NDP leadership race 104
February 21, 2012 - 9:33pm
"Blessed be the peace makers" ironic statement for a guy using a dishonest smear campaign. What peaceful about scorched earth tactics against allies.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
A reasonably good overview of the Leadership race, and notice the reference to the Liberals
NDP numbers game likely to work in Thomas Mulcair’s favourhttp://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/21/john-ivison-ndp-numbers-g...
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/powerful+player+leadership+race/6187...
That's funny, I didn't see the Mulcair backgrounder where he promised war, privatization, and public private partnerships. Maybe I should look harder. Oh wait, no that's right it DOESN'T EXIST.
If Brian had just complained we need a commitment to an income tax increase right now, then fine that playing above the belt, if he had left it at I think cap and trade should all go to green inniatives, again above the belt, and they can respectively argue that out.
But accusing Tom of being a Blairite, of supporting war, privatization, and P3 solutions, of supporting con policy is an outright LIE.
So yeah I'm calling Topp a liar. A smart liar who is articulate on paper at least, but still a lier.
Not to memention making out the Romanow government out to be far more progressive then it was by far, highly revisionist. Isn't Romanos the guy that bragged about how he was third way before Blair? Something Mulcair has never done btw. Oh and Mulcair's policies are very much to the left of Romanow's btw.
Don't get me wrong every party needs a manipulative bullshitter, but not as leader, as stradgetist yes, but not leader.
BC and Ontario to decide NDP Leadership outcome
http://www.punditsguide.ca/2012/02/bc-and-ontario-to-decide-ndp-leadersh...
If Brian had just complained we need a commitment to an income tax increase right now, then fine that playing above the belt, if he had left it at I think cap and trade should all go to green inniatives, again above the belt, and they can respectively argue that out.
But accusing Tom of being a Blairite, of supporting war, privatization, and P3 solutions, of supporting con policy is an outright LIE.
So yeah I'm calling Topp a liar. A smart liar who is articulate on paper at least, but still a lier.
Not to memention making out the Romanow government out to be far more progressive then it was by far, highly revisionist. Isn't Romanos the guy that bragged about how he was third way before Blair? Something Mulcair has never done btw. Oh and Mulcair's policies are very much to the left of Romanow's btw.
Don't get me wrong every party needs a manipulative bullshitter, but not as leader, as stradgetist yes, but not leader.
Agreed. And ask yourself which candidate is closer to the NDP of Jack Layton. I don't see that as Brian Topp.
A reasonably good overview of the Leadership race, and notice the reference to the Liberals
NDP numbers game likely to work in Thomas Mulcair’s favourhttp://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/21/john-ivison-ndp-numbers-g...
John was funnier then usual, if he merely noticed the likely hood of Cullen supporters drifting towards Mulcair down ballot and what has occured to me that Brian has little down ballot support.
Nobody should take anything for granted.
Brian Topp has an excellent chief organizer in BC in the name of Gerry Scott, whose organizing skills helped to secure the BC NDP Leadership surprisingly for Adrian Dix.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1134802--ndp-leadershi...
I have to agree. A very impressive interview.
Nobody should take anything for granted.
Brian Topp has an excellent chief organizer in BC in the name of Gerry Scott, whose organizing skills helped to secure the BC NDP Leadership surprisingly for Adrian Dix.
I don't count any candidate out or underestimate any of them. Issue though for Gerry Scott is that he's not selling Adrian Dix. He's selling Brian Topp. Apples and oranges.
From The Star...
So, when Mulcair says that he strongly opposes corporate tax cuts for example and wants them rolled back (said in the Halifax debate quite clearly), that's not about restoring government revenue? Really, Brian? He doesn't want to do a thing about increasing revenue? Twist things much?
In Defence of Cullen's Idea for NDP, Liberal, Green Cooperation
[Editor's note: Bill Tieleman's column "The Case Against an NDP, Liberal, Green Coalition" published this morning on The Tyee immediately sparked a storm of tweets and debate. Here is a rebuttal just submitted by a key supporter of NDP leadership candidate Nathan Cullen.]
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/02/21/Cullen-Cooperation-Defence/
I don't know the exact numbers for any party but from what I gather about 50% of the eligible membership voting is normal, and you'd expect maybe 2/3rds of the members who were signed up during the leadership campaign to vote. This has been a longer leadership campaign though so maybe we'll get a number closer to 2/3rds for the whole membership voting.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1134802--ndp-leadershi...
I have to agree. A very impressive interview.
For the record, I still believe Brian is a great intellect and if we actually had debates that lasted more then 90 seconds we might get to enjoy the great minds that are running for the
leadership in thier fullest bloom. Sadly whoever is running the debates lacks this foresite. The debates should be 4 or five hours long with lots of one on one debates between a fair mix of all those still running, with heady issues discussed.
Anywho I just wish Brian was more honest and ethical.
The membership numbers turn out to be more informative than I thought they would be, though the whole new members and who do they support thing remains a guessing game at heart. Largely speaking performance of out of province candidates in signing up members is unknown as we jump from region to region.
The Mulcair camp were looking at 20,000 new members for his candidacy in Quebec. The overall numbers, while good, were well short of that, and other candidates signed up Quebec members, including Topp, Ashton, and Nash, so Mulcair must concentrate on existing members across Canada if he wants to win.
New sign-ups in Ontario suggest strength of the party is growing in the largest province. Nash is the leading Ontario candidate. She has excellent labour support, and resides in the GTA where her qualities as a community worker are well recognized. People see her a party leader, she has already been its president after all. Dewar has a great ground game, and is strong in Eastern Ontario. Outsiders doing well ? Every candidate has supporters in Ontario for sure.
The team with the best ground game in BC is not easy to ascertain from the sign-ups. The province has the largest number of members. Singh signed up lots of new members and encouraged renewals. Topp had an early lead, and has not slowed his efforts. Cullen goes from strength to strength, but carries the same weakness with him here as elsewhere with partisans. He is setting the agenda on enviro questions. I am part of the Nash campaign here, and her team is outstanding, young, dynamic and working hard. Peggy is covering the province and she is recognized as the candidate to deal with working class issues. Google Catalyst to see what the province is facing outside the lower mainland. Vancouver Island was home to 10,000 members prior to sign-ups. Nash has great organizing strength on the Island. Its not only vote rich, its members will vote.
The prairies are a mystery to me, though I grew up there, and still consider myself a prairie guy. Edmonton and Calgary? Regina and Saskatoon? Winnipeg and Brandon? Niki will do well in Manitoba, but Dewar has big strength there and with provincial government employees in particular thanks to his brother who is a big player in Man. labour and party circles.
Atlantic Canada? Nash is competitive in N.S and Newfoundland for sure. N.B and PEI still have lots of room to grow. With Robert C. gone from the race, interest may have slacked off compared to elsewhere, but people take their politics very seriously in the Maritimes.
Mulcair is an excellent platform performer and has gained respect as people get to know him. How many people outside Quebec joined the party to vote for him, I have no idea. You can be sure he has support everywhere among existing members. Nobody knows for sure how much support, to state the obvious.
I do know enviros join to vote Nathan, as do riding by riding co-operation people. It seems that young people are going Ashton, and Nash, and youth are joining. Women and labour people are signing up to vote Peggy, but how many are there? Dewar tried a Western strategy and he may have support on the prairies but his French is an obstacle (as is Topp not being poised to take the Danforth seat). A great number of people think a leader from Quebec is necessary for the province to vote NDP again in 2015, and will vote Mulcair on that basis alone. How many signed up to do it?
Conclusion: My guess is that Mulcair must run very strong outside his base to win. Nash must run strong in her base -- distancing Dewar and Topp, as well as Mulcair in Ontario -- in order to win.
I am interested in hearing others comment the good news about sign-ups.
There's plenty to feel bullish about as a Mulcair supporter. Quebec has only increased its share of the vote since the membershp numbers Dewar polled on, we don't have full details but Dewar's campaign did indicate Mulcair support was somewhere (anywhere) above 50% of the province. As the percentage of Quebec voters in the overall pie has increased this is almost certainly a small boost to Mulcair's number, although we would never have been in the running if Tom didn't also attract significant support in the rest of Canada.
That said nobody has enough support to win this on one ballot and their are doubtless still scads of undecideds to be reached. Anyone's game.
The membership numbers turn out to be more informative than I thought they would be, though the whole new members and who do they support thing remains a guessing game at heart. Largely speaking performance of out of province candidates in signing up members is unknown as we jump from region to region.
The Mulcair camp were looking at 20,000 new members for his candidacy in Quebec. The overall numbers, while good, were well short of that, and other candidates signed up Quebec members, including Topp, Ashton, and Nash, so Mulcair must concentrate on existing members across Canada if he wants to win.
New sign-ups in Ontario suggest strength of the party is growing in the largest province. Nash is the leading Ontario candidate. She has excellent labour support, and resides in the GTA where her qualities as a community worker are well recognized. People see her a party leader, she has already been its president after all. Dewar has a great ground game, and is strong in Eastern Ontario. Outsiders doing well ? Every candidate has supporters in Ontario for sure.
The team with the best ground game in BC is not easy to ascertain from the sign-ups. The province has the largest number of members. Singh signed up lots of new members and encouraged renewals. Topp had an early lead, and has not slowed his efforts. Cullen goes from strength to strength, but carries the same weakness with him here as elsewhere with partisans. He is setting the agenda on enviro questions. I am part of the Nash campaign here, and her team is outstanding, young, dynamic and working hard. Peggy is covering the province and she is recognized as the candidate to deal with working class issues. Google Catalyst to see what the province is facing outside the lower mainland. Vancouver Island was home to 10,000 members prior to sign-ups. Nash has great organizing strength on the Island. Its not only vote rich, its members will vote.
The prairies are a mystery to me, though I grew up there, and still consider myself a prairie guy. Edmonton and Calgary? Regina and Saskatoon? Winnipeg and Brandon? Niki will do well in Manitoba, but Dewar has big strength there and with provincial government employees in particular thanks to his brother who is a big player in Man. labour and party circles.
Atlantic Canada? Nash is competitive in N.S and Newfoundland for sure. N.B and PEI still have lots of room to grow. With Robert C. gone from the race, interest may have slacked off compared to elsewhere, but people take their politics very seriously in the Maritimes.
Mulcair is an excellent platform performer and has gained respect as people get to know him. How many people outside Quebec joined the party to vote for him, I have no idea. You can be sure he has support everywhere among existing members. Nobody knows for sure how much support, to state the obvious.
I do know enviros join to vote Nathan, as do riding by riding co-operation people. It seems that young people are going Ashton, and Nash, and youth are joining. Women and labour people are signing up to vote Peggy, but how many are there? Dewar tried a Western strategy and he may have support on the prairies but his French is an obstacle (as is Topp not being poised to take the Danforth seat). A great number of people think a leader from Quebec is necessary for the province to vote NDP again in 2015, and will vote Mulcair on that basis alone. How many signed up to do it?
Conclusion: My guess is that Mulcair must run very strong outside his base to win. Nash must run strong in her base -- distancing Dewar and Topp, as well as Mulcair in Ontario -- in order to win.
I am interested in hearing others comment the good news about sign-ups.
According to Alice there is some evidence of strength for Mulcair in Newfound and New Brunswhich and Mulcair is doing really well in Ontario too. A majority Quebec of course is behind Mulcair and while Quebec only has 10 percent of the votes, no has the sort of lead as Mulcair does in Quebec in other regions, which means Quebec could very much punch above its weight class, because Ontario and BC are so much more divided on the issue, and the paires seem to be leaning more towards Ashton and Dewar, Ashton who doesn't appear to have the support to last, and Dewar who will suffer an anyone but unilingual man backlash if,he's on the final ballot. This means the down ballot support of the Praires is perhaps more important then thier first choices.
I fear the only one served well by Topp's latest column in the Toronto Star is the Conservative Party of Canada.
I am proud of the candidates who for the most part have played above the belt, and while disagreeing with other candidates have done so respectfully, and that will be reflected on my ballot.
The thing that strikes me as so off-putting about Topp's latest is that he is making stuff up, out of thin air, that Mulcair has never said or insinuated. I won't strike back against Topp with some negatives of my own, because that would be exactly what he wants - for Mulcair and his supporters to go wild too. It won't work.
Its one thing to say he disagrees with his opponent. But to make up disagreements with things he has never said, and to quote them as if he did. Not cool at all.
Me neither. I know in my heart Nathan Cullen is the one to pick up where Jack left off.
These threads would be good illustration of that old adage: bullshit is in the eyes of the beholder.
We do agree on not wanting the bullshitter to be Leader.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1134802--ndp-leadershi...
I have to agree. A very impressive interview.
Oh, please. Impressive? Evidence of desperation and petty-mindedness. He attacks Mulcair as if Mulcair is the enemy, the death of the party, the Liberal mole burrowing through all the healthy "moral" (he uses that word!) values that we cherish.
On Israel and Palestine, his views (although probably abridged in this story) are indistinguishable from Mulcair's, except perhaps in terms of rhetorical flourish.
He accuses Mulcair of favouring "privatization"! Mulcair, who as a cabinet minister, publicly broke with Charest's plan to partially open Mount Orford to private development, and paid the ultimate political price for his stand.
And this accusation comes from Topp, who worked with a Romanow government that completed the sell-off of the Potash Corporation which Grant Devine had privatized!
I'll leave the rest of the critique as an exercise to the reader. But what is most startling about this interview is the sheer churlishness and flailing around against a colleague, an ally, Jack's deputy leader - and pretending that he is defending the party from Blairite betrayal. Whatever else we may say about Brian Topp, he is not leadership material.
You'd be on pretty safe ground mtm if you said that Topp did a lot of exagerating and spinning about Mulcair. I couldnt or wouldnt argue with that.
But to say that Topp is making it up out of thin air presupposes that there is nothing of substance to his criticism. And that is a matter of opinion.
Which is why you can have in the same thread people who say 'good interview' and others who say 'what utter bullshit'.
I think its kind of entertaining you all aggreing and congatulating each other on the self evident truth of your observations of Topp. Dont get me wrong, I know plenty of people here will largely agree with you. But talking as if its self evident truth is a bit over the topp.
There's a lot of people who think Mulcair is going to move the party to the center. You would think that if he were going to do this, after a handful of debates and dozens of interviews and events, someone would be able to verify at least *one* NDP policy he wanted to jettison and replace with a neoliberal idea. I've been watching really closely because I'd hate to see us become a so-called "centrist" party in the mold of Tony Blair, and I haven't seen it.
So now Brian Topp is saying Mulcair is going to move the party towards war and privatization. Where?
I'd find the amount of stuff made up about Mulcair more amusing if it weren't so persistently frustrating.
I repeat: I don't care of Mulcair wins, but if he loses, I'd like it to be because there's an honest-to-God difference that people care about.
I'm giving Nathan Cullen a second look.
I hate his idea for strategic cooperation. But he's proposed that new wealthy tax breaket that I think is critical policy AND politics.
The thing that's making him interesting to me is I'm starting to see a legitimate swell in support among my age group on Facebook. It's only two or three people, but considering that my Facebook has been quiet about the leadership race I think it's a sign of things to come.
For the young people who were attracted to the NDP because of Jack Layton, a guy like Cullen has the right demeanor/charisma/sense of humor to keep that enthusiasm going. That's way more important than the conventional wisdom that Nicki Ashton will attract young voters because she's young, IMO. (We see that "identiy group" fallacy a lot on babble, and we always call it out.)
And there's a part of me that would really like to see Cullen debate Harper.
Plus, for his terrible idea for strategic cooperation, there's the safety valve that the members could stop it from being party policy.
"Mulcair is going to move the party towards war and privatization." I wouldnt take that too literally. Its not a quotation, or even close. Its a summarizing by reporters of what they heard.
I would guess Topp did say something that they arent just making it up. But I'll bet what he said doesnt come across like that at all.
Its a good eyeball catcher for a reporter.
I agree KenS. Everything that comes through the media filter is to make things a lot more black-and-white, conflict-driven than it is in reality. I take these interviews with a huge grain of salt, and I do give Brian some benefit of the doubt.
I dont think its appropriate to follow this up in the 'who are you supporting' threads. So I'll move it here.
In positioning Jack Layton was a practicing centrist most of the time. But that qualifier at the end means everything. And Jack Layton didn't just mouth words about moving people towards us- in fact he never SAID it that I remember. He put the rubber on the road so it could happen.
Jack Layton knew where he wanted the NDP to go. And it was not only simplisticly to win more. One of the ways you would win more was by working away with a strategy to create and 'stretch' openings. Four big examples right off the top: actually WORK on a Quebec startegy even against the wishes of colleagues, Afghanistan, agrresive and politicaly smart climate change package, corporate taxes.
The last one was almost brilliant in an understated way. Looked like a no brainer for the NDP. But brilliant in its effects: not the substance of what was proposed, but an important start in breaking the evil charm of never talk of raising taxes. It is the credibility and political capital we got with that which Topp and Cullen are confident we can build on and win with.
Despite the fact that we made progress on the corporate taxes issue, and that it is at the very least a very strong case to be made that Canadians will be with us on raising taxes on the wealthy.... all Mulcair has to say about it is that it's too risky.
Thats not leadership. And its not what we got from Jack Layton.
Don't worry Ken the things that are direct quotes are bad enough. Topp is bottom feeding. Shameful.
Surely the NDP is more than Jack Layton. No?
Ken, I couldn't disagree with you more.
There are blatant fabrications in that article, including the two you just mentioned. This is not highlighting a legitimate difference of opinion. It is fearmongering Republican style tactics. It is framing the candidate as standing for positions they don't actually support (like war and privatization), and saying the candidate represents something they clearly do not.
It is sad.
For the record, just to highlight it since you brought it up - Tom has been an ardent defender of public services, is staunchly anti-P3, and is not proposing we go to war with anyone. How can you say this kind of insinuation is in any way shape or form legitimate, Ken?
Anyway, this is the last I'm posting on this. It really is self-evident and I feel like you're just trying to be provocative - it is after all what you see your role as on this board. I'm not going to play into it. I for one can see that Jack respected Mulcair immensely to put him in such important positions as Finance Critic, Quebec Lieutenant, and Deputy Leader. I think that respect speaks volumes.
I'm very proud of the campaigns that all the other leaders including Mulcair have run. The messaging has been positive, constructive, and respectful. I hope they all keep it that way. Jack would want nothing less.
It is sad. I'm not even supporting Mulcair, in fact I am kind of floundering around trying to figure out whom to support, but even I can see that Topp just went way over the line. This is not leadership, it is instead the complete absence of any sense of the role a leader should play. Very disappointed.
Despite the fact that we made progress on the corporate taxes issue, and that it is at the very least a very strong case to be made that Canadians will be with us on raising taxes on the wealthy.... all Mulcair has to say about it is that it's too risky.
Thats not leadership. And its not what we got from Jack Layton.
Curious, Ken... when did Mulcair say it was risky?
And when Jack dropped raising income taxes with Topp advising him, how did you feel about that? As recent as May's election, in a platform that Topp co-wrote, it wasn't there.
"Mulcair is going to move the party towards war and privatization." I wouldnt take that too literally. Its not a quotation, or even close. Its a summarizing by reporters of what they heard.
I would guess Topp did say something that they arent just making it up. But I'll bet what he said doesnt come across like that at all.
Its a good eyeball catcher for a reporter.
The reporter said Brian Topp mentioned "War, Privatization, Public and Private partnerships" and it was in quotation. If Topp says the Reporter twisted his words fine, if not well I'm disappointed.
Its Topp who has to answer for this, not Mulcair, because its Topp who is lying.
I'm too tired tonight but, I'll post a link to Mulcair's solution to addressing affordable housing without violating proviancial juristiction sometime later.
Surely the NDP is more than Jack Layton. No?
Heh, it's actually kind of hilarious, mixed with ghoulish, the way so many people here invoke Jack's spirit, in "God Bless America" fashion, to bolster whatever little argument or whatever little leader they'd like to support.
Never forget that Jack anointed Nycole Turmel!
That should do it.
I am pretty sure that like a lot of other things that get people exercised around here, most NDP members are not going to see Topp's pointy digs at Mulcair as something they viscerally react to.
I still take the amount of it around here as significant in itself. I think the jury is very much out whether Topp will in the end pay more of a price for his campaign style than the benefits he gets from it. But if it does end up being more off-putting than not, then my hope is that over the longer term this will be our introduction to more open and expansive internal debate. It does not need to be all pointy. But if you are going to have fruitful climate of debate, none of it being pointy is not a good sign.
Surely the NDP is more than Jack Layton. No?
Clearly, Boom Boom. My point is that Mulcair seems to be on the same page on Jack. Topp seems to say that's an issue.
Topp isn't just attacking Mulcair, he's throwing jabs in all directions, at Dewar, Cullen and to a lesser extant Nash as well, and weirdest of all carrying these attacks over into people's homes. I don't consider his attacks overly worrisome because they aren't particularly effective, but calling members in their homes and trying to argue them out of liking anyone not named Brian Topp may start to sour some of our membership on the Party as a whole.
If Topp says the Reporter twisted his words fine, if not well I'm disappointed. Its Topp who has to answer for this, not Mulcair, because its Topp who is lying.
There is a bit of a contradiction. You said, at least in pronciple, that you'll wait to see what Topp said. But you also said he's lying.
Anyway, I hold no one to that standard. Its not realistic. Topp could know that the reporter seriously exagerated to the point of misrepresenting, but it is generally wisest to let sleeping dogs lie. He may well have said just that, but the fact he chooses to not say anything cannot be taken as proof he pretty much said that.
Now there's mystery for you.
Brian Topp says its a problem that Mulcair is like Jack Layton.
Who would have thunk it?
If Brian Topp hasn't made the conscious decision to go negative than he's a worse strategist than I give him credit for. I defy anyone to watch this video (starting around 9:38) and say he isn't coming accross as being on the attack.
I was pretty happy to hear about the membership numbers. However, what I found most interesting were the numbers that we didn't get to hear. On The National tonight, they mentioned that they asked the Liberals and the Conservatives for their membership numbers, but they (the parties that is) didn't say what they were. My fisrt thought was that they must be lower than the NDP numbers, because I figured if they were larger, they would want people to know that. That's just a wild guess, and it may be wrong, but I would be interested to know where the NDP stands compared to the other parties.
Thats premature of you, saying its a bad strategy.
What kind of judege would you be of what works? None of us are. What works remains to be seen.
And I dont remember anyone disagreeing that Brian is on the attack. Some see only that. Some dont.
I dont read the Cons refusal as being afraid to show. They just dont see an advantage.
The Liberal numbers have been discussed plenty, through their Convention, by the Libs themselves. It isnt pretty, but they arent hiding. Party numbers are a shell game. This is about the only time ours can be trusted. but there are lots of numbers out ther for reporters to get.
There has been some loose talk in the media about BC and Ontario labour (that is, Topp and Nash) versus the NDP's non-labour Quebec caucus.
So here they are:
Nycole Turmel, long-time PSAC officer.
Guy Caron, staffer with Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union.
Alexandre Boulerice, staffer for the Quebec division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach, three years on the regional teacher’s union executive committee and represented it (when she was elected) on the general council of the central CSQ.
François Pilon, union local vice-president for seven years.
Tyrone Benskin, National Vice President of ACTRA.
Claude Patry, president of large union local.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, co-founder of her union local, union officer.
Robert Aubin, union rep for his high school, negotiated four collective agreements.
Jean-François Larose, Vice-President of his local union.
Sylvain Chicoine, working two days a week for his union for six years and member of the union executive.
That's 11 of 58. Did I miss any?
I'm giving Nathan Cullen a second look. . . .
Plus, for his terrible idea for strategic cooperation, there's the safety valve that the members could stop it from being party policy.
That's not what makes me hesitate. It's his absence of Quebec support, coupled with his French being halfway between Dewar's and Niki Ashton's. The co-operation offer to the Liberals would put them on the spot. Unless Bob Rae can swing them around to Cullen's terms including proportional representation -- which Rae supports but not enough other Liberals do, yet -- the Liberals will reject it and Cullen could say "we tried."
http://briantopp.ca/news/rod-murphy-former-mp-churchill-mb-supports-brian-topp
He won't be the only one from Churchill, if Topp is the second choice of many Ashton voters.
http://briantopp.ca/news/rod-murphy-former-mp-churchill-mb-supports-brian-topp
He won't be the only one from Churchill, if Topp is the second choice of many Ashton voters.
I just played a gig in Denare Beach near Creighton. The people I talked to had Ashton as their first choice but Topp was not well liked. Anecdotal but still reality. It will probably depend on who Ashton throws her support behind. She could pull some weight in the final push for votes.
Just to toss into the hopper:
The only way Topp EVER had of winning this is by distinguishing himself from the other candidates. Every candidate wants to distinguish/identify themself. For Topp it was much more essential. [And it was probably always known it would come down to Mulcair.]
Early in the campaign- for months- Brian worked at distinguishing himself in exactly the way the vast majority here expect: "here are my policies, this is who I am, arent we all nice people, my colleagues in the race are all wonderful."
And what did that get him, and us? A conconsensus view that there is little daylight between the candidates.
Well, duh.
So if you are the Topp campaign, what do you do? Its obviously time to take the gloves off. Otherwise, you don't stand a chance.
And if you are the campaign and making a realistic assessment, how do you look at how this is going to go and how to do it? Believe me, they knew this wasnt going to be liked. The hope, and its a reasonable expectation, is that there will be a settling down after the initial reaction. So if you are going to do this, you get it done quick and over with... so that with the large number of people who did not like it, there is still time for them to hear your message.
There will be a substantial number of people who are so offended that they will never consider you. But the bulk of them disliked you from the day you announced, and have always been effectively out of your reach.
Brain Topp has a month to reach the rest. And if he had not first got their attention he would would have been giving up. And none of these candidates is a quitter.
And that does not mean that Brian Topp says "well, if I can only win with scorched earth, then scorched earth it is."
There is no scorched earth. That is pure hyperbole. Scorched earth is when you do permanent damage to opponents and the party. As with the Republicans, where things are repeated a thousnad times that will stick on the winner of the nomination.
Brain Topp's attacks will do no lasting damage to anyone, nor is the climate in the party being damaged. A LOT of you here do not like the climate here and now. But thats different.
And Brian Topp is live on Babble at 2:30 EST.
You can poke him yourself!
If you read the threads, the mods discourage new questions [that were not put in earlier]. There is good reason for that, the discussion is really fast and lags anyway. So people throwing in totally new stuff just does not work.
But I would be very surprised if Brian does not initiate taking this on. So you can count on your chance to poke and probe on this.
Just to toss into the hopper:
The only way Topp EVER had of winning this is by distinguishing himself from the other candidates. Every candidate wants to distinguish/identify themself. For Topp it was much more essential. [And it was probably always known it would come down to Mulcair.]
Early in the campaign- for months- Brian worked at distinguishing himself in exactly the way the vast majority here expect: "here are my policies, this is who I am, arent we all nice people, my colleagues in the race are all wonderful."
And what did that get him, and us? A conconsensus view that there is little daylight between the candidates.
Well, duh.
Ken to be blunt I don't know where you get your strategic sense or your own sense of expertise, but it really ain't much. Topp could have distinguished himself in any number of ways. Topp's extreme problem though is his inability to close the deal, his inexpereince and inability at retail politics and to be able to connect with people. He is ill at ease in his skin in a number of the situations you find yourself as a leader.
You say you don't know many people who have been turned off by Topp's style, well then I would encourage you to get out more. I have spoken to a number of New Democrats who have had that exact experience. Most people I know where looking at Topp with enormous good will. People wanted to like and support him. I know early on I figured I would end up supporting him. But for a good many people he has blown it. Now he is lashing out in a desperate bid to cover up his lack of skills and abilities in the leadership column. Don't get me wrong I think Topp has enormous skills and abilities in certain areas, but they are not leadership related. To me Topp is like the sound guy. Unbelievable technical skills that makes the musicians sound magical. But there is a reason he's a the sound board and not on stage.
Well BA, I get out and about with New Dems and I am not hearing that unless of course, the negative talk is initiated by someone and it thus becomes "self fulfilling profacy". So for a good many people is rhetoric unless you liked to back that up with "facts".
I suppose that I was influenced by the support Topp received by some of my very fav and trusted people in the NDP.
I was pretty happy to hear about the membership numbers. However, what I found most interesting were the numbers that we didn't get to hear. On The National tonight, they mentioned that they asked the Liberals and the Conservatives for their membership numbers, but they (the parties that is) didn't say what they were. My fisrt thought was that they must be lower than the NDP numbers, because I figured if they were larger, they would want people to know that. That's just a wild guess, and it may be wrong, but I would be interested to know where the NDP stands compared to the other parties.
Last I heard, around may 2 the Liberals were around 60,000, less then half of our 128,000.
Any how here's Brian stirring up more shit http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/02/21/ndp-race-turns-testy-a...
Brian needs to put his phone people on a leash and he needs to point to actual right wing policy of Mulcair's, others he's just being dishoenest. You also don't get Mulcair, Nash, Ashton, Cullens, or even Dewar's phone banks conducting themselves like this, it speaks poorly on his leadership skills.
It's true that Thomas Mulcair hasn't promise war, privatization, and public private partnerships.
And nobody's accusing him of promising those things.
The concern folks have isn't that he's "promised" to move the party rightward, but that he will.
Remember that when he was running for Labour Party leader, Tony Blair never promised war, privatization, and public private partnerships either.
Nobody should take anything for granted.
Brian Topp has an excellent chief organizer in BC in the name of Gerry Scott, whose organizing skills helped to secure the BC NDP Leadership surprisingly for Adrian Dix.
There is little doubt that Gerry Scott has a LOT of experience in political campaigns. But with all of the "negative" stuff happening in the Topp campaign, I have been left wondering if this was in large part due to Topp's campaign team. I am pretty sure that Gerry was a key campaign operative on Bob Skelly's leadership campaign way back in the 1980s. I remember the convention, which was full of the drama that you get with a delegated convention - it culminated with a dramatic parade lead by King who fell off the final ballot. Skelly and King had made a mutual support pact and King was red faced and livid that he ended up the loser supporting Skelly. I have read some references to Yvonne Cocke here (who I got to meet at her house - she was a wonderful warm person). But in politics, her contribution to the party was denigrated because she and her husband supported Vickers (the runner up outsider). The most notable souvenir from that convention were the buttons put out by the Skelly campaign "Unplug the Cocke Machine". (featuring a Coke logo). It was a witty and rather masterful stroke - a classic negative campaign tactic that probably helped assure Skelly's victory.
That's a classic strawman negative argument, TheArchitect...
I can assume that anyone will do anything if I don't take them for their word. You have no reason not to take Mulcair at his word, and your last post is baseless fearmongering.
And that does not mean that Brian Topp says "well, if I can only win with scorched earth, then scorched earth it is."
At this stage at least, i see no "scorched earth" if mulcair wins. If the worst thing that has been said about Mulcair by another leadership candidate is that he's too moderate - i don't see how that hurts Mulcair with general public in the 2015 election.
That's a classic strawman negative argument, TheArchitect...
I can assume that anyone will do anything if I don't take them for their word. You have no reason not to take Mulcair at his word, and your last post is baseless fearmongering.
Mulcair has a record in office for high intgerity and honesty, he's earned our trust by his actions.
http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2012/02/21/mulcair-announces-strategy-t...
He wants more affordable housing and he wants more cooperatives, oh my god when will Mulcair's goddamn right wing adgenda stop! he's practically a member of reform!
When will the these crazy neoliberal ideas of affordable housing and cooperatives end *sob!sob!" Doesn't Mulcair care about the childern *sob!sob!*
Next thing you know he's be protecting penisons, has he won endorsements from Preston Manning, Tony Blair, and Mike Harris yet?
Okay for the Sheldons out there, yes that was sarcasm.
And that does not mean that Brian Topp says "well, if I can only win with scorched earth, then scorched earth it is."
At this stage at least, i see no "scorched earth" if mulcair wins. If the worst thing that has been said about Mulcair by another leadership candidate is that he's too moderate - i don't see how that hurts Mulcair with general public in the 2015 election.
Ha! Touche. Way to burst the internal NDP bubble Mr. Swedish Capital.
I guess it is true, the things Topp is accusing Tom of - even if hyperbolized and even outright untrue, are actually net positives in the eyes of the very people we are trying to attract in order to form government in 2015. Point for Mulcair, lol.
The only caveat being the nonsense about privatisation and war. That's just crazy 'out-there' stuff and is disappointing.
NDP Leadership Candidate Brian Topp: We Want to Win for a Purpose
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1134802--ndp-leadershi...
On Canada's Policy Toward Israel:
"I think it is quite appropriate to support Israel, just as I think it's appropriate to support Palestine. That's my essential difference with the Harper government.
Friends of Israel, like me, have the right to argue with the government of Israel when it is on the wrong path as I believe it is here. The occupation must end at some point. Construction of settlements in occupied Palestine must end. Terror must stop. Hamas must change its views about the existence of Israel. There are bad actors on all sides who are presenting obstacles to peace. So the issue is who do we stand with? Do we stand with people who are obstacles to peace or do we stand with those who are trying to find it? That's my argument with the Harper government.
I was party president so I got to be our delegate at Socialist International. I attended the meeting last summer in Athens Greece. We were there for about four days and at least two of those four were consumed by a discussion on the Middle East. We had two sister parties trying to work together. The Israeli Labour Party, represented by some of its veterans, people going back to the foundations of Israel, and Fatah, also our sister party, with people in it who had been in that struggle.
And they were working together through this conference trying to find a common statement in which they would and we would call for the resumption of peace talks. On the basis of a two-state solution, two recognized states both free from terror, living in recognized borders at peace with each other. And they couldn't, they couldn't find the words. But they were trying.
That's who we should stand with, people who are trying to find peace in the region. Blessed are the peacemakers, and that's where we should be and not in joining the voices that are preventing peace..."
More 'peace' pap. Surprised to hear Abbas's Fatah wasn't up for a deal with the ILP of 'bonesmasher' Rabin. Sounds like the NDP were in good 'socialist' company at SI.
Well BA, I get out and about with New Dems and I am not hearing that unless of course, the negative talk is initiated by someone and it thus becomes "self fulfilling profacy". So for a good many people is rhetoric unless you liked to back that up with "facts".
I suppose that I was influenced by the support Topp received by some of my very fav and trusted people in the NDP.
With respect jan I am not sure what you are talking about as your comments are kind of unclear. Are you accusing me of something?
By letting the attacks from Topp go unanswered, Mulcair gets to have it both ways.
He gets to release policy after policy that basically repeats or expand on the NDP platform from 2011, and he gets to have all these pundits and even fellow candidates say he's "moderate" and "centrist". Moving to the center would involve a huge shift in policy. But if a perceived centrist is proposing cap-and-trade, electoral reform, and universal child care, then maybe Mulcair is right that he can "move the center to us".
Well BA, I have seen you come onto Babble and continual putdown Topp and so I find that interesting inself. And I hear you suggest that for example, many people, but of course, how many is many and it's all relative. I guess I am questioning the line or tack here - not sure why you are so against Topp and yet I hear you suggest you have not made up your mind in who you are supporting.
Beyond that, I guess I haven't really been "down" on any candidate except for Dewar when I received that silly email from his supporting team but outside of that I haven't been doing put downs of any candidates. I just find it interesting.
Well BA, I get out and about with New Dems and I am not hearing that unless of course, the negative talk is initiated by someone and it thus becomes "self fulfilling profacy". So for a good many people is rhetoric unless you liked to back that up with "facts".
I suppose that I was influenced by the support Topp received by some of my very fav and trusted people in the NDP.
With respect jan I am not sure what you are talking about as your comments are kind of unclear. Are you accusing me of something?
And that does not mean that Brian Topp says "well, if I can only win with scorched earth, then scorched earth it is."
At this stage at least, i see no "scorched earth" if mulcair wins. If the worst thing that has been said about Mulcair by another leadership candidate is that he's too moderate - i don't see how that hurts Mulcair with general public in the 2015 election.
You may have missed it, but I definitely think that Topp went over the line to scorching the earth in his attacks on Mulcair. Specifically, on two different occasions, once to the Globe & Mail, and once on Radio-Canada radio show "C'est Bien Meilleur le Matin", he called Mulcair a "principal architect" of the Charest government.
Trying to tar Mulcair with the brush of the most impopular Québec government in living memory definitely, to an audience of the general public, not just party members, definitely goes over the line of harming the party long-term in my opinion. If Mulcair wins, it's something the Bloc will be able to try to hit us over the head with in Québec, though I'm confident Québec voters will see the line as the transparent bullshit it is. Listening to that Radio-Can interview is the precise moment I decided I wouldn't be ranking Topp on my ballot, and I'm not supporting Mulcair as my first choice.
Well isn't this what people wanted a couple threads back? An exciting race?
And when you attack the spin of one candidate, be sure to attack that of them all.
Well isn't this what people wanted a couple threads back? An exciting race?
The media wanted us attacking each other, I don't think having a positive campaign labeled "boring" by Sun News was going to do any permanent damage once the new leader was selected. There's nothing wrong with the Leadership candidates having a broad policy concensus and a respectfuly even tempered campaign following. Everyone saw that Jack's approach was getting results no one wants to mess with success.
Yeah, I'm starting to see the upsides of boring. But I still wish there were at least one truly exciting candidate.
Just spoke to my 75 year old uncle who received a phone canvass call from the Topp campaign yesterday.
I wouldn't have placed much weight on it except that it is similar to other calls reported here. When my uncle said he was supporting Mulcair, the canvassers became testy and tried these lines to try to get him to change his mind:
1. Mulciar will "move the party to the right"
2. Mulcir is "rough around the edges" - i.e . temper , etc.
3. Mulcair had nothing to do with the party's breaktrough in Quebec.
None of this worked on my uncle who made it plain he did not appreciate the slurs and that he was dropping Topp to the bottom of his ballot. He also took delight in saying that he had signed up 25 of his friends at the local Irish bar to vote for Mulcair. (I know that he has in fact signed up six)
Perhaps this is the same rogue canvasser who has made all of the other calls that have been complained about. But it is starting to sound like a pattern, particularly because it reflefts some of of the negative things Topp has been throwing at Mulcair.
Perhaps the Topp camp thinks this is a good approach but I suspect that my uncle is not the only person turned off by it.
Well BA, I have seen you come onto Babble and continual putdown Topp and so I find that interesting inself. And I hear you suggest that for example, many people, but of course, how many is many and it's all relative. I guess I am questioning the line or tack here - not sure why you are so against Topp and yet I hear you suggest you have not made up your mind in who you are supporting.
Beyond that, I guess I haven't really been "down" on any candidate except for Dewar when I received that silly email from his supporting team but outside of that I haven't been doing put downs of any candidates. I just find it interesting.
I might post once or twice in any individual thread on average- some none and others a few times. Given the ongoing, thread after thread, pedantic, overblown and nonsensical attacks on Mulcair by KenS, which is what I was resonding to, I hardly think I could be accused of "continual".
These threads are meant to allow open discussion about the NDP leadership race. Early on Topp was tied for first with me along with several others. Then I settled on a clear choice with Romeo, but Topp remained high on my rankings. Since then he has demonstrated to me that he is not leadership material. So I know who I am not voting for, but with Romeo out I have no idea yet who I am voting for. I strongly believe Topp's approach has the potential to do damage to the party. He is trying to generate bad blood to further his own ambitions. I don't like it one little bit. I think it is far worse for the long term health of the party than the supposed third wayism some candidates are accused of. I think it is reasonable and responsible to call someone on that. People can take or leave what I say any way they want. But your not so sublte suggestion that I have some kind of ulterior motive, beyond the success of the NDP as a whole, is more than a little insulting.
Topp is on The Current right now and I like how he's talking about progressive tax rates and speaking against the myth of Conservative economic prudence. "It's not true that Conservatives don't spend--they just spend it on tax cuts, and that doesn't make any sense."
I see a lot of anti-Topp sentiment for his attacks on Mulcair. Has much attention been paid to the, perhaps more subtle, digs Mulcair has been making against Topp during this campaign? I'm thinking of, for example, when Mulcair first mused about extending the race. He didn't, as you might expect, say "we need to extend the membership deadline so that we can sign up new members from Quebec." He said: "some NDP leadership candidates are against extending the membership deadline so we can sign up new members from Quebec." A subtle, but I think you'll agree, a potent, difference. One that made me think: there's the Liberal.
ETA. And I want to re-iterate that suggesting that any individual babbler has some ulterior motives in supporting/not supporting a certain candidate. So don't, k?
Catchfire... if Topp wants to attack Tom, let him. But do it on actual facts and policy... not made up shit.
And if anyone is acting like a "Liberal" in this race with a "guns in the streets" style campaign, it's Brian Topp.
ETA: It's not just Mulcair people turned off by Topp. It's the other campaigns too.
Topp is on The Current right now and I like how he's talking about progressive tax rates and speaking against the myth of Conservative economic prudence. "It's not true that Conservatives don't spend--they just spend it on tax cuts, and that doesn't make any sense."
I see a lot of anti-Topp sentiment for his attacks on Mulcair. Has much attention been paid to the, perhaps more subtle, digs Mulcair has been making against Topp during this campaign? I'm thinking of, for example, when Mulcair first mused about extending the race. He didn't, as you might expect, say "we need to extend the membership deadline so that we can sign up new members from Quebec." He said: "some NDP leadership candidates are against extending the membership deadline so we can sign up new members from Quebec." A subtle, but I think you'll agree, a potent, difference. One that made me think: there's the Liberal.
ETA. And I want to re-iterate that suggesting that any individual babbler has some ulterior motives in supporting/not supporting a certain candidate. So don't, k?
Some people really were against it, that's fact, it on the record. He didn't say Topp so I'm not seeing it. Mulcair told the truth.
I don't expect the Mulcair supporters to agree with me. But that was my impression the moment he spoke the words. And I can't quite recall, but I think Topp might have been the only declared candidate at the time, and he certainly hadn't said anything about his preference for extending the deadline yet. But Mulcair managed to both get his extended deadline and frame Topp as against it before Topp had said anything about either. It was a crafty, even brilliant maneuver, but divisive and aggressive. To wit: a Liberal move.
I think we can call out both campaigns for their tough moves without likening them to right-wing policies. Unfortunately, the right-wing does not have a monopoly on negativity, cult of personality, groupthink, or even authoritarian censorship.
The issue is always one of perception. Cullen said "when Mulcair joined us from the Liberal party" -- which could be taken as a matter of fact, could be taken as a good faith point, or could be taken as a hidden reminder that "hey, if you didn't know, this guy was a Liberal". It could have been an innocent remark that he liked to repeat, or it could have been a really slick attack.
I think someone wisely pointed out that Jack Layton was completely capable of sliding the knife into a political opponent. He just knew how to smile when he did it.
Topp's attacks have been the worst, by that measure. Not any less hard-nosed. Only less elegant.
Mulcair announces strategy to make housing more affordable
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/925747/cep-supports-brian-topp-for-ndp-l...
From Boom Boom's article:
As a DTES activist and volunteer, this got my attention. Woodwards, on the contrary, is the emblem of gentrification and developer power in Vancouver. There is a handful of affordable SROs (single-room occupancy), but far less than originally promised--and its residents are strictly enforced to stay away from the luxury apartments. It is definitely not a "co-op." It also remains a powerful symbol of displacement and colonialization for low-income residents. The article continues:
The entrance to the art gallery in Woodwards is locked to the outside, keeping DTES residents literally and figuratively barred from cultural or "community" space. I could say more, of course, but picking Woodwards as a decent place to speak about a housing plan does not inspire confidence. Carnegie, a few blocks East, would have been a much more inspiring choice. I wonder, was Vancouver East MP (the riding in which Woodward's sits) and author of the National Housing Plan Bill Libby Davies in attendance?
Didn't know all of that, CF - thanks! If Mulcair decides to entertain questions here on babble, I'll put this to him - unless you plan to?
(no response to my email yet)
I'm sure Mulcair knew such details as the art gallery being locked and what that all meant...
Why did he pick the Woodward's building, then, H_M? Why did he go to one of the most vulnerable communities in North America to give a stump speech without asking a single resident or activist who is actually affected by housing strategies and development policies? Could it have been because he only wanted the film set but not the extras? Actually, I'm sure Libby could have told him anything he needed to know. Do you suppose he asked her?
Or could be taken as ignorant, quite unlike Cullen. Is there any evidence he was ever a federal Liberal member or supporter? I assume not enough to get into donation records, or someone would have found it.
"Joining us from the Liberal Party" implies changing parties. There is no reason he couldn't still be a member of the Quebec Liberal Party, and I expect he is.
I don't expect the Mulcair supporters to agree with me. But that was my impression the moment he spoke the words. And I can't quite recall, but I think Topp might have been the only declared candidate at the time, and he certainly hadn't said anything about his preference for extending the deadline yet. But Mulcair managed to both get his extended deadline and frame Topp as against it before Topp had said anything about either. It was a crafty, even brilliant maneuver, but divisive and aggressive. To wit: a Liberal move.
I disagree with your premise, thier were those pushing against an extended race, this on the record. Topp was not mention nor anything that would link aback to him, so your opinion is purely subjective, not, objective fact.
Although Jack was the craftest and most brillant politician of my time, does that make him a Liberal?
The divisive comments have actually come from Brian with his Tom should be in our party a little longer before he tries to lead the party comment, which makes the NDP look tribal, and hostile to new memebers, aka thier not really one of us.
Let's stop being silly. We all know Libby Davies is not going to be in attendance at a Mulcair event. Her choice btw.
I swear, whatever Mulcair does will cause inevitable attacks from someone from the "more righteous than thou" crowd. It's almost too predictable now.
Why did he pick the Woodward's building, then, H_M? Why did he go to one of the most vulnerable communities in North America to give a stump speech without asking a single resident or activist who is actually affected by housing strategies and development policies? Could it have been because he only wanted the film set but not the extras? Actually, I'm sure Libby could have told him anything he needed to know. Do you suppose he asked her?
Maybe he was working on that basis. Many someone like Don Davies picked the spot. Who knows?
And film crew? Really, Catchfire? All I've been seeing, first up, on TV all day...
Well, I think all of the candidates are under intense scrutiny, as they should be. Without Catchfire's quick response to my post, I wouldn't have known how phony that Mulcair announcement outside Woodward's was - and I'm voting for the guy.
And what a slap in the face to the millions of Canadians that voted for us for the first time as well.
My point is that Woodward's is emphatically not an "affordable housing success story." Quite the opposite: it's an emblem of Vancouver's utter failure in that regard.
And I take offense to the usual "more righteous than thou" accusation. I work with DTESiders every week. I'm sorry if I value the hard work of activists, residents and volunteers over the pretensions of a politician.
Why did he pick the Woodward's building, then, H_M? Why did he go to one of the most vulnerable communities in North America to give a stump speech without asking a single resident or activist who is actually affected by housing strategies and development policies? Could it have been because he only wanted the film set but not the extras? Actually, I'm sure Libby could have told him anything he needed to know. Do you suppose he asked her?
Guilt by association. How craftily crafted can the crap get?
I don't understand your comment, Gaian. Care to elaborate?
Well, I think all of the candidates are under intense scrutiny, as they should be. Without Catchfire's quick response to my post, I wouldn't have known how phony that Mulcair announcement outside Woodward's was - and I'm voting for the guy.
Phony? Really, Boom Boom? You have Catchfire's opinion that is pretty biased against Mulcair to begin with.
I wonder, was Vancouver East MP (the riding in which Woodward's sits) and author of the National Housing Plan Bill Libby Davies in attendance?
Your indignation is bordering on the farcical. Libby davis endorsed another candidate, she won't be appearing at events for anyone not named Brian Topp.
I suppose we should just divide up the country into fiefdoms now and if any candidate wants to make a public appearance they better make sure the local MP hasn't declared a preference for another candidate. Fair warning Brian is going to have a hard time getting in and out of Quebec.
Phony? Really, Boom Boom? You have Catchfire's opinion that is pretty biased against Mulcair to begin with.
Catchfire is on the ground and knows the area and the situation. Do you?
DSloth, I was referring to the fact that Mulcair had already alienated Davies from his campaign in an incident most Mulcair supporters have either rationalized or suppressed. It's true I don't care for Mulcair particularly, but I would object to any candidate instrumentalizing the DTES in this way. In fact, I do it all the time because sadly, it happens all the time.
And for the record, I don't support any candidate at the moment.
Phony? Really, Boom Boom? You have Catchfire's opinion that is pretty biased against Mulcair to begin with.
Catchfire is on the ground and knows the area and the situation. Do you?
Doesn't make it factual. Nor does it mean that Mulcair would be aware of Catchfire's opinion.
!!
Unbelievable.
Fair warning Brian is going to have a hard time getting in and out of Quebec.
On the other hand, did you read this: "B.C. Has the most amount of NDP members of any province, so who wins there will be a big factor in who becomes leader. The province has one candidate in the running, Nathan Cullen. However, he only sits in 2nd place there- and has absolutely no endorsements in the rest of the country. BC is one of Brian Topp's best provinces, and he is heads and shoulder above everyone else".
All candidates do photo ops.
I doubt Mulcair has spent much time in Vancouver or knows any of the details.
It happens all the time to politicians. Obama praised a green company in his state of the union address, and in the same week they declared bankruptcy.
Reading anything into it more than "gigantic campaigns don't know everything" is always grounded more in faith than in reason.
!!
Unbelievable.
Totally agree, CF. That's the depths that this discussion has sunk to.
The concern folks have isn't that Mulcair has "promised" to move the party rightward, but that he will.
Right.
Which is why 'where is the proof of being right wing' is irrelevant. Even Brian Topp using rhetorical short cuts does not all Mulcair 'right wing'. And that is rare even here where people can say whatever they like.
It is the strong sense that 'moving to the centre' is what we will GET from Mulcair. Obviously Mulcair supporters do not agree with that, and no one in their right minds expects any of you to. But you dont just disagree, you think there is inherently no substance whatsoever.
But this is just the sort of thing on which reasonable people disagree. You can, and should, disagree withideas that Mulcair will take the party to the centre. But it is really not OK to be outright dismissive of the opinion.
And it is only because a lot of you are outright dismissive- that there is NO real substance to the opinion shared by a lot of people in the party- that you can say Brain Topp is lying when he talks about Mulcair. 'Exagerrating' is fair game, so is 'unprincipled attack'. But the man is not lying.
If Brain Topp is liar about Mulcair, then I sure as hell am too. And I dont think it is just politeness that has kept that label from being bandied around in my direction.