NDP Leadership Race #110

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
wage zombie

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The "evidence" on the UN bid issue is embarassingly scarce for people to be claiming "there's no other way to read it" or "it's clear".

The "evidence" that Mulcair is against Palestine's bid is because he slagged Libby Davies, supported Israel in "all circumstances", and mentioned Obama once in a 500 page letter, ergo, he agrees with Obama on everything.

The "evidence" that Mulcair supports Palestine's bid is his letter repeatedly mentions "two-state solution" and respect for UN resolutions.

That's not evidence. In both cases, that's cherrypicking things that are, in every instance, beside the damn point.

I would hope that Mulcair supports the UN bid but at this point I think it's more likely that he doesn't.

I hope even more that Mulcair will be clear with us about his position.

Middle East policy is very unlikely to have much effect on my vote, except perhaps indirectly.  One thing that will have a direct effect on my vote is a candidate's ability to clearly articulate their vision.

So far, it appears that Mulcair's vision is "Just like Jack Layton...with more accessible engaging language."  I feel our leader should be able to articulate their vision better than that.

My top pick is Ashton.  I think she has been very clear about her vision and very willing to answer questions directly.

wage zombie

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

WZ, it was the same problem when Saganash released his "let's not raise taxes" pledge, though. There were a lot of Saganash (soft) supporters (myself included) who gave him a pass. "I don't really agree, but it does make some sense."

Did you find the Saganash campaign to be vague about details?  Do you think Saganash very clearly described his vision for us?

ETA: Saganash announced that early, that there was a lot of revenue to be regained by closing loopholes.  He brought it up and spoke to it.  He said that was the way to go because it was easier to sell.  And that once in government we could campaign on a highest bracket increase successfully.  He outlined a plan and then promoted it (ie. actively chose to bring it up and talk about it), and he was the first to take the position.

socialdemocrati...

And that's about where I jump in and agree with you. Mine is a plea for evidence and nuance. Mulcair is good (if flawed), but I prefer other candidates. I'm okay with "just follow the party policy", but I do appreciate a little boldness, whether it's Topp's position on taxes, or Ashton's position on generic drugs. The party policy is still enough to get my support come election time, but in a leadership nomination, I do appreciate the extra mile. I will probably support Ashton too... my second choice is going to be pretty important though.

 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

As the race progresses, the more disappointed I am with the slate of candidates. Frankly, I am looking for someone who is more progressive than Jack and very appealing to the electorate. I am totally dismayed by the lack of courage to offer the public a realistic alternative.

mtm

Wow, I just saw the Pierre Beaudet article go up here.  The anti-Mulcair sentiment on Rabble just jumped the shark.

He writes off the 30 MP's in Quebec as being "politically inexperienced, and without any social base" (ouch!), and says that Mulcair had "little to do" with the sweep in Quebec, despite working tirelessly and traveling all over the province for years.

Its pretty much a vitriolic steaming pile of spin and opinion backed up with absolutely no fact other than the author's own clear dislike of him.  He even gets the demographics of Outremont completely wrong, as pointed out by Stockholm in the comments.

I think all it would take is for him to talk to some New Democrats in Quebec (the vast majority of which Mr. Mulcair would have signed up), and see what they think of him.

Very very poor piece, whether you like Mulcair or you hate him, this does us all a disservice and really rubs me the wrong way.

wage zombie

laine lowe wrote:

As the race progresses, the more disappointed I am with the slate of candidates. Frankly, I am looking for someone who is more progressive than Jack and very appealing to the electorate. I am totally dismayed by the lack of courage to offer the public a realistic alternative.

Agreed.  I wish Peter Julian had run.  Did he really get crowded out by Topp?

I wish I had given full support to Romeo Saganash early in the campaign.

The Socialist Caucus said they were going to run a candidate but didn't.  An Occupy candidate could have gotten a lot more support than most outsider candidacies can expect but there was no focus on it.

With the entry fee is low as it was it is a shame no one ran to express that voice.

Maybe we are in a situation as a party where we have to punch above our weight, and those shoes are big enough to fill already.  So the candidates seem a bit lacking.

nicky

Very few details given but the Forum poll shows that Tom is the first choice of 58% of Quebecers for NDP leader. Note this is Quebecers as a whole and not just NDP supporters as measured in previous Forum polls.

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/343822/sondage-forum-research-le-pq-loin-devant

KenS

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

What's getting even more ridiculous now is the circular logic: "well if it's not true, then why is everyone making the accusation?"

It's conviction without a trial.

Its not Mulcair that is being objected to here. Someone asks does he support the UN resolution or not?

It's pretty clear unless someone brings up some new quote, that he has not said, or even indicated. Period.

Yet we keep getting this nonsense that he has.

KenS

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Mulcair basically said the same thing (let's focus on closing loopholes and havens), and even left the door open to a tax increase but said let's wait until 2015. But a few persistent voices immediately added this to the "list of reasons why Mulcair is part of the vast neoliberal conspiracy".

This myth has been repeated a few times. Along with, Romeo got a pass for the same thing.

Leaving aside the exageration of part of the vast neo-liberal conspiracy.... which iis a rhetorical deflection from the bar that does not matter in choosing a Leader....

The strenuous objection at the time and for the couple weeks after was that Mulcair explicitly put out cap and trade revenues as the alternative [NDP policy and the political protection built into it chucked out the window], and at the Halifax debate said that capital gains changes would not disproprotionately come from the wealthy.

While Romeo offered a coherent and consistent political strategy around closing tax havens and loopholes. Mulcair by the way did not mention that in Halifax. Its just one of the many things has tossed out about taxes at different times.

KenS

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I'm okay with "just follow the party policy...

I think you are being too easy on Mulcair with that. Because when he brings out 'I stand on party policy' is when he does not want to say any more, especially clarify apparent contradictions.

And at least in one major case, he doesnt have a problem just chucking party policy out the window, without even acknowledging.

KenS

mtm wrote:

Wow, I just saw the Pierre Beaudet article go up here.  The anti-Mulcair sentiment on Rabble just jumped the shark.

I'll have to read the piece.

But FWIW, no question this is fair criticism of the anti-Mulcair sentiment. IE, whether or not I happen to think this particular article jumps the shark.

While the notion trotted out in the other thread that this is Topp campaign surrogates is just rubbish.

David Young

Gaian wrote:
Ah yes, Israel.

This makes me more sure than ever that Mulcair is the one I want to lead the NDP.

 

KenS

psstt.

psstt...

hey you.

Did it occur to anyone that they could write a blog for Rabble, in which you could address some of the things you consider mythologies about Mulcair, unreasonable, etc.

But just a hint on effectiveness- don't get into point by point refutations. And minimize [direct] refutation period.

Rabble_Incognito

Ms. Nash was wise to note she doesn’t want to throw out “speculative” (talk) because that would feed the Conservative spin machine.

I submit that if candidates are being coy on issues, it's because they're probably keenly aware of the tory ability to spin and twist the words of NDP candidates.

I don't think a two state solution is just - but I'm no expert - I just think a one state solution with non Jews having full citizenship, all the rights that Jewish folk enjoy, no displacement is justice, and is comparable to the way South Africa solved their apartheid issues (isn't it?). I'd suggest that Israel become a multicultural state where Jews and non Jews are equals under every aspect of the law. See that's why I'm not electable, because I, and perhaps others, believe the mathematics specify that a two state solution is a 1/2 baked solution.

I can empathize with the candidate who doesn't want to get all hypothetical about how s/he'd vote on a UN resolution. The important thing is for them to outline their thoughts and concerns and priorities. I don't need the candidate to paint himself/herself into a corner.


KenS

Rabble_Incognito wrote:

Ms. Nash was wise to note she doesn’t want to throw out “speculative” (talk) because that would feed the Conservative spin machine.

Thats a red herring.

It is said in contrast to Topp's plan. Topp's plan is not only about doing the right thing / what we want to do- it is throwing out what can be a wedge against the Conservatives that benefits us with swing voters. One can didagree with that, but none of the candidates has done so substantively.... just facile cop-outs that it might bite us. Of course it "might". So how about some discussion?

And Mulcair is quite happy to throw out speculative- 'maybe I would be into doing this' [amd this other thing, and....]. Even things like cap and trade as a new source general source of revenues.... so made to order for the Harper attack machine that you can count on the ads are already written. And covering just that deep vulnerability is exactly what the 5 year old policy was for that Mulcair just tossed out the window.

KenS

Rabble_Incognito wrote:

I can empathize with the candidate who doesn't want to get all hypothetical about how s/he'd vote on a UN resolution. The important thing is for them to outline their thoughts and concerns and priorities. I don't need the candidate to paint himself/herself into a corner.

Its a valid general point. But the UN resolution is practicaly a motherhood issue. Most Canadians see it as a pretty simple fair play gesture. Since there are no apparent political costs in affirming it is why you see all the other candidates saing Canada should support it.

So where is this corner Mulcair might paint himself into?

Brachina

For the record I support a three state solution, with Gaza being Banglasdesh to West Bank's Pakistan.

Doug

TheArchitect wrote:

Let's be clear.  Jack Layton believed that the trade issue should be reopened.  Thomas Mulcair has said that it shouldn't be.  That's a clear difference.  And it's a move to the right.

 

It could just be a difference in judgement. There are a lot of ways in which reopening NAFTA could make it worse. More recent trade agreements made by the US includs provisions on investment and intellectual property, provisions that the US would no doubt like to put into NAFTA if the opportunity for renegotiation became available.

Quote:

I should mention also that on the Palestinian question, contrary to your claim that "not a single candidate proposes a unilateral declaration of independence for Palestine," Brian Topp and Niki Ashton have both stated unequivocally that the United Nations should recognize Palestine as an independent member state, while Nash and Cullen both seem to have made statements that would seem to imply that they believe this.

 

Not the same thing as supporting a unilateral declaration of independence for Palestine. 

Brachina

Doug wrote:

TheArchitect wrote:

Let's be clear.  Jack Layton believed that the trade issue should be reopened.  Thomas Mulcair has said that it shouldn't be.  That's a clear difference.  And it's a move to the right.

 

It could just be a difference in judgement. There are a lot of ways in which reopening NAFTA could make it worse. More recent trade agreements made by the US includs provisions on investment and intellectual property, provisions that the US would no doubt like to put into NAFTA if the opportunity for renegotiation became available.

Quote:

I should mention also that on the Palestinian question, contrary to your claim that "not a single candidate proposes a unilateral declaration of independence for Palestine," Brian Topp and Niki Ashton have both stated unequivocally that the United Nations should recognize Palestine as an independent member state, while Nash and Cullen both seem to have made statements that would seem to imply that they believe this.

 

Not the same thing as supporting a unilateral declaration of independence for Palestine. 

Again Mulcair has not said he would not renegiotate Nafta, he said he wouldn't get rid of it.

I agree with North Report.

josh

KenS wrote:

Topp's plan is not only about doing the right thing / what we want to do- it is throwing out what can be a wedge against the Conservatives that benefits us with swing voters. One can didagree with that, but none of the candidates has done so substantively.... just facile cop-outs that it might bite us. Of course it "might". So how about some discussion?

And Mulcair is quite happy to throw out speculative- 'maybe I would be into doing this' [amd this other thing, and....]. Even things like cap and trade as a new source general source of revenues.... so made to order for the Harper attack machine that you can count on the ads are already written. And covering just that deep vulnerability is exactly what the 5 year old policy was for that Mulcair just tossed out the window.

Yes.  Think about it.  They're going to attack you by claiming that you're going to raise taxes whether you propose a tax plan or not.  So wouldn't it be better to actually propose a tax plan affecting only the wealthy?  Instead of giving them the opportunity to sew doubt in most voters' minds, you offer certainty.  Not to mention, of course, that it's the right thing to do in terms of policy. 

 

KenS

FWIW, I dont think there is a difference between any of the candidates, or Jack Layton, or any MP who has a critic role, on NAFTA and trade deals.

To the degree that Jack and others sometimes said/say that NAFTA should be reopened, there is no evidence that any of them were going to do anything about it. Like make it a major plank that voters could not help but notice... as opposed to just dropping it out there as dog whistles for the base.

So I do not see any substantive difference in Mulcair perhaps making that more explicit.

You could argue the point about some of the candidates MP's.... but I do not think there is any in practice difference between Jack Layton and Mulcair has said.

Brachina

One problem I can see with renegiotating NAFTA is it takes three and Obama is worthless on this issue, he's as bad as a republican. I'm not familar with the President of Mexico, so I don't know what he brings to the table.

A temporary solution maybe to ignore the treaty when we need to do like the Americans do, and build real fair trade treaties with nations lead by grownups instead, until America can pick a real leader.

TheArchitect

Brachina wrote:
Again Mulcair has not said he would not renegiotate Nafta, he said he wouldn't get rid of it. I agree with North Report.

If you take getting rid of NAFTA off the table, you probably won't be able to renegotiate it.

Canada can't renegotiate NAFTA unilaterally—it requires the American and Mexican governments to agree.  The American government won't agree to renegotiate with an NDP government unless we are able to play the abrogation card.

If the Americans have to choose between keeping NAFTA as it is or renegotiating it with an NDP government, they'll more than likely choose to keep it as it is.  But if they have to choose between having a new agreement or having no agreement at all, they'll come to the bargaining table.

So even if one doesn't actually want to get rid of all aspects of NAFTA, to promise not to abrogate it is bad policy.

flight from kamakura

Rabble_Incognito wrote:

I don't think a two state solution is just - but I'm no expert - I just think a one state solution with non Jews having full citizenship, all the rights that Jewish folk enjoy, no displacement is justice, and is comparable to the way South Africa solved their apartheid issues (isn't it?). I'd suggest that Israel become a multicultural state where Jews and non Jews are equals under every aspect of the law. See that's why I'm not electable, because I, and perhaps others, believe the mathematics specify that a two state solution is a 1/2 baked solution.

not really topical, but i agree 100% with this.

TheArchitect

In other news, Peggy Nash has been endorsed by Davenport MPP Jonah Schein:

http://peggynash.ca/2012/peggy-nash-nabs-endorsement-from-mpp-jonah-schein/

Caissa

Can we cap NDP leadership threads at 125? What is left to be said that hasn't been said already?

Rabble_Incognito

But the UN resolution is practicaly a motherhood issue. Most Canadians see it as a pretty simple fair play gesture. Since there are no apparent political costs in affirming it is why you see all the other candidates saing Canada should support it.

So where is this corner Mulcair might paint himself into?

Thanks for asking, well, I hope my lack of facility in political forums is not giving away too much of my ignorance, but I am not speaking for Mulcair. I was speaking for myself and trying to empathize with candidates in a general way. I would not support a two state resolution in any guise, UN or not, because I believe it is stupid and unjust for the Palestinians and anyone who occupied that territory and wasn't Jewish when the State of Israel was formed. So the correct solution is the one I specified previously. Jewish folks in Israel/Palestine are occupying a state, and they all need to live together and it is foolhardy for the Palestinians to accept 1/2 of their former territory. It's all or nothing as far as justice is concerned - either the Jews give Palestinians equality under the law, 100%, and no displacement of peoples, and the Israel/Palestine state rethinks it's destiny, with everyone in the state equal under the law, Jew and Non Jew. Anything less is not what I'd call 'justice', it's 'compromise'. And as a party, folks have to decide what 'justice' means for them. I hope Mulcair would vote against it.

So, extending my 'empathy' to the candidate, I (personally) I would not paint myself in to that corner, if it were me. And the corner is, to 'support a two state solution' or any language surrounding it. That is not justice for the Palestinians. 

I think the Palestinians need a ONE state solution. I hope they're smart and bide their time and wait, and go for a ONE state solution, with Palestinians equal to Jewish folk. Go forth and multiply! That's the amusing key mantra for the Palestinians, and they'll be the majority vote in Israel/Palestine! If any NDP candidate is adroit, he'd keep his trap shut on Israel period until it suits his party and their objectives, in keeping with their principles - I think though the numbers favour a joint Palestinian/Israeli state if the Palestinians can just hold on and not give in to the Two State lure.

:)

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I'm getting addicted to this stuff, I wish everyone would slow down a bit. But let's face it, we're all addicts here. Withdrawal is going to be tough. Surprised

1springgarden

Caissa wrote:

Can we cap NDP leadership threads at 125? What is left to be said that hasn't been said already?

You will see.  It's like a trainwreck that you just can't avert your eyes from.

ETA: Not meant to be in poor taste in consideration of the recent VIA workers tragedy.

Caissa

I read very little of these threads. Is the purpose to try to influence the very small pool of voters who visit Babble? 

Howard

Forum poll Québec

Bloc 29%

Liberals 26%

NDP 22%

Conservatives 17%

58% of Québeckers want Mulcair as NDP leader

Howard

Caissa wrote:

I read very little of these threads. Is the purpose to try to influence the very small pool of voters who visit Babble? 

No. It is to belly ache and moan in public.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

I'm getting addicted to this stuff, I wish everyone would slow down a bit. But let's face it, we're all addicts here. Withdrawal is going to be tough. Surprised

I don't know. I think about all of the babblers who after convention day will inevitably be spreading "good cheer" about how doomed the party is because their preferred candidate didn't win or because someone they didn't like did, and I figure I'll probably take a nice looooooong break right around that time.

DSloth

Caissa wrote:

Can we cap NDP leadership threads at 125? What is left to be said that hasn't been said already?

The debates aren't over neither are the policy releases, and of course the endless jockeying for down ballot support.

Whoever we pick is going to have to step into an immediate power vaccum, as the Conservatives drop a budget loaded with a putrifying miasma of bile and hidden land mines on our doorstep days after the election (or maybe days before).  Whoever we pick is going to have to be our leader for years to come including through the most important election in Party history.  Whether or not we face 3 more years of Harper or 8 may come down to the next 25 days, so now is not the time to lose perspective on this thing. 

Howard

Wilf Day wrote:

Caissa wrote:

Can we cap NDP leadership threads at 125? What is left to be said that hasn't been said already?

Will Saganash endorse someone? Who will Christine Moore endorse now that Saganash is out of the race? And Raymond Côté of Quebec City, that city's shadow cabinet member, Critic for Small Business and tourism, who ran in 2006 & 2008? And Tyrone Benskin, National Vice President of ACTRA for 12 years (Critic for Canadian Heritage and Cultural Industries)? Robert Chisholm? Pat Martin? Rathika Sitsabaiesan? Dennis Bevington? Malcolm Allen? Bruce Hyer? Megan Leslie? Andrew Cash?

Lots more hasn't happened yet. Just thought I'd start with the MPs.

I always figured Tyrone Benskin would endorse Brian Topp, they are colleagues from ACTRA. 

Stockholm

TheArchitect wrote:

In other news, Peggy Nash has been endorsed by Davenport MPP Jonah Schein:

http://peggynash.ca/2012/peggy-nash-nabs-endorsement-from-mpp-jonah-schein/

Not exactly a surprise since Jonah's brother has been an organizer and "tweeter" for Nash ever since her launch.

Wilf Day

Caissa wrote:

Can we cap NDP leadership threads at 125? What is left to be said that hasn't been said already?

Will Saganash endorse someone? Who will Christine Moore endorse now that Saganash is out of the race? And Raymond Côté of Quebec City, that city's shadow cabinet member, Critic for Small Business and tourism, who ran in 2006 & 2008? And Tyrone Benskin, National Vice President of ACTRA for 12 years (Critic for Canadian Heritage and Cultural Industries)? Robert Chisholm? Pat Martin? Rathika Sitsabaiesan? Dennis Bevington? Malcolm Allen? Bruce Hyer? Megan Leslie? Andrew Cash?

Lots more hasn't happened yet. Just thought I'd start with the MPs.

And I'll report on tonight's meeting in Peterborough with Topp and Nash.

Stockholm

The next debate is in Montreal on Sunday...it may be the last chance for anyone to do anything "dramatic"

1springgarden

Caissa wrote:

I read very little of these threads. Is the purpose to try to influence the very small pool of voters who visit Babble? 

I think these threads serve a number of purposes and are inevitable in a leadership contest.  Hopefully they are fun for the participants.  I would go for a beer with any of the participants on these threads and no doubt they would be great company.

Rabble_Incognito

And regarding motherhood issues - not trying to be funny or ignore them, but I'm not sure I exactly know what those are.

flight from kamakura

yeah, that benskin (who has been nigh invisible since being elected, after being very present during the election) hasn't endorsed topp yet may suggest that he'll end up going with someone else or sitting the contest out.

DSloth

Stockholm wrote:

The next debate is in Montreal on Sunday...it may be the last chance for anyone to do anything "dramatic"

I think we can say decisively that if Dewar is willing to put himself through two 90 minute French debates then he isn't planning on dropping out before the Convention. 

Brachina

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

I'm getting addicted to this stuff, I wish everyone would slow down a bit. But let's face it, we're all addicts here. Withdrawal is going to be tough. Surprised

I don't know. I think about all of the babblers who after convention day will inevitably be spreading "good cheer" about how doomed the party is because their preferred candidate didn't win or because someone they didn't like did, and I figure I'll probably take a nice looooooong break right around that time.

Good idea. You forgot all those that will bemoan the NDP becoming the Liberal party if Mulcair wins, before he even does anything. For the record I'll put my full support behind whoever wins, even Dewar.

Unionist

flight from kamakura wrote:

yeah, that benskin (who has been nigh invisible since being elected, after being very present during the election) hasn't endorsed topp yet may suggest that he'll end up going with someone else or sitting the contest out.

I thought they should have named him acting leader.

 

flight from kamakura

benskin doesn't speak french though, at least, not well.

Rabble_Incognito

Caissa wrote:

I read very little of these threads. Is the purpose to try to influence the very small pool of voters who visit Babble? 

I do this because it keeps the space aliens away. :) Really, I think people here can keep you sharp and alert and conscious of what's going on out there. Also I'd hope that candidates read these threads and discuss these issues themselves - this informs them of the mind set of the people. The best way to influence another voter is to speak with him/her as an equal and illustrate or demo how left of center thinking is very often more rational than he might have otherwise thought - educate as an equal is best, imho.

TheArchitect

Muriel Smith, who served as Deputy Premier of Manitoba for the entirety of the Howard Pawley government and was Canada's first female deputy premier, is endorsing Brian Topp.

A very nice Manitoba endorsement for Topp following the Winnipeg debate.

http://www.briantopp.ca/news/trailblazing-manitoba-feminist-muriel-smith...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

My parents (blessed be their memory) were very good friends with her. I think they would have been surprised by that. They voted for Rosemary Brown. I think they would have voted for Mulcair.

Howard

Pat Martin has been quoted as saying he will remain neutral.

NorthReport

Pages

Topic locked