NDP Leadership #123

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
socialdemocrati...

Rakhmetov wrote:
Oh come on, have you not been saying thread after thread, along with many others here, that the policy differences between the candidates is very small?  And you've been claiming that here again due to NATO.  Right, no candidate is calling for pulling out of NATO and they mostly all stick to the NDP platform, doesn't mean there aren't fundamental differences between them on foreign policy, and everything else.

If I'm right, then what's the problem?

Also, I'd like to you explain something to me.

How is it possible that we have seven candidates:

  • None of whom want to pull out of NATO
  • All of whom were huge critics of the war in Afghanistan
  • All of whom have supported, at one point or another, a NATO-involved war
  • None of whom have rejected our involvement in Libya
  • None of whom want to pull out of our current trade agreements
  • All of whom have suggested reforms of said trade agreements
  • None of whom support sanctions or a boycott against Israel
  • All of whom have voiced support for UN-sanctioned missions

... and still have any difference on foreign policy that could possible be considered "fundamental"?

Hunky_Monkey

As for Tom's comments, I take it as working with the Liberals pre-election, as Cullen is suggesting and maybe Peggy with "pooling resources". It references going after Liberal voters, not working with the Liberals. But the reporter isn't quite clear if it means a pre-election coalition or governing coalition.

But really... does anyone really think the Liberals would make the NDP government in a minority parliament? Seriously? Be the final nail in their coffin.

socialdemocrati...

FWIW, the media isn't interested in clarity. They're interested in conflict.

Wilf Day

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
... does anyone really think the Liberals would make the NDP government in a minority parliament? Seriously? Be the final nail in their coffin.

It would be the final nail in their coffin if they didn't.

If Harper had lost his bid for a majority last May, and if the NDP and Liberals had won between them a majority of seats, would the Liberals have joined a coalition, or would they have supported Harper on the first confidence vote?

We will never know for sure, but we do know what their voters wanted. On April 28 and 29, 2011, after the Liberals had slipped to third place in the polls, Angus Reid asked how voters would feel about various scenarios. On “The Conservatives win more seats than any other single party, but the Liberals and the NDP have more combined seats than the Conservatives. The Liberals and the NDP form a coalition government” they found 78% of Liberal voters liked it, 17% did not, and 5% were not sure. On “The Conservatives win more seats than any other single party, and form a minority government’ they found only 20% of Liberals liked it, while 76% did not. Of all voters planning to vote Liberal, only 13% said they would never consider voting NDP.

http://wilfday.blogspot.com/2011/08/coalition-canada-almost-had.html

Rakhmetov

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
If I'm right, then what's the problem?

Also, I'd like to you explain something to me.

How is it possible that we have seven candidates:

  • None of whom want to pull out of NATO
  • All of whom were huge critics of the war in Afghanistan
  • All of whom have supported, at one point or another, a NATO-involved war
  • None of whom have rejected our involvement in Libya
  • None of whom want to pull out of our current trade agreements
  • All of whom have suggested reforms of said trade agreements
  • None of whom support sanctions or a boycott against Israel
  • All of whom have voiced support for UN-sanctioned missions

... and still have any difference on foreign policy that could possible be considered "fundamental"?

It "is possible that we have 7 candidates" who do all that because they of course are all going to subscribe to the vast majority of party policy in the context of a leadership race, regardless of any personal reservations they have or if they would do something significantly different after they become leader.  There is a fundamental difference between moving the party to the Right or not.  There is a fundamental difference between Nash and Mulcair on Israel-Palestine.  Mulcair is certainly not advocating that we should take Hamas off the terrorist list and negotiate with them, and that Israel should be the one showing the restraint because they are the occupier.  This is a critical distinction on one of the most important and vexing foreign policy questions there are internationally, and Mulcair is on the wrong side of it.

Stockholm

Still, I think Mulcair needs to clarify that he is not ruling out ever cooperating with other parties (including the Liberals) in a POST-election minority situation. The NDP gained a lot of ground in the last election - esp. in Quebec - by virtue of being the party that was willing to work with other parties to get results for Canadians. Slamming the door on ever even being in the same room with any Liberals AFTER the next election seems like a bit of a gratuitous remark that needlessly closes off options four years in advance!

Hunky_Monkey

Wilf Day wrote:

It would be the final nail in their coffin if they didn't.

If Harper had lost his bid for a majority last May, and if the NDP and Liberals had won between them a majority of seats, would the Liberals have joined a coalition, or would they have supported Harper on the first confidence vote?

I truly don't see the Liberals supporting the NDP. It will be a "we'll support the Conservatives on a case by case basis and they better be careful" line. They have plenty of practise supporting the Tories already in the House.

To legitimize the NDP as government would be the final nail in their coffin.

duncan cameron

Stock nails it. This is a serious error of judgment. Takes him off the list of choices.

Hunky_Monkey

duncan cameron wrote:

Stock nails it. This is a serious error of judgment. Takes him off the list of choices.

You're really jumping the gun there, aren't you duncan?

And I have a feeling he was off your list of choices before this :)

socialdemocrati...

Rakhmetov wrote:
There is a fundamental difference between moving the party to the Right or not.

But you haven't established that. Not when you concede that the broad principles of the party are going to be the same.

Quote:
There is a fundamental difference between Nash and Mulcair on Israel-Palestine.  Mulcair is certainly not advocating that we should take Hamas off the terrorist list and negotiate with them, and that Israel should be the one showing the restraint because they are the occupier.  This is a critical distinction on one of the most important and vexing foreign policy questions there are internationally, and Mulcair is on the wrong side of it.

I agree Peggy Nash is preferable to Thomas Mulcair on this issue. But I think you misunderstand the meaning of "fundamental". Most of the differences between the candidates on this issue are transient, day-to-day. Palestine's UN bid is transient: we won't be still talking about it in 2015. Hamas is transient: they might be the elected government now but they might not be in 2015.

Fundamental would be: one-state or two-states? Settlements are illegal or legal? Trading with Israel, or sanctioning and boycotting Israel?

But now we're playing semantics. I hate semantics. So how about I just give you that "negotiate with a government that might be out of power in a few months" is as fundamental as "one-state or two-states". We're still only talkikng about a conflict that we're not even a party to.

Here are some foreign policy issues that the Canadian government is a *direct* party in, good or bad:

  • Afghanistan
  • Missile Defense / NORAD
  • NAFTA
  • Arctic Sovereignty
  • Funding for Third-World Aid
  • U.S. Border Security
  • Libya
  • The Ottawa Treaty on Landmines
  • The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change (withdrawn)
  • UN Security Council (withdrawn)

What do these issues have in common? They're all directly under the control of the Canadian government, unlike the Canadian government's non-existent role in Palestine. And they're all issues where the differences between the candidates are small.

And that's just foreign policy, which ignores the host of domestic issues that affect the welfare of Canadians far more.

Quote:
There is a fundamental difference between moving the party to the Right or not.

So do you want to take another stab at establishing a rightward shift of any significance?

Wilf Day

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
I truly don't see the Liberals supporting the NDP.

Most Liberal voters will be willing to join a coalition with the NDP; around 83% of them. The old guard leadership in the party will not want to. Many of these are in caucus. But we know the Chretienite wing, including Bob Rae and Stephane Dion, will be willing. The answer is to do, just as Jack Layton (and Brian Topp, and the caucus) did in December 2008 when Ignatieff said "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition:" dare them to chicken out, and make them wear it. Worked pretty well so far, eh?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

The Liberals have shown their true colours in voting with the Conservatives on at least 78 confidence votes since Harper came to power - actually the number is much higher, I can't remember the exact number of times the Libs supported the Cons in confidence votes. It could be over 100! Mulcair is right - the best thing to do is run good progressive NDP candidates in every riding, and push for an outright win. And the Libs have completely rejected Cullen's plan. I'm not convinced the Liberals would ever be open to another coalition agreement with the NDP - they'd rather side with the Conservatives. Look how Dion is attacking the NDP over Quebec, for example.

Hunky_Monkey

Wilf Day wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
I truly don't see the Liberals supporting the NDP.

Most Liberal voters will be willing to join a coalition with the NDP; around 83% of them. The old guard leadership in the party will not want to. Many of these are in caucus. But we know the Chretienite wing, including Bob Rae and Stephane Dion, will be willing. The answer is to do, just as Jack Layton (and Brian Topp, and the caucus) did in December 2008 when Ignatieff said "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition:" dare them to chicken out, and make them wear it. Worked pretty well so far, eh?

Liberal voters, yes. But not the parliamentary party itself. I just don't see it. Now, I just can't see Mulcair increasing NDP seats and bringing the Tories to minority and saying "Piss off, Liberals... I don't want you to make me Prime Minister!"... because that's what people are saying. Really think that's the case? I don't. But again, I just don't see the Liberals doing so. When push comes to shove they have much more in common with the Tories and wouldn't want to legitimize further a true centre-left party which leaves them no ground to pretend they are again.

Brachina

It really depends on which wouldbe liberal leader is wins the liberal leadership as to which way they go in a minority.

That being said Mulcair could try for an accord or seek support issue by issue. Remember we've had many minorities at the federal level, but never an actual true coalition.

Brachina

In other news I was able to finally grab my package and vote. Here is how I voted:

1: Tom Mulcair
2: Nathan Cullen
3: Niki Ashton
4: Saganash
5: Peggy Nash
6: Brian Topp
7: Martin Singh
8: Paul Dewar

You can't see me now, but I'm doing my happy dance right now, I finally got to vote. My Happy dance looks like the joyous dance of the wild Beavoose herds.

Anyway I got a cool pamphlet with each current wouldbe leader getting a page. Oh and there is convention tribute jack Friday March 23, 7pm at convention. I still can't believe he's gone.

Hoodeet

flight from kamakura wrote:

the way it was done in the former yugoslavia would suit me fine, or maybe the way it was done south sudan.  there were actually a lot of good things about libya, though a lot went off the rails.

Hoodeet (JW)

"The way it was done in the former Yugoslavia" was basically bombing the hell out of civilian targets in Belgrade to support the secession of  Kosovo and dislodge Milosevic, the last Socialist standing in the way of the neoliberal takeover of eastern Europe and the  Balkans. 

Unless you were referring to the bizarre UN intervention in Bosnia after the Croatians expelled 100,000 Serbs from their territory and seceded from Yugoslavia (with aid and encouragement from the Germans, the US and the Vatican) and the Croatians in Bosnia tried to do the same, then the Bosnian Serbs effectively set up an independent enclave in Bosnia to remain attached to Serbian-controlled Yugoslavia and  prevent Croatians and Muslim Bosnians from seceding from Yugoslavia altogether... whew... of course it was more complicated than this.  And at the time of the killings of Muslims by Serbs in Bosnia, the Muslim militants already had Bin Laden's gang sending supplies and fighting men  (or was it Al CIAda? I can't seem to keep them straight). That's not in our history books  - only the trauma of Srebrenica and the impotent UN forces. 

So, to rebut you, NO, neither of those attacks was very clean, or honest, or within the bounds of international law, and it should not be repeated under any circumstances, any more than MINUSTAH (the neocolonial takeover of  Haiti) should even be mentioned as a possible model.

As for South Sudan: do  you think for a minute that either side would be satisfied with a partition of Syria?  Moreover, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, Iran,  Jordan, are all very worried about  the situation in Syria and possible spillover into their territory.  Bilateral ceasefire, followed by brokered talks, seems to be the only solution.

Policywonk

duncan cameron wrote:

Ken S I see three distinct differences, two on foreign policy.

Tom supports Nafta because it protects the environment. Nobody else has that position for good reason. It makes no sense.

Tom think the world should have sent boots onto the ground in Syria. No one else has said that. Most would want to know whose boots? Nato jets, like in LIbya, where the NDP eventually dropped its support, or peacekeepers. I see support for diplomacy, pressure on rulers, not support for military action on behalf of the UN in Syria. Tom has that position to himself.

Tom has ruled out coalition with the Libs. His quote could not be more clear. This is not a negotiating position. This is no, everyway it can be said.

I have other reservations about him as a leader but these three policy differences with the other candidates are enough to take him off a preferential ballot as a choice to make.

While I think Tom could have used different language, he does not support NAFTA because it protects the environment, but because it could potentially have some use in protecting the environment if the side agreement was actually used. I don't think any of the candidates would do much different with NAFTA regardless of what they might be saying.

What he would do in a minority situation if it was required to cooperate with the Liberals to dislodge the Conservatives is a question, but there are ways to cooperate short of a coalition.

 

Brachina

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Rakhmetov wrote:
There is a fundamental difference between moving the party to the Right or not.

But you haven't established that. Not when you concede that the broad principles of the party are going to be the same.

Quote:
There is a fundamental difference between Nash and Mulcair on Israel-Palestine.  Mulcair is certainly not advocating that we should take Hamas off the terrorist list and negotiate with them, and that Israel should be the one showing the restraint because they are the occupier.  This is a critical distinction on one of the most important and vexing foreign policy questions there are internationally, and Mulcair is on the wrong side of it.

I agree Peggy Nash is preferable to Thomas Mulcair on this issue. But I think you misunderstand the meaning of "fundamental". Most of the differences between the candidates on this issue are transient, day-to-day. Palestine's UN bid is transient: we won't be still talking about it in 2015. Hamas is transient: they might be the elected government now but they might not be in 2015.

Fundamental would be: one-state or two-states? Settlements are illegal or legal? Trading with Israel, or sanctioning and boycotting Israel?

But now we're playing semantics. I hate semantics. So how about I just give you that "negotiate with a government that might be out of power in a few months" is as fundamental as "one-state or two-states". We're still only talkikng about a conflict that we're not even a party to.

Here are some foreign policy issues that the Canadian government is a *direct* party in, good or bad:

  • Afghanistan
  • Missile Defense / NORAD
  • NAFTA
  • Arctic Sovereignty
  • Funding for Third-World Aid
  • U.S. Border Security
  • Libya
  • The Ottawa Treaty on Landmines
  • The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change (withdrawn)
  • UN Security Council (withdrawn)

What do these issues have in common? They're all directly under the control of the Canadian government, unlike the Canadian government's non-existent role in Palestine. And they're all issues where the differences between the candidates are small.

And that's just foreign policy, which ignores the host of domestic issues that affect the welfare of Canadians far more.

Quote:
There is a fundamental difference between moving the party to the Right or not.

So do you want to take another stab at establishing a rightward shift of any significance?

+1

Brachina

Hoodeet wrote:

flight from kamakura wrote:

the way it was done in the former yugoslavia would suit me fine, or maybe the way it was done south sudan.  there were actually a lot of good things about libya, though a lot went off the rails.

Hoodeet (JW)

"The way it was done in the former Yugoslavia" was basically bombing the hell out of civilian targets in Belgrade to support the secession of  Kosovo and dislodge Milosevic, the last Socialist standing in the way of the neoliberal takeover of eastern Europe and the  Balkans. 

Unless you were referring to the bizarre UN intervention in Bosnia after the Croatians expelled 100,000 Serbs from their territory and seceded from Yugoslavia (with aid and encouragement from the Germans, the US and the Vatican) and the Croatians in Bosnia tried to do the same, then the Bosnian Serbs effectively set up an independent enclave in Bosnia to remain attached to Serbian-controlled Yugoslavia and  prevent Croatians and Muslim Bosnians from seceding from Yugoslavia altogether... whew... of course it was more complicated than this.  And at the time of the killings of Muslims by Serbs in Bosnia, the Muslim militants already had Bin Laden's gang sending supplies and fighting men  (or was it Al CIAda? I can't seem to keep them straight). That's not in our history books  - only the trauma of Srebrenica and the impotent UN forces. 

So, to rebut you, NO, neither of those attacks was very clean, or honest, or within the bounds of international law, and it should not be repeated under any circumstances, any more than MINUSTAH (the neocolonial takeover of  Haiti) should even be mentioned as a possible model.

As for South Sudan: do  you think for a minute that either side would be satisfied with a partition of Syria?  Moreover, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, Iran,  Jordan, are all very worried about  the situation in Syria and possible spillover into their territory.  Bilateral ceasefire, followed by brokered talks, seems to be the only solution.

Assad has no intention of keeping any promise of a cease fire, assuming you could get him to agree. He intends to kill off his opposition until none stand against him.

Anyway in happier new Carol Goar of the Toronto Star just about endorsed Niki, its an excellent articial.

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1145712--...

algomafalcon

Brachina wrote:
Hoodeet wrote:

Assad has no intention of keeping any promise of a cease fire, assuming you could get him to agree. He intends to kill off his opposition until none stand against him. Anyway in happier new Carol Goar of the Toronto Star just about endorsed Niki, its an excellent articial. http://www.thestar.com/iphone/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1145712--...

I heard a news item today that Assad is mining the border areas where refugees are fleeing into neighboring countries. Brutal.

 

Brachina

Duncan don't you think it's too late in the game to try and convince rabble rousers to stop supporting Mulcair? I mean your putting all this passion and effort into convincing us it'd be a mistake, but your a couple of weeks too late for most of us.

Or are you going to all this effort now, because you just realized Mulcair has wided his lead to the point where the odds very strongly favour him?

flight from kamakura

Hoodeet wrote:

flight from kamakura wrote:

the way it was done in the former yugoslavia would suit me fine, or maybe the way it was done south sudan.  there were actually a lot of good things about libya, though a lot went off the rails.

Hoodeet (JW)

"The way it was done in the former Yugoslavia" was basically bombing the hell out of civilian targets in Belgrade to support the secession of  Kosovo and dislodge Milosevic, the last Socialist standing in the way of the neoliberal takeover of eastern Europe and the  Balkans. 

Unless you were referring to the bizarre UN intervention in Bosnia after the Croatians expelled 100,000 Serbs from their territory and seceded from Yugoslavia (with aid and encouragement from the Germans, the US and the Vatican) and the Croatians in Bosnia tried to do the same, then the Bosnian Serbs effectively set up an independent enclave in Bosnia to remain attached to Serbian-controlled Yugoslavia and  prevent Croatians and Muslim Bosnians from seceding from Yugoslavia altogether... whew... of course it was more complicated than this.  And at the time of the killings of Muslims by Serbs in Bosnia, the Muslim militants already had Bin Laden's gang sending supplies and fighting men  (or was it Al CIAda? I can't seem to keep them straight). That's not in our history books  - only the trauma of Srebrenica and the impotent UN forces. 

So, to rebut you, NO, neither of those attacks was very clean, or honest, or within the bounds of international law, and it should not be repeated under any circumstances, any more than MINUSTAH (the neocolonial takeover of  Haiti) should even be mentioned as a possible model.

As for South Sudan: do  you think for a minute that either side would be satisfied with a partition of Syria?  Moreover, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, Iran,  Jordan, are all very worried about  the situation in Syria and possible spillover into their territory.  Bilateral ceasefire, followed by brokered talks, seems to be the only solution.

i'm talking about the strikes on serbian columns in the former yugoslavia, and i'm talking about partition in syria as a not-unreasonable result, certainly viz lebanon and in the face of the imminent collapse of the allawite regime.  i still think iraq ought to be three countries, and syria could definitely be 2/3.  also, the longer we wait on this, the more impetus there is for a unilateral turkish humanitarian mission organized by our friends to the south on the order of the interventions (by kenya and ethiopia) in somalia.  indeed, the international plan for somalia sounds pretty good to me, as compared with ruthless so-called socialist rule by the quasi-monarchy assad rule.  fuck them, we need to back up our words with actions, and we can't just fund refugee camps when these crises occur, it's for us to lead the way.  people here will think it's a waste of money of that the unavoidable loss of life isn't worth it, but in 40 years or whatever, when every country on the planet has the same democratic freedoms that we do, i don't think that people will blame canada for our participation in their revolution.

NorthReport

Why would Topp's people talk with the media bout this. What were they hoping to achieve?

NDP leadership: Ex-Singh organizer quiet after claiming he’s working for Thomas Mulcair

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1145802--ndp-leaders...

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Don't know why Pierre is sending this out just two weeks before Convention and after many people likely have voted already.

 

 

Dear friends,

 

Together, we are about to make an important decision. Not only are we choosing someone to take on the Harper Conservatives and lead the NDP to form government in 2015. We are also selecting the best person to consolidate our gains as a Party, build on our success in Quebec, and lead the crucial growth of our political movement. These two fundamental challenges require a leader with special talents.

 

Which is why I want to tell you why I'm with Peggy Nash.

 

Peggy is the only candidate with the perfect combination of skills our Party requires at this critical time.

 

First, Peggy comes with an extensive background in community building and grassroots organizing. She has been uniting groups and individuals around important issues and campaigns her whole life. She knows how to bring people together, fight those standing in our way, and win.

 

Next, Peggy brings the unique experience of a career based on negotiating the needs of private business and ensuring people prosper in our economy. This, along with the credentials she developed as Industry and Finance Critic, is an asset no other contender has.

 

Of critical importance is the ability of our next leader to unite our caucus, team, and membership. Peggy is the one who will do this most effectively. Our Party has come too far to compromise who we are. Plus, her tenure as NDP President gave her a unique perspective into what we need to do to grow our movement, and how.

 

The NDP deserves a leader who will move big ideas like proportional representation forward so that we can inspire the 40% of Canadians to join us.

 

I have seen Peggy in action. She is a force to be reckoned with. And she can put all her talent to work starting March 25th to take on the Harper Conservatives as head of the Official Opposition.

 

Peggy knows our social-democratic vision is possible. Join me in supporting her to become our next great leader.

 

Sincerely,

 

Pierre Ducasse

Former Special Advisor on Quebec to Jack Layton

Past NDP Leadership Candidate

Brachina

NorthReport wrote:

Why would Topp's people talk with the media bout this. What were they hoping to achieve?

NDP leadership: Ex-Singh organizer quiet after claiming he’s working for Thomas Mulcair

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1145802--ndp-leaders...

To smear Mulcair as usual.

Hoodeet

flight from kamakura wrote:

Hoodeet wrote:

flight from kamakura wrote:

the way it was done in the former yugoslavia would suit me fine, or maybe the way it was done south sudan.  there were actually a lot of good things about libya, though a lot went off the rails.

Hoodeet (JW)

Thanks for the clarification.  I still disagree profoundly.  If Iraq and Syria are going to partition, let them do it. 

The intervention that has just been stalled was probably going to be by forces from Qatar, Saudi and other Gulf allies of the US and co-enemies of Iran, with western forces providing cover, perhaps.  THAT should be stopped altogether.  Whether NATO does it or its proxies from repressive regimes in the area, it still bodes ill for Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan and Lebanon.

Perhaps we've sidetracked this thread too much.  And since I'll take the bait every time a militaristic solution is floated here, or a crypto-NATOphile comes trolling along I'll stop right now.

duncan cameron

Brachina, I like to debate ideas.

When I read the most recent iPolitics interview with Tom the revelation that he opposed raising the coaltiion issue with the Liberals struck me as downright dangerous for the future. I doubt the NDP is going to win 180 seats in 2015. I have no doubt the Cons could lose their majority, and I think public opinion needs to be prepared so the Cons cannot demonize the coaltion idea once again.

I have serious doubts about his judgement, Nafta was the first example, which I wrote about when he declared. Also, since I lived in Quebec under the Charest government, his association with them raised alarm bells.

Finally, I see his taking more credit for the win in Quebec, than he is due, as a signal of problems to come with his colleagues. 

I want an activist as leader, not a professional politiician, and have made my views clear why on this site.

 

duncan cameron

double post

DSloth

NorthReport wrote:

Why would Topp's people talk with the media bout this. What were they hoping to achieve?

NDP leadership: Ex-Singh organizer quiet after claiming he’s working for Thomas Mulcair

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1145802--ndp-leaders...

Topp and some of his young lieutenants have developed a bit of a siege mentality. I really don't see how this story helps them at all.  Most NDP members have been harangued in their homes by now about the importance of their second ballot support, they understand there's nothing nefarious in having a second choice.  

Go ahead, please keep talking about the incredible breadth of Tom's support accross the Party. As Topp looks down from his Toronto fortress Mulcair's picking up support from progressives from coast to coast to coast. Romeo was right Tom is the one who can unite the Party, I dont really hear a lot of talk about other campaigns key supporters offering second ballot support to anyone else.  

TheArchitect

DSloth wrote:

Tom is the one who can unite the Party, I dont really hear a lot of talk about other campaigns key supporters offering second ballot support to anyone else.  

I'm curious, DSloth; if Thomas Mulcair is the best person to united the NDP, then why do you think it is that so many people are so negative toward him?  Mulcair has some strong points, but I certainly don't see him as a unifying figure; on the contrary, I think he's easily the most divisive figure in the race.

socialdemocrati...

TheArchitect, I don't think babble is indicative of the membership at large. I've talked to a lot of other New Democrats -- some who have been in the party since the 80s and 90s (yeah I guess I'm young), and some who were inspired by Jack more recently. The worst I've heard is that Mulcair leaves them a little cold. Nothing that indicates he's all that divisive.

Anything else can be chalked up to the addage: it's lonely at the top. The converse of that is: why would anyone unleash hell on a 4th or 5th place candidate?

DSloth

TheArchitect wrote:

I'm curious, DSloth; if Thomas Mulcair is the best person to united the NDP, then why do you think it is that so many people are so negative toward him? 

Well for starters I don't accept your premise at all, I'm spending 3.5 hours a night these days calling up New Democrats and even the (few) people who aren't marking Tom high on their ballot are perfectly gregarious.

Now intra-party elections, much like civil wars, always have an intensified belligerence particularly among the very active members. Tom is the front runner and people who believe passionately in one of the many other fine candidates are smart enough to know that the only path to nomination for their guy or gal is to knock Tom down a peg or three, on a largely anonymous internet forum you can expect to find these tendancies magnified to the nth degree, but I can assure you ordinairy New Democrats are saving their bile up for Harper.

Brachina

duncan cameron wrote:

Brachina, I like to debate ideas.

When I read the most recent iPolitics interview with Tom the revelation that he opposed raising the coaltiion issue with the Liberals struck me as downright dangerous for the future. I doubt the NDP is going to win 180 seats in 2015. I have no doubt the Cons could lose their majority, and I think public opinion needs to be prepared so the Cons cannot demonize the coaltion idea once again.

I have serious doubts about his judgement, Nafta was the first example, which I wrote about when he declared. Also, since I lived in Quebec under the Charest government, his association with them raised alarm bells.

Finally, I see his taking more credit for the win in Quebec, than he is due, as a signal of problems to come with his colleagues. 

I want an activist as leader, not a professional politiician, and have made my views clear why on this site.

 

Cool, I like debating, I just didn't want you setting yourself up for disappointment.

I don't think you give enough credit to Mulcair for the vicrories in Quebec. Did he do it alone, no, but he's not claiming he did. Was he critical to the Orange Wave in Quebec? Yes. Would it have happened without Mulcair? Absolutely not. The NDP did not exist for most Quebecers before Mulcair. Yes they fell in love with Jack, but Mulcair is why they gave Jack a chance in the first place, its why Jack wooed Mulcair and made him deputy leader. Its why Mulcair was in the commericial and why Jack bragged about his Quebec lietneit. Who else but, Jack himself was in the commericial. His respect for Mulcair was why Jack asked Mulcair to give the final speech during the filabuster when Jack could not. Mulcair worked hard and its natural for him to use it as a show of what he can do.

Define activist and movement, it would help if we used a common frame of reference on that issue.

wage zombie

TheArchitect wrote:

I'm curious, DSloth; if Thomas Mulcair is the best person to united the NDP, then why do you think it is that so many people are so negative toward him?  Mulcair has some strong points, but I certainly don't see him as a unifying figure; on the contrary, I think he's easily the most divisive figure in the race.

Dewar is way more divisive, I'd say, although Mulcair is probably #2 with Topp a not-so-distant #3.

Island Red

Stayed tuned for a significant announcement of support for Tom Mulcair on Wednesday - this time from Atlantic Canada. His ability to draw ensdorsements from a wide swath of progressives will again be proven, including elected New Democrats from all levels, as well as women, and labour activists.

Wilf Day

wage zombie wrote:
Dewar is way more divisive, I'd say, although Mulcair is probably #2 with Topp a not-so-distant #3.

What a bunch of whiners here!! I don't see any of the contenders as divisive, nor does the public. They see them as all saying pretty much the same thing, which they are. Certainly on my top issue, proportional representation, there is no real difference between any of them. I'll decide how to vote on the day itself, and I'll be happy with any outcome.

Sorry for the interruption. Feel free to go back to being divisive.

Howard

nicky wrote:

 

New BC endorsements for Tom:

Nicholas Simons, MLA for Rowell River -Sunshine Coast

Nelson Riis - former MP for Kamloops

Ian Waddell- former MP for Kingsway and MLA as well, and former federal leadership candidate.

Jack Munro, legendary former president of the IWA

 

Nicholas Simons is an openly gay (he is married to a Grammy nominee? cellist), former child protection worker, and has a reputation for being left-wing. He recently ran for the BC NDP leadership. Nelson Riis had a reputation for being more to the right within the Alexa McDonough caucus.

Howard

I figure that after the next election, if the NDP fails to win a majority, then we will have a Liberal-Conservative coalition government. This makes the whole issue of a post-election coalition with the Liberals moot.

Even if for some unconcievable reason the Liberals did not coalesce with the Conservatives in an NDP minority scenario, I would prefer the NDP work with the Liberals and Conservatives and any others on a case-by-case basis. The case-by-case approach allows the NDP more flexibility and could result in better policy. It would be clearer who was holding "the whip hand" on any bill or policy. Furthermore, it would strengthen the NDP's argument for a majority next time around ("a strong, stable majority government...") just as much if not more than a coalition.

Post-election, governing parties that do not have a majority of seats have to work with the other parties whether they like it or not. Sometimes they use blackmail, sometimes they use bullying, sometimes they use enticements (or "cooperation"), but they always need a majority of votes to pass their governing agenda.

Saying three years out, "I want to work with the Liberals" is tossing a politically bankrupt entity a fresh loan of political capital. I would much rather Liberals that want to be part of a progressive government, take out a card and join the NDP. We are a much more democratic party, "papal" endorsements aside.

Howard

While I would say that MP Nelson Riis endorsement was the big catch for the BC interior, Topp also got some interesting support in Prince George & Quesnel (2nd place ridings for the NDP) to complement previous support from other BC Interior NDPers. link

Quote:
Topp’s new endorsements include:

John Cashore, former BC Environment Minister

Murry Krause, Prince George City Councillor, First Nations health advocate, and anti-poverty activist

Frank Everitt, Prince George City Councillor

Nate Bello, former mayor of Quesnel

Meanwhile, Peggy Nash added:

James Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers

Constance Barnes, Chair of the Vancouver Park Board

Jenn McGinn, former MLA for Vancouver--Fairview

BC MLAs Spencer Chandra Herbert and Shane Simpson

janfromthebruce

Wilf Day wrote:

wage zombie wrote:
Dewar is way more divisive, I'd say, although Mulcair is probably #2 with Topp a not-so-distant #3.

What a bunch of whiners here!! I don't see any of the contenders as divisive, nor does the public. They see them as all saying pretty much the same thing, which they are. Certainly on my top issue, proportional representation, there is no real difference between any of them. I'll decide how to vote on the day itself, and I'll be happy with any outcome.

Sorry for the interruption. Feel free to go back to being divisive.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

 

+100 to the last sentence!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

The candidates I would place as the leading contenders are Mulcair, Nash, and Topp, and I'd guess they all have a signifciant number of endorsers. I'm not sure how the folks who actually vote will be swayed by endorsements, but they probably make the candidates feel good about themselves, so it's all good. Laughing

As a side note, on who might move the party vto the left, right or centre, I'm not as concerned about that as I am concerned about who in my opinion has the best chance at winning against Harper in 2015. I think that person is Mulcair, although Nash probably has a fairly good chance at winning the leadership. She won't fly in Quebec, though. 

If this goes past one ballot and avoids a coronation, it could be a tight race to the finish, and if goes past two ballots, then probably all bets are off as to who might win. I'll live with the results regardless of who wins, but in my heart if Mulcair does not win this, I think we'll lose a significant amount of support in Quebec and maybe elsewhere, and we'll be back again to life in opposition again in 2015, and hoping for a coalition deal with the Liberals. Sigh.

That's my whine for the day. Carry on. Smile

Howard

Boom Boom wrote:

If this goes past one ballot and avoids a coronation, it could be a tight race to the finish, and if goes past two ballots, then probably all bets are off as to who might win. I'll live with the results regardless of who wins, but in my heart if Mulcair does not win this, I think we'll lose a significant amount of support in Quebec and maybe elsewhere, and we'll be back again to life in opposition again in 2015, and hoping for a coalition deal with the Liberals. Sigh.

Maybe that's the difference between Mulcair and Nash on the coalition issue. Maybe Nash isn't confident she could win a majority.

DSloth

The notion of a "coronation" is a serious spot of silly, it's not going to happen. 

I challenge anyone to come up with an example where anyone in any Canadian party ever won a first round victory in a field with 7 active candidates (and an 8th on the ballot).

janfromthebruce

oh Howard please spare me. When you frame the argument that way, Nash's stance on the coalition based on HER confidence whereas Mulcair HE is so confident and macho that he doesn't need to consider a coalition - just to let you know I see that as a big turn off and moreoever it makes me see Mulcair as a arrogant Liberal - exactly what you don't want to project him as image for leader of the NDP - I'm sure you get my drift.

And it is that arrogance that he turns me off if he persona is projected by the people who are openly supporting him. The Mulcair crew on babble have really become "really full of themselves" in my view.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I'm not confident Nash could win a majority, either, because she can forget about keeping Quebec support. As for Mulcair, I sincerely hope that if he wins the leadership, he's able to pull off an electoral miracle in 2015 - he's probably the most likely to do it. He could be the leader of a minority government which is probably more likely. If in 2015 he wins a minority government, I wonder who will back the NDP - Greens, BQ, Liberals??? Who knows.

Howard

I'm not confident Mulcair could win a majority. There is a huge gap to close with the Conservatives. The NDP only has 44 seats outside of Québec and needs to win about 70 more.

The NDP finished close behind first place in only a dozen or so ridings last time.

socialdemocrati...

Yuck, what a turn-off. With supporters like Mulcair's, who needs critics? :)

Peggy Nash might not have as obvious a base in Quebec as Mulcair. But she has a base in Ontario, and understands the dynamics to win key ridings in battleground GTA. I also think her French is good, and can only get better by 2015. Jack showed that you don't need to be a Quebecker to win in Quebec. You only need to speak to their concerns -- as progressives who want a more equal and fair society, and as Francophones who want to keep their culture from eroding. If she has the skill to win the leadership, then she should have the skill to win most of the seats we took in 2011.

jjuares

I have little confidence that Mulcair can achieve a minority gov for the NDP next election. Unfortunately,  with any other candidate I have no confidence we can win at all. I do however have confidence that with any of the other candidates we will be third or fourth next election.

jjuares

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Yuck, what a turn-off. With supporters like Mulcair's, who needs critics? :)

Peggy Nash might not have as obvious a base in Quebec as Mulcair. But she has a base in Ontario, and understands the dynamics to win key ridings in battleground GTA. I also think her French is good, and can only get better by 2015. Jack showed that you don't need to be a Quebecker to win in Quebec. You only need to speak to their concerns -- as progressives who want a more equal and fair society, and as Francophones who want to keep their culture from eroding. If she has the skill to win the leadership, then she should have the skill to win most of the seats we took in 2011.

Wasn't Jack a Quebecer? Yes, and  from a very prominent family at that.

 

Ippurigakko

I can feel Ashton could win a majority becuz lotta young voters and aboriginal voters goes high vote turnout and west and she would make mulcair become deputy leader quebec would more ndp over 65-70. that my predicting

Pages

Topic locked