NDP leadership race #119

122 posts / 0 new
Last post
socialdemocrati...

I haven't received my ballot by mail yet.

Does anyone here plan to vote in real-time? I heard that was an option.

I was looking forward to holing myself up in a bunker with an internet connection, and mountains of terrible snacks.

UWSofty

I received my ballot last Wednesday. My partner is still waiting on hers. She signed up a few days before the deadline, so I figured that was the holdup. She's not panicking yet, but if it's not here by next week we'll probably contact someone.

Skinny Dipper

I'm still waiting for my ballot

Toronto

Skinny Dipper

I did get an email stating from the NDP that my ballot should arrive by the 9th.  Then again, it could a Con robo-email stating that I have to travel to Newfoundland to pick up my ballot.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Isn't it amazing that I, living in an isolated northern Quebec village, received my ballot on time, have voted, and have sent my ballot through the mail already?  Sorry to keep rubbing it in, but I have to say the NDP are really on the ball here. I'm impressed.

NorthReport

The deadline to mail a ballot in is March 12. Today being March 8th, so that's cutting it a bit fine I would say. I wounder if some people will receive their ballots too late for mailing it in, and they will either have to vote online or attend the convention. That's one way to get the numbers up at the convention I suppose. Laughing

Rakhmetov

I wonder if we're going to see any superendorsements by the end of the race now, i.e. an Olivia Chow, Stephen Lewis, etc..

It appears that Jack Layton's secret endorsement of Topp was made with the stipulation that he couldn't use it in the race.  Topp has tried to compensate for this by having Laytourettes Syndrome (with a bit of a backlash) and by trying to obliquely imply that he was.  When asked about it he says that "those conversations will stay between me and Jack" which is a pretty clever nonanswer answer because you're giving the impression that Layton might have while not actually saying anything.  For my money I think that Layton in consultation with Broadbent and others did secretly support Topp.  Jack's final letter provides some evidence, where Layton clearly stabbed Mulcair in the back by calling for a leadershp convention asap and early in the new year (i.e. Jan) when Mulcair needed more time to build the party in Quebec.  Layton was no fool and knew that there would be a negligible amount of Quebec members then.  In this respect Jack's final letter sort of reminds me of Lenin's last will and testament: "Comrade Mulcair is too rude and this defect is intolerable.  That is why I suggest the comrades think about a way to of removing Mulcair from the leadership and appointing another one more tolerant, more loyal, more polite, more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc.."

 

Hunky_Monkey

Rakhmetov wrote:

I wonder if we're going to see any superendorsements by the end of the race now, i.e. an Olivia Chow, Stephen Lewis, etc..

It appears that Jack Layton's secret endorsement of Topp was made with the stipulation that he couldn't use it in the race.  Topp has tried to compensate for this by having Laytourettes Syndrome (with a bit of a backlash) and by trying to obliquely imply that he was.  When asked about it he says that "those conversations will stay between me and Jack" which is a pretty clever nonanswer answer because you're giving the impression that Layton might have while not actually saying anything.  For my money I think that Layton in consultation with Broadbent and others did secretly support Topp.  Jack's final letter provides some evidence, where Layton clearly stabbed Mulcair in the back by calling for a leadershp convention asap and early in the new year (i.e. Jan) when Mulcair needed more time to build the party in Quebec.  Layton was no fool and knew that there would be a negligible amount of Quebec members then.  In this respect Jack's final letter sort of reminds me of Lenin's last will and testament: "Comrade Mulcair is too rude and this defect is intolerable.  That is why I suggest the comrades think about a way to of removing Mulcair from the leadership and appointing another one more tolerant, more loyal, more polite, more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc.."

 

Wow! Just... wow!

Brachina

I got an email that said I should have my kit by March 9th. If some people miss out on voting because HQ can't get thier shit together someone should resign, no excuses for this, they had months to prepare.

flight from kamakura

there's no good that'll come with speculation about jack's deviousness, topp's manipulations of a dying man, the ndp as snake pit, or mulcair as the grizzly.  that's a really really bad way of thinking.

algomafalcon

Lachine Scot wrote:

Back to the mail-in ballot package, I haven't received mine yet here in BC, although my partner did a few days ago. She actually called in to cancel her membership after Saganash dropped out, having only signed up to vote for him, but either that doesn't really do anything or it takes a while for her name to fall off various lists it started to appear on.

I, on the other hand, who signed up last summer have yet to receive the mail-in ballot. However, I do get Paul Dewar e-mail spam all the time, so I must be a member, right?

 

I thought my membership had elapsed so I recently renewed. I knew the exact date when I bought my membership during the provincial leadership contest last year, and I was quite worried my membership would be expiring in January. But I recently got a tax receipt showing the membership donations for both years. When I bought my membership last year, it was submitted to a campaign, and those were maybe processed some time later. I was still receiving notices in the mail from the NDP but I renewed because I wanted to vote. I don't know if the NDP sends out notices before your membership expires so I think its quite possible a lot of people might think they are members but might get cut off from the vote.

However, although I've received the tax receipt, I still haven't received a voting package in the mail.

 

Lachine Scot

I received a tax receipt for a donation I made to an individual campaign during the election. However, nothing from my membership donation, although it was probably too small to need a receipt. I never received any confirmation of my membership but I've continued to receive NDP spam.

I'll feel pretty stupid in the end if it turns out that I'm "not a member"..

babbler 8

Rakhmetov wrote:

Jack's final letter provides some evidence, where Layton clearly stabbed Mulcair in the back by calling for a leadershp convention asap and early in the new year (i.e. Jan) when Mulcair needed more time to build the party in Quebec. 

I'm pretty sure March still qualifies as early in the new year, and quite frankly if this race were to go on any longer it would only divide and distract us unnecessarily. Jack was smart and knew that, which is why he said early in the new year and left it at that. All your other speculation is baseless and quite reckless.

Chajusong

Lachine Scot wrote:

I received a tax receipt for a donation I made to an individual campaign during the election. However, nothing from my membership donation, although it was probably too small to need a receipt. I never received any confirmation of my membership but I've continued to receive NDP spam.

I'll feel pretty stupid in the end if it turns out that I'm "not a member"..

 

Membership fees aren't tax deductable. Anything over the 10$ it costs for membership would be eligible for a receipt, but you wouldn't get one for just signing up for a membership.

Winston

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Rakhmetov wrote:

 "Comrade Mulcair is too rude and this defect is intolerable.  That is why I suggest the comrades think about a way to of removing Mulcair from the leadership and appointing another one more tolerant, more loyal, more polite, more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc.."

Wow! Just... wow!

Surely Godwin's Law extends to Stalin too!

And Hunky_Monkey: I totally got your reference!

janfromthebruce

A Winston, I'm a Topp supporter who was Jack's right hand strategist (so how can he be both a key person of Jack's team and not also be a progressive. Anyway, I also supported Jack on first ballot in 2003, and I don't consider myself a part of the old guard. I am starting to resent the Mulcair camp spin that he represents the "new NDP" and the others (with exception of Cullen) as the old guard. The Mulcair camp doesn't like it when others may suggest that Mulcair reflects the old discarded 3rd way politics of Tony Blair so please quit with the NDP old guard.

 

Winston wrote:

It seems that Tom Mulcair has snagged the endorsement of Winnipeg City Councillor Jenny Gerbasi.  This is a significant endorsement for a couple of reasons:

1. Jenny is widely seen as embodying the values of the left wing of the Manitoba NDP.  A four-term City Councillor, over the last 5 years, Jenny has acted as the de-facto leader of the Opposition to corrupt right-wing Mayor Sam Katz.  She is widely respected in the Party, and members will factor her opinion into their own deliberations.

2. Jenny was one of the only elected New Democrats in Manitoba who broke ranks and supported Jack Layton's leadership bid in 2003. Her endorsement of Jack in that race signalled to Manitobans that it was okay not to vote for Blaikie and opened the door to Jack winning a lot more support on the prairies than he would otherwise have.

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

Policywonk

Chajusong wrote:

Lachine Scot wrote:

I received a tax receipt for a donation I made to an individual campaign during the election. However, nothing from my membership donation, although it was probably too small to need a receipt. I never received any confirmation of my membership but I've continued to receive NDP spam.

I'll feel pretty stupid in the end if it turns out that I'm "not a member"..

 

Membership fees aren't tax deductable. Anything over the 10$ it costs for membership would be eligible for a receipt, but you wouldn't get one for just signing up for a membership.

Depends on which section you are in I think. In some sections you are renewed automatically if you donated in the past year.

Policywonk

babbler 8 wrote:

Rakhmetov wrote:

Jack's final letter provides some evidence, where Layton clearly stabbed Mulcair in the back by calling for a leadershp convention asap and early in the new year (i.e. Jan) when Mulcair needed more time to build the party in Quebec. 

I'm pretty sure March still qualifies as early in the new year, and quite frankly if this race were to go on any longer it would only divide and distract us unnecessarily. Jack was smart and knew that, which is why he said early in the new year and left it at that. All your other speculation is baseless and quite reckless.

Jack also suggested that the Leadership process be along the same timelines as the last one, meaning the same length. There was some confusion over the interpretation of what he said at the beginning, until it was pointed out that he was calling for the same length of Leadership race as the last one, which gives the timing that we have. While his wording could be open to interpretation, stating that Layton clearly stabbed Mulcair in the back is ridiculous if not despicable. As was said earlier, March is still early in the New Year and it was as early as possible in the new year given the timelines stipulation. In any case, it is becoming less likely that Topp will win.

This is what Jack actually wrote:

"I recommend the party hold a leadership vote as early as possible in the New Year, on approximately the same timelines as in 2003,..."

Hunky_Monkey

janfromthebruce wrote:

A Winston, I'm a Topp supporter who was Jack's right hand strategist (so how can he be both a key person of Jack's team and not also be a progressive. Anyway, I also supported Jack on first ballot in 2003, and I don't consider myself a part of the old guard. I am starting to resent the Mulcair camp spin that he represents the "new NDP" and the others (with exception of Cullen) as the old guard. The Mulcair camp doesn't like it when others may suggest that Mulcair reflects the old discarded 3rd way politics of Tony Blair so please quit with the NDP old guard.

 

Winston wrote:

It seems that Tom Mulcair has snagged the endorsement of Winnipeg City Councillor Jenny Gerbasi.  This is a significant endorsement for a couple of reasons:

1. Jenny is widely seen as embodying the values of the left wing of the Manitoba NDP.  A four-term City Councillor, over the last 5 years, Jenny has acted as the de-facto leader of the Opposition to corrupt right-wing Mayor Sam Katz.  She is widely respected in the Party, and members will factor her opinion into their own deliberations.

2. Jenny was one of the only elected New Democrats in Manitoba who broke ranks and supported Jack Layton's leadership bid in 2003. Her endorsement of Jack in that race signalled to Manitobans that it was okay not to vote for Blaikie and opened the door to Jack winning a lot more support on the prairies than he would otherwise have.

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

Not sure who said Topp wasn't a progressive? I think he is. I just don't think he's being quite honest when it comes to painting himself as being on the left and attacking others for, in his mind, wanting to move to the centre. He likes to attack the "Third Way" and "Blairites" yet wrap himself in the Romanow flag. Hypocritcal? I think so.

Jack wasn't "old school". He started modernizing the NDP. And Topp was one of his advisors among others. My question... why did Jack drop "tax the rich!" rhetoric? Where was that in the last platform that Topp co-wrote? Did Topp advise Jack to drop that? Those are questions I'd like the answer to. I doubt I'll get one. Same goes for imposing mandatory minimum sentences in our justice system. Did Topp advise Jack to adopt that?

It just seems Topp is running against everything Jack did.

NorthReport

Wow, just wow! What else to say.

I've heard a lot of things said bout Layton but "stabbing in the back" was never one of them till now.

That is why folks should read many of the posts with, never mind a grain, but perhaps with a huge lump of salt.

Rakhmetov

I'm not the only one to speculate that this was the case, a lot of folks have been quietly pointing this out (albeit some of them are from the Topp camp).  Another piece of evidence is the endorsement from Layton's mother for Topp, the subtext being that Topp was Jack's preferred choice given how close she said they were on top of the imprimatur from Doris Layton itself.

Jack's final letter says to have the convention "as early as possible in the New Year."  Early as possible means January, as the party was originally considering until they caved in to pressure from the Mulcair campaign.

And the bit about Lenin's last will is obviously a joke, one I couldn't resist, so calm down everyone.  Any implication that I was trying to subtly compare the two is completely ridiculous.  Stalin and Mulcair are completely different: Stalin only had a mustache and not a beard. ;)

Policywonk

Rakhmetov wrote:

Jack's final letter says to have the convention "as early as possible in the New Year."  Early as possible means January, as the party was originally considering until they caved in to pressure from the Mulcair campaign.

Read the rest of the line in the letter for the caveat.

Rakhmetov

And for what it's worth I was struck by how conspicuous Topp was towards the end with Layton.  Like how he was right next to Jack at the announcement that Layton was stepping down for example (although he was President, but NDP Presidents don't typically have much of a profile).  And let's not forget that Topp has claimed that he helped write that letter with Layton.

As for timelines, a Convention in January would have been "approximately" the same length as the last leadership race, even if a month or two shorter.  He said that would have been "ample time" and that we should avoid having too long of a race (i.e. "as early as possible").  He knew what that meant to Mulcair.  Mulcair at the beginning said he might not even run because this was such a serious issue.

socialdemocrati...

Yeah, this is the most deranged theory I've seen yet.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Two more weeks to go. What's the next ridiculous assertion going to be?

DSloth

Mulcair derangement syndrome is reaching new heights. 

Jack layton was not sending you coded messages, or trying to suppress the Quebec membership numbers to screw over Mulcair. If he wanted to ensure Topp succeeded him that badly all he had to do was say "I recommend Brian Topp succeed me" and this would have been a very short campaign indeed.  Obviously Jack trusted the membership to make the right decision which is why he stayed neutral.  

Policywonk

Rakhmetov wrote:

And for what it's worth I was struck by how conspicuous Topp was towards the end with Layton.  Like how he was right next to Jack at the announcement that Layton was stepping down for example (although he was President, but NDP Presidents don't typically have much of a profile).  And let's not forget that Topp has claimed that he helped write that letter with Layton.

As for timelines, a Convention in January would have been "approximately" the same length as the last leadership race, even if a month or two shorter.  He said that would have been "ample time" and that we should avoid having too long of a race (i.e. "as early as possible").  He knew what that meant to Mulcair.  Mulcair at the beginning said he might not even run because this was such a serious issue.

Two months shorter, which is why as early as possible in the new year can be taken to mean March. An interpretation of a leadership vote in January was not the prevailing one. Is seven months approximately five months? I don't think so. This is a waste of effort as you are being absurd.

Rakhmetov

DSloth wrote:

Mulcair derangement syndrome is reaching new heights. 

Jack layton was not sending you coded messages, or trying to suppress the Quebec membership numbers to screw over Mulcair. If he wanted to ensure Topp to succeed him that badly all he had to do was say "I recommend Brian Topp succeed me" and this would have been a very short campaign indeed.  Obviously Jack trusted the membership to make the right decision which is why he stayed neutral.  

So I guess Mulcair has "Mulcair derangement syndrome" too (interesting how Mulcair supporters are now openly embracing right wing Republican language and style, quite revealing really) because he is the one who has said since before he declared that the NDP establishment has been trying to suppress the Quebec vote in this race.  So is Mulcair a crazed conspiracy theorist too? Look, Mulcair is the victim in his scenario so I don't get why you're upset (that's what I get for defending him eh?  I'll make sure that won't happen again).

If some adults are skeptical, then they can provide arguments as to why it's no big deal that Topp wrote Jack's final letter where Mulcair would be seriously handicapped in the race, according to Mulcair himself.  But spare me puerile paroxysms that make you look like you are flustered and don't have anything intelligent to say.  I'm all ears.

KenS

You are mixing a lt of heresay, and outright bullshit.

The only time I have heard Topp talk about that letter, he said there were several people at the house.... which is where they had been gathering and meeting for discussions since Jack was so ill. The way Topp describes it is that Jack is essentially dictating and saying what he wants in it... with Topp taking drafts from the group back to Jack.

What you heard is people claiming that Topp claims he more than 'helped' write the letter... which then becomes 'fact' traded around.

And in fact it would be quite normal for the party President to be present for an announcement like that.

The things that people attribute as Topp 'claims' dont make sense. They'd be suicidal to make, and that alone should have made people skeptical whether they happened.

And the attribution that Jack was stabbing Mulcair in the back and setting up Topp as successor is even more fanciful.

TheArchitect

I hear Mulcair supporters complain about how some of us in the party supposedly suffer from "Mulcair Derangement Syndrome"—presumably a reference to the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" which was coined by American arch-neocon Charles Krauthammer to describe a certain negative attitude toward George W. Bush.

The question I'd love to ask Mulcair supporters is this: why is it that so many seemingly-reasonable New Democrats have come to suffer from this supposed illness?  Why do Mulcair supporters think it is that so many of us have such an aversion to the idea of Mulcair as leader?

I, of course, think that the reason that people are worried about Mulcair is that they feel that there is considerable reason to believe that Mulcair would lead the NDP away from its values and its mission.  So, Mulcair supporters, if, as I hear some of you claim, there's no reason to be concerned about Mulcair doing this, then why have so many of us developed what you call "Mulcair Derangement Syndrome"?

I look forward to hearing some answers!

KenS

You dont get it.

Both Mulcair supporters and serious detractors think you are full of it on this. Thats your schtick thinking you are doing someone favours, and getting kicked in the teeth for it.

And its pretty strange to be saying people arent arguing why its no big deal that Topp wrote Jack's final letter, when I just finished saying that Topp did not write it and does not claim he did. Nor does it sound like it would even be best characterised as a group effort. That is Jack's letter, with a number of people present, who as always he got advice from and bounced things off of.

Howard

TheArchitect wrote:

The question I'd love to ask Mulcair supporters is this: why is it that so many seemingly-reasonable New Democrats have come to suffer from this supposed illness?  Why do Mulcair supporters think it is that so many of us have such an aversion to the idea of Mulcair as leader?

I, of course, think that the reason that people are worried about Mulcair is that they feel that there is considerable reason to believe that Mulcair would lead the NDP away from its values and its mission.  So, Mulcair supporters, if, as I hear some of you claim, there's no reason to be concerned about Mulcair doing this, then why have so many of us developed what you call "Mulcair Derangement Syndrome"?

I look forward to hearing some answers!

Beardophobia Laughing

Rakhmetov

I don't know why people are getting so hysterical.  I'm not the first one to suggest this.  The media has asked Topp about it repeatedly.  Given how some of you seem to have devoted your entire lives to following this race I'm suprised you are so shocked and appalled.

Ken S: My understanding is that Layton finalized the letter after a 4 hour discussion with Topp, it wasn't simply just Topp there as a stenographer.  Maybe you're right, is there a source you can cite for that?  And I did point out that Topp was Party President that would justify his presence.  Are you seriously suggesting that Layton didn't understand the repercussions for the Mulcair campaign if a convention occured ASAP early in the new year?

Policywonk:  A month or two difference in a long leadership race is "approximate".  As you know, there was a big debate about whether Layton was talking about January or not.  Chow and Topp now deny it, but the Topp campaign was at the beginning pushing for an ASAP convention in late Jan or early Feb was he not?

 

 

Jacob Two-Two

Because you confuse the leader with the party. You think that because Mulcair is not the candidate that most closely exemplifies your politics, that he will change the party into something you don't like, but he can't do that. That's not what being the leader means. A leader is the face and voice of their party. They take on the task of being the public advocate of all the things the party stands for, not the task of determining what those things will be. It is much more accurate to say that a leader becomes their party, than to say a party becomes its leader.

Mulcair will gain more influence in the party if he becomes leader, certainly. And if you're concerned about the progressive gap between him and the other candidates (which frankly, feels quite small to me) then I can see how you'd be concerned about him expanding his influence, but the fact is that he's already quite influential and plays a key role in the party. The party seems to have weathered the stormy clouds of his influence through him being Quebec leader, Deputy Leader, House Leader. Somehow the party has done better than ever, and has not sold out to any noticable degree. Instead his influence has seemed to coincide with unprecedented success. How much of that he can take credit for is anyone's guess, but nobody can say he hasn't done a great job in Quebec. Even his opponents don't deny that he has the best presentation and political skills of all the candidates. I think the soul of the party will survive having him as leader. In fact, I think it will thrive as the party thrives.

Mulcair's not stupid and the party won't tolerate him "lurching to the right". I buy that he's on the rightward side of the party, but I don't believe that he's duplicitous or a phoney. I think he intends to promote NDP policy just as it's set by the members to the very best of his considerable abilities. I also think we're lucky to have him do that.

Rakhmetov

What's Mulcair hiding under that beard?  And why has he refused to release his birth certificate?  He's just like Obama, who still REFUSES to release his medium-form birth certificate. Wink

"Mulcair Derangement Syndrome" is a vast, vast conspiracy of a twisted, marginal fringe of the NDP--probably a majority or plurality of the membership--who have the temerity to actually want someone who's clearly committed to continuing the values of the party to be leader.  It's downright undemocratic really that a bunch of lousy members just because this is OMOV may unfairly conspire against Mulcair and take away his rightful victory for the ridiculous reason that they don't agree with his stands.

socialdemocrati...

I've been critical of Mulcair. As has KenS. But we're among a bunch who are still grounded in reality. Our criticisms generally start and stop with actual policy differences between Mulcair and the other candidates.

I can't guess why a few people have a much stronger hatred towards Mulcair. It's far, far, far larger than any of the substantive differences he has with any of the other candidates. (Which always makes the more deranged critics scoff, but never makes them provide any evidence.)

Here's my best two theories:

(1) Knee-jerk hatred of anything Liberal. Mulcair was a high ranking member of the LPQ. He is forever tainted and eyed with suspicion. Nash says "we shouldn't talk about taxes now", and Saganash says "It's probably enough to just close loopholes". Nobody bats an eyelash. Mulcair says "yeah, I think we should close loopholes and wait til 2015", and a few people proclaim him a right-wing sellout.

(2) Latent payback for Jack Layton's transformation of the NDP. Under Layton, the party removed the voting quota for unions, the man apologized to Israel, and we promised to reform NATO and NAFTA instead of pulling out completely. They couldn't punish him because he was already the leader, and the party kept on winning. But now, after years of the NDP becoming "indistinguishable from the Liberal Party", they see in Mulcair everything they hate about the new NDP party. They say Mulcair wants to take the party to the right, but a lot of their complaints focus on transformations that already occured under Jack Layton. But in shutting down Mulcair, they get to rebuff everything they hate about the party's change.

 

Hunky_Monkey

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I've been critical of Mulcair. As has KenS. But we're among a bunch who are still grounded in reality. Our criticisms generally start and stop with actual policy differences between Mulcair and the other candidates.

I can't guess why a few people have a much stronger hatred towards Mulcair. It's far, far, far larger than any of the substantive differences he has with any of the other candidates. (Which always makes the more deranged critics scoff, but never makes them provide any evidence.)

Here's my best two theories:

(1) Knee-jerk hatred of anything Liberal. Mulcair was a high ranking member of the LPQ. He is forever tainted and eyed with suspicion. Nash says "we shouldn't talk about taxes now", and Saganash says "It's probably enough to just close loopholes". Nobody bats an eyelash. Mulcair says "yeah, I think we should close loopholes and wait til 2015", and a few people proclaim him a right-wing sellout.

(2) Latent payback for Jack Layton's transformation of the NDP. Under Layton, the party removed the voting quota for unions, the man apologized to Israel, and we promised to reform NATO and NAFTA instead of pulling out completely. They couldn't punish him because he was already the leader, and the party kept on winning. But now, after years of the NDP becoming "indistinguishable from the Liberal Party", they see in Mulcair everything they hate about the new NDP party. They say Mulcair wants to take the party to the right, but a lot of their complaints focus on transformations that already occured under Jack Layton. But in shutting down Mulcair, they get to rebuff everything they hate about the party's change.

 

Great post, SDM

Rakhmetov

Jacob Two-Two: That's an extremely big gamble you're willing to take.  I for one think that it's a real risk, after Socialists and the Left have worked to get to this point for something like 80 years, that we're going to hand over the party to someone with a background this reactionary and repugnant.  Woodsworth, Douglas, and Coldwell would be horrified if they were around today.  Let's face the facts: there is way too much power concentrated in the leadership and Mulcair could do enormous damage if he tries to move us to the right.  Mulcair's moderate approach will take us backwards to the 90s which was an electoral catastrophe.  The founders of the NPI said that they disbanded partly because they believed that Layton moved the party back to the Left after McDonough.

Jacob Two-Two

I also find myself wondering if some people see the party as a lot more left-wing than I do. Most of the things they accuse Mulcair of sounds like typical NDP stuff to me.

Hunky_Monkey

Rakhmetov wrote:

Jacob Two-Two: That's an extremely big gamble you're willing to take.  I for one think that it's a real risk, after Socialists and the Left have worked to get to this point for something like 80 years, that we're going to hand over the party to someone with a background this reactionary and repugnant.  Woodsworth, Douglas, and Coldwell would be horrified if they were around today.  Let's face the facts: there is way too much power concentrated in the leadership and Mulcair could do enormous damage if he tries to move us to the right.  Mulcair's moderate approach will take us backwards to the 90s which was an electoral catastrophe.  The founders of the NPI said that they disbanded partly because they believed that Layton moved the party back to the Left after McDonough.

You mean dropping "tax the rich!"? Or mandatory minimum sentences? "Renogotiate" free trade deals? Reform NATO instead of withdrawing? That's moving to the left?

Doug

Which would seem to be inaccurate. The NDP became more effective in numerous ways under Layton, but I don't think there was much, if any, shift to the left.

socialdemocrati...

I just realized I said "new NDP party". That means I'm calling Jack Layton the architect of the New New Democratic Party Party, and I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.

Winston

Jan:

Please re-read what I wrote.  I never even mentioned the "old guard".  I'm not really sure where your response is coming from.

I'm sorry; just at a loss.

janfromthebruce wrote:

A Winston, I'm a Topp supporter who was Jack's right hand strategist (so how can he be both a key person of Jack's team and not also be a progressive. Anyway, I also supported Jack on first ballot in 2003, and I don't consider myself a part of the old guard. I am starting to resent the Mulcair camp spin that he represents the "new NDP" and the others (with exception of Cullen) as the old guard. The Mulcair camp doesn't like it when others may suggest that Mulcair reflects the old discarded 3rd way politics of Tony Blair so please quit with the NDP old guard.

 

Winston wrote:

It seems that Tom Mulcair has snagged the endorsement of Winnipeg City Councillor Jenny Gerbasi.  This is a significant endorsement for a couple of reasons:

1. Jenny is widely seen as embodying the values of the left wing of the Manitoba NDP.  A four-term City Councillor, over the last 5 years, Jenny has acted as the de-facto leader of the Opposition to corrupt right-wing Mayor Sam Katz.  She is widely respected in the Party, and members will factor her opinion into their own deliberations.

2. Jenny was one of the only elected New Democrats in Manitoba who broke ranks and supported Jack Layton's leadership bid in 2003. Her endorsement of Jack in that race signalled to Manitobans that it was okay not to vote for Blaikie and opened the door to Jack winning a lot more support on the prairies than he would otherwise have.

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

Jacob Two-Two

Well see, I don't think that is a big gamble. I think Mulcair would have to be an idiot to go against the spirit of the NDP and cause all kinds of rifts, and I don't believe he is an idiot, nor does his record indicate that. I think he's a really good politician who wins elections and builds support.

The most important point is that Mulcair doesn't need to turn right to win votes. NDP values are already popular enough to win government. We just need to build trust in our competence among swing voters, which is something Mulcair totally understands and has spoken at length about. It was one of the first things that caught my attention about him. And nobody can deny he radiates competence.

To me the big gamble is trying to win government with the leader who hasn't shown the best aptitude for the job. 

Rakhmetov

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I've been critical of Mulcair. As has KenS. But we're among a bunch who are still grounded in reality. Our criticisms generally start and stop with actual policy differences between Mulcair and the other candidates.

I can't guess why a few people have a much stronger hatred towards Mulcair. It's far, far, far larger than any of the substantive differences he has with any of the other candidates. (Which always makes the more deranged critics scoff, but never makes them provide any evidence.)

Here's my best two theories:

(1) Knee-jerk hatred of anything Liberal. Mulcair was a high ranking member of the LPQ. He is forever tainted and eyed with suspicion. Nash says "we shouldn't talk about taxes now", and Saganash says "It's probably enough to just close loopholes". Nobody bats an eyelash. Mulcair says "yeah, I think we should close loopholes and wait til 2015", and a few people proclaim him a right-wing sellout.

(2) Latent payback for Jack Layton's transformation of the NDP. Under Layton, the party removed the voting quota for unions, the man apologized to Israel, and we promised to reform NATO and NAFTA instead of pulling out completely. They couldn't punish him because he was already the leader, and the party kept on winning. But now, after years of the NDP becoming "indistinguishable from the Liberal Party", they see in Mulcair everything they hate about the new NDP party. They say Mulcair wants to take the party to the right, but a lot of their complaints focus on transformations that already occured under Jack Layton. But in shutting down Mulcair, they get to rebuff everything they hate about the party's change.

As I said the NPI's founders said they disbanded largely because they believed Layton moved the party a bit to the Left.  Not enough for them (or me), especially given some of these reactionary triangulations you rightly cite.  For the record: Nash said she's for raising corporate taxes, she just won't committ to the rate yet.  That's different than Mulcair.  And yeah, I didn't like Saganash's position on raising taxes, but he wasn't going to be leader.

I honestly think you're being extremely naive when you disregard the plain evidence all around you that Mulcair is going to move the party to the Right, amongst other faults.  Just because the candidates all share the official NDP platform in the context of a leadership race, obviously that doesn't mean that there are few differences between them and that they wouldn't each take the party in their own and different direction.  I don't believe you are an objective or balanced observer given the risible apologetics you've engaged in when critics cite Mulcair's explicit attacks on the labour movement for instance, like claiming that unions don't represent the public interest and we can't connect as widely with Canadians if we maintain traditional relations.  The comments are unequivocal.  It's amusing to see the Mulcair apologists try to defend stuff like this that's been posted on Mulcair's own website.  I mean, why would they put that stuff up if they didn't think it was accurate?  I guess Mulcair is part of vast conspiracy to "smear" himself.

socialdemocrati...

I just think it's silly how critics turn Mulcair's quote about preserving the one-member-one-vote system into an all out anti-union ideology. Those unions who endorsed him must feel pretty stupid.

I also think it's silly when critics take a quote that's ambiguous at best, and more likely a plain misquote, and proclaim "it's clear", "it's unequivocal", "it's obvious". I hope you guys aren't lawyers, or else your clients have terrible representation.

flight from kamakura

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Well see, I don't think that is a big gamble. I think Mulcair would have to be an idiot to go against the spirit of the NDP and cause all kinds of rifts, and I don't believe he is an idiot, nor does his record indicate that. I think he's a really good politician who wins elections and builds support.

The most important point is that Mulcair doesn't need to turn right to win votes. NDP values are already popular enough to win government. We just need to build trust in our competence among swing voters, which is something Mulcair totally understands and has spoken at length about. It was one of the first things that caught my attention about him. And nobody can deny he radiates competence.

To me the big gamble is trying to win government with the leader who hasn't shown the best aptitude for the job. 

yes

Rakhmetov

"When Jack Layton got elected as Leader of the NDP in 2003 there was a general feeling amongst us NPI-ers that we'd gone as far as we could and that Jack embodied many of the goals of a new kind of politics. So we folded up our tent and said, we're too busy -- we did what we wanted to do."

- Libby Davies

Judy Rebick said something similar to about folks thinking Layton moved us back to the Left, but like her I was disappointed that he moved the opposite direction on many occasions. On the whole though, he never engaged in the same kinds of shenanigans that McDonough did, transparently replicating the Blairoids.  And he never managed to seriously alienate the base in a way Mulcair is already showing ominous signs of doing.

Rakhmetov

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I just think it's silly how critics turn Mulcair's quote about preserving the one-member-one-vote system into an all out anti-union ideology. Those unions who endorsed him must feel pretty stupid.

I also think it's silly when critics take a quote that's ambiguous at best, and more likely a plain misquote, and proclaim "it's clear", "it's unequivocal", "it's obvious". I hope you guys aren't lawyers, or else your clients have terrible representation.

The article cited Mulcair as saying he would reduce the "labour movement's influence in the NDP" and quoted him echoing Stephen Harper's attack on Topp which egregiously reinforces this right-wing narrative that NDP leaders are "beholden to unions." Mulcair incontrovertibly claimed that we can't reach out as widely to Canadians as possible with our ties to unions, and said that they don't represent the public interest.  And you didn't respond to that article on Mulcair's own website that describes him as moving the party to the centre amongst other hysterical right-wing attacks on the NDP.

As usual, when Mulcair apologists are presented with clear facts, arguments and evidence, they refuse to respond and have to resort to tantrums of ad hominem and sneers as they can't address the substance.  Fortunately most NDP members will prove to be more rational.

Hunky_Monkey

Rakhmetov wrote:

For the record: Nash said she's for raising corporate taxes, she just won't committ to the rate yet.  That's different than Mulcair.

Why is that different than Mulcair's position? He has said, and said clearly in a national televised debate, that he opposes corporate income tax cuts and wants them rolledback.

But you know that.

This is what ticks off Mulcair supporters.

Pages

Topic locked