NDP Leadership Race #111

122 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

This massive Conservative voter-fraud scandal is now going to create a lot of additional interest in the government-in-waiting leadership race.

Bärlüer

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Bärlüer wrote:
As it happens, I'm rather surprised (and disappointed) to observe that on fiscal policy, most of the NDP leadership candidates are outflanked on the left by Obama.

Fair enough.  Though let's note that Obama has agreed to slash the corporate tax rate in the US and did nothing for the EFCA.  He's also agreed to go along with Super PACs while shedding crocodile tears about "having no choice."  US presidential races are basically the Republican super-rich vs. the Democratic super-rich. 

Don't even get me started on the total abandonment of EFCA... But I did restrict my observation to fiscal policy.

You're right to point out Obama's plan to lower the corporate tax rate. (The top rate would go from 35% to 28%; whereas the Harper government in Canada I believe has a target of a 25% combined rate [provincial + federal]. [Please correct me if I'm wrong, people who actually know this stuff...]) The administration's assertion is that it would make up for the loss of revenue by closing loopholes.

I wonder if people who thought favorably of Saganash's plan to raise revenue by "closing loopholes" (without offering any details as to what loopholes would be closed) instead of raising tax rates or of making the system more progressive by adding brackets, are similarly convinced by Obama's plan WRT corporate taxes...?

Bärlüer

In complete agreement.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Quote:
Neumann, Fraser, Hunt and USW International President Leo W. Gerard have all endorsed Brian Topp for NDP leader.

The Steelworkers Toronto Area Council has endorsed Peggy Nash.

 

NorthReport

Tks for this rr

radiorahim wrote:

Quote:
Neumann, Fraser, Hunt and USW International President Leo W. Gerard have all endorsed Brian Topp for NDP leader.

The Steelworkers Toronto Area Council has endorsed Peggy Nash.

 

AnonymousMouse

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.

Just to be clear, I was not claim that it is clear that Mulcair supports the Palestinians UN bid. I said it's clear that the reference he made to negotiating language at the UN is clearly a reference to the Palestinians' bid for statehood. Whether he supports that bid is a different question. I'm only saying it's clear that that is what he was talking about.

doofy

Iancosh:

I doubt the next NDP leader--whoever it is--would make PR the central plank of the 2015 platform. Most Canadians could not care less about our democratic institutions (sad but true). As the 2008 coalition crisis demonstrated, 51% of Canadians don't even fully understand first past the post. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/article727549.ece

Try getting people who don't get the current system engaged in trying to change it.

As for Nathan Cullen's proposal, it's a huge gamble. The Liberals might not want anything to do with it, b/c they are arrogant enough to believe they can back in 2015 on their own. (helped along by a fawning media) A Cullen victory would likely send the NDP back to third place in the polls ( he is such a complete unknown in QC--and his French is barely passable--that we would be back to roughly 20% there in no time (according to Forum we are there already), meaning the national numbers would suffer as well). In that context the Liberals will just turn up their noses at Cullen, and he will be left holding the bag.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

NorthReport wrote:

This massive Conservative voter-fraud scandal is now going to create a lot of additional interest in the government-in-waiting leadership race.

Undoubtedly, but will it lose the gap between the CPC at 167 and the NDP at 102? That remains to be seen.

socialdemocrati...

Rebecca West wrote:

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Very good point, sdm.  I don't want the LPC to disappear.  They serve as a useful boutique party for affluent professionals who are too wealthy to vote NDP and too educated to vote Tory (i.e. St. Paul's is the last Liberal riding in Canada!) 

"Useful boutique party" - that's quite possibly the best description of the LPC I've heard.  Made me laugh too.

+1. I really liked "too wealthy to vote NDP, but too educated to vote Tory". On point.

socialdemocrati...

Doofy, I agree that there are a lot of reasons to be cynical about PR. 5 provinces with NDP governments who promise PR, and zero provinces with PR.

I'd really like to not get burned again. I wish there were a way to get more assurances. I'm not sure who the candidate is who is most likely to implement it (to say nothing of who is most likely to get elected -- that's a separate, albeit related question).

Brachina

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tandt+Liberals+adrift+Vikileaks/622407...

Well the liberals have appeared to have just blown thier current advantaged. This is great news for us, but it would be better if we had a leader right now to milk it. What he said about if Jack was still here we'd be up 10 points is dead on, its breaking my heart. I want this damn leadership contest over asap.

Brachina

I'd like to point out Martin Singh is rich, but he appears to be still very much a progressive. I think he makes a good role model for other rich people.

Brachina

flight from kamakura wrote:

very good discussion.

eta on the barack point: i'm a wealthy professional, and i'm also a 3rd generation ndper who lives in quebec (when he's not in sf or dc on assignment) and i fanatically support social democracy in canada, and stand four-square behind the leader whoever it is (though obviously if it's mulcair, we're vastly more likely to win).  we need an ndp government, we need it.  every small thing the conservatives do makes me more insane, i can't believe we've gone back to a royal canadian navy, i can't believe we no longer register human-killing weapons, i can't believe we have cut to the bone the promotion of canadian culture in the founding province of the country.  it's not something i was raised to do, but i've come to hate the cpc and harper, to the point where i'm losing objectivity.  we just need the ndp in there to save the country.

+1

iancosh

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Doofy, I agree that there are a lot of reasons to be cynical about PR. 5 provinces with NDP governments who promise PR, and zero provinces with PR.

I'd really like to not get burned again. I wish there were a way to get more assurances. I'm not sure who the candidate is who is most likely to implement it (to say nothing of who is most likely to get elected -- that's a separate, albeit related question).

Cullen seems to be, so far, the candidate who has shown the most belief and commitment in getting Canadians to think differently about how we do politics.

Whether or not he's the best candidate in other respects is, I agree, another issue.

Lord Palmerston

I'm dubious of anyone who thinks merely "closing loopholes" is the primary solution to the taxation question. It's just a very politically safe way of not addressing the fact that taxation levels are too low (and thus not having to "raise taxes"), implying that nobody will have to pay more or be all that effected if they "honestly" pay the rate of taxes they do now.  No politician comes out IN FAVOR of loopholes.  

(That isn't to say the US system in particular is filled with loopholes, but they don't only benefit the wealthy, plenty of loopholes are very popular among middle income earners because they benefit middle- and high-income earners over the least affluent, such as joint-filing, mortgage deductions etc.  In the American political discourse of course "everyone" is "middle class"...)

iancosh

doofy wrote:

Iancosh:

I doubt the next NDP leader--whoever it is--would make PR the central plank of the 2015 platform. Most Canadians could not care less about our democratic institutions (sad but true). As the 2008 coalition crisis demonstrated, 51% of Canadians don't even fully understand first past the post. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/article727549.ece

Try getting people who don't get the current system engaged in trying to change it.

As for Nathan Cullen's proposal, it's a huge gamble. The Liberals might not want anything to do with it, b/c they are arrogant enough to believe they can back in 2015 on their own. (helped along by a fawning media) A Cullen victory would likely send the NDP back to third place in the polls ( he is such a complete unknown in QC--and his French is barely passable--that we would be back to roughly 20% there in no time (according to Forum we are there already), meaning the national numbers would suffer as well). In that context the Liberals will just turn up their noses at Cullen, and he will be left holding the bag.

I wonder.. re: the 2008 coalition crisis, did the coalition fail because a majority of Canadians were confused or against it; or did it fail because of a Liberal leadership crisis?

I think that the number of Canadians who are questioning first-past-the-post and open to coalition politics is growing. But I haven't seen surveys on the topic, so I might be wrong.

I agree that Cullen's proposal is a gamble, but not for the reasons you mentioned. If the Liberals reject the offer, then I don't see what the NDP loses. We carry on as we would have without the proposal, and the Liberals get cast as uncooperative. Let them hold *that* bag.

The problem that I see with Cullen's proposal is that it excludes the BQ. Quebecers can rightly ask, why. And the answer that can't be spoken publicly is: "because too many English Canadians are irrationally hostile to any hint of 'separatism' and therefore it would kill the NDP to make any offer to the Bloc." I don't know how Cullen could handle this problem without either offending Quebec or losing a ton of votes in the ROC.

Lord Palmerston

flight from kamakura wrote:

very good discussion.

eta on the barack point: i'm a wealthy professional, and i'm also a 3rd generation ndper who lives in quebec (when he's not in sf or dc on assignment) and i fanatically support social democracy in canada, and stand four-square behind the leader whoever it is (though obviously if it's mulcair, we're vastly more likely to win).  we need an ndp government, we need it.  every small thing the conservatives do makes me more insane, i can't believe we've gone back to a royal canadian navy, i can't believe we no longer register human-killing weapons, i can't believe we have cut to the bone the promotion of canadian culture in the founding province of the country.  it's not something i was raised to do, but i've come to hate the cpc and harper, to the point where i'm losing objectivity.  we just need the ndp in there to save the country.

Not saying that no well to do professionals vote NDP, but they're generally more of an LPC constituency.  These people generally reject the Tories for many of the reasons you mention: funding for the arts and CBC, gun registry, long-form census, Kyoto, etc.

Obama wins big in areas that would be the equivalent of the Annex in Toronto, but also in areas akin to Rosedale, Forest Hill, Westmount and Point Grey.  

Rabble_Incognito

janfromthebruce wrote:

Arthur, I don't consider unions a part of the elites - considering the crap they go through and especially now and how they often act as backup for other social activism (eg. tents, supples for occupy) I think going easy here. Almost like buying into the right wing meme that unions are greedy and evil.

Thank you - well said. I've never been a member of a union but I'm glad they exist - I attribute the fact that my wage and benefits were 'ok' to union activism. Without the unions, they'd have paid me peanuts.

flight from kamakura wrote:

every small thing the conservatives do makes me more insane.

 

Me too and I thought I was going to lose it when they tied health care $ to GDP of each province, but now, every time I see that smug face, I have to scroll down the page.

socialdemocrati...

Yes, there are a lot of wealthy people who feel a sense of social responsibility. People who went to public school, caught a good opportunity because of the support in their community, and never forgot their roots. Or immigrants who came to this country and appreciated policies in place to help them rise in social status. Or people with religious backgrounds who focus on generosity and fairness. The stats say that wealthier people are going to vote for the party that promises them low taxes. But I don't believe in treating people as a statistic, and I try to avoid making blanket statements about rich folk.

DSloth

Mulcair's just tweeted that he'll be bringing his MP count up to 42(!) tomorrow.

 

No idea which of the 20 or so MPs left up for grabs it is, but for the previous 40 endorsements I don't recall any teaser announcements in advance. This could be a big one. 

Bill Davis

Well here's one for anyone still thinking Paul could conceivably lead the party.  For all the articles that have knocked on a particular candidate, this one does not hold any punches.

Dewar paie le prix

Dewar Pays the Price

Translated version has less of a kick to it, but you'll get the idea.

 

 

Brachina

DSloth wrote:

Mulcair's just tweeted that he'll be bringing his MP count up to 42(!) tomorrow.

 

No idea which of the 20 or so MPs left up for grabs it is, but for the previous 40 endorsements I don't recall any teaser announcements in advance. This could be a big one. 

My guess Romeo Saganash and Christine Moore. Maybe one other MP if he's not including himself in the 42, perhaps Rathika, Chisholm, or Megan Leslie?

DSloth

Well I'm pretty sure there's only one coming out tomorrow (Thomas Mulcair himself is his 41st MP) .

 

From what I can gather though it's a slightly bigger deal than the average endorsement, but many of the 20 remaining MPs would meet that qualification.

Brachina

Then I'm leaning towards Chisholm or Saganash. Just my guess.

Brachina

Although in the very very unlikely situation Olvia Chow decides to renounce her neutrality and endorses Tom, I wouldn't be surpise to see Brian fold. Still I just don't see that happening unless she thinks the NDPs on the edge of being screwed totally.

DSloth

One of the people I think is in the know, just teased me that it's one of the 20 MPs as of yet undeclared. So very unlikely it's Chow, Turmel, Comartin or any of the MPs who've already endorsed one of the other six candidates. 

 

Brachina

DSloth wrote:

One of the people I think is in the know, just teased me that it's one of the 20 MPs as of yet undeclared. So very unlikely it's Chow, Turmel, Comartin or any of the MPs who've already endorsed one of the other six candidates. 

 

Who do you think it is?

DSloth

Well I don't think it's Saganash, Pierre Dionne Labelle almost immediatly jumped to Mulcair after he dropped out, but his campaign manager and a few other people from his camp recently went over to Dewar. I doubt they'd have done that if they had the sense Saganash was about to offer his support to one of the other candidates, to be clear though I don't think this indicates Saganash is any more likely to endorse Dewar.  If he endorses it will probably be much later.

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Unionist wrote:

Lord Palmerston wrote:

I don't think Mulcair has been "bought" by Onex.  But a lot of the corporate elite like what he says, which is unusual for a New Democrat.

You need to identify what he's saying which the other candidates aren't saying that is music to the ears of the corporate elite. Otherwise, this is just innuendo.

 

He's saying something different, obviously, Unionist. I know you don't suffer fools and neither do I.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

But Unionist if we got rid of baseless innuendo these threads would probably be under 30 in total and then where would we be?

How are where donations come from, baseless inuendo, when I'm sure many of us point where the CPC get their blood bag money from?

philwalkerp

I have to give Peggy Nash credit, her announcement yesterday on proportional representation is getting noticed. Lots of comments on social media, good news stories, and more.

Macleans also gives Paul Dewar and Brian Topp credit for taking a stand on electoral reform.

As usual, Thomas Mulcair is missing in action on proportional representation.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

You guys are aware, right, that to actually run the country, the party will have to foster ongoing and positive (as much as possible) relationships with a broad range of powerful people who have their hands on the levers of society, most of whom will be total bastards. Leadership is about compromises, sad but true. If the leader of the NDP becomes Prime Minister, they will be PM for the whole country, not just the NDP base. Any politician who says, "I don't associate with these business crooks. You won't catch me at their meetings." will never, never win power.

Once again, the tone of these conversations tend to indicate that babblers think that a party's leader sits in a shrouded room issuing decrees like the emperor of fuedal China. Like Topp's tax plan? me too. I just don't think he's the best spokesperson for it. The good news is that Topp's not leaving the party if Mulcair wins and he'll be there at the policy convention advocating for his tax plan. If you agree with him, you could do your part to advocate for it too, and if you convince enough people then it will become policy and Mulcair will be advocating it himself in the next election, despite his reasonable misgivings.

The party is still a community of individuals. The leader is not a dictator. Mulcair cannot "take the party to the right" all by himself. He could only do this with a large swell of NDP members who wanted to do the same, and if that's the case then you were just outvoted, weren't you? Time to find a new party, I guess. But until that happens, let's assume that the NDP will remain essentially what it is no matter who becomes leader, because that's the most rational stance.

What are the odds of finding a needle in a haystack?

I just found one.

Got it in 1/11000?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

doofy wrote:

SDM:

I too wish we had proportional representation. Yet, here are the unpleasant facts:

--we are not going to get PR unless we win under the current system

--if we win under the current system, we won't want to change it (irrespective of Topp and Nash's promises right now). That's why no provincial NDP gov't ever bothered to introduce PR.

 

Gah..I really want to warm to Mulcair, but his supporters keep stepping in it.

Bookish Agrarian

Brachina wrote:
Although in the very very unlikely situation Olvia Chow decides to renounce her neutrality and endorses Tom, I wouldn't be surpise to see Brian fold. Still I just don't see that happening unless she thinks the NDPs on the edge of being screwed totally.

 

Could we please leave Olivia out of such stupid speculations.

socialdemocrati...

There are no big MP endorsements. Very few of them matter.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Brachina wrote:
Although in the very very unlikely situation Olvia Chow decides to renounce her neutrality and endorses Tom, I wouldn't be surpise to see Brian fold. Still I just don't see that happening unless she thinks the NDPs on the edge of being screwed totally.

 

Could we please leave Olivia out of such stupid speculations.

Keep fighting the good fight BA. I heartily agree.

Wilf Day

Good turnout tonight in Peterborough to meet-and-greet Topp, Nash and Singh. All loving and optimistic.

Nothing new except Martin Singh got the gold star for this line: "First-Past-The-Post is the ultimate voter suppression scheme; it suppresses half the votes by throwing them in the garbage can."

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

The guy bringing up the rear has the best line on PR? Why do I bother? Please give us more Wilf.

duncan cameron

Thanks for the link Bill Davis, I used to see Le Droit when I was in Ottawa. Bado is my favorite political cartoonist, his material  included what he picked up from Le Droit editorial meetings, he once explained to me. On language issues they were the gold standard once upon a time, at least.

Prairie Lefty

Hi everyone. Long time reader, first time poster.

Mulcair was in Winnipeg today and I asked him whether or not
he believes Canada should support Palestine’s bid for recognition at the UN. He
repeated what he has said before, mentioning his support for the NDP policy on
the Middle East, emphasis on peace, his desire for multilateral dialogue at the
UN and how he is in favour of Resolution 242. However, he did not directly
answer the question. I followed up and asked him if he specifically supports
the bid, yes or no. He continued to equivocate and basically repeated what he
said about dialogue at the UN although he did add that he rejects the
Conservative government’s “Manichean” position on the Israel-Palestine
question. He said that unlike the Conservatives, he equally supports Israel and
the creation of a Palestinian state.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Is that the real googletranslate? Pardon my ignorance, please.

Lord Palmerston

Prairie Lefty wrote:

Hi everyone. Long time reader, first time poster.

Mulcair was in Winnipeg today and I asked him whether or not he believes Canada should support Palestine’s bid for recognition at the UN. He repeated what he has said before, mentioning his support for the NDP policy on the Middle East, emphasis on peace, his desire for multilateral dialogue at the UN and how he is in favour of Resolution 242. However, he did not directly answer the question. I followed up and asked him if he specifically supports the bid, yes or no. He continued to equivocate and basically repeated what he said about dialogue at the UN although he did add that he rejects the Conservative government’s “Manichean” position on the Israel-Palestine question. He said that unlike the Conservatives, he equally supports Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state.

Sounds like a non-answer to me.  

Welcome to babble, Pairie Lefty.  

Prairie Lefty

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Prairie Lefty wrote:

Hi everyone. Long time reader, first time poster.

Mulcair was in Winnipeg today and I asked him whether or not he believes Canada should support Palestine’s bid for recognition at the UN. He repeated what he has said before, mentioning his support for the NDP policy on the Middle East, emphasis on peace, his desire for multilateral dialogue at the UN and how he is in favour of Resolution 242. However, he did not directly answer the question. I followed up and asked him if he specifically supports the bid, yes or no. He continued to equivocate and basically repeated what he said about dialogue at the UN although he did add that he rejects the Conservative government’s “Manichean” position on the Israel-Palestine question. He said that unlike the Conservatives, he equally supports Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state.

Sounds like a non-answer to me.  

Welcome to babble, Pairie Lefty.  

Thanks Lord Palmerston! Indeed, I was hoping a specific question like that would yield a specific answer but Mulcair really seemed keen to avoid committing himself to either position.
I notice a lot of people are also raising questions about his support for PR. Someone at the event actually asked him about it. He answered that he is in favour of MMP and that the NDP should run in 2015 with a proposal to implement it in the party platform. He followed that by saying he thinks it might be difficult to implement but that he supports it because “it’s the right thing to do”.

vaudree

I think that Saganash would be a very big catch - especially since his last act as Leadership hopeful was to pen a list of qualities which he figured that the new leader should have.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
Funny how Obama campaigned on a public health insurance option, with no mandate. But in the end, they got a mandate with no public option. Even if you think he was telling the truth about his promise during the campaign, when all was said and done, he wouldn't "go to the mat" for what he promised.

Obama was never going to go for the public option. When he was debating Edwards and Clinton, Obama talked about bringing everyone to the table and rattled off a bunch of players - including the Health Insurance Industry! I remember thinking at the time that if Obama was going to implement single payer then why would he bother bringing the Health Insurance Industry to the table!

I think Nuances is important.

All MPs, including the leader, are beholden to what has been decided at Convention (one of the complaints at the last Convention was the lack of time allocated for voting on policy). That said, personal biases can determine how one deals with a policy that one presumably supports and looks for aspects of a policy area not covered by convention - which a lawyer can do quite well.

The new NDP leader should not only be able to go after Harper but needs to be able to stand up for the other MPs. The new leader has to be able to take two MPs that have disagreements on an issue and figure out how to find common ground which they both will find acceptable - even if the leader is a bit more favourable to the position of one over the other. If the leader can't do the "common ground" thing, the leader will have to step aside and have someone else in the party in charge of doing that for him/her and then be prepared to go to bat with whatever has been worked out.

That is one worry about Mulcair is whether he can do the "common-ground" thing and what he plans to do about it. Turmel appears like Stephane Dion's sister on TV but she seems very good at getting all the MPs on side and doing the "common-ground" thing - except for one incident, I haven't seen much mixed messages with the NDP since she's taken over.

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

If Mulcair will commit to run on PR in 2015 he has my support.

Prairie Lefty

I should add that Mulcair brought up the fact that the NDP won 30% of the vote but 0% of the seats in Saskatchewan as an illustration of why MMP is needed.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

vaudree wrote:

I think that Saganash would be a very big catch -

I wouldn't be caught dead giving any credence to a Sagagnash rumour. Didn't mean to say it that way. It just seems games folks are playing. It will be a very big catch.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

NR, I couldn't agree with you more. I don't want the estalishment, Union or otherwise, telling me what to do. Frankly, Gerard should just shut his yap tight! Frankly, this Ed Braodbentian, Union, Ontrario elite, establsihmentarian collalition stuff is really turning me off. Keep this up and I'll stay home and the hell with em'!

God knows I'm not crazy about the emphasis on endorsements, but I agree with janfromthebruce: complaining about a union endorsement being "establishment" and about "telling you what to do" when you're not saying the same thing about other kinds of endorsements smacks an awful lot of anti-union sentiment. Unions have been an important part of the NDP for a long time.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Onex doesn't have unions?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Hold the fire to the brimstone. I want to support Mulcair.

Pages

Topic locked