NDP leadership race #124

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jacob Two-Two

I'm starting to feel really good about Cullen. He really knocked that last debate out of the park, and the joint nomination thing hasn't hurt him as much as I expected. Is there a path to victory for him?

Stockholm

Bärlüer wrote:

Jean-François Lisée has an article about the time Mulcair spent in cabinet. He has quotes from (anonymous) former ministers...

Let's also consider the source here. Lisee is a very hard-core pur et dur sovereignist. It's in his interest to try to discredit ANYONE who is a player in Quebec politics who is not a pur et dur sovereignist in the Parti Quebecois. He wrote all kinds of disparaging stuff about Jack Layton in the past as well. I'm not saying that its impossible that any of what he writes in this case is true. I'm just saying that he definitely has his own agenda and axe to grind.

Bärlüer

Gaian wrote:
@ Barleur You do appreciate that an article beginning in this fashion: "The question remains, throbbing, in the leadership campaign NDP," is not likely to be coming from an objective source

I personally think it's a legitimate question (I'm referring to the "why at all entertain courtship from the conservatives?" question) that in my view is not deflected by the point you make that he had discussions with all parties, but it's a separate issue from that which is examined in the post, which is, what was Mulcair's "positioning" during his time in the Charest cabinet.

As for the "objectivity" concern: it's a blog post, so I don't think there's any pretense to objectivity WRT to, shall we say, the starting point of the article.

Gaian wrote:
- that all following it, the word of former cabiner people, etc., devoid of context, are not to be ingested with a soupcon of salt?

The basic structure of the post is as follows:

- There is a legitimate question about why Mulcair entertained discussions with the conservatives at all

- But a different question was posed by Topp in a debate, regarding Mulcair's association with the Charest government's agenda

- When Mulcair left, he said he was inspired by the "Ryan liberal values"; this is taken by some as a symbol of the potential rift between those who adhere[d] to the Charest "réingénierie" program and more progressive Liberals, who might [have] be[en] more reluctant/show[ed] opposition to aspects of that program

- Let us now examine whether Mulcair's actual comportment in cabinet displayed any inklings of a possible opposition to the Charest program of "réingénierie"

- Sources say: no, no objections, in fact Mulcair seemed quite favourable to the "réingénierie" agenda, going so far as to criticize some who didn't go far enough in that direction

Lisée's post should be taken with the amount of salt that should be generally afforded to pieces that do not divulge their sources (although there are also a couple of named ones too). That said, I don't think the affirmations that are reported in the piece are particularly astonishing.

Gaian wrote:
You are a person of trusting nature.

Thanks!

Gaian

quote: "Nash as my first choice as she's the best hope to stop Mulcair, and is probably the strongest in 2015 against Harper..."

"Probably?"

After dismissing Quebec's gains, "she'll charge up the base and could possibly make major gains in Ontario"

"Could possibly?"

You're a treat as a strategic thinker. But what the hell, it's an explanation for your opposition to Mulcair. Fills the void.

Bärlüer

Stockholm wrote:

Bärlüer wrote:

Jean-François Lisée has an article about the time Mulcair spent in cabinet. He has quotes from (anonymous) former ministers...

Let's also consider the source here. Lisee is a very hard-core pur et dur sovereignist. It's in his interest to try to discredit ANYONE who is a player in Quebec politics who is not a pur et dur sovereignist in the Parti Quebecois. He wrote all kinds of disparaging stuff about Jack Layton in the past as well. I'm not saying that its impossible that any of what he writes in this case is true. I'm just saying that he definitely has his own agenda and axe to grind.

Sure.

But the post relies a lot on declarations from former ministers. I'm assuming you don't think he made up those quotes...?

Gaian

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I'm starting to feel really good about Cullen. He really knocked that last debate out of the park, and the joint nomination thing hasn't hurt him as much as I expected. Is there a path to victory for him?

He was the second of the two names I submitted. He has for years struck me as the brightest of the bunch, and the most decent.

Winston

NorthReport wrote:

Because the CBC News Dept is a front for the LPC. Astute decision.

And because Evan Solomon is an A-1 twerp and saboteur!

Howard

janfromthebruce wrote:

Howard, I am so not interested in working to ever elect a liberal. Did that once in Huron Bruce in 1993 - young and Trudeau idealistic. Ended up working for and electing the most right-wing Liberal ever - but geez, aren't Liberals progressive. I'm talking about the party here and not people who tend to vote Liberal.

I had women who identify as feminist tell me they wanted to vote NDP (after 1993 and seeing that their "man" was so conservative that he was more conservative than the Reform party canidate) but were fearful that the con would get in so they would vote for this gun-toting man.

I'd much rather poke my eyes out than get sucked into having to work for another "pretend progressive" liberal.  Oh, I have no problems working with the Liberal party but I'm so not into joint nomination meetings and all entails. And the last time we tried working with the Liberals and forming a coalition the Libs weren't interested.

And last time I checked the liberal party and their leadership have been quite clear that they aren't interested in cooperative joint nomination ideas. I see the joint idea as such a non-starter and also suggesting that the liberal party as progressive. I don't.

 

I respect that and would like to apologise if I caused any personal offence with my previous comments. I also hope it is clearer what I meant by them now.

josh

Quote:
NorthReport

It sure sounds like some progressive folks aren't happy with the almost 60 seats we picked up in Quebec in the last election. Go figure.

Yes, I know. Had Mulcair not been running for his seat, the party would have been shut out in Quebec.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I'm starting to feel really good about Cullen. He really knocked that last debate out of the park, and the joint nomination thing hasn't hurt him as much as I expected. Is there a path to victory for him?

I sure hope not, because he's more than likely to bring Quebec down to one seat for the NDP: Mulcair's.

Howard

Singh's decision to second preference Mulcair, gives me less confidence that his attacks on other candidates weren't done with a mind to advancing his and allied candidates agendas (i.e. on policy or party direction). Still, I think Singh is a smart and accomplished enough person to think on their own two feet. I don't think Singh is anyone's toady. If anything, he has shown a good degree of (stubborness? and) resilience staying in a race where most have written him off from the start.

Stockholm

I actually DON'T think that Singh was coordinating his question strategy with Mulcair's campaign - for one simple reason: Mulcair's people would never have seen it as being advantageous to them to have Singh start accusing other candidates of lying and cause a spotlight to be shone on him etc...Singh's comments about Topp were too stupid and counter productive to have been anything other than a spontaneous "brain fart" 

TheArchitect

Paul Dewar has received an excellent endorsement today from senior Nova Scotia MLA Howard Epstein.

http://pauldewar.ca/content/nova-scotia-mla-howard-epstein-endorses-paul...

Howard

JoshD wrote:

CBC's The Current are saying that Mulcair is the only candidate who would do an interview with them, also Mulcair has turned down being on CBCs Power & Politics and The House. This is not an attempt to put Tom down (I am volunteering for his campaign) but isn't this a bit strange? He appeared on Sun News and CTV for interviews but nothing on CBC. What's the angle?

Mulcair has been a regular on Power & Politics, better known as pp for the yellow journalism they practice, since it was created. The Current historically has been one of the most rude and hostile shows to the Jack Layton leadership. Now they think they are Fox News and will start counters on how long it has been since a progressive has made an appearance on their show. Hooray for public television!

JoshD

Jack Harris has endorsed Thomas Mulcair!

Howard

Stockholm wrote:

I actually DON'T think that Singh was coordinating his question strategy with Mulcair's campaign - for one simple reason: Mulcair's people would never have seen it as being advantageous to them to have Singh start accusing other candidates of lying and cause a spotlight to be shone on him etc...Singh's comments about Topp were too stupid and counter productive to have been anything other than a spontaneous "brain fart" 

His "liar" lines were so out of place, it will definitely be one of the first things I will comment on to Singh if I ever meet him.

CanadaApple

Intersting perspective on Mulcair's HuffPo Interview.

Quote:

The sad irony here is that Mulcair currently holds the lead in opinion polling in Quebec, giving the false impression that he is best
positioned to maintain the Orange Wave in 2015.
I say false because the 2015 election is still 3 and a half years away. Any new leader will have time to make or
break their national personae in that time, and given what I see in Mulcair, I don't see him maintaining that position.

Emphasis is mine. Has the possibility that Mulcair could bomb occured to any of his supporters? I'm not say he will, its within the realm of possibility.

Howard

JoshD wrote:

Jack Harris has endorsed Thomas Mulcair!

That's big. A former leader of the NFLD NDP, let's consider Jack Harris margins of victory in historically Conservative St. John's:

2008: Jack Harris 75%, 2011: Jack Harris 71%

Harris comes with labour cred and has been one fo the very few prominent NFLD NDP politicians since the Broadbent era.

Mulcair now has the support of both of NFLD's NDP MPs, NDP Innu MP Genest-Jourdain (the Innu are a big population in Labrador and helped to elect Peter Penashue), and up and comer MHA Dale Kirby. Nash has support from MHAs, labour, and provincial leader Lorraine Michaels. Not bad.

Howard Epstein is a good get for Dewar. An icon of the left in Halifax. I thought he had gone for Nash?

JoshD

Sasa Hassainia has switched her endorsement from Mulcair to Topp.

Howard

I guess Mulcair now has the support of some of the biggest former or current provincial leaders of all maritime provinces:

Jack Harris - NFLD

Robert Chisholm - NS

Herb Dickieson - PEI

Dominic Cardy - NB

TheArchitect

Howard wrote:

Howard Epstein is a good get for Dewar. An icon of the left in Halifax. I thought he had gone for Nash?

No, Epstein never endorsed Nash.  The three NS MLAs who have endorsed Nash are Pam Birdsall, Vicki Conrad, and Marilyn More.

Epstein is the second NS MLA to back Dewar.  He joins Maurice Smith in supporting Paul's candidacy.

Howard

JoshD wrote:

Sasa Hassainia has switched her endorsement from Mulcair to Topp.

Interesting! For those worried about whether NDPers could work together after the race, consider the changing dance partners. There is certainly some overlap in Topp and Mulcair's Quebec support. Tarik Brahmi and Francoise Boivin have said as much. Also, LSD has switched her endorsement from Mulcair to Rae. Maybe now Broadbent will switch his endorsement to Peggy Nash. Anything is possible!

Smile

trotwood73

Boom Boom wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I'm starting to feel really good about Cullen. He really knocked that last debate out of the park, and the joint nomination thing hasn't hurt him as much as I expected. Is there a path to victory for him?

I sure hope not, because he's more than likely to bring Quebec down to one seat for the NDP: Mulcair's.

 

I have to agree with Jacob-2-2 on this and I would not underestimate Cullen's ability to connect with people in Québec. It is EXTREMELY naive to think that all it takes is a politician from "la belle province" to win Quebecers' vote. One simply has to look at the Liberals under the leaderships of Paul Martin and Stéphane Dion to see that it does not necessarily mean victory. Granted, his French is not exceptional, but his warmth and charm more than make up for his linguistic shortcomings.

Howard

TheArchitect wrote:

Howard wrote:

Howard Epstein is a good get for Dewar. An icon of the left in Halifax. I thought he had gone for Nash?

No, Epstein never endorsed Nash.  The three NS MLAs who have endorsed Nash are Pam Birdsall, Vicki Conrad, and Marilyn More.

Epstein is the second NS MLA to back Dewar.  He joins Maurice Smith in supporting Paul's candidacy.

All excellent endorsements.

ETA: Am I imagining things that Epstein has made comments about retiring? I think/hope I am.

TheArchitect

JoshD wrote:

Sasa Hassainia has switched her endorsement from Mulcair to Topp.

This could be quite important.  Not because Sana Hassainia's particularly special or important, but because gaining an endorsement that had previously gone to another candidate is much bigger than merely gaining one that hadn't previously endorsed.

I haven't seen a press release from the Topp campaign on this yet.  The Vanouver Sun reports that Hassainia says she's switching her support because she decided that Topp's views better reflect her values.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I met Nathan when he came to Vancouver and I have to say I was definitely impressed. He was funny, down-to-earth and believed what he was saying. He needs to adjust his understanding of Quebec nationalism, and I'm not particularly enamoured with his co-operation plan (although I came to think of it differently after speaking with him and reading some defences here), but I liked him. And it's rare to meet an MP (even in the NDP!) whom I like on a personal basis.

Howard

It's kind of interesting that Dewar has several endorsements from Quebec but Cullen has none. I think his stance that soft sovereigntists/BQers are cut out from his cooperation plan, has likely gone over like a lead balloon. Cullen is certainly charming in French, even if I thought his Quebec City performance was fine and in Montreal not good enough (language wise).

ETA: It looks like Catchfire and I cross-posted!

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Quote:
It's kind of interesting that Dewar has several endorsements from Quebec but Cullen has none.

That is a good point, Howard.

Howard

TheArchitect wrote:

JoshD wrote:

Sasa Hassainia has switched her endorsement from Mulcair to Topp.

This could be quite important. 

If it triggers a deluge of other switchers, I would agree.

Island Red

Jack Harris is joined in supporting Mulcair by the following prominent New Democrats:

Sheilagh O'Leary, the highly popular St. John's City councillor

Wayne Lucas, president CUPE Newfoundland and Labrador

Christopher Mitchelmore, the young and newly elected Member of the House of Assembly for The Straits-White Bay North

This is fabulous news, since these supporters represent all levels of government, along with labour.

socialdemocrati...

Rakhmetov wrote:
You don't think there is a smoking gun, but my challenge to you and other deniers: can you name me a major Third-Way social democrat who plainly stated that s/he was moving to the Right and did not dress it up in implications, opaque euphemisms and the like?

What's it called when a person is "assumed guilty, until proven innocent?"

This is all it comes down to. It's okay to say you don't trust Mulcair, and that he has a hidden agenda. But don't pretend it's to be found in substantive evidence. You can check obvious sources and find all his promises: electoral reform, child care, senior care, anti-scab legisltation (!!!), pushing for environmental and labor standards in the WTO, cap and trade, a financial transaction tax, parity for women in senior positions of crown corporations, infrastructure investment, working with provinces on more affordable tuition and housing, expanding pensions... All of these are easily verifiable positions that he has taken.

It wouldn't be a newsflash to say "... but politicians lie!"

Don't let me put words in your mouth. But I'm assuming that's the extent of your argument, that he's tucked in a bunch of false promises that he'll get rid of in a few months. That's a fair but evidence-free position to take. So my question to you, so we can have SOMETHING to verify, is what are the top two or three priorities that you think he's lying about? What are the two or three things you think he'll throw under the bus once nominated?

Howard

It's funny that a committed sovereigntist is citing anonymous committed federalist sources from his least favourite political party (the PLQ) to try and paint Mulcair has a Conservative. Politics makes strange bedfellows!

Smile

One of the best parts of these attacks, is as Chantal Hebert said, it is hard to "assassinate" Mulcair (I assume she was referring to the character assasination conducted on Ignatieff) when you (the Conservatives [and Liberals]) wanted him on your team.

The Conservatives will tell us that Mulcair is too left-wing, but that they recruited him, and the media will tell us he is too conservative, and people within the NDP will endorse him both left and right. Good luck tacking on attacks to this kind of political teflon!

Hunky_Monkey

I love how we can have a long thread on Mulcair moving the NDP to the right but we can't have one on the possibility of other candidates doing the same.

Personally, I see Brian Topp as a prime candidate that would possibly do that... run to the left and move toward the centre for 2015. But apparently discussing that is "trolling".

socialdemocrati...

Topp has promised to raise taxes on the rich, so he's actually planning on taking the party to the left -- at least on this one issue.

But yes, I suppose we could accuse all the candidates of lying.

TheArchitect

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

This is all it comes down to. It's okay to say you don't trust Mulcair, and that he has a hidden agenda.

I think Mulcair is completely wrong for the leadership, but I don't think Mulcair has a hidden agenda.

When people talk about the importance of having a candidate with strong values, it's not because the others are secret Liberals.  It's because politics is hard.  And leading a party is especially hard.  It's easy for politicians to slip into that Ottawa culture—the one Jack told us was broken and that it was time for us to fix.

And the only way that we can be sure that a politician won't fall into that is if we know the person is driven by a deep and profound sense of conviction.  That building our social democratic future isn't just rhetoric for this person, but the cause of this person's life.

We need a leader who will resist the temptation of politics as usual.  Only a person driven by deep moral values and a sense of true conviction can be trusted to lead us not into temptation but to deliver us from the evil of the Liberal and Conservative past.

Hunky_Monkey

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Topp has promised to raise taxes on the rich, so he's actually planning on taking the party to the left -- at least on this one issue.

But yes, I suppose we could accuse all the candidates of lying.

And what if the economy is booming with surpluses and tax revenue flowing in... wouldn't be the first time someone ran to a party's base and then back toward the centre for a general election. Topp the strategist knows that play quite well.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
 But apparently discussing that is "trolling".

Your usual passive-aggressive insinuations, HM. Feel free to say what you mean in the thread already open. No, actually, discussing that has been happening all over babble. And you can continue to do that.

"Trolling" is opening a thread directly in reactionary response to an existing thread with no focus except to smear all other candidates at once, making a "point" that could be made in the existing Mulcair thread (since the point you wish to make is really about Mulcair, and not about all five other candidates). And, in fact, you have made that point. Several times.

We have several threads were we discuss all the candidates. Like this one. The Mulcair thread seemed appropriate since it has been a major narrative not just on babble and rabble.ca, but in the debates and in the MSM. The same cannot be said for another candidate, and certainly not all at once. If you would like to start a thread about Topp's rightward trend as a party insider and policy man, and can phrase it in a way that doesn't sound like sour grapes, fill your boots. I don't think we've hit the saturation point yet for NDP Leadership threads...

socialdemocrati...

TheArchitect, I know we've disagreed in the past. But you summed up my position almost exactly. Amazing what happens when you can have a reasoned conversation, away from rumors, innuendos, and misquotes.

If anything, Mulcair has been honest to a fault. His lopsided support for Israel isn't popular in the party, but it's out there, and he's stood by it. None of the candidates have called for abrogating NAFTA -- not even Jack Layton -- but Mulcair is honest enough to point that out as a matter of fact.

So no... I don't think Mulcair has a hidden agenda either. And I don't think Mulcair is going to drag the party any further right than it already drifted under Jack Layton. But Brian Topp is promising to take things back to the left, which counts for something. And when I think of someone like Niki Ashton or Peggy Nash, I think of someone who would never compromise on a key matter of principle, who would avoid the temptation of "conventional wisdom".

Again, not saying I don't trust Mulcair, just that I trust and agree with other candidates more.

Howard

TheArchitect wrote:

Only a person driven by deep moral values and a sense of true conviction can be trusted to lead us not into temptation but to deliver us from the evil of the Liberal and Conservative past.

link

Church of the left Laughing

Hunky_Monkey

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

TheArchitect, I know we've disagreed in the past. But you summed up my position almost exactly. Amazing what happens when you can have a reasoned conversation, away from rumors, innuendos, and misquotes.

If anything, Mulcair has been honest to a fault. His lopsided support for Israel isn't popular in the party, but it's out there, and he's stood by it. None of the candidates have called for abrogating NAFTA -- not even Jack Layton -- but Mulcair is honest enough to point that out as a matter of fact.

So no... I don't think Mulcair has a hidden agenda either. And I don't think Mulcair is going to drag the party any further right than it already drifted under Jack Layton. But Brian Topp is promising to take things back to the left, which counts for something. And when I think of someone like Niki Ashton or Peggy Nash, I think of someone who would never compromise on a key matter of principle, who would avoid the temptation of "conventional wisdom".

Again, not saying I don't trust Mulcair, just that I trust and agree with other candidates more.

I'm wondering sdm what you think of Layton dropping issues like income tax raises for the wealthy and supporting mandatory minimum sentences in our justice system? This while advised by Topp. See, that's what people mean when they say Topp the candidate would have said Jack wasn't a good New Democract. Did Topp advise Jack to go down those paths? If so, why? And what is so different today than in May of 2011?

Howard

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

TheArchitect, I know we've disagreed in the past. But you summed up my position almost exactly. Amazing what happens when you can have a reasoned conversation, away from rumors, innuendos, and misquotes.

If anything, Mulcair has been honest to a fault. His lopsided support for Israel isn't popular in the party, but it's out there, and he's stood by it. None of the candidates have called for abrogating NAFTA -- not even Jack Layton -- but Mulcair is honest enough to point that out as a matter of fact.

So no... I don't think Mulcair has a hidden agenda either. And I don't think Mulcair is going to drag the party any further right than it already drifted under Jack Layton. But Brian Topp is promising to take things back to the left, which counts for something. And when I think of someone like Niki Ashton or Peggy Nash, I think of someone who would never compromise on a key matter of principle, who would avoid the temptation of "conventional wisdom".

Again, not saying I don't trust Mulcair, just that I trust and agree with other candidates more.

I'm wondering sdm what you think of Layton dropping issues like income tax raises for the wealthy and supporting mandatory minimum sentences in our justice system? This while advised by Topp. See, that's what people mean when they say Topp the candidate would have said Jack wasn't a good New Democract. Did Topp advise Jack to go down those paths? If so, why? And what is so different today than in May of 2011?

Given that Bill Siksay was disciplined by Layton for voting against a Conservative bill to raise the age of consent, I was surprised to see him endorse Topp. Does this mean Topp supported/supports Siksay's principled stand? Or does this go against the "tough on crime" policies Topp has steered an enormous berth around over the course of this campaign?

socialdemocrati...

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
I'm wondering sdm what you think of Layton dropping issues like income tax raises for the wealthy and supporting mandatory minimum sentences in our justice system? This while advised by Topp. See, that's what people mean when they say Topp the candidate would have said Jack wasn't a good New Democract. Did Topp advise Jack to go down those paths? If so, why? And what is so different today than in May of 2011?

I think KenS would come up with an excellent answer to this question.

I take your assumption to be true: Topp and Layton got together and decided to eliminate "tax the rich" from the party platform, essentially moving the party to the right. The pary did drop it, and it's safe to assume Topp was involved in that decision.

The key is that Jack Layton did this for pragmatic reasons, not because he secretly thought taxes were already fair. Jack Layton always had one eye on what we could get now, and another eye on what we really wanted. It's the same thing he did on Afghanistan -- he waited for the right moment to stick his neck out and criticize the mission, and within a few years the Canadian population had come around to our position. It paid off huge, particularly against the Liberals, because Jack seemed bold, honest, and wise. The truth is a little more devious, that Jack was a shrewd politician, shrewd enough to know that his calculated boldness would pay off against vague platitudes. I'm 100% confident that if Jack saw the opportunity to shift the conversation towards taxing the wealthy, he would seize that opportunity. Jack's position on taxes was a question of circumstance, not principle.

So what's changed in 2011? A few things:

  • We're the official opposition. People LIKE us.
  • The Occupy Movement has put equality back on the agenda for the first time in a long time.
  • The American Democrats (those sell-outs!) are proposing to tax the rich.
  • We've now had decades of tax cut after tax cut, and "hold the line" will no longer do.
  • The Middle Class has finally started to feel the huge downside of neoliberalism under Martin/Harper.

There's two reasons why Topp is better on this issue than Mulcair, besides the fact that it's the right policy.

The first might be the "trust" thing. Some people want to play this game that Mulcair is a faux New Democrat, and Topp is the knight in shining armor. I think this reason is bullshit, and is hyperbole at best.

The reason I prefer Topp, at least on this issue, is strategy. Both Topp and Mulcair are good strategists. Mulcair, I think he'd do a great job of dodging our weaknesses and campaigning on our strengths. His mind for communication and debate is arguably the best in the race. But Topp has a better strategic mind. Topp, like Jack, is able to plan 4 or 5 moves in advance. He's raising the tax issue in 2012 because it will be a key wedge in 2015, and will lead us to victory. Mulcair's attitude is to dodge it for now until he knows if it's safe, which is a very 1980s/1990s thing to do. Voters today want to see bold honesty, and they'll reward you for it.

JeffWells

CanadaApple wrote:
Has the possibility that Mulcair could bomb occured to any of his supporters? I'm not say he will, its within the realm of possibility.

Certainly, and I think you'll find a lot of that reflection already here.

Every choice poses a risk, for the party and for the country, and everyone casting a vote ought to be doing their own calculations of the odds. I was prepared to gamble big on Saganash, but those remaining don't inspire me enough to want to risk everything, and they've done nothing to convince me that they're more likely to fare better electorally than Mulcair. I know Mulcair is no sure thing, but, IMO, he has the best chance by far of retaining the bulk of our Quebec winnings and breaking through in the rest of Canada.

TheArchitect

Sana Hassainia: "I have carefully followed the debates as well as the race in general. After serious reflection, I decided to switch my support to Brian Topp. I have truly appreciated his determination to put forward progressive values. Like Brian, I believe that we should tackle the growing inequality in our society. And we start doing this by putting an end to an unfair tax system that offers billions in giveaways to the people who need it the least. Among the candidates, I believe that Brian is best placed to defeat Harper and put in place a progressive government."

http://www.briantopp.ca/news/new-endorsement-quebec-mp-sana-hassainia-sw...

Hoodeet

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
I love how we can have a long thread on Mulcair moving the NDP to the right but we can't have one on the possibility of other candidates doing the same. Personally, I see Brian Topp as a prime candidate that would possibly do that... run to the left and move toward the centre for 2015. But apparently discussing that is "trolling".
Hoodeet (JW)

I'm with you on that.  After Topp's work in Saskatchewan, I have no doubt he could easily fall  in line with the mainstream political parties.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

On P&P in a few minutes: Martin Singh explains why he is backing Mulcair, and Nycol Turmel is interviewed by Rosie Barton. Your intrepid reporter reporting. Cool

Howard

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
I'm wondering sdm what you think of Layton dropping issues like income tax raises for the wealthy and supporting mandatory minimum sentences in our justice system? This while advised by Topp. See, that's what people mean when they say Topp the candidate would have said Jack wasn't a good New Democract. Did Topp advise Jack to go down those paths? If so, why? And what is so different today than in May of 2011?

I think KenS would come up with an excellent answer to this question.

I take your assumption to be true: Topp and Layton got together and decided to eliminate "tax the rich" from the party platform, essentially moving the party to the right. The pary did drop it, and it's safe to assume Topp was involved in that decision.

The key is that Jack Layton did this for pragmatic reasons, not because he secretly thought taxes were already fair. Jack Layton always had one eye on what we could get now, and another eye on what we really wanted. It's the same thing he did on Afghanistan -- he waited for the right moment to stick his neck out and criticize the mission, and within a few years the Canadian population had come around to our position. It paid off huge, particularly against the Liberals, because Jack seemed bold, honest, and wise. The truth is a little more devious, that Jack was a shrewd politician, shrewd enough to know that his calculated boldness would pay off against vague platitudes. I'm 100% confident that if Jack saw the opportunity to shift the conversation towards taxing the wealthy, he would seize that opportunity. Jack's position on taxes was a question of circumstance, not principle.

So what's changed in 2011? A few things:

  • We're the official opposition. People LIKE us.
  • The Occupy Movement has put equality back on the agenda for the first time in a long time.
  • The American Democrats (those sell-outs!) are proposing to tax the rich.
  • We've now had decades of tax cut after tax cut, and "hold the line" will no longer do.
  • The Middle Class has finally started to feel the huge downside of neoliberalism under Martin/Harper.

There's two reasons why Topp is better on this issue than Mulcair, besides the fact that it's the right policy.

The first might be the "trust" thing. Some people want to play this game that Mulcair is a faux New Democrat, and Topp is the knight in shining armor. I think this reason is bullshit, and is hyperbole at best.

The reason I prefer Topp, at least on this issue, is strategy. Both Topp and Mulcair are good strategists. Mulcair, I think he'd do a great job of dodging our weaknesses and campaigning on our strengths. His mind for communication and debate is arguably the best in the race. But Topp has a better strategic mind. Topp, like Jack, is able to plan 4 or 5 moves in advance. He's raising the tax issue in 2012 because it will be a key wedge in 2015, and will lead us to victory. Mulcair's attitude is to dodge it for now until he knows if it's safe, which is a very 1980s/1990s thing to do. Voters today want to see bold honesty, and they'll reward you for it.

The coalition agreement that Topp hammered out with the Liberals also removed the NDP's opposition to the mission in Afghanistan. One has to wonder if the NDP wave could have happened in Québec without the NDP's opposition to the War in Afghanistan on the table. The NDP ran with that issue in three ads, including one where Mulcair talks about Canada's tradition of "mantien de la paix" that I can no longer find online. It was the major policy difference pointed to between the BQ and NPD.

NorthReport

I hear you, but I think we should all ease up a bit on criticism of the mods at this most challenging time to do their work. No matter what they decide/rule some person or group of persons will not be happy. Overall they do a fabulous job and we are very fortuate to such competent and high quality individuals doing this work.

 

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
I love how we can have a long thread on Mulcair moving the NDP to the right but we can't have one on the possibility of other candidates doing the same. Personally, I see Brian Topp as a prime candidate that would possibly do that... run to the left and move toward the centre for 2015. But apparently discussing that is "trolling".

NorthReport

See, the right-wing press is happy now, they think they have been thrown a bone to chew on.

NDP race finally turns nasty as leadership long-shot directs backers to Mulcair

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/14/ndp-race-finally-turns-nasty-as-...

NorthReport

Pages

Topic locked