2012 NDP leadership convention

[Peter the Lefty]

Okay, you're right.  Bad news federally: A new Nanos poll.
Conservatives: 35.7%
Liberals: 27.6%
NDP: 25.2%
Bloc Quebecois-5.6%
Green Party-4.5%

Margin of error was + or - 3.2%.  Still though, bad news.  I wish Turmel would give the interim leadership to either Peter Julian or even another, more charismatic Quebec MP, like Raymond Cote, Philip Toone, Guy Caron, Paulina Ayala, or someone else like that. 

[Peter the Lefty]

Restating the obvious: Mulcair, Nash and Topp are the only ones who a) are bilingual b) can win the leadership.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-leadership-hopefuls-test-french-skills-in-quebec-debate/article2335615/

Nathan Cullen is bilingual and is considered to be an underdog, but not to the extent of Ashton, Singh, and (formerly) Saganash. 

[Peter the Lefty]

I think than Mulcair wants to transform NDP in a center-left party, not a centrist one. If he was centrist, he would have joined Liberals, offering him a much easier path to a seat in Quebec.

Moving to center-left is probably needed to gain power.

Yes, but not to the extent that Mulcair wants to take it, I hope.  The NDP should move closer to the center if it wants to gain power, but that doesn't mean they should elect a leader who:
A. Calls himself an "ardent supporter of Israel in ALL situations and circumstances
B. Supported bulk water exports as the Environment Minister in Quebec before he was opposed to them as an NDP leadership candidate.
C. Is getting money from Anthony Muck, director of the Barrick Gold Corporation, Gerry Schwartz, CEO of the Onex corporation
D. Refuses to talk about taxing the wealthy
E. Supports NAFTA

[Peter the Lefty]

Ok, fair enough about the Israel thing, and the bulk water.  But as I think it's been stated before, the Democrats and Obama are running on a tax the rich platform quite successfully in the US, a society in which any talk of tax increases is extremely taboo.  And his corporate funding is still questionable.  My main problem with Mulcair other than what I've mentioned is ideological.  I am perfectly willing to believe that he is ideologically left-liberal.  But the NDP is not and has never been a left-liberal party.  The NDP is a social democratic/democratic socialist party.  Social liberalism is not social democracy.  They do have a number of things in common, but they are not the same thing.  He ideologically would fit best in the Liberal Democrats were he in the UK (if you took out the fact that they're in a coalition with the Torries), though I guess Labour has enough neoliberal crooks and rightists in disguise that he'd probably fit in well there too, and he's preferable to many of them.  He has, talked about how the NDP has to "renew" itself and even talked about how all other main social democratic parties in the world have "renewed" (which is clearly code for Blairism/Schroderism/Third Way) The NDP cannot go in that direction, and therefore, were I an NDP member, my ballot as of now would be as follows:
1. Peggy Nash
2. Nathan Cullen
HUGE gap
3. Niki Ashton
4. Thomas Mulcair
5. Paul Dewar
6. Brian Topp
7. Martin Singh

[Peter the Lefty]

Run from the center and bring people to the right is what the Conservatives have been doing, and it has succeeded. Even if they screw up their mandate (as they seem to have been doing, little by little), they'll have had >4 years to do whatever they want.

Yes, but Mulcair has me afraid that he'll run from the center/center-left and govern from the center/center- right, as Blair did, and it's obvious that he wants to emulate Blair's thinking even though he may try to deny it.  I do wish Nash were a bit more charismatic and maybe even a bit more moderate (for electability purposes), but she's the best of them in my opinion.  Cullen is also great, and if only he would drop his whole Liberal/Green joint-nomination co-operation idea, then he would be my #1 candidate, but looking at his website, it's clear that it's one of the main center-pieces of his platform, so I doubt he'd drop it. 

[Peter the Lefty]

There's now a website made by an anonymous group called the "Progressive New Democrats" called "Know Mulcair."  It does point out some very good points, but they are a bit clueless on the whole political scenario in Quebec.  They do raise some good points, though.  He may have resigned as Environment Minister on principle over the whole privatization of public conservation lands thing, but that begs the question of why he didn't resign on principle over:
A. The Charest government's denial of child and disability care workers the right to strike with Bills 7 and 8, which declared them not to be employees but "independent entrepreneurs."  They were passed by the provincial government (meaning, logically, that Mulcair must have voted for them)
B. The government's imposition of wage freezes on its public servants, in violation of their collective bargaining rights, through it's passage of Bill 43 (meaning, again, that Mulcair must have voted for it.)
C. Its moves to cut $103 million from post-secondary education financial aid, which it only gave up on after weeks of protests and strikes.
D. Its modification of the Quebec Labour code to allow the contracting-out of public sector jobs by removing the requirement of the employer to recognize the employee's union and maintain the salaries and work conditions of any affected workers.  

It also points out that he has publicly equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism via a link commenting on his "ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and all circumstances" quote.  He also opposes any sanctions against Israel, and managed to dampen down the NDP's criticism of Operation Cast Lead.  Makes it hard to think that it isn't just about his riding's heavy Jewish population, but it becomes clear that he really believes it.  He also hasn't ever donated to the party, as it points out, even though he donated to the QLP before resigning.  

And the rumors about his flirtation with joining the federal Torries are also heating up again.  He claims he rejected their invitation because of their stand on the environment, particularly Kyoto (hmmm...nothing about their corporate giveaways, their cuts to arts and culture, social programs, or, idk, just their CONSERVATIVE, RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGY.)  Sources close to the talks say that Kyoto wasn't mentioned (though their reliability is questionable.)  They say it was because he was he wanted a cabinet seat, and a $150,000 salary.  Keep in mind, it's probably just the Conservatives trying to smear him because they're afraid of him, but it makes you wonder...why would he negotiate with them in the first place?  Why would he even consider joining them, let alone negotiate with them over joining (he does openly mention a particular moment in the talks when a senior Conservative brought up his support for Kyoto, in an article about it.)  He did acknowledge that he talked to them (and the Liberals and Greens).  

Please, New Democrats, this man is a neoliberal slimebucket who will make the NDP no different from New Labour, the Schröderite SPD, or worse, modern day PASOK.  Don't vote for him.  He has done two things "on principle:" resign from the Charest government over the privatization thing, and pull out of the Conservative negotiations over Kyoto (if his side of the story is correct.)  This would mean that he only acts on principle on environmental matters, and is not committed to the NDP's other values.  

[Peter the Lefty]

You didn't read what Hatman said?

I did.  But wouldn't it hurt the party's image?  They shouldn't have to go through the whole process of it, getting into power and back-stabbing their leader.  (I meant to post this with that).  Sorry for the way I ranted before, I kinda lost it there lol.  Just...the leader of a party should subscribe to the party's ideology, and not have to conform to it in order to keep the party's leadership. 

[Peter the Lefty]

None of those things you mention will hurt him in a general election. Most likely they won't prevent him from being elected 3 weeks from tomorrow.

I hope they do.  If the NDP still has any commitment to labour rights, they should.  I'm amazed that so many labour figures have endorsed him. 

[Peter the Lefty]

None of those things you mention will hurt him in a general election. Most likely they won't prevent him from being elected 3 weeks from tomorrow.

I hope they do.  If the NDP still has any commitment to labour rights, they should.  I'm amazed that so many labour figures have endorsed him.  

Mulcair announced more labour support today and also unveiled his labour policies and they strike me as being very progressive and pro-labour and have all sorts of provisions for banning replacement workers and making it easier for peoiple to join unions. What's not to like?

That he supported taking away many basic labour rights as a provincial cabinet minister.  Makes him more like Romney in that way too, lol.  

[Peter the Lefty]

Damn it!  I may just end up having to put him first on my hypothetical ballot.  I really hope he at least makes clear his support for a Palestinian state (or lack thereof) or opposition to Israeli settlements (or lack thereof).  Not to mention the things the Charest government did while he was in it, and his explanation of his flirtations with the Conservatives seem less-than-satisfactory to me.  He also has some explaining to do regarding his Bay-Street donors.  But I can't see anyone else leading the NDP to power, but I really wish it didn't have to be with his approach.  I really wish Topp had more charisma, he'd be great if it weren't for that.  I STILL wish Megan Leslie or Peter Julian were running.  Nash needs to get to Quebec and work really hard campaigning if she wants to hang onto it, by the look of this poll.  She'll have a bit of time, but she'd still have a helluva lot of work to do (I'm surprised they're so unfavorable to her.  Is it that her French sounds too European? lol).

By the way, just out of curiosity...are Andrea Horwath and Adrian Dix likely or expected to make endorsements?  I'm a bit surprised that they haven't yet, seeing as they could be potential kingmakers (or queenmakers, if one or both of them go for Nash).  Dix especially.

[Peter the Lefty]

Not openly, but they might on preferences. I saw speculation that Topp might throw in with Mulcair a few weeks ago, but that makes absolutely no sense.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Topp+Nash+team+against+Mulcair+managers/6266402/story.html

Topp bowing out and endorsing Mulcair is the most hilariously rediculous idea I've ever heard.  There seems to be quite a bit of (possibly personal) animosity between them.  And it seems like few of Topp's big-name backers could ever stomach voting for him (just picture Libby Davies casting her ballot with Mulcair as her first choice lol)

[Peter the Lefty]

Damn it!  I may just end up having to put him first on my hypothetical ballot.  I really hope he at least makes clear his support for a Palestinian state (or lack thereof) or opposition to Israeli settlements (or lack thereof).  Not to mention the things the Charest government did while he was in it, and his explanation of his flirtations with the Conservatives seem less-than-satisfactory to me.  He also has some explaining to do regarding his Bay-Street donors.  But I can't see anyone else leading the NDP to power, but I really wish it didn't have to be with his approach.  I really wish Topp had more charisma, he'd be great if it weren't for that.  I STILL wish Megan Leslie or Peter Julian were running.  Nash needs to get to Quebec and work really hard campaigning if she wants to hang onto it, by the look of this poll.  She'll have a bit of time, but she'd still have a helluva lot of work to do (I'm surprised they're so unfavorable to her.  Is it that her French sounds too European? lol).

By the way, just out of curiosity...are Andrea Horwath and Adrian Dix likely or expected to make endorsements?  I'm a bit surprised that they haven't yet, seeing as they could be potential kingmakers (or queenmakers, if one or both of them go for Nash).  Dix especially.

Well in regards to the Middle east, its well known why he is more pro0Israel since his seat is very jewish; but i believe he has said he support party policy on the issues... my issue with him was how he treated Libby.
What don't you like about his explanation? i'm pretty sure its what actually happened;
Topp also has Bay street backers who have given larger sums of money then Mulcair who has more but given less (from what i remember) so Mulcair ain't the only one. Unfortunately in the days of post-gov't funding parties have to generate funds. I'm glad to see there are some progressives on bay street! i hope
Topp, in my opinion was never going to win; No seat (so another year without a leader!) NO elected experience outside of ACTRA and the NDP, and his campaign has been far too aggressive and blatantly anti-mulcair. Is he had one, i think Mulcair would had resigned.... i think Topp has made the blood that bad between the two. I agree i wish Nash had more charisma to her and the french thing i don't get either... a quebecer can maybe jump in, i'm franco-ontarian so my accents probably off too
Hmmm i thought most leaders haven't endorsed (except Michaels in NFLD)? I know the premiers haven't endorsed anyone... makes sense, who wants to divide.

If you don't want Mulcair as your first spot, don't. I doubt this is going to be a first or even second round win for anyone.

I think Libby made the wrong choice in Topp, i thought she would have found a better place within the Nash camp? I wonder how many Topp initial supporters regret their choice to endorse him early on?

My issue with his explanation was that he said he realized his views on the environment were too out of sync with the Conservatives (specifically Kyoto).  If he were truly a social democrat (or left-liberal), he would've realized before negotiating with them that he didn't belong in the CPC (not just with the environment, but social programs, labour, corporate tax breaks, gay rights, health care, etc.). He broke off the talks because he was too far off environmentally from them, but he said nothing about the other issues.  He also sat in the Charest government while it tried to raise tuition fees and take away basic labour rights (which makes you wonder if all of his labour supporters did any of their homework before backing him).  And his talk of "renewal" and "modernizing" sends chills down my spine, almost to the point of hearing Tony Blair's voice.  And as it's been pointed out, Blair ran on a more radical platform in 1994 than Mulcair is now.  Considering what Blair did with the Labour Party, I cringe to think of what Mulcair will do with the NDP.  Though I'm forced to admit, with these polls, that I have no choice to put Mulcair as No. 1 on my (hypothetical) ballot.  He'd better keep Libby on his front bench, and as Deputy leader.  She still tweeted some not-so-nice post about him during the last debate (though you can't blame her). 

[Peter the Lefty]

Interesting article.  If true, it would explain why Singh was so bizarrely harsh on Topp at the last two debates.
http://www.globalnews.ca/canada/mulcair+singh+appear+to+team+up+in+ndp+leadership+contest/6442597793/story.html

Basically, it suggests that Singh is Mulcair's attack dog, doing his dirty work for him, and that it's an open secret.  His arguments against Topp's capital gains tax proposals were pretty bizarre, saying they'd hurt charities, and a woman's right to choose.  He even called Topp a liar.  He also pulled a Captain Renault by going after Nash, asking how she can claim to understand Quebec if she hasn't lived there, even though he hasn't either.  Pretty pathetic, actually. 

[Peter the Lefty]

Shocker: the two rightmost candidates are allies. That's nothing compared to what Harper and the Permanent Campaign have in store for whoever wins... which only Mulcair is capable of handling. What I want to know is how things work downballot- but alas, that has to wait until Alice Funke posts again next Wed.

Sorry.  Wasn't quite aware that such dirty tricks were so common in Canada. 

[Peter the Lefty]

Negative attacks in a leadership battle are unusual for the NDP, (though what Singh did is very mild by Grit/Tory standards) I agree. Another reason why I think Mulcair might have problems is because his personality isn't in the traditional happy-warrior mold of NDP leaders. That doesn't mean being a "pleasant vegetable"- after all, Jack Layton threw (at Iggy and especially Paul Martin) and took punches, but it does mean storing the iron fist underneath the pillow. Mulcair's the reverse. And yes, there is a pillow, which I can attest to from personal experience.

What I didn't realize was that it's common for one candidate to simply act as a stooge for another.  The article makes it clear that they tend to hang out together in the debates, and it's basically an open secret that Singh is planning to back Mulcair later.  Like it's all arranged that Singh is doing Mulcair's bidding. 

[Peter the Lefty]

Cullen? Isn't he even more right-wing than Mulcair?

He's left of Mulcair, it would seem, on most issues, unless you consider his co-operation proposal right wing Mulcair opposes it, but Cullen is proposing raising taxes to a low 30's rate (wasn't quite specific) on Canadians over $300,000-which is right of Topp's proposals, which are a rate of 35% on everyone getting more than $250,000 a year, but it's also left of Mulcair, who refuses to even talk about income taxes. 

Cullen is the third most right wing candidate, if you include Singh.

[Peter the Lefty]

Classy Ed, Classy... seems like the membership hasn't liked your annointed choice Topp and now you look desperate. I love the guy, but Jeez Ed for a guy who doesn't want to be the liberals this sure is a liberal thing to do.

I would have to agree with you there.  That was an incredibly low thing for him to do.  Frankly, in fact, he was simply lying.  He said that Mulcair was acting as if Jack hadn't modernized the party, which is patently untrue.  Repeatedly, Mulcair has said that modernizing was what Jack was all about, and he wants to continue it.  He also said that Mulcair is talking about moving the party closer to the center, which is also completely false.  He's always saying that it's about moving the center closer to the NDP.  Having said that, I also would have to agree that Mulcair's "1950's boilerplate of social democracy" are disturbing, as is his anti-"Laurier Avenue" remarks.  

I really hope, to be honest, that Mulcair pulls an Hollande by running on a moderate platform to get his party's confidence and then running on a left-wing platform in the next election.  I can't see why raising taxes on the wealthy is SO taboo for him to talk about.  If you can win elections talking about it here in the U.S., you can do it in Canada, dammit.  

Mulcair also needs to explain his funding.  He's getting money from Bay Street and from the Israel lobby.  Until he explains those, I'd have to say that my hypothetical ballot would not have his name at the top.  

[Peter the Lefty]

Good to see Mulcair's first priority is caucus solidarity. It is relieving some of my worries about supporting him.

I hope he makes Libby the foreign affairs critic, and Dewar can replace him as Opposition House leader.  I know it won't happen, but it would be nice.

[Peter the Lefty]

Good to see Mulcair's first priority is caucus solidarity. It is relieving some of my worries about supporting him.

I hope he makes Libby the foreign affairs critic, and Dewar can replace him as Opposition House leader.  I know it won't happen, but it would be nice.

You want a Truther in Foreign Affairs? Okaay...

I didn't know until now that she's a truther, but I just read her statement (that the U.S. government may have been involved), and frankly, I agree with her, as an American, that there is strong reason to believe Bush ad Cheney were complicit.  And Mulcair himself appears to have flirted with Bin Laden truthism himself, if you recall, before he cleaned it up and "clarified."  But like I said, however, I know it won't happen.  I just think that someone as passionately pro-Palestinian as Libby will be required to balance out a leader who is either an "ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and circumstances" or who just can't whip up the courage to speak the truth due to the demographics of his riding.  I suppose Dewar has been satisfiably pro-Palestinian himself, though.  Mulcair had better at least keep Libby as deputy leader and Health critic.  And I really hope they can manage to start fresh afterwards or at least bury the hatchet.  But I also doubt that'll ever happen.  Mulcair will never get along with her, or Topp, and definitely never with Broadbent (for very understandable reasons).  I also hope he manages to control his temper during his tenure as leader just as well as he has through the leadership campaign.  If he ever lurches towards Blairism, I hope the Dippers kick him out and replace him with Megan Leslie (hopefully giving her enough time to improve her French enough to keep Quebec). 

[Peter the Lefty]

I'd say Peter Julian would be a better choice for deputy. Israel isn't a hot-button issue in our daily politic, BTW.

Blairism: Not happening. Mulcair will be on probation- even his supporters on this very forum are very clear on this point vis-a-vis explicit Third Way politics. Among other reasons, because then you're treading on Liberal social policy.

I know, but it would be nice to have a pro-Palestinian Canadian government, to help balance out the influence of the seemingly perpetually and disgustingly pro-Israel superpower next door.  Plus, making her foreign affairs critic would mainly be a much deserved apology to Libby for how he treated her before.  She should at least stay on as leader.

And if Blairism will ruin an NDP leader, why didn't it ruin Gary Doer, Roy Romanow, etc?

[Peter the Lefty]

I'd say Peter Julian would be a better choice for deputy. Israel isn't a hot-button issue in our daily politic, BTW.

Blairism: Not happening. Mulcair will be on probation- even his supporters on this very forum are very clear on this point vis-a-vis explicit Third Way politics. Among other reasons, because then you're treading on Liberal social policy.

I know, but it would be nice to have a pro-Palestinian Canadian government, to help balance out the influence of the seemingly perpetually and disgustingly pro-Israel superpower next door.  Plus, making her foreign affairs critic would mainly be a much deserved apology to Libby for how he treated her before.  She should at least stay on as leader.

And if Blairism will ruin an NDP leader, why didn't it ruin Gary Doer, Roy Romanow, etc?

Romanow might be considered 3rd way, but Doer? He's just a moderate. But Romanow has to be the most right wing NDP premier in Canadian history. And look who he endorsed. Wasn't Mulcair!

Doer?  I thought he explicitly endorsed Thirdism.  And yes, Romanow endorsed Topp, which makes it amusing to hear him accuse Mulcair of it.  But Dominic Cardy has gotten away with explicit admiration of Tony Blair and even Gerhard Schroder, and the NB NDP hasn't kicked him out.

[Peter the Lefty]

Another Dewar problem is that his professed combativeness clearly isn't there. To paraphrase his own Mulcair jibe, he's all happy and no warrior. Harper and Rae would eat him for breakfast.

In English Canada, that is.  Daniel Paille would eat him for breakfast in Quebec. 

[Peter the Lefty]

I hear Mulcair's speech got cut short by the drummers.  Actually, that makes for hilarious symbolism of his campaign, though it would be much funnier if it happened to Topp.  Mulcair's reminding me more of Romney every minute now, first saying he wanted to decriminalize pot and now saying he wants to keep it illegal...for bulk water exports, now against them...staunchly pro-Israel, now not as much (he is getting tons of Israel lobby money, though, and Lorne Nystrom, one of his big backers, is on the board of CIJA)...in favor of shutting down the tar sands, and now against it. 

I still cringe to imagine him as NDP leader. 

[Peter the Lefty]

Wtf?  Topp in second?  And Singh is actually ahead of Ashton?  This is really weird.

[Peter the Lefty]

Apparently Mulcair started having a temper tantrum and yelling at staff members and delegates because he didn't hit 35%.