NDP leadership race #119

122 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rakhmetov

As for the unions that endorsed Mulcair, tell that to PATCO or the UAW.  This is not the first time that a handful of labour leaders have supported anti-union politicians against the interests of their members.  It proves absolutely nothing, although it was pretty clever of Mulcair to aggressively seek out labour endorsements, no matter how obscure, to defend himself from his own anti-union comments at the beginning of the race.

Jacob Two-Two

*

janfromthebruce

Thanks Winston for saying sorry.

I'm finding this thread discussion upsetting and full of bull. I've got better things to do with my time and energy.

 

Winston wrote:

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!

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

Rakhmetov

Well, the only thing on Mulcair's website on corporate taxes I can find is him criticizing Harper for lowering them, but then he calls for lowering them further and making them tied to job creation.  Which incidentally isn't great policy either because the corporations could get a tax cut for jobs that they would have created anyway.

But you may be right about that, I do remember him saying something about Harper's corporate cuts (can't remember if he actually said he'd roll them back or not).  Which debate was that?  It's possible he might have.  Though I wasn't impressed with his dismissal of Topp's plan, but the other candidates have not embraced his plan either (especially Singh who has cut a deal with Mulcair and is trying to turn over his #2 votes to Mulcair and drive up Topp's negatives).  Frankly, I haven't liked any of the candidates positions on raising the CIT, though Dewar's cute little attack against Nash and pretending she wasn't for raising them was cynical and dishonest.   

Rakhmetov

Another element to Singh's attacks on Topp's tax plan:  He's also competing with Topp for the Indo-Canadian community in Surrey and elsewhere and this is a perfect wedge issue to alienate often pro-business social democratic Sikhs plus the fundamentalist wing of the temple.  Religious groups and charities would be potentially affected as well by Topp's capital gains increase. 

socialdemocrati...

Rakhmetov wrote:

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"

That's a misquote.

You're taking an editorial comment and attributing it to Mulcair.

If you actually read the article, they actually illustrate the debate:

Quote:
Mr. Mulcair added the issue has set him on a collision course with Mr. Topp, who favoured a system similar to the one in place at the previous leadership convention in 2003. In the end, the party sided with Mr. Mulcair by going for a one-member, one-vote selection process.

Which is closer to the truth than your misquote, but still a bit of confusion on the journalist's part. See this article:

Quote:
On Thursday, Turmel attempted to clarify confusion over whether the NDP allows for union votes to carry more weight in a leadership contest.

Turmel said the party now uses a one member, one vote system meaning unions would not be getting special status.

"In 2006, the convention changed the NDP constitution," she said. "If the NDP want to change that formula once again, they'll have to go back to the next convention to do so."

So Mulcair didn't actually ask to reduce anything. Topp asked to increase union influence, but nothing came of it.

That's what happened. In reality.

But again, you want to cull the smallest phraselets from any article and shed any context, so long as it makes the point you're trying to prove.

It's not convincing. And it really just makes you lose what credibility you had on any NDP related discussions, assuming you had any to begin with.

socialdemocrati...

You do realize you're just making stuff up now, right?

That Jack Layton's dying wish was to stop Mulcair.

That Martin Singh is Mulcair's puppet to go after Topp.

The brazen lack of evidence speaks more about you than it does about any of the candidates.

Rakhmetov

socialdemocratic: It's not a misquote.  I was not claiming that line about "reducing the labour movement's influence in the party" was a direct verbatim quote from Mulcair, but it was what his comments were reported to be by the reporter.  If that was such a misrepresentation of where Mulcair stands why was there no correction or dispute by the Mulcair camp?  Sorry, but you can't just start denying anything that's reported about him in the press unless it's a direct quote from him.  And even when it is a direct quote you still deny it.  Again, why is that article up on his website if it's a smear, and how is it not critical of unions to say that we can't connect as widely as possible with Canadians if we keep our traditional relationship with labour, and that labour does not represent the public interest.

Rakhmetov

I'm not making up anything.  The Layton theory is probably true, but inconclusive.  As for Singh and Mulcair, again I'm surprised you don't know about this.  I don't care if you believe me or not, it's happening.  You'll find out later I guess.

As for the weighted votes at convention, I never mentioned that myself so I don't know why you bring it up.  Although I think it is another anti-union comment, he had no reason to talk about it, but he realized he could attack the labour movement with it but still wrap himself around party policy at the same time as the affiliate vote had already been dropped I believe. 

Winston

Could you please tell me what I said in that post that so upset you?

I wasn't apologizing for anything I said, just for my inability to understand why you were upset with me.

All I intended to say was that Jenny Gerbasi endorsed Tom and I explained why I thought that was a significant endorsement.  I, in no way, discussed any other candidates nor did I imply that any one or another was "new NDP" or "old guard".

If something I said offended you, I'd like to know what.

I tend to agree that these threads have been a lot of bull: a whole lot of baseless attacks on Mulcair and an equal number of adamant defences of him.  I understand why it is happening, but that does not make it any less circular, repetetive and boring.

My hope with my post was to interject a bit of news into the thread for discussion.  I find these threads an invaluable tool to find out what is going on in the campaign.

janfromthebruce wrote:

Thanks Winston for saying sorry.

I'm finding this thread discussion upsetting and full of bull. I've got better things to do with my time and energy.

 

Winston wrote:

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!

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

josh

Rakhmetov wrote:

socialdemocratic: It's not a misquote.  I was not claiming that line about "reducing the labour movement's influence in the party" was a direct verbatim quote from Mulcair, but it was what his comments were reported to be by the reporter.  If that was such a misrepresentation of where Mulcair stands why was there no correction or dispute by the Mulcair camp?  Sorry, but you can't just start denying anything that's reported about him in the press unless it's a direct quote from him.  And even when it is a direct quote you still deny it.  Again, why is that article up on his website if it's a smear, and how is it not critical of unions to say that we can't connect as widely as possible with Canadians if we keep our traditional relationship with labour, and that labour does not represent the public interest.

Wouldn't it be great if Mulcair came on here, the way the other candidates have done, to attempt to clear up these supposed "misconceptions"? That he won't is just another signal that his intention to "renew" the party will be more Tony Blair than Tommy Douglas.

nicky

Oh Josh, come off it. Mulcair is completely accessable. He does 2 to 3 public events every day. He takes every question. Nothing is vetted in advance. He has answered your point repeatedly both in his own events and in the televised debates. 

And your point has been answered a dozen times on Babble. Once again, Mulcair was simply defending the OMOV system approved by the partyy itself in convention. There was an attempt by some to overturn this democratic decision. This was opposed by a broad consensus in the party, not just Mulcair.

You might as well argue that this makes the entire party "anti-union."

On another note

Gone unnoticed so far on Babble are two stirling endorsements made yesterday for Mulcair.

1. Eric Cline, longtime finance minister in Saskatchewan.

2. Roland Penner, former AG in Manitoba. For me Penner is one one the best endorsements any candidate has yet received. He was a great AG whose influence spread well beyond provincial borders.

janfromthebruce

Winston, I don't see Mulcair as a victim on here. I believe that Mulcair supporters are pretty much running the babble board here.  What I mean is that if anything negative is said about him, say his position on a policy or whatever, that he is defended to the hilt and that if someone says they support another candidate, it appears they are negatively targeted.

The thread perception is that Mulcair and Cullen are the "new modern" NDP and that Nash, Dewar, Topp represent the old traditional NDP. I disagree with that "frame".

And I am not interested in "defending" and "answering" to my choices. They are what they are. And I am a proud New Dem who is not interested in holding join nomination meetings with Liberals, and who strongly believes (like Jack) that we can win as New Dems with progressive policies. I'm strongly opposed to P3s because in the end it costs the public more money and I think that public healthcare should be expanded to include pharmacare, dental and so on.

Finally, I strongly doubt that the Conservative Party would ever have thought to approach Jack Layton to consider running for their party or to work for them because of his publicly well-known very progressive positions on govt policy.

josh

nicky wrote:

Oh Josh, come off it. Mulcair is completely accessable. He does 2 to 3 public events every day. He takes every question. Nothing is vetted in advance. He has answered your point repeatedly both in his own events and in the televised debates. 

Which totally avoids the issue of why he's the only candidate not to come on here to answer direct questions. What's he afraid of? What's he trying to avoid? And what message is he sending?

KenS

 

And the slagging of Martin Singh is the same. You can say that his thing on taxes is part of his supposed specific and pointed appeal to fundamentalist Sikks. But there is also the simple reason that he is in this race, he is striving to make as much of a mark as he can, and that stand is a reflection of his politics.... nothing there to do with organizing/promoting among Sikhs.

Martin by the way unequivocaly promotes progressive principles within as well as outside the Sikh community that are not popular among the fundamentalist inclined. Gay rights for example.

KenS

Rahkmetov, you are not making up anything entirely. But when dealing with a lot of facts and interpretations, that doesnt mean a lot.

Even the unoffensive, pretty much uncontroversial and direct quotation of Libby Davies is an example. Just because Libby Davies made a toss off comment about NPI and Jack does not make it a fact. You make certainties out of the very disputable and overstate the significance of everything to fit your narrative.

I actually do feel that Mulcair will take us to a more centrist positioning. That Jack did not do only that, but Mulcair will. But there's not anything remotely like proof of that, let alone in what you offer as "evidence."

nicky

Josh, to the contrary, if you ever went a Mulcair event you will see that unique am$ong politicians, Mulcair directly answers every question whether he thinks it pleases the questioner or not. it is unfair for you to suggest otherwise.

And Jan, Mulcair never contemplated runniong  for the  Cons, only taking a civi sevice job wch he declined rather than abandon his pro Kyoto views. It is only anonymopus Cons who try to  malign him by saying otherwise. 

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Rakhmetov wrote:

I don't know why people are getting so hysterical.   

Seems you're the only one.

Rakhmetov

...

Rakhmetov

nicky wrote:

Oh Josh, come off it. Mulcair is completely accessable. He does 2 to 3 public events every day. He takes every question. Nothing is vetted in advance. He has answered your point repeatedly both in his own events and in the televised debates. 

And your point has been answered a dozen times on Babble. Once again, Mulcair was simply defending the OMOV system approved by the partyy itself in convention. There was an attempt by some to overturn this democratic decision. This was opposed by a broad consensus in the party, not just Mulcair.

You might as well argue that this makes the entire party "anti-union."

I'm sure Mulcair is accessible, but he's just going to answer any pointed question with the same trite talking points that he uses everwhere.  It would be nice to ask him in person if he thinks that Hamas should still be designated as a terrorist organization whom can't be negotiated with, but he's probably just going to say "I support NDP policy" or something vacuous like that.  O'Keefe found that out when he tried.

And I don't think that that's the real argument about the affliate vote dust-up.  Why did Mulcair need to weigh in on this issue and pile on when there was no debate as it was already party policy?  Simple, it was a chance to slam the unions and still wrap himself around party policy, all while reinforcing Harper's talking points about Topp and the NDP.

KenS wrote:
Even the unoffensive, pretty much uncontroversial and direct quotation of Libby Davies is an example. Just because Libby Davies made a toss off comment about NPI and Jack does not make it a fact. You make certainties out of the very disputable and overstate the significance of everything to fit your narrative.
I actually do feel that Mulcair will take us to a more centrist positioning. That Jack did not do only that, but Mulcair will. But there's not anything remotely like proof of that, let alone in what you offer as "evidence."

There's a difference between proof and evidence.  I have offered plenty of evidence, whether the conclusion is valid or not is another question, but there is evidence.  Of course I don't have proof (or maybe I should ask if you have any proof that I don't).  In fact I have a challenge for all Mulcair-isn't-a-centrist folks: you have to name me a prominent Third Way social democrat (i.e. Blair etc..) who explicitly and unambigously stated that they were going to outright "move the party to the Right." No, it's always dressed up in implication, euhpemisms, cliche, and such.  As for Libby Davies, just take her for example as more evidence that Layton moved the party to the Left relative to McDonough.  Svend Robinson was fired by McDonough for making controversial comments about Israel-Palestine, while Davies retained her position as Layton was more receptive to the anti-war and pro-Palestine wing of the NDP that defended her.  And lastly, Martin wouldn't think that I'm "slagging" him at all.

MegB

CFL

Pages

Topic locked