I'm sure Brian Topp has

I'm sure Brian Topp has accomplished many things in his life and whatever they might be he will no doubt talk about them in the Globe and Mail. Playing a role in the Québec breakthrough was not one of them. He never came to Québec since 2007, and was totally unknown to Québécois until being acclaimed President in June. Other than Mulcair and Layton, the only other person who can lay claim to being the "architect" of the Québec orange tide is Raymond Guardia who was the organizer for Mulcair's successful 2007 victory in the Liberal stronghold of Outremont and the organizer of the 20011 campaign in Québec. Maybe Shepsil can provide details (times, dates, events) of Brian Topp's role as "architect" of the NDP's'Québec breakthrough. Nobody here has ever seen hide nor hair of him.
Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network.
Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de Bell.

sometimes what's good is the enemy of the best

Great candidates. Mulcair is a sharp blade best used strategically. Ed Broadbent's and Roy Romano's endorsements highly recommend Topp. But for me, having followed and listened to him, Peter Julian is the guy. I hope he runs, at the very least we need him to get the exposure for either this or the next opportunity. Really informed.

Mulcair

I appreciate your thoughts Mr. Byers, but Thomas Mulcair's position on the Israel / Palestinian conflict is far too pro-Israel for me. For that reason alone, I believe that it would not be in the best interests of the party if Mr. Mulcair ran for the leadership position, as it would lead to a great deal of division within the ranks.

@Church Lady

Brian Topp was largely responsible for the first ever elected NDP MP in Quebec in 1990. That MP was Phil Edmonston, whom Topp then worked for in Ottawa.

Church Lady, your suggestion that Topp is barely known in Quebec circles, given the fact that he has spent more than half of his life there, are a clear indication of his real stature in Quebec and as a candidate to be the next leader of the NDP. I suggest you go back to my first comment and read the links provided or just Google Brian Topp. No shortage of good material on him written by others in recent months.

Mulcair IS Terrible on International Issues

Mulcair has openly attacked Libby Davies for her stand on divestment and boycott re Israel; he also supported (along with Harper, Rae and friends) and attended the conference in Ottawa aimed at labelling critics of Israeli west bank expansionism anti-semites.

I dont know a lot about the other leadership and potendial leadership candidates, can't find them saying much on the mid-east or international issues. Topp at least has been unafraid to take a position -- it seems moderate enough to avoid losing too much support among those who genuinely worry about Israeli security, while taking a firm position, placing blame where it belongs for failure of the mis-named "peace process": http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/brian-topp/on-palestine-harper-and-nov-4/article2175704/

shepsil, can't you take it one step further?

Having only joined the NDP in 2007, Mulcair has left me with some doubts about his sincerity as a social democrat.

I know I have grave doubts about the NDPs sincerity as a social democrat party. All I see is its support for welfare state capitalism.

NDP not environmental champions

The NDP talk a good game but their commitment to the environment should be measured by their actual performance.

It's not been great.

The BC NDP threw Betty Krawczyk in jail for protesting at Clayquot.

The BC NDP opposed the carbon tax, against the opinion of most of the environmental community.

Any time I've ever seen unions in conflict with environmental values, the NDP will almost always go with the unions.

Mulcair problem

Mulcair is appealing
until you remember his shocking stance on Israel/Palestine.
Is support for Israel more important than acknowledging the historical record?
One really wonders about his social democratic credentials.

not yet swayed

Wow. This article by Mr. Byers is written in support of Mulcair for leader. Yet "Jack" is named 9 times before Mulcair's own name appears even once. Nice plan.

But, then again, I suppose it is still Topp who takes the prize for having been strongest out of the gates in trying to tie his own ambitions to Jack's legacy. Crafty.

While there is certainly no shame in remembering that legacy, I dunno...

@ Amor de Cosmo & ReeferMadness

Thank you for your veiled and not so veiled criticisms of the NDP & the BCNDP. A sure sign that Christie's BC Liberals and Harper's Conservatives are worried about their impending doom! LOL.

Michael, I think I might have to 'unfriend' you on Facebook

Ditto what Stvr and DReynolds wrote. Especially don't like the way Mulcair stoolpigeoned on Davies. His ethics leave a lot to be desired. (And he could do with some humour.) I'd say anyone but Mulcair.

Thomas Mulcair may simply

Thomas Mulcair may simply being strategically coy in taking his time before throwing his hat into the NDP leadership ring. More likely, smart guy that he is, he's weighing some realities: even as much as the neophyte Quebec NDP MPs need to be welcomed into the party, so do the many outside Quebec who have supported the party for years, decades and generations need to be respected. Indeed, party membership in the west heavily outweighs that of Quebec and the race is decided by one-member-one-vote. Mr Mulcair might also be considering the attractiveness of having a leader from the west where many of the Conservative victories in the last election were closely contested by the NDP. Those seats are absolutely vital for Stephen Harper's majority and the NDP has been the obvious alternative for quite some time. Not for a minute to disparage the sincerity of the new NDPers, but the same can't be said about Quebec seats; one shouldn't question the MP's loyalty, rather the voter's, who are, whether by fickleness or, more likely, by sophistication, notable for switching sides in a big way. The staying power of the NDP in Quebec has yet to be tested. Mulcair may regard himself best able to retain NDP seats in Quebec in the next election, but there are other things to weigh.

He might, for example, be considering the fact that, while being a relative newcomer to the party himself, he is already the senior member of the Quebec caucus, the majority of the national caucus, and already deputy leader of the party; with that in hand, he might not run at all. On the other hand, he might run more out of recognition of the Quebec caucus with the prospect of possibly being a king-maker. In either case he is and always will be a powerful member within the party.

In my view, people make entirely too much of a contender's ability to speak French and, in spite of his bilingualism, Mulcair probably won't be able to get enough support with the one-memeber-one-vote system. I'm willing to bet that the new NDP MPs are respectfully willing to take a back seat until they get their legs and that they will accept the choice of the party, whomever it might be.

The most promising threat to the Conservatives presents itself in BC, and having a leader from there has much to recommend it. I'd sure love to hear whom Dave Barrett would back.

Wow @ metacomet, great comments!

Althought I still feel Brian Topp is the most qualified Candidate to lead us as the next Gov
't of Canada.

From backrooms to genuine democracy

The backrooms in any elections are always populated by those connected to those in power wanting to stay in power or gaining more and those often without a backroom being on the outside representing a very large pool of people wanting in. “Fordism” and more defined in the “is capitalism preparing to bury itself” Tyee thread provides more background.

To help sharpen the point which is very relevant to who the NDP will eventually "elect", how is it that with well over 60% of the Canadians who actually voted in the 20011 federal election were unhappy with the results yet both Stephen Harper AND Jack Layton were extremely ecstatic about the results???

Given the power imbalance as to who can get their message out I always take more pain to search out the 5W's of the underdogs. To this end I compliment many of the comments here.

Concerning the actual process of who will actually be elected is filled with the murkiness of who gets to define the "selectorate".

In broad strokes is it not at least questionable why the spin of the selectorate for leadership will be called but short of actually being one member one vote while the party heavy weights like Broadbent regarding general elections is dead set about majority outcomes, preferring instead the party stacking method of PR? PR after all the hoopla is still loaded with single-mark vote-splitting elected candidates (ie shutting out the will of the majority) instead of using the vote123 preferential ballot system to ensure that each and every candidate elected is supported by an honest 50% + 1 majority?

After all, all party leaders will be elected on this principle, shaded of course by whatever pool of selectorate was decided upon.

An interesting interview clarifying the differences and similarities between autocrats and democrats is available at the CBC http://www.cbc.ca/day6/#
regarding A Dictator's Handbook for the President by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita

All parties use economists

All parties use economists who have been brainwashed with the same criminal, theoretical garbage in the same universities.

It will take a long time to wipe out the remnants of this crime wave to bring logic and conscience back into economics, if and when humanity ever wakes up to the fraud that enslaves them .

I've tried to warn an NDP minister of the obvious and predictable coming disaster some 20 years ago. The reply was: " Our economists thought what you wrote was very interesting, but they disagreed."

Everything I wrote then and tried to warn against, has happened.

As I keep on repeating, don't blame the politicians, but the universities, who have lost the understanding that questioning and criticizing what they teach is part of educational/intellectual freedom, they have lost long time ago, when they permitted big business to take them over and dictate what they can teach and research.

Ed Deak

Is the Hope Catholic?

Paul Dewar is jumping in. How will a catholic progressive play out west? He is strong on the enviro-plank.

Money for any green energy company, guaranteed. Nothing yet about run-of-river. Maybe it's in 'wave'.:

"Reshaping energy policy for the 21st century means moving away from fossil-fuel dependence toward a green energy future by investing in solar, wind, wave, and geothermal sources, working with provinces and territories to share clean energy; and ensuring energy conservation in transportation and building methods."

Going International:
"A New Democrat government will make Canada an environmental leader on the world stage by honouring treaty obligations, incorporating strong environmental standards in trade agreements and ensuring Canadian companies operating abroad will be held to standards and practices that reduce their footprint and leave local ecosystems in good health."

National Carbon tax Stock Market:
"Creating a revenue-generating carbon market to ensure industry reduces greenhouse gas emissions."

Big Money for Alberta to adjust and slow down:
"Rescinding tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel industries, while protecting workers, communities, and the surrounding environment".

pauldewarmp-dot-ca

@shepsil

I don't need to "veil" my criticism of the NDP or any other party. The last time I checked, at least that much freedom of speech still existed.

And only in the limited minds of the true party faithful does criticism of the NDP automatically mean support for Harper and Clark. I know it's a tough concept for those that genuflect before their party but there are still people out there capable of independent thought!

I also noticed that rather than try to refute my point that the NDP's records on the environment have varied between mediocre and awful, you've chosen to attack me as being a right winger.

Take another shot. Maybe an intelligent one this time.

Israel/Palestine just ins't that important

I've been to both Israel and Palestine, and like many here, I have strong opinions about what is "right" and what should be done. But if you were to ask me what are the top 3, 5, probably even 10 issues that are facing me/Canada/the world/the NDP, Israel Palestine is not even close to making the list. Climate change, health care, green jobs, NAFTA, Afghanistan...that's just off the top of my head. Of all the conflict zones in the world, why should this one be the litmus test for the NDP?

Mulcar fails to pass the litmus test

for a potential Canadian PM in the 21st century. He is an avid supporter of Israel and has refused to criticize its well documented human rights violations, including allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He is out of sync with an increasing majority of Canadians and people around the world, including a steadily growing number of Americans.

It is incomprehensible that an aspiring PM should hold such views. Surely, most Canadians now realize the utter folly of the Harperite's slavish devotion to Israel, a thoroughly documented exclusionary/expansionist/occupier/oppressor state and serial violator of hard-won human rights law. Canadians need a leader who reveres and supports the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention as well as other human rights law.

Well, what do you know, the 15,000

Well, what do you know, the 15,000 paper members recruited into the NDP during the last provincial leadership campaign now get to decide the national leadership of the party. Buy one, get one free. What a bargain.

Topp this.

Now the 15,000 newly bought paper members in the BC NDP that decided the provincial leadership sweepstakes get to pick the Federal Leader too. Buy one vote, get one free. What a deal.

straightshooter

Could this be a significant reason?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outremont,_Quebec
"...home to a large number of Hasidic Jews."

Falstaff

What's the alternative to having party members vote for the leader? Ask random people in the streets? Ask Stephen Harper? A poll of columjists that have cottages in the Laurentians?

Frank looking for alternatives to paid membership voting

Now I don't profess to know all the details of Party membership, but a quick look and I see that an annual federal NDP membership costs a person anywhere from $5 in Newfoundland/Labrador to $25 in Ontario; and an annual provincial NDP membership costs a person $30 a year.

This means if a person wants a say in the leadership of the Party, a Party propagandizing that it represents the people democratically, it's going to cost him/her.

Interestingly, the federal dues are determined by one's specific province of residence. Does this mean that the more one pays for membership, the better NDP representation she can expect? I wonder (not really) if this is NDP democracy in action?

Obviously there may be some loopholes for the poor I am unaware of, but the people who need representation the most from the oppression of our capitalist system are the ones least likely, or simply not able, to paying membership fees.

So the NDP not only perpetuates the capitalist model of money buying influence -- nothing new for bourgeois democracies and the welfare state capitalists -- but, at least provincially, it also asks the membership recruits to check their brains upon admission:

I declare that I accept and will abide by the Constitution, principles, and policies of the NDP of B.C. and of Canada.

So what is the alternative, you ask?

First, stop kidding yourselves that the NDP are attempting to represent all the people. It does not want change, so leave it at that.

Let those who are onto the NDP and money politics govern themselves accordingly. Stop beguiling those the Party only cares enough about to use for its own political agenda.