All the NDP text messages I’m getting spammed eith rn I’ve responded by saying I’m not voting in any NDP leader who won’t dare to say the word Socialism as I don’t need a pointless alt Liberal party. Put it back in the party constitution like it used to be.
Good first impression here, time to look into Bianca.
Sorry but there is no way hick Canada, who votes in droves, will vote for a woman of color, they won’t even vote for a woman.
Let alone one that looks so young.
I’m all for getting rid of 60+ year old politicians but someone who looks 30 has no chance.
NDP never wins anyways, I fully expect us to fall to fascism the next time we flip flop back to the conservatives federally. I don’t think the USA needs to bother invading, we’ll hand ourselves over on a platter.
The NDP embodies a lot of what I like in politicians. But they need to get back to their Jack Layton roots.
It’s still a crying shame that Layton passed away when he did. He would’ve been an awesome PM.
What exactly defines their Jack Layton roots for you, and which of the current prospective leaders do you think embodies Layton’s approach the best? Not trying to put you on the spot here, it’s just I hear this sentiment a lot and very rarely does anyone actually expand on what, specifically, they think the NDP needs to be doing differently. For those of us voting in the leadership election it would be really helpful to have a clear sense of what everyone is actually asking for.
Honesty, humility, compassion and a track record a few decades along to confirm it. Charisma and intelligence too
See, here’s where I’m lost. None of that describes policy, which is what I had assumed you were looking for. Those are just personality traits. I mean, back when he first got elected leader, that’s how most people described Jagmeet Singh. He basically won on liability, mostly thanks to that one viral video, and it turned out he wasn’t a particularly good leader at all.
And I’m not sure how any new leader is supposed to bring a “track record a few decades long”. That just feels like a catch-22. Especially if you’re looking for new blood to shake up a party that’s been suffering from serious political stagnation for the past decade (or more). How are we supposed to bring in bold new leadership if we can only consider well established options?
Policy doesn’t matter at all when you don’t have leaders with integrity. Policies are “campaign promises” that mean nothing.
Elect a leader with compassion and integrity and everything else will flow from there.
But how does someone prove integrity to you? You see the bind here, right?
You’re putting everything on these vague handwavey qualities like “integrity” as if you, like Anubis, can put their souls on the scale and measure their exact weight. What you’re describing, ultimately, is just vibes, and voting on vibes has never gotten us anywhere good.
Policies can be lied about, sure, but integrity, compassion and humility can be faked. That’s literally the essence of being a con artist. The CPC loved to talk about how Harper was a salt of the earth guy who rolled up his sleeves and drank Timmy’s instead of Starbucks. It didn’t mean shit. At least policies are an objective standard you can hold someone to; a yardstick to measure their integrity against. And all the integrity in the world is worthless if its being devoted to policies that will do no good.
Do you really tie yourself into knots writing this stuff? I don’t. Bye.
Thinking about stuff at this level scares you, doesn’t it? Actually having to interrogate your own opinions, ask yourself why you believe the things you believe, instead of just trusting your gut. It takes practice.
I’m sorry that you obviously never had the kind of upbringing or background that would give you that practice. That’s exactly the kind of problem we need a real left socialist party to solve. Freeing people from the constant pressure cooker of capitalism so that we can actually flex our minds.
Genuinely, I hope that with time this stuff gets easier for you. That you can learn to look inside your own thoughts without being intimidated by the process. It starts out scary for everyone, but I promise it does get easier.
I know you’ll just dismiss this as snark or elitist bullshit or whatever. I get that. It’s another product of the same environment that makes these kinds of conversations so difficult for you. There’s nothing I can do about that, unfortunately.
While Jack Layton was a good man, he was the leader who moved the NDP from left to centrist. To be relevant again the NDP must move back to its left roots.
I actually think center is just fine. Or even center-left. To run a country full of people with different views and attitudes you need to be able to sit on the fence.
It’s pretty easy to claim integrity when never getting into power. Bob Rae had a pretty high horse but he lied over and over when in power.
Let’s get real: he was male and white. Canada only elects male and white.
I feel like this leadership entrant embodies exactly the philosophy that is making the NDP irrelevant lately. She is catering to the base the same way Pierre Poilievre does. It’s not an election winning strategy.
Her husband gets veto’d from the running, so the wife goes in as a candidate. Sorry, the optics on that alone looks really bad for neutral voters. She wasn’t the movements first choice of leader, it was her husband, and it’s reasonable to think that even if she’s now in the running, she’s overtly a puppet for other interests that are obscured. Add in a seemingly staunch adherence to what appears to be the tired old left-leaning minority demographic approach – where they target different minority groups with perks/benefits/funding promises that benefit those minorities exclusively, while ignoring and throwing shit at the majority interests of the voters – isn’t a winning strategy overall. One of the keys to the appeal of a leader like Jack Layton, was that he appealed to the interests of most people.
Just because Canadians rejected PP last time, doesn’t mean they want to go to the complete opposite side of that spectrum. Electing this lady would likely end as tragically as the Green party electing Annamie Paul.
What kind of “interests” do you imagine she is a “puppet” for, and what led you to that conclusion?
If someone comes forward as a leader of a movement, and gets quashed, and the organiser’s of that movement’s response is to then put forward the spouse as the candidate – it’s not a stretch to say many folks will be suspicious of the integrity, intentions and autonomy of the new person. Chances are she’ll march to the drum of her husband/whatever group of people control that movements interests. It’s also fairly clear that she wouldnt’ve run, if it weren’t for her husbands disqualification – which makes her commitment to the role a bit dubious.
In theory, the NDP caucus / membership should be the ones unquestionably in control of the party’s future and direction – not a small subset of unknown people/groups controlling a candidate. It’s not that different in scope to the issues on the right-wing – where a smaller contingent of extreme right-wing nuts have essentially managed to assume authority over the whole party, and steer its direction to their whims. Like if PP were turfed from the cons leadership, and the hard right faction then just stuck in the wife as a candidate/leader, it’d raise questions as to who’s actually leading that party/movement – cause clearly the leader is totally disposable, and there’s some more opaque group with significant sway / control. The voting process would help to eventually normalise/mitigate some of the optics, in that you could argue she has the support of most of the party if she does end up winning – but there’d still be some questions about a smaller subset group of unelected folks influencing her decisions.
And yes, I know, I’ve already been told recently that we shouldn’t hold politicians to higher standards than normal folks. But I say fuck that, if someone wants me to follow them, they gotta actually lead/inspire. I’m way too lazy to deviate from my norm for more of the same old shit in politics.
You have it completely backward. The scenario you describe (small unaccountable groups controlling who can lead) is exactly what this candidate objects to. Yves Engler was prevented from running for NDP leader (“quashed”) by a 3-person, unelected group of party officials. I find those people’s motivations much more questionable.
"Mark Carney has radically militarized Canadian society and handed the bill to working people. The former investment banker has gutted climate protections, trampled Indigenous rights, and overseen a sharp erosion of democratic priorities. Meanwhile, it has been painful to watch him defer to the fascistic U.S. president on border policy, policing, and the taxation of big tech. "
If she is going to try and run a national party with statements like this, the NDP will dissappear. We don’t need a left version of the wild Rose party.
