2012 NDP leadership convention

[Foucaulf]

I am absolutely baffled by Brian Topp being considered as a frontrunner. Well, maybe not - he's one of those that looks pristine on paper but whose few flaws are horrifying. One, he's not part of the caucus. Second, he was best known for being a Globe columnist and sharing the name of a British sitcom character. Maybe I'm drawing too many parallels to him and Christy Clark (who still worked the media like crazy), but the scramble to bring him democratic legitimacy would be time wasted.

I was an idiot when I unequivocally supported Mulcair, because I forgot how he would support a NDP-Liberal merger. Dewar is likeable, but who knows if he can talk about actual policy. An Olivia Chow candidacy is just media buzzards picking a carcass. Nor do I think someone outside of Ontario or Quebec can win this, if only because he/she's on the periphery of an equally peripheral party.

I suppose this is the symptom of post-Layton syndrome: disillusionment with whoever is next. Maybe Peter Julian would win in a better world.

[Foucaulf]

If Quebec is a factor in the sense that non-Quebeckers want a leader who understands Quebec the most, the absurdity of that is evident. But this derail was founded on the belief that Brian Topp has a shot at winning. Now that would be taking people for fools.

I'd rather see four issues taking the spotlight during the election, in order of importance:

• A final answer to the Liberal merger question;
• A fundamental foreign policy for the party;
• Ways to lower Canadian personal debt;
• To what lengths the NDP will appeal to the nationalists.

[Foucaulf]

The way I see it, there are only two arguments supporting a NDP-Liberal merger: that it moderates the party and put experience into the party. Both are horribly misleading.

• It's common practice to refer to the Liberals as a "centrist" party, because "party of power" is slightly messier; even when they're put together "centrist" takes up front. But try convincing an Albertan who witnessed the NEP that the Liberals are centrist in any way. "Party of power" is a much better way to describe the Liberals, and the centrism is just a label of the Chretien years after the fact. The NDP can do without dealing with interest group politics that forces moderation.
• What kind of experience could the Liberals provide? Their current caucus is filled either with backbenchers from Atlantic Canada or Toronto (both of which saw NDP gains) or bigwigs like Dion, Coderre and Goodale who have tabled policy anathema to the things the NDP stands for. It's also not as if there haven't been NDP governments in the provinces, and the latter experience may be more important as intergovernmental negotiations start again.

[Foucaulf]

Chisholm is in, Niki Ashton rumoured to join.
Alice Funke also has two blog posts on the leadership race worth reading. 

It is obviously hasty for me to say this now, but I believe the real importance of the race is not to develop a coherent platform. Instead, the placing of the candidates determines what kind of voter coalition the NDP will build by 2015. Each candidate represents a specific constituency; some have wider appeal than others. Let's say Saganash ends up 5th, in which case the NDP should take a new look at Natives. Mulcair neither winning nor being runner-up is a repudiation against Quebec interests, etc.

[Foucaulf]

Thinking about it, people fear Mulcair because he has the conciliatory air. He was a veteran Liberal, which may as well be an euphemism for "power-hungry". Some don't want to give him free rein in terms of who he works with, and it's an open secret he wants to take in federal Liberals.

Mulcair may be attacking the unions as part of an offensive on Topp, but he's doing it way too early and has now frightened many nerves.

[Foucaulf]

It is petty of Topp to say how "social-democratic" he is while hurtling insults at others. Of course Canadian politics is run on a narrow spectrum of views, and Topp does not have the natural charisma to challenge this "Overton Window". He is no better than Mulcair when it comes to policy at this point. All he has is a gimmick - higher taxes on the rich.

I also disagree with this false dilemma on "equal outcome" and "equal opportunity", as if one had to choose one or the other. What made Layton's last campaign so successful was how he delivered a message that emphasized equal opportunity within a range of possible outcomes. The next leader does not have to go too off-message, but needs to convince voters that Harper is intent on creating outcomes that take away Canadians' equal opportunity.

[Foucaulf]

Out of curiosity, Roguebeaver, do you post these articles because you agree with them or just to keep the debate going?

I've always found Ibbitson vacuous and that article suffers further from what I now call the left-wing false dilemma. This whole "progressivism v. social democracy" nonsense is just a sign that the NDP needing a more coherent platform, and there is no reason why the party should choose message over ideas like the Conservatives.

One possibility I've heard few pundits talk about is whether Harper could be defeated by economic as well as political forces by 2015. Perhaps Canadians are still on a high from Canada's relatively stable condition, but I've always believed by the next election Harper will be trapped in a Mulroney-esque crisis.

[Foucaulf]

Really, what did we expect to happen? I've never seen any indication from Brian Topp of competence of any kind throughout this process.

Topp does not have nearly as good a knowledge of policy as he believes, and obviously he made an error in making his principal pledge a tax hike on the rich. But that can be forgiven - none of the other candidates are too much better. What can't be forgiven is his barrage of negativity in the last week, scrounging up all of his connections while labeling Mulcair as the Antichrist. Who does he think he is, really?


I am not too worried about Mulcair winning. He will be chosen not because he has any deep grasp of policy, but because he can lead the NDP to organize on the ground on Harper's level. This is what is meant by "modernizing" the party - make the NDP able to fight a real campaign against the Conservatives without becoming trapped in the logistics. Given what happened with the online voting, there's a lot of work left.

Mulcair as party leader would be someone who can deliver punchy soundbites, as well as the one who can crack Harper during debate. An eventual NDP government would not be centred around the Prime Minister like Harper's; cabinet would regain its relevance.

[Foucaulf]

Mulcair being a chairman rather than a CEO? Not unless he's had a personality transplant in the past little while.

I hope he at least realizes there are ministries that he should leave well alone. Not sure if, given his new aversion towards interviews, his (shadow) ministers will step up to the plate for him.


A DDoS attack is, to put it simply, a bunch of people trying to access a server at once so the server can't handle it anymore. From what the CBC reported, the NDP contracted a Spanish company for the e-voting software used today. Either the company did not have enough servers running, or the NDP tried to save money. Now, there are enough automated requests being sent to the server that actual NDP voters can no longer access the voting program.

The servers themselves were not "hacked". DDoS attacks are like organizing a flash mob to run through a door so no one else can get in. If the target purchased extra server space, then these attacks fail spectacularly. But I guess that wasn't the case.