babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
NDP leadership #130
March 17, 2012 - 3:05pm
;;
And this is why I found Broadbent's comments so disturbing. It's quite obvious that Topp's campaign of negativity has backfired, and so they have tried to undercut what looks like a Mulcair victory at the 11th hour. If Broadbent's tactics were to succeed the party would be ripped in half of that I have no doubt whatsoever, and we would be finished as any kind of a political force for decades to come. For years and years people forward-looking thinkers like Charles Taylor, Jack Layton, Thomas Mulcair, and Phil Edmontson have realized the consequences of a strong NPD presence in Quebec. Are we about to throw all their efforts down the drain?
NPD: une défaite de Mulcair serait une «insulte magistrale» pour le Québec
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/...
Le Nouveau Parti démocratique va infliger une «insulte magistrale» à ses partisans québécois s'il ne couronne pas Thomas Mulcair comme nouveau chef la semaine prochaine, prévient le premier député néo-démocrate de l'histoire de la province, Phil Edmunston. Il écorche au passage le principal adversaire du député d'Outremont, Brian Topp, affirmant qu'il n'a pas le charisme pour mener le parti au pouvoir.
Le militant pour le droit des consommateurs, qui a été élu dans Chambly de 1990 à 1993, se trouve au Panama pour participer à des oeuvres de bienfaisance. Mais il suit de près la course à la direction de son parti, qui se déroule au Canada.
Son jugement est sans équivoque: seul Thomas Mulcair peut bâtir sur l'élection d'une soixantaine de députés néo-démocrates au Québec, qui a propulsé le parti au titre d'opposition officielle.
«Je sens que si nous n'élisons pas quelqu'un qui a été élu, testé et approuvé au Québec, nous infligerons une insulte magistrale aux gens qui croient en Mulcair et au NPD au Québec», dit-il en entrevue.
M. Edmunston estime que la course à la direction se jouera ultimement entre M. Mulcair et Brian Topp, stratège au long cours qui a l'appui des principaux ténors du NPD.
L'ancien député de Chambly connaît bien les deux hommes. M. Topp a été son employé lorsqu'il siégeait à Ottawa. Il a également participé à l'impression d'un de ses ouvrages sur l'automobile et organisé sa campagne électorale. Quant à Thomas Mulcair, il l'a croisé pour la première fois lorsque celui-ci était étudiant à l'université.
M. Edmunston décrit Brian Topp comme un érudit, un fin stratège et un habile négociateur. Mais selon lui, son efficacité dans les coulisses n'en fait pas le meilleur candidat pour affronter Stephen Harper aux Communes.
«Tu dois avoir un charisme et te sentir confortable avec les gens, et Brian n'a pas cela», dit M. Edmunston, qui a appuyé M. Mulcair avant même que celui-ci n'officialise son entrée dans la course, l'automne dernier.
NorthReport, at this point I'm finding the incessant drumbeat of "them or us" to be far more divisive than anything Broadbent said in the first place.
You have the right to speak your mind, of course. But I hope you sincerely look inside and ask yourself if anything you're saying is promoting the unity that you claim to be so concerned with.
Do you think Broadbent anticipated the media reaction when he called them to give this interview? Just wondering.
sdm
I don't believe you. If you were that interested in unity why don't you instead address the details of the article instead of attacking me?
I think he expected *a* reaction. After all, he wanted to promote Brian Topp at the expense of Thomas Mulcair. That's the nature of a race. It's a zero sum game.
But not this. Not the cherrypicking from the media. Not the numerous reports tying things Broadbent said to complete rumor that Mulcair is difficult to work with, which is a huge leap in logic from Broadbent's "some long-standing MPs prefer Brian".
Broadbent said he'd support whoever the members elect. Those aren't the comments of someone who wants to stop Mulcair at all costs. If he wanted to stop Mulcair at all costs, if the situation were that dire that he honestly believed Mulcair would completely ruin the party, he would have come out and said "Mulcair cannot and should not be leader." He stopped well short of this, because his primary goal was to promote Brian. Stopping Mulcair is not his goal. It's completely incidental.
Instead, the media wanted to interpret this as a civil war. Over what? Because Mulcair said the party was too centralized? Because Topp wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, and Mulcair prefers to remain a cypher?
The media hates us.
They will seize on the smallest detail to show that we're not fit to govern. If anyone criticizes us, they amplify it. If someone criticizes the party from the inside, they amplify it even more, and then piggyback whatever corporate pundit they can find. "See? If the NDP is having a battle about this, then that proves that the Liberals / Conservatives / Very Reasonable People are right that the NDP needs to abandon its principles."
The media wants us to lose. The media wants us to implode.
I'm getting very annoyed at people who are more than happy to let the media whip them into a frenzy.
The details are wrong. The media wants to thwart any and all change, and go back to the good ol days when the Bloc battled the Liberals in Quebec, and the Liberals battled the Conservatives everywhere else.
The way they do that is to take any detail from this race, and use it as evidence why no one should ever vote for the NDP.
They're not experts. They're not truthtellers. Stop repeating them.
the edmonston thing was just super unproductive. any media line in quebec that suggests that a non-mulcair leadership means quebec should write off the ndp is really really unhelpful, given that mulcair stands a very good chance of coming in 2nd in this contest. people need to dial it back and focus on getting the vote out, rather than doomsaying.
The article which quoted our first NPD MP Phil Edmonston got it precisely right. For the first time ever, being in Official Opposition, our base is now in Quebec. To throw that away would destroy us, plain and simple.
If you're right that he didn't expect this reaction from the MSM, it confirms that he is an idiot (sorry for the extreme term).
But I'm not sure you're right. The man has done a lot of enigmatic things in his time.
Such as, going soft on free trade in 1988 and targeting the Liberals. Then retiring, and accepting a sinecure from Brian Mulroney. And then, in December 2005, giving an interview to the media in which he explained how it was wrong to demonize Stephen Harper. And endorsing a candidate in the ONDP race - why, exactly? Likewise for the current federal dogfight.
Anyway, I don't like Broadbent [full disclosure], but he's an important figure, so I look at his accomplishments and try to piece together a logical thread. I'm almost done, I'll let you know. Any assistance would be appreciated.
If there is one person who know's Broadbent's horse in the race it is the first and former Quebec NPD MP Phil Edmonston who Topp worked for as a legislative aide. It is going to difficult enough as it is for any NDP leader, so why in the world would we want someone who lacks that certain essential element at the top. That would be like like fighting an election against Harper with one arm tied behind your back.
I'm a young guy, so some of the old NDP battles are off my radar. I feel at home as a New Democrat, but I've only been able to vote in the Jack Layton era. Maybe if I were a bit older, I would have a lot less faith in the New Democratic Party.
I doubt I can tell you anything you don't already know about Ed Broadbent. But some people really do just make it up as they go along, and live in the present. Before I make that sound idiotic, there is something more sincere about it than politicians who are calculating 12 moves ahead.
And then there's the type of person who just hates being put in a box, and will intentionally surprise everyone -- including themselves -- just to prove people wrong. Not sure that's Ed though.
Have any of the NDP candidates come out and said "fuck Quebec"?
Seriously, I want to know, so that I don't vote for them at the convention.
Did I miss a meeting? Was it bured in a policy brief?
There are certain things that you can think in private but that serve no purpose if said in public. For someone who purports to be a New Democrat to blab to the media that if the NDP picks anyone other than Mulcair as leader - it will be some sort of catastrophic insult to Quebec is just WRONG.
I have said before that I "fear" that if the NDP picked a leader who was totally incoherent in French (I think you all know who i am referring to) and speaks by far the worst French out of seven candidates after having won 59 seats in Quebec - it might be interepreted as an insult by Quebecers. But I am not a public figure holding a news conference and singling one candidate and saying "elect this guy or 8 million Quebecers will be insulted"
I suspected that Mulcair will win in the end, so this is probably a moot point. But what if by chance Topp (who speaks perfect French and is a Quebecer) or even Nash (who is fluent in French) is elected?...you can be sure that the Bloc Quebecois and their propagandists at Le Devoir will try very hard to make the case that the rejection of Mulcair (who btw: the sovereignists in QC hate to begin with) is a slap across to the face to Quebec. Why wouldn't they? They need to create a case for why people who voted NDP should go back to the BQ. But my point is that just because Daniel Paille and some pundits like Chantal Hebert an co. decide that Topp winning the leadership is some sort of "insult" to Quebec - doesn't mean that Quebecers will buy that argument.
Our enemies can and will try to discredit our new leader - that's fair. That's politics. But NDP membrs like Edmunston should never be doing the dirty work of our opponents by saying things that could be damaging and be self-fulfilling prophecies.
topp's french isn't perfect, and it's not just the pq and plc types who'll push it, it's a media narrative that will take on a life of its own if we're not careful. there's very little upside either - if we do pick mulcair, there'll definitely be a boost, but not much more than we'd have scored had the media (with some new democrats) not gone with this line.
I’ve moved beyond the Broadbent comments by now, but I am still baffled by one thing, and it’s something that I haven’t heard anyone bring up. Namely, the affect this could have on the nascent institute, and whether that was given any consideration.
I mean, the Broadbent Institute was designated by the Layton family as the sole recipient of bereavement donations. You can’t get any more above the fray than that. This brings up some practical concerns, at the convention, for example. At Jack’s memorial on Friday night, will there be a role for the Broadbent Institute as the designated charity, even as its founder is aggressively trying to affect the outcome of the race the next morning? I can see that as being more than a little bit awkward.
I suspect the convention organizers will work something out to ensure a "smooth running - no waves convention". I'm sure there are lots of people who can speak on behalf of the Broadbent Institute without launching into a tirade against one or more of the leadership candidates.
My point is that its bad enough to have the media in Quebec trying to spin anything the NDP does as some sort of insult to Quebec - without having people within the NDP adding fuel to that fire.
Toronto Star Editorial
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1147847--thomas-mulcai...
Good for Niki.
NDP's Niki Ashton sees Quebec as template for western breakthrough
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Niki+Ashton+sees+Quebec+template+wester...
I feel sorry for Broadbent to go out like this. Quite the contrast between the 2 campaigns. Oh, well.
Broadbent on Mulcair: 'I'm just putting up warning signals'
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada/Broadbent+Mulcair+just+putting+warning+signals/6319427/story.html
Mulcair’s campaign has declined requests from Postmedia News in recent days for an interview with the candidate. Last week, his camp refused to directly respond to Broadbent’s critique — with one of his spokesmen writing to the media that Mulcair had run an “upbeat” campaign and was intent on keeping the race “positive and unifying” in its closing days.
Even though I won't be attending the leadership convention, I do hope that all members who do attend will maintain the high road and welcome everyone in attendance including past leaders and people attending from other parties.
Leadership 2012 Roundup
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.ca/2012/03/leadership-2012-round...
My vote for best comment on leadership race (from lefty investor in Comedy and the NDP Leadership Race) in Toronto Star:
Kathleen Monk is the Executive Director of the Broadbent Institute so I'm guessing yes.
That is HILARIOUS and SO NDP.
Whats needed is someone saying, "We need a NEW politics", followed by someone saying "Yes, a new politics, but It must keep the Old Boilerplate". "Yes, Anyone who wants change is clearly a Liberal" + "and an Anti-equality Liberal at that".
Or something to that effect.
Finally some humor to lighten up the mood.
You can be sure that Ed was out there on his own, and that Brian is not leading Tom in Topp campaign polls.
Ed and Brain share a vision of social democracy. It is one vision of the NDP, there are others. Ed has been fighting for that vision for ever. i think he is truly concerned that Mucair will not carry on in a manner befitting the Ed view of the NDP, so he took advantage of media attention to speak his mind. He spoke on behalf of his ideas.
Tom is a very skilled politician, he knows every statment makes someone upset, so he is saying little. He believes he is winning, I would say, or he would be making more efforts to mobize people behind ideas.
Broadbent said this:
"“People should look carefully at the fact that of the people who were there [in caucus from 2007 to 2011] with Tom, 90 per cent of them are supporting other candidates than Tom,” Mr. Broadbent said.
The former NDP leader said many party heavyweights are “supporting Brian, who doesn’t have a seat, over Tom, the man they have worked with. I don’t think it’s accidental.""
I really don't think there's a way to read that except as a dogwhistle evoking the "Tom is hard to work with" line. Obviously, Broadbent can't just out and say "a lot of party staff and MPs have had negative experiences with Mulcair" publicly, but I think it's pretty clear that's what he was getting at with those comments.
I would certainly like a harmonious contest, regardless of Brian Topp's tactics. I can appreciate why some of you prefer no discussion about what our Quebec prospects may be like under a particular leader lest it feed into a negative press fixation if Mulcair looses.
I just don't think it is responsible for us to avoid this discussion. Here is why, as I see it:
1. It will come anyway. We are amply forwarned by numerous articles in the Quebec press.
2. It will take this form. Mulcair spurned by a party which is afraid of giving Quebec its rightful weight. Only 10% of the vote etc. And this following Quebec embracing the NDP in May. Mulcair beaten by an insular party establishment. By politicians not nearly as talented as him. By politicains prepared to engage in a malicious whisper campaign culminating in an unprecedented attack by a former leader. Notwithstanding that Mulcair played fair, avoided negatives attacks, won every debate. Was the most eloquent in both languages. They will quote Phil Edmonston's line about the NDP expecting Quebec to shut up and look pretty. If you don't think we will be met with this narrative you don't understand poitics.
3. The pary's whole future depends on Quebec. We got 44 seats outside Quebec, no more than what Broadbent got in 88. There was no Orange Wave to speak of outside Quebec. Without Quebec we are back in third place. Once it becomes apparent that we are floundering in Quebec the ROC will look elsewhere. It is of the utmost electoral importance to the NDP to consolodate Quebec.
4. It is not just a matter of the NDP winning. It is a matter of preventing a Conservative dynasty that will permanently change Canada. These are enormous stakes that we are playing for.
So why can we not take a chance on Dewar or Nash or Topp holding Quebec?
5. They will have to overcome 1-4 above. Mulcair will not.
6. Every poll shows Mulcair the best performer for the party in Quebec. There are no close seconds. There is no ambiguity. It is, in a word, overwhelming. Sure polls can change, but there would have to be a sea change to put any of the others in contention.
7. Mulcair can communicate and understand the Quebec political culture immeasurably better than anyone else.
8. He is by far the better campaigner as demonstrated in the leadership campaign as well as his unblemished electoral record.
9. Whatever Broadbent may pretend to the contrary, he is largely responsible for our breakthrough in Quebec.
10. He has the endorsemnt of every significant newspaper in Quebec.
11. We cannot count on the others improving their present low standing in Quebec. Some may comfort themselves with the notion that they will have three years to prove themselves. The CCF / NDP took from 1933 to 2011 to make that breakthrough, not 3 years.
I appreciate the sincerity of those who wish to avoid this scrutiny. I ask them to accept my sincerity. I have toiled for this party in every election since 1971. We now have the best, and perhaps only chance in my lifetime to win power in a federal election. Unless we get the Quebec equation right we will fritter away that chance.
Therefore we need to be honest enough and responsible enough to confront it.
Nicky, to what does the Mulcair campaign attribute the decision of some Quebec MPs to endorse a candidate other than Tom?