capricorn Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Peggy Nash seemed like she had a good chance of taking the leadership for a while but now that she's unable to answer questions regarding corporate tax increases and private health care she might alienate members. Nash came across as a flip-flopper. Tom Mulcair's attack of how the NDP have operated up until now may not play well with members either. Maybe. If he's as astute as I think he is, he may have been addressing a wider audience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Topp's actually really impressing me with his answers on capital gains taxes. (And wow, Martin Singh is getting aggressive.) And, yeah, Nash drives me insane when she dodges questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Maybe. If he's as astute as I think he is, he may have been addressing a wider audience. Yep. Also those who don't want the NDP to remain in opposition forever, let alone return to being a third/fourth party. His answers to Ashton seem very sensible to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) Maybe. If he's as astute as I think he is, he may have been addressing a wider audience. The wider audience, i.e. non-members, aren't voting in the leadership though. To me it sounded like he dissed Jack Layton's time as leader. Edited February 27, 2012 by Newfoundlander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 The wider audience, i.e. non-members, aren't voting in the leadership though. I am and his answers made sense to me. And I don't think he was putting down Layton's leadership, considering that he kept pointing to the NDP's success in QC, perhaps Layton's greatest legacy, as a model to follow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 I am and his answers made sense to me. And I don't think he was putting down Layton's leadership, considering that he kept pointing to the NDP's success in QC, perhaps Layton's greatest legacy, as a model to follow. Was he portraying that as Layton's success or his? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 I mean, it was both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 If Nathan Cullen hadn't blown it with a large number of members with his cooperation proposal I think he'd be the best candidate for the party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Tom Mulcair's attack of how the NDP have operated up until now may not play well with members either. This is exactly what the NDP needs to move the party to the next level. This is how they will court new voters. And this is why Tom Mulcair will be the next leader of the NDP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Thomas Mulcair can counter Harper, Baird, and Flaherty. No one else can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 The wider audience, i.e. non-members, aren't voting in the leadership though. He has to operate on the assumption that he has already won. He was quite blunt that the NDP has to work to appeal to westerners in order to increase NDP support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Mulcair probably faces more baggage then any of the other candidates, though he could potentially appeal to a broader audience then the majority of these candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Was he portraying that as Layton's success or his? The problem is that he can't praise Layton too much because that plays to Topp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Wow, Mulcair is compelling in French. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 He was Layton's deputy co-leader. Does anyone really doubt his belief in and support of Layton? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 He was Layton's deputy co-leader. Does anyone really doubt his belief in and support of Layton? The only reason he was co-deputy leader was because he was from Quebec. It wasn't unknown either that Mulcair wanted the leadership of the party. I don't doubt that he supported Layton but I don't think they were that close, and while he obviously didn't want to see Layton die I think he wanted the leadership before 2015. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Thomas Mulcair can counter Harper, Baird, and Flaherty. No one else can. I've said it before, Mulcair is the guy that the Conservatives want to win. He's got a temper, and he's easy to bait into saying things that even he doesn't believe. What I find curious, is the opposition's penchant for wanting the guy they know that the CPC wants to face, and their tendency to laugh when it's pointed out. The NDP should learn a lesson from the LPC and their leaders from the last 7 yrs; The CPC knows who they want to face and exactly how they will beat him/her. Cullen is the only guy I see who might actually be seen as a threat by the Conservatives. He could actually make gains west of Quebec. That many NDPers are writing him off is giving most CPC people a bit of relief. He's really the only one that CPC doesn't look at and say "Yes, Please!". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 The CPC shouldn't want to face Mulcair. He's a real threat to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 Cullen is the only guy I see who might actually be seen as a threat by the Conservatives. He could actually make gains west of Quebec. That many NDPers are writing him off is giving most CPC people a bit of relief. He's really the only one that CPC doesn't look at and say "Yes, Please!". Agreed. Many Conservatives had considered Dewar to be a bit of a threat as well but I think his difficulty with French, and the fact that his colleagues have criticized him for it, have made him less of a CPC threat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 The CPC shouldn't want to face Mulcair. He's a real threat to them. People said that about the last several Liberal leaders too. Remember the hype around Ignatieff? Remember how Conservatives (including me) said he'd be easier to beat than Dion? Mulcair will be easier to beat than Ignatieff. Mulcair is only a threat to the NDP. NDP will lose at least half their current seats with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 I've said it before, Mulcair is the guy that the Conservatives want to win. He's got a temper, and he's easy to bait into saying things that even he doesn't believe. What I find curious, is the opposition's penchant for wanting the guy they know that the CPC wants to face, and their tendency to laugh when it's pointed out. The NDP should learn a lesson from the LPC and their leaders from the last 7 yrs; The CPC knows who they want to face and exactly how they will beat him/her. Cullen is the only guy I see who might actually be seen as a threat by the Conservatives. He could actually make gains west of Quebec. That many NDPers are writing him off is giving most CPC people a bit of relief. He's really the only one that CPC doesn't look at and say "Yes, Please!". We know the CPC will attack whoever the NDP picks and I - and many others - also think Mulcair would be best able to respond. We've seen him in Parliament and we've seen him in provincial government. We don't necessarily base all our decisions on what the CPC thinks. Cullen's joint nomination idea - which is the most distinctive thing about him - is ridiculous, for the reason that Singh gave. He's a decent speaker and has a good sense of humour but, as I said about Singh, I certainly don't think he has the experience or accomplishments of Mulcair, Topp, or Nash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) The CPC shouldn't want to face Mulcair. He's a real threat to them. I don't know. The fact that he tried to get a job in Harper's PMO and has a tendency to say idiotic things makes him less of a threat then I think Cullen is. I'm sure Conservatives have Mulcair attack ads ready to go. I do think his vision for the NDP is more of a threat then say Topp's vision but I think he is a problem. Cullen is able to take on attacks with a smile, while Mulcair can just get angry. I also think he's a controversial figure for the more lefty members. Edited February 27, 2012 by Newfoundlander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 People said that about the last several Liberal leaders too. Remember the hype around Ignatieff? Remember how Conservatives (including me) said he'd be easier to beat than Dion? He shouldn't have been. There was no reason for that. That was as a result of a many failures on his part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 27, 2012 Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 People said that about the last several Liberal leaders too. Remember the hype around Ignatieff? At the time, most people I knew dreaded Ignatieff, actually. I almost bought a Liberal membership just so I could support Rae over him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 We know the CPC will attack whoever the NDP picks and I - and many others - also think Mulcair would be best able to respond. We've seen him in Parliament and we've seen him in provincial government. We don't necessarily base all our decisions on what the CPC thinks. Cullen's joint nomination idea - which is the most distinctive thing about him - is ridiculous, for the reason that Singh gave. He's a decent speaker and has a good sense of humour but, as I said about Singh, I certainly don't think he has the experience or accomplishments of Mulcair, Topp, or Nash. According to members of the NDP they are a grassroots party and the members make the policy, if the membership don't like Cullen's idea can't they say so at a policy convention and look at his other attributes at the leadership race? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.