NDP Leadership

[PIK]

This is becomong a joke, time for a few candiates to drop out and let the one that actually have a chance compete for it. Mulcair nash topp, all other get out.

[Evening Star]

Now you are getting the idea, sort of.

All I did was repeat things from my previous post.

What were Mulcairs significant accomplishments as a lawyer, civil servant and teacher?

http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/about/?lang=en

Is that all Topp has as work experience, been an operative within the NDP?

http://briantopp.ca/brian/bio

I'm not sure what more you expect from me. I'm not a campaign manager (or even a formal NDP member, let alone delegate). I would only tell you the things that are already listed on those sites. I do think they answer your questions: I do think Mulcair has significant accomplishments and that Topp's work experience goes beyond the NDP. I don't think their resumes pale next to those of other Canadian political leaders or many PMs.

I understand your obsession with Prime Minister Harper, but could you try and stay on topic for a couple of posts?

Yeah, I'm really obsessed. I start threads on him every day.

I think it's fair for me to ask this since apparently, it has been and will be asked by Canadians. Do you think he's done a good job as PM? If so, what qualifications did he have to make this possible? I just checked his own bio and failed to notice a lengthy history of world-changing achievements prior to his becoming PM. As far as I can tell, he did a little bit of computer programming and has otherwise mostly worked in political advocacy before he settled into a career as a politician. So if he was qualified to lead the country, what did he have that the NDP front-runners don't have? If you're a concerned and discerning voter and not a partisan who's trying to troll me, I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem for you to consider and answer this.

---

edited for grammar

Edited February 14, 2012 by Evening Star

[Newfoundlander]

This is becomong a joke, time for a few candiates to drop out and let the one that actually have a chance compete for it. Mulcair nash topp, all other get out.

Why Topp?

[Evening Star]

Ha, apparently I am an NDP member. I just found my membership. Clearly, I'm very partisan and committed about it.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Evening Star

[Newfoundlander]

The race might start to get interesting now that the candidates are starting to attack each other.

[j44]

I would like to hear some thoughts on the broader issue of what direction the new leader could or will take the party. It seems to me that Mulcair and Cullen would be more toward the center and Topp, Nash and Dewar would pretty much keep the party is it’s current space or move it to the left.

I would like to know what people think the NDP base at the convention will think with regard to the party position. Will they be willing to accept a more centrist type leader like Mulcair? How much of him being from Quebec count? Will they go with the more big labour types like Nash and Topp?

My thoughts on the candidates...

Mulcair impressed me more when I saw him in person although a little anger came out when he was attacked. I don’t know if people will see this as him being the most able to attack and stand up to Harper or if people will see it as a negative.

Cullen impressed me the most from day one. IMO he comes across as intelligent, quick witted and even statesmanlike and charismatic. Although I doubt he will win but his working with the Liberals idea has garnered him a lot of attention.

Dewar doesn’t impress me but he seems to have some good organization.

I thought well of Topp at the start but his pretty much total lack of personality turned me pretty quick. He also doesn’t seem to believe what he is saying and is just spitting out party lines.

Nash I can take or leave. She seems to spit the party lines and doesn’t really impress me. That might be from what I have seen of her on tv interviews. Her arguments never really seemed to be solid in my opinion.

I agree that Singh is a bit impresseive but pretty much sticks to the I’m a small business man and I can help the economy and I have a plan for pharmacare.

[Newfoundlander]

Mulcair is more centrist for sure, he has already stated he won't raise taxes unless it's necessary.

Topp is a bit odd. Some consider him to be more left-wing and he has talked about raising corporate taxes by 50% and increasing taxes on high income earners, yet he tries to come off as someone who will run a fiscally responsible government and won't implement programs unless they can be afforded.

Nash is the biggest lefty in the group and more of a old time NDP, yet she'll allow provinces to implement private healthcare. She is more to the left then Layton.

Dewar is said to be a moderate. He probably wouldn't be much different then Layton.

Cullen I believe has described himself as pragmatic and seems to be more of a progressive rather than a "social democrat".

[Evening Star]

Mulcair is more centrist for sure, he has already stated he won't raise taxes unless it's necessary.

Topp is a bit odd. Some consider him to be more left-wing and he has talked about raising corporate taxes by 50% and increasing taxes on high income earners, yet he tries to come off as someone who will run a fiscally responsible government and won't implement programs unless they can be afforded.

Those two things are not contradictory. In fact, raising taxes seems like a pretty straightforward way to raise revenue and make programmes affordable. Also, can you provide a source for that 50% figure?

Despite all the talk of Mulcair being a centrist, I haven't seen much evidence that his policy views are further to the right than those of Layton or the mainstream of the party. I've definitely never seen anything that suggests that he opposed the NDP proposal to raise corporate taxes in their last election platform. And does anyone of any stripe ever advocate raising taxes unless they think it's necessary?

And again, policy is determined by the party at conventions.

Nash is the biggest lefty in the group and more of a old time NDP, yet she'll allow provinces to implement private healthcare. She is more to the left then Layton.

The only policy idea you cite is one that puts her to the right of Layton!

[fellowtraveller]

I think it's fair for me to ask this since apparently, it has been and will be asked by Canadians. Do you think he's done a good job as PM? If so, what qualifications did he have to make this possible? I just checked his own bio and failed to notice a lengthy history of world-changing achievements prior to his becoming PM. As far as I can tell, he did a little bit of computer programming and has otherwise mostly worked in political advocacy before he settled into a career as a politician. So if he was qualified to lead the country, what did he have that the NDP front-runners don't have? If you're a concerned and discerning voter and not a partisan who's trying to troll me, I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem for you to consider and answer this.

I have no problem answering your questions.

Yes, he has done a pretty good job so far. It will get harder though, the world economy is still shaky and Canada is far too dependent on one of the most wobbly economies. That will be a small challenge compared to what is happening internally, with Ontario slowly moving towards being a failed state. Maybe he has already connected the two.

Aside from some useful edcuation in economics, his qualifications are almost purely political. He is kind of like Obama, with his background as a 'community activist'.

So, I still don't know much about the NDP candidates, time to do some reading once the field narrows down some.

[Smallc]

with Ontario slowly moving towards being a failed state.

Hyperbole much?

[fellowtraveller]

Hyperbole much?

Almost certainly the worst hyperbole in the history of the internet.

Oops I did it again.

[TheNewTeddy]

Mulcair, Dewar, and Cullen are on the moderate wing of the party, while Topp and Nash are on the traditional wing. Ashton and Singh only have small supporter bases, but seem to be traditional and moderate respectively.

[Smallc]

Almost certainly the worst hyperbole in the history of the internet.

Maybe not, but that's a bit over the top. Ontario isn't even a state, and while their growth has slowed, they're still growing.

[cybercoma]

This is my personal ranking, subject to change.

1) Mulcair

2) Topp

3) Singh

4) Nash

5) Dewar

6) Cullen

7) Ashton

A couple things that should probably be explained....

Dewar and Cullen are so far down the list because the former can't speak French worth a damn (Quebec is as uncomfortable about people who don't speak French as the rest of Canada is about politicians that can't speak English) and Cullen has suggested that the parties co-operate on a riding-by-riding basis. I'm fundamentally opposed to the type of co-operation during the election that he's talking about, although I'm not opposed to coalitions formed in Parliament.

The position of Singh/Nash may seem odd as well, but I personally prefer a candidate that appears to be more financially minded. This is what I believe will attract more voters to the NDP in the next election. Her social stance is important in the party, but I just don't think it's what the party needs for a leader at this time.

When it comes to Topp v Mulcair, it comes down to a couple of things. First, of course, Topp doesn't have a seat. That bothers me because it would keep Nycole Turmel at the helm in the House until he got one. Not good. She has been a stunningly ineffectual interim leader. The other thing I consider is trying to imagine the two of them in debate: Harper v Topp, Harper v Mulcair, Rae v Topp, Rae v Mulcair. I just can't for the life of me see Topp doing as well in debate as Mulcair would.

That's my take on the candidates anyway.

[Newfoundlander]

Those two things are not contradictory. In fact, raising taxes seems like a pretty straightforward way to raise revenue and make programmes affordable. Also, can you provide a source for that 50% figure?

Despite all the talk of Mulcair being a centrist, I haven't seen much evidence that his policy views are further to the right than those of Layton or the mainstream of the party. I've definitely never seen anything that suggests that he opposed the NDP proposal to raise corporate taxes in their last election platform. And does anyone of any stripe ever advocate raising taxes unless they think it's necessary?

And again, policy is determined by the party at conventions.

The only policy idea you cite is one that puts her to the right of Layton!

Topp has said he wants to increase corporate taxes from 15% to 22%.

Mulcair has said he doesn't plan on raising any taxes.

From what I've heard Peggy is considered to be furthest to the left.

[WWWTT]

When it comes to Topp v Mulcair, it comes down to a couple of things. First, of course, Topp doesn't have a seat. That bothers me because it would keep Nycole Turmel at the helm in the House until he got one. Not good. She has been a stunningly ineffectual interim leader. The other thing I consider is trying to imagine the two of them in debate: Harper v Topp, Harper v Mulcair, Rae v Topp, Rae v Mulcair. I just can't for the life of me see Topp doing as well in debate as Mulcair would.

The thing that bothers me about Mulcair is that he used to be a Liberal.

I'll support who wins on the 24th March,but I am not sure if Mulcair is my first choice I'll vote for that weekend.

WWWTT

[Evening Star]

Mulcair is the only one in whom I have complete confidence that he could match or best Rae and Harper in a debate.

This is my personal ranking, subject to change.

1) Mulcair

2) Topp

3) Singh

4) Nash

5) Dewar

6) Cullen

7) Ashton

A couple things that should probably be explained....

Dewar and Cullen are so far down the list because the former can't speak French worth a damn (Quebec is as uncomfortable about people who don't speak French as the rest of Canada is about politicians that can't speak English) and Cullen has suggested that the parties co-operate on a riding-by-riding basis. I'm fundamentally opposed to the type of co-operation during the election that he's talking about, although I'm not opposed to coalitions formed in Parliament.

The position of Singh/Nash may seem odd as well, but I personally prefer a candidate that appears to be more financially minded. This is what I believe will attract more voters to the NDP in the next election. Her social stance is important in the party, but I just don't think it's what the party needs for a leader at this time.

When it comes to Topp v Mulcair, it comes down to a couple of things. First, of course, Topp doesn't have a seat. That bothers me because it would keep Nycole Turmel at the helm in the House until he got one. Not good. She has been a stunningly ineffectual interim leader. The other thing I consider is trying to imagine the two of them in debate: Harper v Topp, Harper v Mulcair, Rae v Topp, Rae v Mulcair. I just can't for the life of me see Topp doing as well in debate as Mulcair would.

That's my take on the candidates anyway.

[Evening Star]

The thing that bothers me about Mulcair is that he used to be a Liberal.

I'll support who wins on the 24th March,but I am not sure if Mulcair is my first choice I'll vote for that weekend.

WWWTT

He was a QC provincial Liberal. There is no provincial NPD and the left-wing provincial parties are all separatist/sovereigntist. In federal politics, Mulcair has played a major role in allowing social democracy and separatism to finally become separate in Quebec.

[WWWTT]

He was a QC provincial Liberal. There is no provincial NPD and the left-wing provincial parties are all separatist/sovereigntist. In federal politics, Mulcair has played a major role in allowing social democracy and separatism to finally become separate in Quebec.

Thank you for the info!

I will use this for further research.

WWWTT

[j44]

He was a QC provincial Liberal. There is no provincial NPD and the left-wing provincial parties are all separatist/sovereigntist. In federal politics, Mulcair has played a major role in allowing social democracy and separatism to finally become separate in Quebec.

This is a very good point. I do disagree a little with him being a true social democrat. He is obviously a member of a SD party but it doesnt seem to me that he really holds left wing views or at least not SD left wing. I haven't really followed his career up to this point so I could be way off here but he seems to move more and more to the center (and even a little right of center on some issues) and I'm not quite sure how that will play in Quebec (and isn't holding Quebec one of their biggest priorities?) or even among the NDP base. On top of that he won't appeal to the separatist vote either. I'm not saying I disagree with his stances or his tactics/strategy but I would like to hear your (and others) thoughts on this.

PS. I think having the parties headed by Harper, Rae and Mulcair would make for very interesting times. Agree with them or not I think they are all formidable opponents.

[TheNewTeddy]

Mulcair is the only person that could make me consider voting NDP federally.

[Newfoundlander]

What are the NDPs views on private schools?

[Evening Star]

I have no problem answering your questions.

Yes, he has done a pretty good job so far. It will get harder though, the world economy is still shaky and Canada is far too dependent on one of the most wobbly economies. That will be a small challenge compared to what is happening internally, with Ontario slowly moving towards being a failed state. Maybe he has already connected the two.

Aside from some useful edcuation in economics, his qualifications are almost purely political. He is kind of like Obama, with his background as a 'community activist'.

So, I still don't know much about the NDP candidates, time to do some reading once the field narrows down some.

OK, I'm sorry for assuming you were being a partisan troll and getting defensive. So you are acknowledging that Harper did not have extensive experience in the areas you were asking about prior to being PM? If you are just looking for basic biographical info on the NDP candidates, honestly, their online bios (or Wikipedia for that matter) are as good a place to start as any.

[Evening Star]

What are the NDPs views on private schools?

That's a provincial matter, isn't it? And what sorts of issues related to private schools are you thinking of?

[Newfoundlander]

That's a provincial matter, isn't it? And what sorts of issues related to private schools are you thinking of?

So is healthcare but most members of the NDP are opposed to people receiving healthcare from a private provider. If they are opposed to two-tier health care what about two-tier education?