NDP leadership race #121

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Question Period repeats at 5pm on CTV NewsNet. Yeah, Tom looked and sounded good.

 

DSloth

[url=http://watch.ctv.ca/news/ctvs-question-period/march-11/#clip635769]Thomas Mulcair Question Period Interview with Craig Oliver[/url]

NorthReport

I like Nathan a lot.

NDP top-job contender confident party will put him in saddle
http://www.theprovince.com/news/contender+confident+party+will+saddle/62...

socialdemocrati...

Watching the debate now. I kinda wish they wouldn't go to such an extent to silence the crowd. A little participation and enthusiasm could only help.

Wilf Day

Mulcair says he has a plan to set aside $3.38 million for local riding campaigns; I assume that means $10,000 for each riding to spend. Where does this come from? I can't find it anywhere on his website, nor can google find it.

NorthReport
Wilf Day

I got a robocall right in the middle of the debate, asking my first and second choice; rude. I was tempted to just hang up. But instead I answered "undecided" to both questions. Does anyone know which campaign was so rude?

Wilf Day

hatfield wrote:

I think Doofy meant the fact that Topp couldn't provide the # on air to one of his central policies, something he's been asked about a lot and should have expected it to come up in this interview. He should have been better prepared to answer.

Knowing Topp, I'm certain he did know the answer, but I expect he felt it needs to be presented in context in a setting where he can explain it, not baldly. He thought CTV would nail him with the number and make it sound scary. He could be right. That's why I asked: does 213,000 sound scary?

janfromthebruce

I got the same call Wilf. On the one hand, you could think it rude but in some ways it was smart. This was the last debate and thus if you wanted to be certain of someone answering the phone, today would be it - as perhaps many and hopefully most NDP members were home and taking in the live debate.

I just gave "I don't know" on the 2nd question. I didn't find it rude but good planning in terms of getting more responses.

NorthReport

That last leadership debate thread has gotten too long now.

Our right-wing msp had to find a bone to chew on. lol

 final NDP leadership debate, Mulcair put on hot sea

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120311/ndp-leadership-debate-120311/

 

socialdemocrati...

NorthReport wrote:
">http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120311/ndp-leadership-debate-120311/[...

"Despite being in Vancouver, none of the candidates had by the later stages of the debate made a specific reference to the Pacific Rim or Asian economies."

YEAH NDP HOW CAN WE TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY IF YOU DON'T MENTION THOSE ASIAN ECONOMIES, YOU'RE IN VANCOUVER YOU KNOW!

I'm growing to really hate CTV.

wage zombie

Actually when Cullen said something along the lines of, "People are talking so much about our number one market (USA), when we really should be talking about another market..." I was actually wondering if he'd mention China (he didn't).

NorthReport

Well Mulcair did mention our immigrant communities but I suppose that doesn't count in the eyes of our msp.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
">http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120311/ndp-leadership-debate-120311/[...

"Despite being in Vancouver, none of the candidates had by the later stages of the debate made a specific reference to the Pacific Rim or Asian economies."

YEAH NDP HOW CAN WE TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY IF YOU DON'T MENTION THOSE ASIAN ECONOMIES, YOU'RE IN VANCOUVER YOU KNOW!

I'm growing to really hate CTV.

TheArchitect

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

"Despite being in Vancouver, none of the candidates had by the later stages of the debate made a specific reference to the Pacific Rim or Asian economies."

YEAH NDP HOW CAN WE TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY IF YOU DON'T MENTION THOSE ASIAN ECONOMIES, YOU'RE IN VANCOUVER YOU KNOW!

I'm growing to really hate CTV.

How can one be in Vancouver without talking about Asia?  After all, it's right next door.  If you ignore the world's largest ocean.

Personally, I think a better question is why none of the leaders made a specific reference to the Nova Scotia economy.  After all, it's closer to BC than Asia is.

It's as if CTV just thinks of the West in terms of it being the part of Canada that's closest to China.

clambake

Well, the Conservatives were quick to attack the campaign today, with the typical "more tax!" rhetoric: http://www.conservative.ca/press/news_releases/ndp_leadership_debates_sh...

Started throwing around the "elitist" label too

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Conservatives love to call the pot black.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Cullen is so smart and funny - I just wish I could vote for him, but some of his positions turn me off.

socialdemocrati...

Conservatives call the pot black pre-emptively, so that no one listens to the pot when it finally gets its turn to speak.

So funny to hear that going against multi-billion dollar oil companies is elitist. And by funny, I mean soul-crushingly depressing.

The pot is green, BTW.

nicky

Tim Harper: NDP leadership: Thomas Mulcair still standing, unbloodied and unbowed

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1144505--tim-harper-ndp-leadership-thomas-mulcair-still-standing-unbloodied-and-unbowed

 

VANCOUVER—For more than two decades, the federal leader of the NDP has been hoisted to the top by the party elders.

This divine right of the establishment to choose their leader is now at risk for the first time in the post-Ed Broadbent era, less than two weeks before New Democrats choose the country’s opposition leader.

Thomas Mulcair is as anti-establishment as any NDP leadership candidate could be.

And he is still standing, barely winded, after enduring the latest — and last — public bid to shake him from his front-running perch.

There can be no question the party elders are shaken but there is, so far, little to indicate the Outremont MP is rattled.

The question to be answered when the party gathers in downtown Toronto two weekends from now to choose their leader is whether enough damage can be done to Mulcair to stop his growth after an expected first-place finish on the first ballot

Winston

TheArchitect wrote:

How can one be in Vancouver without talking about Asia?  After all, it's right next door.  If you ignore the world's largest ocean.

Personally, I think a better question is why none of the leaders made a specific reference to the Nova Scotia economy.  After all, it's closer to BC than Asia is.

How could they not bring up the European economy?  After all, Vancouver is closer to Dublin than Tokyo!

Tokyo-Vancouver

Vancouver-Dublin

CanadaApple

Wilf Day wrote:

I got a robocall right in the middle of the debate, asking my first and second choice; rude. I was tempted to just hang up. But instead I answered "undecided" to both questions. Does anyone know which campaign was so rude?

I got the same call by the sounds of it, and I did the same thing you did as well. = P

Winston

Lysiane Gagnon is already writing Brian Topp's political obituary - ouch!

It seems the press (at least in Québec) was less than impressed with Topp's debate performance yesterday.

Lysiane Gagnon wrote:

There was only one problem. The man who wanted to be general had never held a rifle in his hand...

As bright and affable as he was, Mr. Topp lacked drive. He had no political experience, and one couldn't even imagine him on the hustings.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Winston wrote:

Lysiane Gagnon is already writing Brian Topp's political obituary - ouch!

Would that be the same Lysiane Gagnon who wrote an unintentionally hilarious column about how we shouldn't expect any surprises from Quebec in the 2011 federal election? Oh, whoops, it is.

Brian Topp is almost certainly not going to be the next NDP leader, but his career as a retail politician is only just beginning.

Winston

Oh, I certainly agree with you there!  It's not outside the realm of possibility that her current column is as rich in its hilarity with hindsight.

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

Winston wrote:

Lysiane Gagnon is already writing Brian Topp's political obituary - ouch!

Would that be the same Lysiane Gagnon who wrote an unintentionally hilarious column about how we shouldn't expect any surprises from Quebec in the 2011 federal election? Oh, whoops, it is.

Brian Topp is almost certainly not going to be the next NDP leader, but his career as a retail politician is only just beginning.

nicky

Chantal Hebert writes in Le Devoir on the efforts of the party establishment to block Mulcair:

 

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/344834/le-dernier-mille

 

nicky

The moderator's view :

Mulcair and Cullen have the momentum;

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Centre+leaning+candidates+moving/6286867/story.html

nicky

James Laxer confirms on Twitter that he is voting for Tom:

"Friends of mine are contacting me to say they've already voted for you. I'm about to do the same." 

Winston

nicky wrote:

James Laxer confirms on Twitter that he is voting for Tom:

"Friends of mine are contacting me to say they've already voted for you. I'm about to do the same." 

An endorsement from a left-wing icon like Jim Laxer kind of blows up the whole Mulcair-is-a-centrist narrative, doesn't it?

Maysie Maysie's picture

TheArchitect wrote:
 How can one be in Vancouver without talking about Asia?  After all, it's right next door.  If you ignore the world's largest ocean.

My friends in Vancouver can see Asia from their house.

Winston

I didn't know you associated with Republicans! Laughing

Maysie wrote:

TheArchitect wrote:
 How can one be in Vancouver without talking about Asia?  After all, it's right next door.  If you ignore the world's largest ocean.

My friends in Vancouver can see Asia from their house.

Slumberjack

I remember back in the early 70s my mom was an avid follower of one of the afternoon soaps...'As the Stomach Churns,' in particular, or something like that.  Being a young lad in those days, a few times I'd sit and watch with her.  Then a couple of years ago I believe it was, I called in sick and spent the day channel surfing from underneath a quilt and happened across the show, which amounted to a nearly 40 year gap since I had last encountered the program.  The central characters were the same, as were a couple of the living room sets, with updated furnishings and make-overs of course.

JeffWells

nicky wrote:

James Laxer confirms on Twitter that he is voting for Tom:

"Friends of mine are contacting me to say they've already voted for you. I'm about to do the same." 

 

I don't know how influential Laxer remains in the party, but his early support for Mulcair was a big deal for me.

The membership is very strong and is not going to be led anywhere it doesn't want to go. Topp, certainly with Jack's blessing, wanted to give it an Obama makeover, stripping "New" from the party's name and socialism from the preamble, and couldn't get away with it. And that was with far more goodwill from the grassroots than Mulcair will enjoy.

 

janfromthebruce

What a load of crap Jeff. Personally, I don't give a rat's butt if socialism is in the preamble and to blame Topp is cheap. I actually really liked the suggested change with environment thrown in there - we are a changing party and not stuck in the Tommy Douglas past. geez,

 

JeffWells wrote:

nicky wrote:

James Laxer confirms on Twitter that he is voting for Tom:

"Friends of mine are contacting me to say they've already voted for you. I'm about to do the same." 

 

I don't know how influential Laxer remains in the party, but his early support for Mulcair was a big deal for me.

The membership is very strong and is not going to be led anywhere it doesn't want to go. Topp, certainly with Jack's blessing, wanted to give it an Obama makeover, stripping "New" from the party's name and socialism from the preamble, and couldn't get away with it. And that was with far more goodwill from the grassroots than Mulcair will enjoy.

 

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

doofy

Wilf @58:

With respect,  what you are saying is implausible. Topp was asked the question twice, he couldn't answer, and it gave the viewer the clear impression that he didn't know how many Canadians made over $250 000.  If that was some knid of communications strategy, it failed miserably.

Along with his openly admitting that he did not know how much was QC's provincial debt on Benoit Dutrizac, I am having more and more concerns about his capacity to be Leader of the Opposition.

http://www.985fm.ca/audioplayer.php?mp3=126166

nicky

Good for Nathan !!!

Another of Mulcair’s chief challengers, northern B.C. MP Nathan Cullen, during a post-debate media interview, rebuked Topp, Dewar and Nash for questioning Mulcair’s affinity with NDP values.

Cullen said that the notion that “some New Democrats are good New Democrats and others need to pass some kind of test is offensive to me. I think it’s wedge politics, only done within the family . . . I reject any offensive notion that there be some loyalty test.”

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/11/thomas-mulcair-ndp-debate/

NorthReport

Ha!

What a bunch of silliness the right-wing press will go to in their attempt to create divisions within the NDP.

Mulcair strength opens rift within ‘true’ NDP

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/12/keith-beardsley-mulcair-s...

As the perceived front-runner Thomas Mulcair was the target of a number of barbs implying he isn’t a true believer in the NDP. The question now becomes, where do these critics go if Mulcair wins?

Brian Topp charged that Mulcair would take the NDP “backwards into a divisive and distracting debate about ourselves.” If Mulcair wins, will Topp fight him every step of the way, in effect creating the divisions he is forecasting?

Paul Dewar questioned Mulcair’s ability to win an election and questioned how he could “inspire people to vote for our party when you don’t seem to be inspired by our party.”

Will Dewar stay in caucus with an uninspiring leader who he feels can’t win? Will he join Topp in fighting a rear-guard action against the new leader in an attempt to preserve the values of the NDP as they see them? Or does Dewar resign?

At the very least it means there are now two senior NDP members and leadership contenders who disagree strongly with Mulcair’s view that the party has to change and modernize. How they react to a Mulcair victory will impact on the future direction of the party and on Mulcair’s chance for electoral success.

In addition, if Mulcair doesn’t control the party apparatus he could well find himself in the divisive situation Topp is predicting. If he moves to put his supporters into key party positions he will also risk creating a backlash.

Stockholm

Except that having watched the debate I honestly don't think that Topp or Dewar or Nash (or Ashton for that matter) were demanding a "loyalty test". I think they were asking Mulcair some prefectly legitimate questions about what he meant by some comments he had made and about where he wanted to take the party. I also thought Mulcair gave perfectly good answers. This is why we have leadership debates in the first place - so people see the leadership candidates get challenged and see how they respond.

Stockholm

NorthReport wrote:

Ha!

What a bunch of silliness the right-wing press will go to in their attempt to create divisions within the NDP.

Mulcair strength opens rift within ‘true’ NDP

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/12/keith-beardsley-mulcair-s...

Just as i predicted...at some point the media would drop the "NDP race is boring" meme and replace it with "NDP race is divisive". This was soooooo predictable.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

MSM makes shit up just so they can have a story to report.

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

Except that having watched the debate I honestly don't think that Topp or Dewar or Nash (or Ashton for that matter) were demanding a "loyalty test". I think they were asking Mulcair some prefectly legitimate questions about what he meant by some comments he had made and about where he wanted to take the party. I also thought Mulcair gave perfectly good answers.

And then Topp and Dewar and Nash and Ashton (for that matter) replied: "Ok, thanks for clearing that up, Tom - it confirms that we're all on the same team, all with the same aims - and if you should win this race, know that I will happily serve in any capacity you and the party deem appropriate."

Well, ok, I didn't actually hear that. Because as all the debate moderators have said, the debates aren't for trying to unite and agree - they are to identify and magnify differences and distinctions.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Mulcair was also endorsed by Ed Schreyer, who is certainly neither a centerist or a "right-winger". Disagree with Tom on policy, but don't try to paint him as something he isn't.

doofy

The latest QC numbers:

http://fr.canoe.ca/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2012/03/20120312-003133.html

The Bloc is now ahead of the NDP by 4 %.

Also of note: sovereignty is at 45%, which is higher than it's been for a long time.

A Mulcair victory might not only be necessary for the future of the NDP but for the preservation of a united Canada...

http://blogues.radio-canada.ca/politique/tag/mulcair/

 

josh

nicky wrote:

Good for Nathan !!!

Another of Mulcair’s chief challengers, northern B.C. MP Nathan Cullen, during a post-debate media interview, rebuked Topp, Dewar and Nash for questioning Mulcair’s affinity with NDP values.

Cullen said that the notion that “some New Democrats are good New Democrats and others need to pass some kind of test is offensive to me. I think it’s wedge politics, only done within the family . . . I reject any offensive notion that there be some loyalty test.”

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/11/thomas-mulcair-ndp-debate/

 

 

Considering that Cullen has said he wants to move the party to the middle, it's not surprising that he considers party ideology and traditions to be a "loyalty test" and a "wedge issue." What is somewhat surprising, since they keep denying that this is his intent, is that a Mulcair supporter would embrace this statement.

 

 

 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

No, another poll out today says to the contrary. See the polling thread. I would think this would be a better fit for that thread.

doofy

fair point, arthur. This should probably be in the polling thread. This is related to the leadership, though: Mulcair is safest bet to stem the growing sovereigntist tide, as he could give QCers real hope that "French Power" can make a come-back in Ottawa. Otherwise, Mme Marois seems set to win a majority provincially (who would have thunk it?) and a referendum might just become a possible

The polls are pretty consistent BTW. (Forum is a bit unreliable; didn't it have the ndp third a couple of weeks back?). Both CROP and Leger have the NDP and Bloc relatively close for 1st place. They also both point to a PQ rise on the provincial level.

 

TheArchitect

Double post.

TheArchitect

Jim Laxer's a good guy, and certainly no right-winger, but frankly, I don't think his endorsement of Mulcair really says much about Mulcair because Jim, to my knowledge, doesn't have any personal experience with Tom that would allow him to know anything more about Tom's values and drives then what's generally known to the public.  The endorsements that I think should really matter are the endorsements of senior caucus members and others who have personal experience with the candidates that allows them to judge the candidates better than the average person.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Mulcair was also endorsed by Ed Schreyer, who is certainly neither a centerist or a "right-winger". Disagree with Tom on policy, but don't try to paint him as something he isn't.

I'm surprised to see you say this, Arthur; Ed Schreyer was a good premier, but he was always regarded as being on the right edge of the Manitoba NDP.  He's very much a centrist New Democrat.

Howard

I think it's just me, but this photo angle makes Paul Dewar look like Mr. Bean!

Hunky_Monkey

TheArchitect wrote:

Jim Laxer's a good guy, and certainly no right-winger, but frankly, I don't think his endorsement of Mulcair really says much about Mulcair because Jim, to my knowledge, doesn't have any personal experience with Tom that would allow him to know anything more about Tom's values and drives then what's generally known to the public.  The endorsements that I think should really matter are the endorsements of senior caucus members and others who have personal experience with the candidates that allows them to judge the candidates better than the average person.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Mulcair was also endorsed by Ed Schreyer, who is certainly neither a centerist or a "right-winger". Disagree with Tom on policy, but don't try to paint him as something he isn't.

I'm surprised to see you say this, Arthur; Ed Schreyer was a good premier, but he was always regarded as being on the right edge of the Manitoba NDP.  He's very much a centrist New Democrat.

Mulcair has quite a diverse group of endorsers, Brad. From those deemed on the left of the party, such as Phil Toone his Official Agent, as well as those on the party's "right". He has new support from those just elected in May and those who have worked with him since he was elected like David Christopherson, Wayne Martson, and Don Davies. And of course, over 40 caucus members in total. So I'm not sure if you want to keep going down that road. Are we now saying some caucus support is better and more pure than others?

Hunky_Monkey

dp

Pages

Topic locked