NDP leadership race #125

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

Winning is not all that matters but it is pretty important right now

And I think the upside to winning is much greater than any gap between these leadership candidates on any policy of importance.

We do need to have a foreign policy conversation with Mulcair if he wins-- on that one there are some issues relating to the Mid-East.

Beyond that what are the big differences in policy? (Not talking rhetoric)

Hunky_Monkey

josh wrote:
Hunky_Monkey wrote:
josh... who are you supporting and why? And why do you think they will appeal to voters to increase the NDP vote and seat count enough to win in 2015?

Of the group, I would hope Nash or Topp would win.

But if winning is all that matters, I suggest the party go after Conservative voters.

? A lot of people who vote for the Conservatives aren't "right wingers"... look at voters than flip back and forth in the West between NDP and Conservative. Are you saying we should tell them to screw themselves and that we don't want their vote?

socialdemocrati...

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
sdm... thanks for your response in the previous thread. Question... does being specific in raising the top bracket to a specific number make you more left wing than someone who says they support a fairer, more progressive income tax system?

I hate left-right debates. It's a convenient term of art in some cases, but doesn't tell you what works or doesn't.

Proposing a specific tax increase on the wealthy is good policy. (Besides being good politics, for the reasons I suggested.) First, we need revenue for our priorities, which is only compounded by the constant attacks that we can't balance a budget. Second, there's only a few ways to raise that revenue: user fees, income tax, sales tax, corporate tax, and so on. Most of those (user fees, sales tax, broad income tax increases on everyone) would be regressive and actually harm the people that the revenue is eventally supposed to help. There's corporate taxation, but there's only so much you can do there before corporations just move offshore. The least regressive tax would be a tax on the wealthiest. Finally, the wealthy in Canada are doing phenomenally well. They've benefitted immensely from what economic growth we've seen, in most cases doubling their income or even more. A tax increase of a few percent would barely put a dent in that.

Only two candidates are proposing a tax on the wealthy. I think there's something to be said for "fixing the ceiling" as Romeo Saganash said, where tax revenue is escaping through all kinds of loopholes. But I don't think it's enough. It doesn't pass the smell test: that we can propose new social programs, maintain the quality of existing programs, and not raise taxes. Moreover, I full on expect the Conservatives to leave us with a huge debt on purpose, so that we can't afford to do anything that we promised. Some kind of tax increase is going to be necessary, so we may as well be honest about it.

That's the policy of it.

Termagant

LeftCoastPocket wrote:

My impression, as a pragmatist who hasn't been drinking NDP kool-aid in many years, is as follows:

LCP: I just voted for Mulcair, and I think your personal attacks are totally over the line. If you want to go negative, fill your boots -- you're only speaking for yourself. Mulcair has stayed positive & refused to engage in mudslinging in this race. I totally agree with that approach. We're here to grow this party and build a strong team. Get a grip, stay positive.

josh

Rhetoric should not be dismissed. Both Blair and Clinton used rhetoric that presaged policy initiatives and political actions. They layed the groundwork for their party's shift to the right through that rhetoric.

TheArchitect

josh wrote:
Rhetoric should not be dismissed. Both Blair and Clinton used rhetoric that presaged policy initiatives and political actions. They layed the groundwork for their party's shift to the right through that rhetoric.

Exactly right.  Rhetoric is policy.  Political beliefs are embedded in language; indeed, many people who study language and politics will tell you that certain languages are inherently more left-wing or right-wing than others.  I would argue that one of the reasons that social democrats have been so successful in the Scandinavian countries is that the Scandinavian languages are fundamentally social democratic languages.

When you adopt particular rhetoric, you start thinking about politics in those terms.  And it does have policy implications.

socialdemocrati...

The best argument against Mulcair might be listening to the arguments of some of his supporters :( There's a certain kind of arrogance when your reason for supporting Mulcair is: "I believe it irresponsible for anyone to support one of these candidates. It's like saying you want the NDP to fail." It's this kind or arrogance that caused people to dump the Liberal Party. "If you want to stop Harper, you have to vote for us."

There are a lot of decent Mulcair folks, though. No campaign has a monopoly on reasonable people. No campaign has a monopoly on jerks.

 

duncan cameron

Nycloe Turmel at her last caucus as leader, and tributes from her last day as leader in the House of Commons.

http://www.canada.com/news/Outgoing+interim+leader+enjoys+emotional+fina...

MegB

Gaian wrote:

:) How'm I doing, RW?

Well, you haven't really pissed anyone off yet, but whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is negotiable. I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of time, lol. 

Good to see you back. 

 

doofy

In the previous thread, (post 92), SDM expressed sympathy with Topp's tax plan. I don't disagree. But someone would need to convince Canadians of its worth; and, by not even knowing how many people would be affected, Topp is no position to do so.(watch his interview w/ Tom Clark on "The West Block".)

***

I also disagree w/ Duncan Cameron's "creative translation" of Lisee's blog post. Here are key passages, quoted verbatim:

“Thomas travaille pour Thomas, résume Liza Frulla, qui a siégé avec lui. Mais de dire que c’est un gars de droite, je ne suis pas prête à dire ça. Peut-être plus à droite que le NPD en général, mais je le mets dans la même ligne que Jack Layton.”

Un autre ex-ministre le dit “pragmatique avant tout”. Un troisième:  “j’étais loin de penser qu’il était de centre droit. Il avait des préoccupations sociales, sur les garderies et la politique familiale, par exemple.

“Ce n’est pas un militant de gauche, résume Louis-Gilles Francoeur, du Devoir. Mais il pouvait aller loin sur le plan de l’éthique et de l’égalité devant la loi.” Mulcair au pouvoir avait, ajoute-t-il, “une grande rectitude à cause de ses valeurs sur l’équité”.

Aux militant du NPD de décider si ça leur suffit…"

Compared w/ Topp, who doesn't appear to even know the details of his central campagin plan, or Nash, who is competely untested in QC, I say "ça me suffit".

***

BTW, it's worth remembering that Lisee is a PQiste spinner. He would have loved to be able to write that Mulcair was a Conservative egomaniac  in NDP clothing (although it would probably have had more effect on the membership had he written it in English...) The fact that EVEN HE  had to acknowledge Mulcair's qualities, speaks volumes.

Hunky_Monkey

I can't wait until this race is over... starting to have dreams about it. Well, nightmares... one last night had Tom losing by four votes... four votes... to Peggy.

I woke up screaming drenched in sweat :)

Gaian

duncan cameron wrote:

http://www2.lactualite.com/jean-francois-lisee/mulcair-pit-bull-pour-la-...

In this second part of his blog post on Mulcair, Lisée indentifies Tom as the good guy in the struggle over the enviroment in Ville Laval, where in defending wetlands he ran up against the developers who fund the Liberal Party. Already blocking Premier Charests project to sell off Mt Orford Park, Tom got the hook, and was offered a demotion from the Environ Ministery.

The rest is history. Tom left cabinet and the PLQ, and Jack was succcessful in recruiting him. JFL does not explain why Tom did not become the Liberal candidate in Outrement. Stock can correct me, but I think Tom and Dion had fallen out when they were both envrion ministers and Dion was getting along with nobpdy in the PLQ.

Lisée is a story teller, and he has a political agenda, to help the PQ return to power. The tale of Mulcair helps him undermine the PLQ, which is on the ropes, and in serious trouble for not having kept construction money out of reach of political decision-making.

Lisée recognizes how effective Tom was in opposition, and credits him with being effective in government as well. He saw Mulcair as two-faced and unscrupulous in opposition fighting the Lisée guys in the PQ, but able to administer his department with competence.

Overall his tale supports the widely held view that Mulcair has great qualities as a front bench opposition figure and would make a fine minister in an NDP government (with or without Liberals in support). 

Whether he should be leader or not is another question. Part one of JFLs blog post is a cautionary tale in that regard I would think, one that Mulcair suuporters should ponder carefully, if such suggestions are still allowed at this stage of the proceedings. 

You are actually raising points from his first article to the status of "cautionary tale?"

You do understand the PREcautionary principle when it comes to faith/belief in the jottings of political hacks? Why so accepting of something from the camp of Mulcair's long-time enemies?

Cautionary tale indeed. It's as though we're electing someone whose views/position have not changed to meet the demands of the moment. The dialectic isn't dead, unlike the minds of those who fashioned a position a few decades back - and that's an end on it, by cracky.

Island Red

Niki Ashton was in St. John's today, meeting with New Democrats and answering questions. She won a few votes, thanks to her enthusiasm and her ideas. This leaves only Martin Singh and Brian Topp to have not touched down in Newfoundland and and Labrador. Singh, I might understand since his campaign is quite small. But Topp, who was first to announce for the leadership way back in September, apparently believes Canada's east coast ends at Halifax. One supposes that geography was not one of his strenghts in grade school. Or perhaps he doesn't give a damn.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Singh is from Nova Scotia - Newfoundland and Labrador ain't that far from him.

Island Red

Boom Boom wrote:

Singh is from Nova Scotia - Newfoundland and Labrador ain't that far from him.

True enough. I was trying to be magnaminous. But yeah, Singh could have made it if he cared.

jjuares

I am supporting Mulcair because  I like his integrity. I found Left coast Pocket's comments offensive. Actually, I found the comments very un-NDP like.   

Wilf Day

Island Red wrote:

This leaves only Martin Singh and Brian Topp to have not touched down in Newfoundland and and Labrador. . . Topp, who was first to announce for the leadership way back in September, apparently believes Canada's east coast ends at Halifax. One supposes that geography was not one of his strenghts in grade school. Or perhaps he doesn't give a damn.

Quote:
Dewar and Nash are not the first candidates to have made stops in St. John’s, as frontrunners Thomas Mulcair and Brian Topp have previously made campaign stops in the city.

http://www.themuse.ca/articles/51256

Rebecca West wrote:
I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of time, lol.

Not called for.

janfromthebruce

good BB because it was so offensive on so many different levels. And it surprised me that some Babblers actually complimented it as a good post that needed to be read a few times. Really digging and stooping low IMV.

 

Boom Boom wrote:

LeftCoastPocket wrote:
Ms. Ashton: Ms. Ashton seems confused. Her robotic presentation was much like a grade 11 student delivering his or her very first social studies oral presentation. She had a prepared script of verbal diarrhea and recited it from start to finish. She never once answered a question directly (lest it veer her from the prepared script). She's clearly lacking intellectual and emotional maturity. I am floored, absolutely floored, that anyone would consider her suitable for leadership of the NDP. She would be more suited to running for president of the North Korean Communist Party Youth Wing. Someone said it earlier, she neither represents new politics nor the interests of youth. This young woman (and I am the same age as her) has likely been brainwashed by her father.

"verbal diarrhea"???? Really? You and I must have been watching different debates.

"She would be more suited to running for president of the North Korean Communist Party Youth Wing."   Wow, just wow. Why are you here, anyway???

I've flagged your post as offensive.

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

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

good BB because it was so offensive on so many different levels. And it surprised me that some Babblers actually complimented it as a good post that needed to be read a few times. Really digging and stooping low IMV.

My jaw dropped when I saw the reference to Margaret Thatcher. Laughing

Prairie Lefty

Boom Boom wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

good BB because it was so offensive on so many different levels. And it surprised me that some Babblers actually complimented it as a good post that needed to be read a few times. Really digging and stooping low IMV.

My jaw dropped when I saw the reference to Margaret Thatcher. Laughing

Peggy Nash needs to propose a war against Argentina if she wants to win the leadership race.

Doug

Niki certainly doesn't deserve to be called a robotic young communist. She's a talented and caring politician I expect great things of in future. Being a pawn of unions is something any NDP leader is going to be accused of. While I agree it's easier to make that argument with Peggy Nash, it's something anyone who wins will have to deal with.

Winston

Prairie Lefty wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

My jaw dropped when I saw the reference to Margaret Thatcher. Laughing

Peggy Nash needs to propose a war against Argentina if she wants to win the leadership race.

...And THAT is most definitely QUOTE OF THE WEEK! Laughing

Unionist

duncan cameron wrote:
Stock can correct me, but I think Tom and Dion had fallen out when they were both envrion ministers and Dion was getting along with nobpdy in the PLQ.

Oh yeah, big time - in [url=http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20051108/dion_kyoto_051108/]2005[/url]:

Quote:

Quebec Environment Minister Thomas Mulcair recently made headlines in the Quebec press for declaring negotiations with Ottawa at a total impasse while calling Dion "contemptuous."

The Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous motion supporting the provincial government's effort to obtain "a bilateral agreement that responds to Quebec's concerns." Parti Quebecois environment critic Stephane Tremblay is reported to have said that Ottawa has allocated $20 million for Quebec, compared with $538 million for Ontario.

Dion scoffed at this claim, saying there will be a fair distribution of funds.

 

Winston

Doug wrote:

Niki certainly doesn't deserve to be called a robotic young communist. She's a talented and caring politician I expect great things of in future. 

I am a uber-hyper-partisan for Mulcair, and even I found LCP's post offensive.  That said, if I were Niki, I would wear the "robotic young communist" slam as a badge of pride.  C'mon how many of us were not called something like that in our 20s?  Really?

I think I called my Dad something like that last week - okay, not the young bit!  Laughing

Howard

Boom Boom wrote:

Rosie Barton just made a very public appeal to Thomas Mulcair to come on P&P before the convention.

Wow, that's desperate. You've got to wonder who is pushing for that. You also have to wonder what the consequences would be of honouring such a request. If all the media has to do is publicly whine to get Mulcair on the air, I hope they all learn the lesson and start doing it. What's more if the reason I think the CBC is pushing so hard for this is what I think it is, then Mulcair is better off not going.

The CBC is under threat of deeper and deeper cuts from the Conservatives. It's pretty clear these cuts are politically motivated, based on comments from cabinet ministers and the Conservative fundraising letters. What's more, Power and Politics has tried to ambush Mulcair many times on air, occassionally with moderate success (Osama bin Laden, calling Andrew Coyne a "crap journalist" for an abysmal yellow journalist piece on Québec, etc) and they ask him about these issues repeatedly when he goes back. Furthermore, Mulcair has already been on the show during this race. My guess is they want to slag and hardball him as much as possible in a session before the convention in order to win points with the Conservatives (and help the Liberals that so many CBC staffers support) before the budget comes down. It is a bit of a hail mary to either stop Mulcair or try to win a partial reprieve from the Tories budgetary axe.

It's sad to hear Rosie Barton making this appeal, as she usually comes across as a pretty progressive persona.

Howard

duncan cameron wrote:

Flannigan has gone over to Wild Rose from the Alta. Cons which I did not know.

Interesting to know. Flanagan has nothing to lose from doing this. He is no longer a darling of the CPC. The WRA also corresponds more to his liberatarian-conservative ideological alignment.

Howard

Boom Boom wrote:

Tom Flanagan is always making wisecracks on P&P, for the sake of humour. I'd take his comment accordingly.

I thought Flanagan "endorsed" Mulcair at the beginning of the campaign. Calling it his kiss of death. If he repeated the "endorsement," maybe he's still waiting for the laugh line. 

Winston

Howard wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

Tom Flanagan is always making wisecracks on P&P, for the sake of humour. I'd take his comment accordingly.

I thought Flanagan "endorsed" Mulcair at the beginning of the campaign. Calling it his kiss of death. If he repeated the "endorsement," maybe he's still waiting for the laugh line. 

Actually, you're thinking of Pat Martin, whom Flanagan did indeed "endorse", calling it the "kiss of death".  Flanagan called Martin "my kind of dipper".

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Didn't Pat Martin at one point threaten to enter the leadership race? I guess when Cullen entered with his co-operation plan, Martin may have felt it wasn't necessary for him to compete. (Martin wanted a coalition, before or after the next election I can't recall)

Howard

jjuares wrote:

I found Left coast Pocket's comments offensive. Actually, I found the comments very un-NDP like.   

+1

LCP, please heed the moderators comments.

Winston

Boom Boom wrote:

Didn't Pat Martin at one point threaten to enter the leadership race? I guess when Cullen entered with his co-operation plan, Martin may have felt it wasn't necessary for him to compete. (Martin wanted a coalition, before or after the next election I can't recall)

Martin was advocating full-on merger with the Liberals saying, "if no one else brings it up then I will run myself as the merger candidate."

That's at least what he thought that week.

I believe he has since distanced himself from those remarks.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Ah - thanks! Your memory is better than mine - I have the disadvantage of being older than dirt.

Howard

Island Red wrote:

But Topp, who was first to announce for the leadership way back in September, apparently believes Canada's east coast ends at Halifax. One supposes that geography was not one of his strenghts in grade school. Or perhaps he doesn't give a damn.

Offensive. Too much. Criticise Brian Topp for not visiting the maritimes if you like but drop the ad hominems, they weaken your argument and offend others.

Howard

Prairie Lefty wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

good BB because it was so offensive on so many different levels. And it surprised me that some Babblers actually complimented it as a good post that needed to be read a few times. Really digging and stooping low IMV.

My jaw dropped when I saw the reference to Margaret Thatcher. Laughing

Peggy Nash needs to propose a war against Argentina if she wants to win the leadership race.

It's about time we beat Argentina at hockey! This is an outrage! Who do the Argentines think they are living so close to the South pole and flouting the superiority of our game! To the locker rooms!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Howard wrote:

Wow, that's desperate. You've got to wonder who is pushing for that. You also have to wonder what the consequences would be of honouring such a request. If all the media has to do is publicly whine to get Mulcair on the air, I hope they all learn the lesson and start doing it. What's more if the reason I think the CBC is pushing so hard for this is what I think it is, then Mulcair is better off not going.

You know, Tom could always come to babble, we would love a Q&A with him. Wink

Howard

Winston wrote:

Howard wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

Tom Flanagan is always making wisecracks on P&P, for the sake of humour. I'd take his comment accordingly.

I thought Flanagan "endorsed" Mulcair at the beginning of the campaign. Calling it his kiss of death. If he repeated the "endorsement," maybe he's still waiting for the laugh line. 

Actually, you're thinking of Pat Martin, whom Flanagan did indeed "endorse", calling it the "kiss of death".  Flanagan called Martin "my kind of dipper".

You're right! Maybe Flanagan is Pat Martin's attack dog!

NorthReport

Anyone else read or listen to Kady's live chat today?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/14/pol-wednesdays-with-kad...

North Star

LCP isn't a "modern" progressive. There isn't anything "progressive" about capitulating to neoliberal Third Way talking points about big labour and how it's irrelevant to non-unionized workers. The economic mess we find ourselves in today is not because unions were too powerful and corrupt but that they have been attacked, lost influence and membership. He acts as if organized labour is some albatross around the neck of the left as if it was Stalinism or something. It's unions that need to modernize, not the NDP's relationship to them. I don't see the Libs and Cons backing away from their relationship with "big capital" in order to moderate their images. Why should a party that represent working people back away from unions then? Unions do need to become more democratic and reach out to non-unionized workers to show they they are representing not just the workplaces that are unionized but the working class as a whole.  Thankfully we're now getting things like the CAW-CEP "New Union" discussions. Trying to distance the NDP away from unions isn't going to get you very many more votes, what it's going to get is less critical editorials about the party in the Globe & Mail and National Post. If the NDP wins in 2015 and Harper has screwed the nation's finances, the one thing that the NDP can do to actually help workers and the economy in a very affordable way is to encourage unionization as a way of raising living standards and redistributing wealth.  

Also, if we piss all over the unions after March 24th, the NDP loses a significant amount of its election infrastructure. Unions get workers released to work on campaigns and bus in plenty of volunteers come election time. Try rebuilding that deep and experienced volunteer pool by 2015.

All these Mulcair and to a lesser extent Cullen supporters who swear up and down that their guys aren't "Third Way" haven't accounted for the fact of all these Third Way types popping up and saying these guys have the momentum, these are the only guys that can win. There's no smoking gun on Mulcair's Third Way tendencies but the circumstantial evidence is piling up everyday. Now we've got rather nasty people popping up and engaging in it too! This reminds me of how the Democratic establishment comes and goes after Progressives in the Democratic Party for criticizing Obama's record. It's also not giving me confidence that a Mulcair NDP is capable of delivering anything beyond what a Liberal government that replaces Harper could. In fact, I'm beginning to get the feeling that Bob Rae may be to the left of Mulcair on some stuff...

 

Howard

Boom Boom wrote:

Howard wrote:

Wow, that's desperate. You've got to wonder who is pushing for that. You also have to wonder what the consequences would be of honouring such a request. If all the media has to do is publicly whine to get Mulcair on the air, I hope they all learn the lesson and start doing it. What's more if the reason I think the CBC is pushing so hard for this is what I think it is, then Mulcair is better off not going.

You know, Tom could always come to babble, we would love a Q&A with him. Wink

Laughing

janfromthebruce

Thanks Prairie Left for making me and perhaps other laugh with your rejoining on Peggy starting a war in Argentina. This thread conversation, starting from the beginning has been so very negative and demeaning to fellow NDP leadership candidates that it really has made me question some people's ethical judgments and some candidates team judgments.

For sure, a candidate is not responsible for what some of their team says and does but perhaps a blind eye is given when someone else is doing the dirty work. I have no idea if that is some kind of backward strategy but I would sure hope it does not work.

I don't want our party for instance to fake centre but go left as a strategy to power. I did not like similar dishonesty in the Liberals so why would we emulate that behaviour.

Going negative may work but really is that what you and us are "winning" with taking the worst of political behaviour and using it. You know, the NDP came a strong second in the last election and it was because Jack was amazingly a happy warrier who talked straight and people felt he cared about them. With all the stuff about the robofraud, one may very well come to the conclusion that the NDP could have well won it if "dirty tricks" and election fraud hadn't occured. Thus we all may think twice about what we really need to do next time to win. How about more of the same because it got us to where we are at right now.

 

Fo

 

Winston wrote:

Prairie Lefty wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

My jaw dropped when I saw the reference to Margaret Thatcher. Laughing

Peggy Nash needs to propose a war against Argentina if she wants to win the leadership race.

...And THAT is most definitely QUOTE OF THE WEEK! Laughing

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

Prairie Lefty

Thanks folks, although the idea that anyone much less an NDP leadership candidate needs to take a page out of Maggie Thatcher's book is pretty funny in and of itself. Maybe I should end on a high and stop posting here, my humour is seldom received this well!

Hunky_Monkey

Quote:
Thomas Mulcair should be the next leader of the NDP and the next prime minister of Canada.

People didn’t just like Layton’s personality; they liked the fact that he had one. Mulcair is a dynamic, articulate force of nature in French or English and has the kind of gutsy personality voters respond to. He’s capable of taking on Harper and isn’t afraid of getting elected or doing what it takes to get there. Not a real party member? Doesn’t play well with others? Liberal insiders said the same about Pierre Trudeau, and love him or hate him, he went on to dominate a generation of Canadian politics.

Layton challenged the party to seek power, not run from it. He wasn’t afraid to tinker and change, and neither is Mulcair. That he has the most support among caucus members, many of whom have now worked longer in Parliament without Jack than with him, shows that those who know him well choose him.

Like Layton, Mulcair wants his party to look outward, not inward. The NDP has a history of convention policies passed in heady left-wing love-ins that come back to haunt them, like the call for an immediate withdrawal from NATO or other positions dramatically ahead of the Canadian curve. Mulcair understands, as Layton did, too, that a party on the verge of power can no longer wage lefter-than-thou holy wars. Canadians are prepared to hear the NDP’s message for change because most do want a different Canada. Thomas Mulcair is the NDPer most likely to deliver it.

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=185737

vaudree

Should note that Steve Ashton is well respected in Manitoba.

Should also note that he did run against Selenger for the leadership of the NDP and was seen as the candidate who wanted to move the Manitoba NDP to the left.

vaudree

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
I can't wait until this race is over... starting to have dreams about it. Well, nightmares... one last night had Tom losing by four votes... four votes... to Peggy. I woke up screaming drenched in sweat :)

One of those would be mine.  I marked Saganash first and Nash second.

Island Red

Wilf Day wrote:

Island Red wrote:

This leaves only Martin Singh and Brian Topp to have not touched down in Newfoundland and and Labrador. . . Topp, who was first to announce for the leadership way back in September, apparently believes Canada's east coast ends at Halifax. One supposes that geography was not one of his strenghts in grade school. Or perhaps he doesn't give a damn.

Quote:
Dewar and Nash are not the first candidates to have made stops in St. John’s, as frontrunners Thomas Mulcair and Brian Topp have previously made campaign stops in the city.

http://www.themuse.ca/articles/51256

Rebecca West wrote:
I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of time, lol.

Nobody I've spoken to in party circles around St. John's can recall a Brian Topp sighting within the last six months or so. If I am wrong I will gladly apologize. However, should it be that Topp has not touched down in NL, I urge party members to consider what message that conveys.

KenS

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"

Despite being a friend of Martin's, or maybe more because of being a friend, I'm inclined to agree.

Viz Howard Epstein: he has family ties to Dewar, and I dont know about public comments on retiring, but I'd be very surprised if he is not planning on it. Mind you, that will be true of a lot of, if not the bulk of the 1998 veterans, including those now Ministers. But Howard for sure.

I'm catching up to 3 threads of content.

Stockholm

With all do respect to Newfoundland there are less than 1000 NDP members there out of 130,000 members nationwide. You cannot go everywhere. How many candidates have gone to Nunavut?

KenS

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
sdm... thanks for your response in the previous thread. Question... does being specific in raising the top bracket to a specific number make you more left wing than someone who says they support a fairer, more progressive income tax system?

Specificity or lack of it means beans and in itself. But that being said many times doesnt stop you from coming back to it.

What does matter is the degree of credibility behind what candidates want.

Topp and Cullen have staked out political agendas that are virtually impossible to back away from.... since as[if] Leaders they will be held accountable for them whether or not they ever mention them again. They considered that before proposing them, did it anyway out of confidence these are winning positions for us.

Mulcair tealls us a number of things he likes and dislikes. At least one of which contradicts our 2008 and 2011 elections platoforms. [But maybe that doesnt matter eh, because they are works in progress, and the Conservatives would never throw something like that in our faces.]

Michelle

Howard wrote:

Wow, that's desperate. You've got to wonder who is pushing for that. You also have to wonder what the consequences would be of honouring such a request. If all the media has to do is publicly whine to get Mulcair on the air, I hope they all learn the lesson and start doing it. What's more if the reason I think the CBC is pushing so hard for this is what I think it is, then Mulcair is better off not going.

Yeah, maybe Mulcair should take a page out of Harper's playbook and never give the CBC or any other media outlet the time of day unless he can script and choreograph the entire interview from start to finish. 

If Mulcair can't handle a tough interview, then is he really the best choice for leader?  Is hiding from shows like Power and Politics the best way to handle your fear that they might bring up stuff you've said or done in the past that you would rather not discuss?  Or should you maybe develop a strategy for handling such interviews?

Island Red

Stockholm wrote:

With all do respect to Newfoundland there are less than 1000 NDP members there out of 130,000 members nationwide. You cannot go everywhere. How many candidates have gone to Nunavut?

There are 1,003 members in NL and all but Topp and Singh considered this province a priority. Nobody is arguing that candidates should devote a great deal of time to smaller sections of the party, but it is clearly offensive to ignore an entire province - particularly one that has 2 NDP MPs sitting in the House of Commons.

Pages

Topic locked