wrote:

I don't know what you mean "comparing him to a report he didn't write."  I didn't compare him, I simply mentioned how in the Romanow report it outlines the problems of creeping privatized health care, and specifically talks about exactly what Mulcair was advocating for in the Charest gov't and how dangerous it is.

And again, I'm talking about things he's said in this race too, not just 15 years ago.

He didn't advocate that in the Charest gov't. He campaigned on the Quebec Liberal platform. Quite different picture than you're painting.

I hate to keep repeating the quote, but here it is, unambigious.  Mulcair: "All were saying is that if you need to have cataracts surgery, why wouldn't it be possible to set up a system where you could go to a clinic, that happens to belongs to the doctor and have your surgery there. The government would still pay for the surgery. So why wouldn't the government be able to contract, for a thousand cataract surgeries, with some doctor that has their own clinic. Why should
[procedures] always have to go through something that belongs to the government? If somebody
owns an MRI machine that could produce MRIs at 300$ a copy as opposed to a hospital that does it
for $400, why can't the government buy 10 thousand MRIs from this clinic over the next five years
and contract that out. 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."

Rakhmetov

It's interesting how any criticism of Mulcair gets immediately misrepresented here, often with a lot of hostility.  Again, I didn't say that Mulcair is calling to privatize health care today, I'm talking about his previous record.  And I'm amazed that so many social democrats here don't seem to care about the most salient issues concerning the privatization of health care.  I've been directly quoted Mulcair throughout, you folks can't deny the record.  

BTW Catchfire, I didn't think Hunky Monkey's joke was mean-sprited and didn't take offense.

KenS

Dewar is clearly liked by northern MPs.

What is the surprise they put a great deal of stock in this?

Hunky_Monkey

Rakhmetov wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Rakhmetov wrote:

I don't know what you mean "comparing him to a report he didn't write."  I didn't compare him, I simply mentioned how in the Romanow report it outlines the problems of creeping privatized health care, and specifically talks about exactly what Mulcair was advocating for in the Charest gov't and how dangerous it is.

And again, I'm talking about things he's said in this race too, not just 15 years ago.

He didn't advocate that in the Charest gov't. He campaigned on the Quebec Liberal platform. Quite different picture than you're painting.

I hate to keep repeating the quote, but here it is, unambigious.  Mulcair: "All were saying is that if you need to have cataracts surgery, why wouldn't it be possible to set up a system where you could go to a clinic, that happens to belongs to the doctor and have your surgery there. The government would still pay for the surgery. So why wouldn't the government be able to contract, for a thousand cataract surgeries, with some doctor that has their own clinic. Why should
[procedures] always have to go through something that belongs to the government? If somebody
owns an MRI machine that could produce MRIs at 300$ a copy as opposed to a hospital that does it
for $400, why can't the government buy 10 thousand MRIs from this clinic over the next five years
and contract that out. 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."

That was in response to a question about the Quebec Liberal Party platform!

Unionist

KenS wrote:

Dewar is clearly liked by northern MPs.

De gustibus non est disputandum. Chacun à son goût.

Quote:
What is the surprise they put a great deal of stock in this?

If I had a great deal of stock, I'd put it in my late mother's chicken soup - much healthier and more satisfying than Appal Dewar served hot or cold.

 

 

Hunky_Monkey

Rakhmetov wrote:

It's interesting how any criticism of Mulcair gets immediately misrepresented here, often with a lot of hostility.  Again, I didn't say that Mulcair is calling to privatize health care today, I'm talking about his previous record.  And I'm amazed that so many social democrats here don't seem to care about the most salient issues concerning the privatization of health care.  I've been directly quoted Mulcair throughout, you folks can't deny the record.  

BTW Catchfire, I didn't think Hunky Monkey's joke was mean-sprited and didn't take offense.

Thanks, Rakhmetov.

I'll say again though... he was a candidate for the Quebec Liberal Party. He was an MNA. How many MNAs or MPs would go out and say "I don't support that section of our platform" in the media?

And beyond that... private delivery already occurs in our public system. Jack Layton got a hernia operation at a private clinic that was paid for by his health card.

ETA: doctors are also private in our public system.

Polunatic2

Unionist - I didn't know you were now a mod. Thanks for stepping up! 

Quote:
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?

Actually, it's helped provide me with a little bit of "guidance". Two of what I might call the slimiest, divisive labour "bosses" in the entire labour movement are supporting two different candidates who will both move down to the bottom of my list. I'm not slagging the candidates themselves, just the company they keep. Endorsements work both ways. 

To view it from another criteria filter - if I were to ask myself - "who would most likely be the most divisive and exlucde people like me and my ilk if they were to win", I would use the records of these two divisive labour leaders as "proof" enough.

Unionist

Polunatic2 wrote:

Unionist - I didn't know you were now a mod. Thanks for stepping up!

I've stepped back down since. Turns out I didn't have the qualifications.

Quote:
Two of what I might call the slimiest labour "bosses" in the entire labour movement are supporting two different candidates who will both move down to the bottom of my list. I'm not slagging the candidates themselves, just the company they keep. Endorsements work both ways.

LOL - good point, didn't think of that. But I did think Paul Moist's personal endorsement of Peggy was kinda classier, in that he specifically did not drag all his half-million members along with him. [Geez, I hope he isn't on your "slimiest" list... you can PM me if you want!]

 

Howard

Stockholm wrote:

Good for Mulcair to pick up the endorsements by Farnworth, Fleming and Kwan...though i hear that Jenny Kwan has such a dreadful reputation in the BC NDP - getting backed by her may lose him more votes than it gains!

Jenny Kwan was the "fall person" for the Baker's Dozen revolt that pushed Carole James out of the leadership. The task likely came to her because she was beyond reproach as the most senior, respected, female, and visible minority MLA the NDP had in the legislature. She served as one of only two BC NDP MLAs after the party got drubbed in the 2001 election.

Rakhmetov

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Rakhmetov wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Rakhmetov wrote:

I don't know what you mean "comparing him to a report he didn't write."  I didn't compare him, I simply mentioned how in the Romanow report it outlines the problems of creeping privatized health care, and specifically talks about exactly what Mulcair was advocating for in the Charest gov't and how dangerous it is.

And again, I'm talking about things he's said in this race too, not just 15 years ago.

He didn't advocate that in the Charest gov't. He campaigned on the Quebec Liberal platform. Quite different picture than you're painting.

I hate to keep repeating the quote, but here it is, unambigious.  Mulcair: "All were saying is that if you need to have cataracts surgery, why wouldn't it be possible to set up a system where you could go to a clinic, that happens to belongs to the doctor and have your surgery there. The government would still pay for the surgery. So why wouldn't the government be able to contract, for a thousand cataract surgeries, with some doctor that has their own clinic. Why should
[procedures] always have to go through something that belongs to the government? If somebody
owns an MRI machine that could produce MRIs at 300$ a copy as opposed to a hospital that does it
for $400, why can't the government buy 10 thousand MRIs from this clinic over the next five years
and contract that out. 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."

That was in response to a question about the Quebec Liberal Party platform!

No it wasn't, you quoted me there, why did you quote me if you weren't referring to what I was saying in my comments?  Someone else brought up those anti-union comments he made while in the Charest gov't and then I began raising the broader context of Mulcair's views on private health care during his time in the Charest gov't.  

Hunky_Monkey

Rakhmetov wrote:

No it wasn't, you quoted me there, why did you quote me if you weren't referring to what I was saying in my comments?  Someone else brought up those anti-union comments he made while in the Charest gov't and then I began raising the broader context of Mulcair's views on private health care during his time in the Charest gov't.  

You kind of lost me there...

That quote about private delivery from Mulcair was his "talking points" about the Quebec Liberal platform. Didn't you say that was his opinion and one he pushed the Quebec Liberals to take?

TheArchitect

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Must have been you behind knowmulcair? Anyways, this is getting a little ridiculous. How about you talk up the candidate you're supporting instead of attempting to tear others down.

Hunky_Monkey, perhaps you're under the impression that those of us who are criticizing Mulcair are doing so because of loyalty to some other candidate who we think we can best support by attacking Mulcair.  However, as I've said, I'm actually undecided, and not particularly attached to any candidate in the race.

I'm not criticizing Mulcair out of loyalty to another candidate but out of loyalty to J.S. and to Tommy and to Jack and to all the folks who have worked so hard and given so much to bring our party so very close to government, and whose work must not be squandered.  And out of loyalty to coming generations who we want to see enjoy that fair, fraternal and free future which to build is nothing less than our sacred mission.

And I happen to believe—and I know you disagree—that it would be squandering the work of our past and betraying the promise of that future to allow ourselves to choose leadership that praises "lower taxes" and "smaller government"—Mulcair's word's, not mine—as a "winning solution"—again, Mulcair's words.

Polunatic2

I wasn't referring to Moist Unionist - see my PM. 

Howard

flight from kamakura wrote:

weird, christine moore just endorsed dewar!  i hope to god that saganash doesn't do the same, but it would definitely take some of the steam out of the steady campaign i think we've seen here.

Wow. I don't know if I should feel disappointed in Christine Moore or impressed by Dewar. With the chorus now: can Roméo's endorsement be far away?

Howard

Stockholm wrote:

I don't think its true at all that Jack Layton moved the NDP to the left compared to Alexa MacDonough. I think that the reason the NPI more or less folded when he became leader is that it quickly became apparently that while some people in the NPI had a real ideological agenda - many more simply wanted more charismatic leadership and they associated being on the left with charisma. Layton satisfied the yearning for more charismatic leadership and that was enough for most of the old NPI crowd.

Jack Layton had a lot of activist "stred cred" from his many years of work in the non-profit sector and as a radical on Toronto City Council. I think that led people in the NPI to trust him.

Rabble_Incognito

Apparently, Mr. Mulcair said:

Mulcair Our fundamental believe and willingness is to defend the public health care system. All were saying is that if you need to have cataracts surgery, why wouldn't it be possible to set up a system where you could go to a clinic, that happens to belongs to the doctor and have your surgery there. The government would still pay for the surgery. So why wouldn't the government be able to contract, for a thousand cataract surgeries, with some doctor that has their own clinic. Why should [procedures] always have to go through something that belongs to the government? If somebody owns an MRI machine that could produce MRIs at 300$ a copy as opposed to a hospital that does it for $400, why can't the government buy 10 thousand MRIs from this clinic over the next five years and contract that out. 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.

I would say to Mr. Mulcair the same message I'd give to anyone about the claims of the private sector doing things more efficiently than the public sector: 

If you are willing to defend the public health care system, then don't cherry pick cases contrived to destroy the public health care system.

I would also say to Mr. Mulcair that private sector claims about efficiencies are always at a cost or price that is never mentioned in the proposals. The price is likely to be at the 'expense of workers', cutting corners on quality of care, time, customer relations,  misrepresentation or low balling one bid in order to acquire other more lucrative bids (i.e., making the $300 MRI deal a once only proposition).

I would also ask Mr. Mulcair to please refrain from using all encompassing terms like 'always' because using terms like that will 'usually' come back to bite you. Sealed

Finally, any efficiencies the private sector can achieve (with profit motive), a well managed public sector institution can also achieve, and on a larger scale, because of the massive public purse.

 

flight from kamakura

the comment about the northern mps makes total sense, as does an argument that moore may not want to side with any of the big three, hoping to stay out of a whatever divisions she seems showing up in caucus.

Ippurigakko

I'll put Dewar on my second and cullen drop to third and still hold Ashton on my first choice.

Helen says he improve on his French, if Saganash endorse Dewar, so move on!

Winston

Unionist listed 3 unions (USW, CAW, SEIU) - which two with "slimy" leaders are you talking about, Polunatic?

Polunatic2 wrote:

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?

Actually, it's helped provide me with a little bit of "guidance". Two of what I might call the slimiest, divisive labour "bosses" in the entire labour movement are supporting two different candidates who will both move down to the bottom of my list. I'm not slagging the candidates themselves, just the company they keep. Endorsements work both ways. 

To view it from another criteria filter - if I were to ask myself - "who would most likely be the most divisive and exlucde people like me and my ilk if they were to win", I would use the records of these two divisive labour leaders as "proof" enough.

vaudree

Re: Third Way - I get the feeling that even many of those who liked Tony Blair in the beginning did not like him by the end of his term. I think most who called themselves "third way" before Blair gave that term a bad taste basically figured that one could be socially progressive and financially responsible at the same time  because that was the usual context in which it was used. Not saying that I agree with the term etc, but even those who used the term tended to quietly drop it.

The debate between Pat Martin and Barry Weisleder at convention and Ashton and Mulcair during the debate is over rhetoric matters. Can one change the rhetoric while keeping the same principles or does a change of rhetoric always lead to a change in principles. We would all prefer a better way of saying something  of getting the message across, but few would want to change the substance of a message.

JUDES and David Lewis were on opposite sides of the Waffle/NPI so there are different factions in the party. Speaking of factions, Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis are expecting in June! Speaking of Naomi Klein  I think that one of the Tories just called her a Jew hater in the House today! That boycott, divestment thing she promotes.

 

 

Charles

Just cast my ballot. I can stop thinking about this until the convention. I only ranked four candidates. Those who do not hold a seat did not get a vote from me. Those who are de facto unilingial did not get a vote from me. Feel very very good about my first ballot choice of Tom Mulcair.

Skinny Dipper

I'm still waiting for my ballot.

Unionist

Winston wrote:
Unionist listed 3 unions (USW, CAW, SEIU) - which two with "slimy" leaders are you talking about, Polunatic?

I can't answer for Pol2, but read his post again Winston - he never said they were among the 3 I had named.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I got my ballot today. I am still undecided. Cullen was really good on "The Current" today. He came across as sincere. It was a welcomed change to all the politicking going on.

Winston

Ahhh.  I see.  So the identities of these "slimy" people as well as the company they keep amongst our leadership contenders is to remain hushed.  Laughing

That does beg the question as to why it was brought up so cryptically in the first place, rather than leaving it entirely to PM. Wink

Unionist wrote:

Winston wrote:
Unionist listed 3 unions (USW, CAW, SEIU) - which two with "slimy" leaders are you talking about, Polunatic?

I can't answer for Pol2, but read his post again Winston - he never said they were among the 3 I had named.

nicky

There were two signficant Quebec endorsements today.

1. Natalaie Rochefort, who was elected as an MNA for Mercier in a 2001 byelection and defeated in the two following general elections. She endorsed Topp whose webpage welcoming her on board somehow neglects to mention that she ran each time for the provincial Liberal Party of Jean Charest.

Topp harps on Mulcair having been a part of the "right wing Charest government." Mulcair was of course a Liberal MNA long before Charest took over the leadershp. Rochefort, on the other hand, first ran under his leadership.

As Mulcair has repeatedly explained, the QLP being the only federalist option in provincial politics has attracted a number of progressive MNAs including about five who ran federally for the NDP. Mme Rochefort indeed is one of those and is no doubt a fine endorsement for Topp.

But is it not just a little inconsistent for Topp to welcome a member of Charest's government while at the same time castigating Mulcair for this same reason?

But then perhaps Topp did not know that Rochefort was Liberal? To give him the benefit of the doubt, he did not mention this fact on his webpage so perhaps he did not appreciate that she too was part of this awful right wing government.

2. Christianne Moore, previously declared for Saganash, became Dewar's third caucus backer from Quebec. It frankly baffles me why any Quebec MP would embrace electoral catastrpohe in the person of Paul Dewar.

I was at the Montreal debate on Sunday. There were groans at Dewar's inability to express himself. At the end he received less applause than anyone including Martin Singh. Alone among the major candidates he did not even hold a reception afterwards, doubtless because no would come. The Forum poll pegs his suport at 1% among Quebec New Democrats.

Maybe someone wiser than me can explain.

 

 

KenS

Fairies.

nicky

Thanks Ken. Now I understand.

Unionist

Winston wrote:

Ahhh.  I see.  So the identities of these "slimy" people as well as the company they keep amongst our leadership contenders is to remain hushed.  Laughing

Correct, Winston. Think we're gonna blab those names in public? With impunity??? Sheesh.  Foot in mouthMoney mouthSealed

Quote:
That does beg the question as to why it was brought up so cryptically in the first place, rather than leaving it entirely to PM. Wink

Do you actually have any clue as to what "beg the question" means? It's a logical fallacy, characterized by including the intended conclusion within the assumptions, thereby producing a circular argument. I'm having a hard time dealing with your question, given the violence you've done to well-known categories of logical fallacies. Let me try, though.

Why so cryptically? Simple. In dealing with such matters, our watchword must be silence. The silence of the crypt. A silence so profound, so pervasive, that no wave may penetrate. A panther, prowling on the periphery, past perception. Past everything.

As for the rest?

The rest is silence.

Innocent

 

 

Hunky_Monkey

TheArchitect wrote:

And I happen to believe—and I know you disagree—that it would be squandering the work of our past and betraying the promise of that future to allow ourselves to choose leadership that praises "lower taxes" and "smaller government"—Mulcair's word's, not mine—as a "winning solution"—again, Mulcair's words.

Do you not see that Mulcair as a minister/MNA in a Quebec government had to toe the line? That's all I'm saying, Architect. You're treating it as if it's the holy word of god.

Did you not hear him say on national television that Quebec pays more taxes than the rest of the country but that's ok by Quebecers because of the society they have? Have you not heard him say he's going to propose fairer and more progressive taxation? Have you not heard that he wants to rollback corporate income taxes?

I'm sure if you were an MP over the last eight years, there would have been issues taken by the federal NDP that you would have disliked... no? But as a team player, you have to go along? Mulcair himself said that to me. So I'm not sure why you're so fixated on something that has already been explained.

nicky

La Presse columnist Joel-Denis Bellavance suggests  or could be behind  (in French) 

nicky

REMINDER 

ANDREW CASH IS HOSTING EVENT WTH THOMAS MULCAIR

Tomorrow, March 6, 7:30 pm

at The Caledonian

856 Cullege St West 

Just wet of Ossington

This may be your last chance to see tom in Toronto before the convention.

Jacob Two-Two

As I recall it, the NPI didn't disband because Saint Jack answered all our prayers. It just ran out of steam (I like to think it was an idea ahead of its' time). In fact, the NPI was always meant to be an attempt to make politics happen in a new way, outside of (though still making use of) the electoral horse-races that we're all used to. The NDP gaining a bright new leader was a boon to that agenda, but didn't negate it. Rather, if the concept had held interest, it would have worked great in parallel to a revitalised NDP.

 

"And I happen to believe-and I know you disagree-that it would be squandering the work of our past and betraying the promise of that future to allow ourselves to choose leadership that praises "lower taxes" and "smaller government"-Mulcair's word's, not mine-as a "winning solution"-again, Mulcair's words."

I have neither the time nor the inclination to hunt out the context of these words to determine if they've been misrepresented, but I would like to point out that the mantra of "lower taxes" and "smaller government" is not inherently stupid in all cases. What is stupid is the constant prescription of this for any and all problems by the right-wing. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to any problem. There are bound to be some instances where lower taxes and smaller government is actually the best remedy for the economy. In Canada's case those instances would be hard to find, since the dominant model of lower taxes and smaller government has been overused for so long, yet if you are actually governing, you will come across such cases eventually, and hopefully one would be smart enough to recognise them when they occur, rather than slavishly parroting dogma.

My point is that this is a poor standard for an ideological purity test. It is just as foolish for us to assume that higher taxes and larger government cure all ills as it is for the right to assume the opposite. Every problem has its own unique solution.

Rabble_Incognito

NorthReport wrote:

It boils down to this: In spiking Mulcair's momentum, his e-foes have handicapped the one aspiring NDP leader who clearly has a vision that extends beyond the narrow purview of socialist politics, who can hold Quebec, and who's tough enough to go toe-to-toe with Harper. Odd.

If he's as tough as you say he is, he'll recover.

I'd like to hear Mr. Mulcair at that event. Is there availability? How can we get a seat...just arrive early?

nicky

I would come early. The Caledonian is only a medium sized bar. 

Lord Palmerston

Unionist wrote:
That was my second guess - my memory failed. Thanks for that, B.

In fact, that's exactly what has happened (with or without attendant challenges re freedom of association) at the CBC, all three national railways, and many other multi-union environments, including consolidation of municipal bargaining agents, hospital and health care units, etc. - except that it usually happens by decisions of labour boards rather than legislation. While they save money by having to deal with only a single union instead of many smaller units, it often has the perverse effect of providing workers with a much more powerful voice.

For example, in the mid-1990s, as a result of efforts initiated by the Mulroney government, and strongly backed by CN, about 6 or 7 U.S.-based craft unions (machinists, electricians, etc.) on CN, CP and VIA were ordered to consolidate into one. After a secret ballot on each railway, workers chose the CAW. Not exactly the desired conclusion. Naturally, the 6 unions wept and blasted the government for stomping on the unions. But IMHO this falls far short of what the same governments - and virtually every NDP provincial government - did when crushing strikes and tearing up negotiated collective agreements to reduce benefits.

Having said that, the Charest government has been as bad or worse than the others. But all this trawling for quotes amounts to is saying that Mulcair was a Liberal, and we will never trust him. Why this logic isn't applied to Brian Topp escapes me - oh, I guess because when he was associated with union-bashing, it was the NDP. I have no time for such "logic".

Thank you Bärlüer and Unionist for the clarification.  Mulcair's views may indeed have evolved since then, though it's still disturbing that whatever the merits of the policy he would have reverted to a "the unions are against us" in an interview that's mainly about defending the record of his government.  I could care less what party he was a member of when he made to those comments and yes, Topp is either a hypocrite or his views haved moved leftward since the Saskatchewan experience as well (I'm pretty sure where most people are on this question.)

Wilf Day

nicky wrote:

There were two signficant Quebec endorsements today.

1. Nathalie Rochefort, who was elected as an MNA for Mercier in a 2001 byelection and defeated in the two following general elections. She endorsed Topp whose webpage welcoming her on board somehow neglects to mention that she ran each time for the provincial Liberal Party of Jean Charest.

And was active previously for the NPD-Quebec when it ran provincially. She was an activist in the provincial party until 1991. But in 2006 when she wrote her endorsement of Jack Layton she said she had been a federal NDP member for 20 years, or since 1987. Her idol or model was Svend Robinson. When she was still a student in 1993 she ran for the federal NDP in Saint-Hubert. Jack tried to recruit her as a candidate in 2004. About as far left as any Quebec Liberal MNA has ever been, including Mulcair. Great catch for Topp!

Howard

Wilf Day wrote:

nicky wrote:

There were two signficant Quebec endorsements today.

1. Nathalie Rochefort, who was elected as an MNA for Mercier in a 2001 byelection and defeated in the two following general elections. She endorsed Topp whose webpage welcoming her on board somehow neglects to mention that she ran each time for the provincial Liberal Party of Jean Charest.

And previously for the NPD-Quebec when it ran provincially. She was an activist in the provincial party until 1991. But in 2006 when she wrote her endorsement of Jack Layton she said she had been a federal NDP member for 20 years, or since 1987. Her idol or model was Svend Robinson. About as far left as any Quebec Liberal MNA has ever been, including Mulcair. Great catch for Topp!

She ran against current darling of the Québec left (and sometime NDP ally) Amir Khadir, denying him the brass ring. Smile

Wilf Day

Howard wrote:
She ran against current darling of the Québec left (and sometime NDP ally) Amir Khadir, denying him the brass ring.

From her perspective, since she was the incumbent MNA, Khadir ran against her in 2003, handing the riding to the PQ's Daniel Turp. Although one can also argue that Khadir took more votes from the PQ than from her.

Howard

Wilf Day wrote:

Howard wrote:
She ran against current darling of the Québec left (and sometime NDP ally) Amir Khadir, denying him the brass ring.

From her perspective, since she was the incumbent MNA, Khadir ran against her in 2003, handing the riding to the PQ's Daniel Turp. Although one can also argue that Khadir took more votes from the PQ than from her.

Considering that Amir Khadir ran for the PQ previously, I would go with the latter argument.Smile Khadir ran on an unapologetically left platform, and she ran on the platform of former Tory Jean Charest.

ETA: Just having a little fun at Topp's expense

Bärlüer

Howard wrote:

Considering that Amir Khadir ran for the PQ previously, I would go with the latter argument.

Khadir never ran for the PQ; he ran for the Bloc in 2000, in Outremont.

CanadaApple

Has anyone else noticed that Mulcair keeps mentioning about moving the party "forward, not backward"? Laughing

KenS

That history of Rotchefort , Khadir, and Turp is fascinating- especially Rotchefort's biography.

Just goes to prove Unionist's oft made point about Quebec politics.

nicky

I previously asked some questions about the financial returns and am grateful to KenS for his answers.

I would also like to know whether there will be full disclosure of all contributins before the vote on March 24? 

it seems that Elections Canda issues quarterly reports of contributions. The last one was as of the end of Jan. If this is so the next one will be after the convention.

Is there any internal party rule than obliges full discosure before the 24th?

David Young

1. Nathalie Rochefort, who was elected as an MNA for Mercier in a 2001 byelection and defeated in the two following general elections. She endorsed Topp whose webpage welcoming her on board somehow neglects to mention that she ran each time for the provincial Liberal Party of Jean Charest.

And was active previously for the NPD-Quebec when it ran provincially. She was an activist in the provincial party until 1991. But in 2006 when she wrote her endorsement of Jack Layton she said she had been a federal NDP member for 20 years, or since 1987. Her idol or model was Svend Robinson. When she was still a student in 1993 she ran for the federal NDP in Saint-Hubert. Jack tried to recruit her as a candidate in 2004. About as far left as any Quebec Liberal MNA has ever been, including Mulcair. Great catch for Topp!

Does this discount Rochefort from potentially becoming a candidate in 2015?