NDP leadership race #127

205 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
NDP leadership race #127

;;

Issues Pages: 
NorthReport

Well you are wrong. Broadbent is a pitiful little man losing his hold on any remaining power he held within the NDP, and his tirade today clearly shows it.

TheArchitect wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

I am totally appalled by Ed Broadbent's comments which are the most devisive of any former NDP leader since I began supporting  NDP. What is it about these pitiful little people that don't realize their kick at the can is long gone. It almost sounds as if Eddie is sore that Jack bested his record, of course, with the able assitance of Tom.

This has got to be the dumbest thing Broadbent has done since he retired. Talk about a sore loser. Shame on him!

This is a mind-boggling attack.  Ed was one of Jack's main backers in the 2003 leadership race and worked very closely with Jack throughout Jack's time as leader; Jack even managed to convince him to come out of retirement to serve as an MP again!  Ed joined Jack on the campaign trail repeatedly and was a frequent voice in the media in support of Jack.  I don't always agree with Ed either, but I don't think anyone can question Ed's commitment to electing an NDP government in this country, or his close relationship with Jack Layton.

I'm shocked that anyone would even try to smear Ed Broadbent in this way.  It's shameful and unacceptable.

Howard

Please stop attacking Broadbent personally. We don't agree with him, that's all. That doesn't make him a bad person. Lack of any policy or other differences that he can point to to illustrate Tom Mulcair's "shift to the right" IS a concern. It is my concern.

Polunatic2

shouldn't this be #127?

NorthReport

Yes thanks, it was a typo, but am unable to change it now.

Polunatic2 wrote:

shouldn't this be #127?

Stockholm

 

http://www2.lactualite.com/jean-francois-lisee/mulcair-pit-bull-pour-la-...

In this profile of Mulcair by Lisee he says at one point: "Thomas Mulcair fut, au ministère de l’Environnement, le Che Guevara québécois."!

NorthReport

This was a very sick attack on the leading leadership candidate for the NDP. This leadership race is not working out the way the party establishment had hoped. Why don't they accept and just trust the will of the rank and file members? Broadbent obviously doesn't which doesn't say very much for the man. The establishment are not Gods, not infallible, they are just fragile human beings like all of us. Broadbent was very, very wrong to do what he just did, and Broadbent should apologise as soon as possible to the general membership for it.

 

Let's call a spade a spade. We did so well in Quebec primarily because of Mulcair and Jack too, otherwise why didn't Ed and others do that well in Ontario, and the rest of Canada. Some people would rather hold onto their little vestiges of power, rather than give them up for the greater good. Too bad, but I want and expect the NDP to win the next election, and I really dislike poor losers. There are much more constructive ways to do things than what Broadbent did today such as start another waffle movement or whatever within the NDP.

regruve

"So, Mulcair supporters, let me ask the question: If Ed doesn't have a reason to think Mulcair would do harm to the party, then why is he saying what he's saying?"

Simple, to support his declared canadidate. This isn't Trudeau and Meech, where the old giant begrudgingly comes out from the cold for one last battle. Broadbent has been involved with one specific candidacy since day one-well, since before day one, as Howard so helpful pointed out.  There are certain establishment forces who fear a loss of control either to Mulcair or the ideas that Cullen advances.  This panic mode, nothing more.

NorthReport

regruve wrote:

"So, Mulcair supporters, let me ask the question: If Ed doesn't have a reason to think Mulcair would do harm to the party, then why is he saying what he's saying?"

Simple, to support his declared canadidate. This isn't Trudeau and Meech, where the old giant begrudgingly comes out from the cold for one last battle. Broadbent has been involved with one specific candidacy since day one-well, since before day one, as Howard so helpful pointed out.  There are certain establishment forces who fear a loss of control either to Mulcair or the ideas that Cullen advances.  This panic mode, nothing more.

 

Precisely. Thank you for voicing it so eloquently.

DSloth

I'm really not taking Broadbent's attacks personally for one thing they just sound like the typical campaign backroom BS staffers talk up to get themselves in the game, rather than deeply held conviction.

The 90% figure is a joke, it's not like Topp has the support of 90% of the MPs he's worked with. By any metric Mulcair has the most caucus support by far and only losing camps start talking about the huge swaths of the party whose opinion doesn't really count. 

Gaian

Stockholm wrote:

 

http://www2.lactualite.com/jean-francois-lisee/mulcair-pit-bull-pour-la-...

In this profile of Mulcair by Lisee he says at one point: "Thomas Mulcair fut, au ministère de l’Environnement, le Che Guevara québécois."!

Which google translate tells me is Thomas Mulcair was the Department of the Environment, Quebec Che Guevara. "!

Which, writing as a father and grandfather, is why he's my choice. Earth First sort of thing, you know? :)

Prairie Lefty

NorthReport wrote:

Well you are wrong. Broadbent is a pitiful little man losing his hold on any remaining power he held within the NDP, and his tirade today clearly shows it.

TheArchitect wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

I am totally appalled by Ed Broadbent's comments which are the most devisive of any former NDP leader since I began supporting  NDP. What is it about these pitiful little people that don't realize their kick at the can is long gone. It almost sounds as if Eddie is sore that Jack bested his record, of course, with the able assitance of Tom.

This has got to be the dumbest thing Broadbent has done since he retired. Talk about a sore loser. Shame on him!

This is a mind-boggling attack.  Ed was one of Jack's main backers in the 2003 leadership race and worked very closely with Jack throughout Jack's time as leader; Jack even managed to convince him to come out of retirement to serve as an MP again!  Ed joined Jack on the campaign trail repeatedly and was a frequent voice in the media in support of Jack.  I don't always agree with Ed either, but I don't think anyone can question Ed's commitment to electing an NDP government in this country, or his close relationship with Jack Layton.

I'm shocked that anyone would even try to smear Ed Broadbent in this way.  It's shameful and unacceptable.

Ed Broadbent has spent his entire life working to advance social democracy in Canada. Calling him a "pitiful little man" is quite insulting and out of line. I am saying this as someone who put Mulcair first on my preferential ballot. The nastiness this race is producing is pretty unfortunate, March 24th can't come soon enough!

DSloth

I know this was about 8 drama-bombs ago but I would like to point out that Tom has appeared on English CBC radio twice in the last four days. That entire "story" was 100% about the egos of certain press personalities and 0% about Tom's media strategy (which is basically to take every interview he can as there is time between his non-stop schedule).

Hunky_Monkey

DSloth wrote:

I know this was about 8 drama-bombs ago but I would like to point out that Tom has appeared on English CBC radio twice in the last four days. That entire "story" was 100% about the egos of certain press personalities and 0% about Tom's media strategy (which is basically to take every interview he can as there is time between his non-stop schedule).

Funny though how some babblers went off on "Mulcair is afraid of the media. Jack wasn't!" :)

TheArchitect

Prairie Lefty wrote:
Ed Broadbent has spent his entire life working to advance social democracy in Canada. Calling him a "pitiful little man" is quite insulting and out of line. I am saying this as someone who put Mulcair first on my preferential ballot. The nastiness this race is producing is pretty unfortunate, March 24th can't come soon enough!

Thank you, Prairie Lefty, for taking a stand here.  Too often, some of the Mulcair supporters have, I've felt, been disrespectful toward anyone who questions their candidate.  It's refreshing to see that you're able to support Mulcair in a reasonable and respectful way, without engaging in the kind of vitriol we've too often seen from others.  Good on you.

NorthReport

Ha! HA! Ha!

Mulcair risks alienating NDP’s ‘ordinary’ Canadian base says Paul Dewar

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/15/mulcair-risks-alienating-ndps-or...

socialdemocrati...

I read the "attacks" from Ed Broadbent. Once again, people are letting the mainstream media do the talking, instead of letting Ed's words speak for themselves.

Part 1: What Ed Said

"It would be a central mistake for us to move in a calculating way to the centre". Okay, repeating a key Topp argument.

"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". That's just a matter of fact. Mulcair hasn't locked this race up.

They're "supporting Brian, who doesn’t have a seat, over Tom, the man they have worked with. I don’t think it’s accidental." Okay, so yes, they have a longer working relationshp with Brian. Makes sense.

"Leadership skills are crucial in holding your caucus together, and I think that Brian has an advantage over Tom in that respect." That's a reasonable position to take.

“If there has been a real modernizer in the party, it’s been Brian Topp, working hand in hand with Jack Layton ... Whether it’s campaign techniques, updating policy or fundraising, Brian has been at the forefront.” Good point Ed. I've frequently made that argument myself.

Part 2: The Media Spin (aka: What Ed Didn't Say)

"Broadbent Blasts Mulcair". Really? That's a blast?

"Mr. Broadbent raised concerns about the future of the New Democratic Party as a social-democratic force if its 130,000 members choose the centrist Mr. Mulcair at the Toronto leadership convention on March 24." If making an argument in favor of your preferred candidate is raising concerns about the other candidates, then yes, I suppose he raised concerns.

"Mr. Broadbent also wondered openly about Mr. Mulcair’s abilities as a leader, namely in terms of maintaining cohesion among the large 101-member Official Opposition caucus." Did he? Because all I heard Ed talk about was Brian's long relationship with veteran MPs, not that Mulcair would cause some kind of civil war.

"His comments echoed a concern among NDP workers and supporters about Mr. Mulcair’s temper, which he has carefully kept in check during the seven-month race." No, his comments didn't echo this "concern", but you certainly did, Mr. LeBlanc. Where is this mythical temper? Oh right, it's been held in check for the race, so we didn't get to see it. But trust the Globe and Mail, because Mulcair is a loose cannon. I heard he once ripped off his shirt and pistol whipped Gilles Duceppe in the middle of parliament -- it's just been held in check.

"During the interview, Mr. Broadbent expressed his displeasure at Mr. Mulcair’s vague promises to modernize the NDP". Yeah, but it goes completely against the thesis of your article, that this is a civil war for the very soul of the New Democratic Party. Ed in fact said that Jack and Brian already did more to modernize the party than Mulcair would ever need to. Which is painfully obvious from the 103 MPs we have in Parliament.

Conclusion

The media LOVES conflict. Enough to over-report any criticism, and turn any friction at a debate into a battle for the soul of a political movement.

And as much as the media loves conflict, they HATE the NDP. Any opportunity they get to report that the NDP needs to radically change its traditions, they seize it, even if it means exaggerating and extrapolating from the smallest piece of information.

The most important and rivetting conclusion from this article: Ed Broadbent supports Brian Topp. He made some reasonable arguments.

Don't get all pissy.

NorthReport

Ed Broadbent's candidate appears to be losing badly. Broadbent had a choice. He could have lost gracefully, or did what he did. He will now reap what he has sowed.

Hunky_Monkey

BTW... question should be asked. Who is the base? Am I part of the base? A faithful and card carrying New Democrat for almost 22 years? Campaiagn workers who staff offices and phones and go door knocking but don't subscribe to what the Socialist Caucus puts out there? Are they not the base?

Is the NDP a centre-left party or a left party? Is it a centre-left party but some view it as much more left than we really are?

Howard

The Architect wrote:
Ed's comments are just one more piece of evidence that Thomas Mulcair will move the party to the right.

 
Let's consider that evidence.


 
Exhibit A:
Ed Broadbent wrote:
"It would be a central mistake for us to move in a calculating way to the centre," Mr. Broadbent said from his home in Ottawa this week.

Reply:
Tom Mulcair wrote:
"I don't want to move the NDP to the centre, I want to move the centre to the NDP"

Exhibit B:
Ed Broadbent wrote:
During the interview, Mr. Broadbent expressed his displeasure at Mr. Mulcair's vague promises to "modernize" the NDP, as well as his attacks against "Laurier Avenue," a reference to the location of NDP headquarters in Ottawa.

Reply:
Ed Broadbent wrote:
"If there has been a real modernizer in the party, it's been Brian Topp, working hand in hand with Jack Layton," Mr. Broadbent said. "Whether it's campaign techniques, updating policy or fundraising, Brian has been at the forefront."

Exhibit C:
Ed Broadbent wrote:
On the "Third Way," or efforts of social-democratic parties to move to the centre: "The UK and, to a lesser extent, the Germans - they went astray with over-marketization. We have paid as a movement the cost of that."

Reply:
Howard wrote:
Tom Mulcair has never talked about the "Third Way" during this campaign. In fact, all the examples of government he has used have been New Democratic ones: Gary Doer, Lorne Calvert, Roy Romanow and Darrell Dexter. Roy Romanow likes to say that he invented the "Third Way" before Tony Blair, but then Romanow has endorsed Topp, so clearly Broadbent can't be referring to that.

Exhibit D
Ed Broadbent wrote:
On Thomas Mulcair's promise to modernize the NDP: "Tom has talked about ‘boiler-plate' social-democracy. What does he mean by that. Is he saying that concern about equality is a boiler-plate item? It's not, it's a core value."

Reply:
Howard wrote:
Tom Mulcair was asked repeatedly about this at the last debate (and several before). While he has been vague, all he has talked about is "modernising the language," "connecting with voters" using the language they speak, not using the "old boiler-plate" like "ordinary Canadians", "reaching out to ethno-cultural communities like we did in Quebec," "reaching out to First Nations candidates like Romeo Saganash and Jonathan Genest-Jourdain" who "inspired their communities and youth" and "were an important part of generating the orange wave"

Closing argument:
Howard wrote:
Dear Mr. Ed Broadbent, can you point to one policy, just one, that shows Tom Mulcair would take the NDP definitively to the right?
I can't think of any. In fact, I need a magnifying lens to find the differences between Mulcair's policies and the 2011 NDP platform Brian Topp wrote, most of the time.

NDPP

How hilarious that Ed Broadbent fears Mulcair would take the NDP rightwards. Obviously a case of do as I say not what I do (did).

NorthReport

Dear Fellow New Democrats,

You’ve surely gotten a lot of emails from New Democrat leadership candidates lately, so I promise you this is the only email my campaign is going to send to the full membership list. (If you want more emails from me, you can sign up for my email list at www.martinsingh.ca! :-)

My name is Martin Singh, and I’m running to be the next New Democrat leader and Prime Minister. I’m a bilingual pharmacist from Musquodoboit Harbour, Nova Scotia, a husband, father of three wonderful children, a Canadian Forces reservist, and an environmentalist. In my fifteen years as a grassroots activist for our party, I’ve been a riding President, Financial Agent, and Chair of the party’s Faith and Social Justice Commission.

You’re probably wondering why a pharmacist from a little village on Nova Scotia’s Eastern Shore is running. I’m in it to win, because I truly believe I can make a difference for our party and our country. 

Has someone in your life ever been affected by cancer, or another disease with high drug costs? If so, you may understand my passion for building a national pharmacare program. As a pharmacist, I personally live the struggles too many Canadians have to go through to pay for medicine.

Since you’re a New Democrat, you probably agree with me that, to build a national pharmacare program, we need to elect a New Democrat government in Ottawa. To do that, I think we need to earn Canadians’ trust on the economy. With my business experience, I can build our party’s credibility on economic issues and the trust we need to form government.

I’m writing today to ask for your help. You see, the party’s Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) has just fined my campaign because of something that happened at the French-language debate in Montreal on March 4, and I need your help to pay the fine. 

Let me give you both sides of the issue, because afterwards I’m hoping you will decide tomake a small donationto my campaign to help me pay this unfair fine.

My side is this: during the February 12 French-language debate, I asked Brian Topp a question about his tax policy. Mr. Topp did not tell the truth in his answer. Specifically, he said that his tax policy document does not propose to take away the capital gains tax exemption from charities. In fact, it does.

(There is a link to Mr. Topp’s policy document at the bottom of this email. He proposes to take away the capital gain exemption from everything but the sale of homes, farms and small businesses – see page 7.)

At the next French debate, in Montreal on March 4, I asked Mr. Topp why he lied the first time. Perhaps this was a harsh choice of words. It certainly upset Mr. Topp, because afterwards his campaign complained to the CEO about me using “unparliamentary language”.  Five days later, on March 9, the CEO sent a ruling to all the campaigns saying that, going forward, we must not use unparliamentary language.

I will follow this rule from now on, but the CEO went a step further and told my campaign that I would have to publicly apologize to Mr. Topp or be fined. I do not think it is fair to punish me for breaking a rule that did not exist yet. If that rule had existed on March 4, I would have said “Mr. Topp, why didn’t you tell the truth?” (whichI understand would be acceptable in Parliament) instead of “Mr. Topp. why did you lie?”

Here is the CEO’s side: he says I should have known not to use the word I used, and that this justifies fining my campaign $1100 unless I apologize.

I have great respect for the CEO, who has served our party in the past as a member of Jack Layton’s staff team, but I do not think his decision here is fair. I am a principled person and my honour is very important to me, so I am not willing to apologize for breaking a rule that did not exist yet while telling the truth about what Mr. Topp said on February 12. 

This $1100 fine will seriously hurt my campaign. My campaign is more grassroots than most, and this fine will have a serious impact on our ability to contact our supporters and remind them to vote. That’s why I’m asking for your help.

If you think it’s unfair for me to be fined for breaking a rule that did not exist yet, for telling the truth and holding Brian Topp accountable for his statement on February 12, please donate $10, $20, $50 or whatever you can afford to my campaign to help pay the fine .

If you think it’s important for the New Democrats to have strong policies on the environment, entrepreneurship and a national pharmacare program, please vote for me in this leadership election. If you’re not sure, I invite you to read my three policy papers at www.martinsingh.ca before making up your mind on how to vote. 

Regardless of the outcome on March 24, I look forward to working with you on these issues in the future.

Sincerely
Martin Singh
Musquodoboit Harbour, NS

PS – Here’s that link  I promised to Brian Topp’s tax policy

TheArchitect

NorthReport wrote:

Ha! HA! Ha!

Mulcair risks alienating NDP’s ‘ordinary’ Canadian base says Paul Dewar

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/15/mulcair-risks-alienating-ndps-or...

I don't support Paul Dewar, due in large parts to my serious concerns about his insufficiencies in French, but I don't have a problem with anything he says in the article.  He's absolutely right to raise the issues he's raising.

Canadians, even when they've voted for the Liberals to keep the Cons out, have traditionally respected the New Democratic Party for its principled positions and its honest approach.  It's that honest, values-driven approach to politics, which Jack represented so well, that drove so many Canadians, put off by the sleazy and unprincipled ways of the old parties, to choose the New Democrats in the last election.  I think a lot of folks across the country are wondering whether we'll be able to grow without losing our refreshing and different approach or whether, with our new growth, we'll fall into the politics-as-usual culture—or, as the media likes to less negatively call it, the "centre."

The point Paul's making is that while a lot of people might see advantages in electing Mulcair, he might be seen as a more conventional Ottawa politician, and might alienate voters who support the NDP because they believe, as Jack said, "that Ottawa's broken and it's time for us to fix it."

I think it's a good point.

algomafalcon

NorthReport wrote:

Well you are wrong. Broadbent is a pitiful little man losing his hold on any remaining power he held within the NDP, and his tirade today clearly shows it.

I agree that Broadbent's latest intervention in the race is most unfortunate. He deserves all the criticism he will get that is directed at his own failings as a leader.

I am thinking for the way that Broadbent supported the unilateral patriation of the Canadian constitution where Trudeau threatened to go directly to patriation without obtaining provincial backing for patriation.

My recollection is that three provincial NDP leaders from that time (Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta) all opposed Broadbent's position as welll as many western MPs in the NDP caucus. Trudeau eventually had to change his tactics when the Supreme Court stated that while the federal government may have the power to act unilaterally, that this was politically a risky approach to patriation.

I wonder if we might have had a better constitution if we had a federal NDP leaders who was more concerned for listening to the views of Canadians on what they wanted to see in the patriated constitution. That would have been a perfect time to get rid of our anti-democratic Senate as a start. But it seemed that Broadbent was acting more as a political synchophant to Pierre Elliot Trudeau than as a leader of Canadian party that was always keen to see improvements to our government institutions.

I'm sorry if this is off topic, but I am just fuming at the way Broadbent seems to be talking down to the membership, like he is our dad and we are his children.

 

 

DSloth

NorthReport wrote:

Ha! HA! Ha!

Mulcair risks alienating NDP’s ‘ordinary’ Canadian base says Paul Dewar

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/15/mulcair-risks-alienating-ndps-or...

 

It would be pretty charitable to describe Dewar's ability in French as « ordinaire ».

socialdemocrati...

I think people need to read the article again carefully before getting disappointed in Broadbent. The supposed "blasting" of Mulcair isn't there when you read what Ed said in isolation. Most of the bile is added by Daniel LeBlanc, to make the comments seem far more biting and hostile than they were.

Ironically, it's the same way that Mulcair apparently is going to distance the NDP from unions. On the record, he proposed anti-scab legislation and said "I want to work with unions". But he said he has a difference of opinion with Topp on the 25% voting quota, so this gives the media a perfect opportunity to repeat the Conservative attack on unions, even if Mulcair never repeated it or agreed with it.

quizzical

reading that article about Mr Broadbent blasting linked to in last boring leadership thread I got kinda stuck on this sentence and couldn't get past it to read anything else ""It would be a central mistake for us to move in a calculating way to the centre".

 

so what, the next leader if not Muclair meaning Topp it appears, can move in a uncalculated way towards the centre and then it would not be a "central mistake"? Does that twisted phrase means in order to avoid making a central mistake-whatever that means anyway-the next leader of the NDP has to be calculated in pretending to be uncalculated when they moved the party centre?

 

 

 

NDPP

Hilarious that Ed Broadbent of all people is so hot and bothered about the NDP moving right under Mulcair. A clear case of pot and kettle if there ever was one.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Anyone else see Broadbent interviewed by Rosie Barton on P&P just now?

Hunky_Monkey

Apparently Dewar didn't get the memo... who wants to be known as "ordinary"? Are you "ordinary" Paul?

And some people on here have said we dropped that language years ago? Another memo one of the leading contenders didn't get.

Exactly what Mulcair is talking about in how we reach out to Canadians.

Howard

From 2007-2011, the NDP has had 35 different MPs (excluding Jack Layton, Thomas Mulcair, Nathan Cullen, Paul Dewar, Peggy Nash, and Niki Ashton)

Mulcair has received the endorsement of 6 of them : David Christopherson, Wayne Marston, Jack Harris, Don Davies, Glenn Thibeault, John Rafferty

Topp has received the endorsement of 7 of them: Judy W-L, Bill Siksay, Dawn Black, Jean Crowder, Yvon Godin, Libby Davies, Chris Charlton

The following MPs have said they will stay neutral: Pat Martin, Olivia Chow, Peter Stoffer

So of the MPs from 2007-2011, Mulcair has the support of 17% or 19% of the non-neutral, Brian Topp has the support of 20% or 22%.

There is exactly 1 MPs worth of difference between the two candidates and Ed Broadbent cut Mulcair's support in half for his quote.

Hunky_Monkey

Just in... former Yukon Premier Piers McDonald endorses Mulcair.

Brachina

NorthReport wrote:

Ha! HA! Ha!

Mulcair risks alienating NDP’s ‘ordinary’ Canadian base says Paul Dewar

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/15/mulcair-risks-alienating-ndps-or...

All this does is remind me of why Dewar was last on my ballot. Some people find Ordinary insulting and even more so Quebecers.

I for one believe I'n extraordinary :p

As for what Ed said I haven't read it and I can't seem to find it so I'll give my general rule of thumb on Smack talk. If you can take it, don't dish it out. Now I don't know if he did offer smack talk, and I have great respect for the man but if he did and that resulted in other people replying in kind, well that's life.

This why I think Singh fine is such utter bullshit and if I had the money I'd donate to his campaign.

His even provided evidence, this isn't some subjective matter, he provided proof of Topp's dishonesty. If Topp didn't want to get called on,it by Singh he shouldn't have done it.

And Topp crying foul to the CEO, my God Quebec politics would eat him alive. The PQ leader basically sold out the BQ to stop a rival and now she's headed for the Premiers office. Politics is blood sport. What would Topp do when Harper and Rae start lying about him, run to the chief electoral officer to demand they be fined. And the worst part is is Topp had dished it out plenty, with his attacks on others. When does Topp pay fines for calling Mulcair a liberal and misrepersenting Mulcair words.

And the CEO was wrong to change the rules in the middle of the race.

This just makes me think I had Brian too high on my ballot.

Brachina

That three Premiers for Mulcair, the momentum continues.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Broadbent was interviewed on P&P - very rambling. More NDP leadership coverage coming up on P&P.

josh

I see the Mulcairites are out in full force doing what they do best, spinning and smearing.

algomafalcon

Boom Boom wrote:

Broadbent was interviewed on P&P - very rambling. More NDP leadership coverage coming up on P&P.

Craig Oliver and ??? (from LeDevoir) on CTV "Power Play":

Both did not give much credence to Broadbent's statement, saying that Broadbent is backing a loser (Topp).

Both seem to think Mulcair will win - Oliver saying Mulcair will likely lead on every ballot. He did add "watch out for Cullen", indicating he will be stronger than some expect.

I also heard that the convention will be delaying the results from the first ballot to a later time and that some commentators believe this might suggest there may be fewer ballots than some are expecting.

 

flight from kamakura

broadbent's interview really isn't so bad, i really like the guy: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=2210497285

wish he wouldn't go after mulcair, but i can't blame him.  it's healthy, and it's not really as bad as the print media suggested.

Rabble_Incognito

It is good theatre people need to think about this stuff. It sparks neurons, overturns old beliefs. Welcome to progressive social dialog I think. Ed Broadbent and Mr. Mulcair are two of the best. It makes us ask Who are we?

Rabble_Incognito

<usererror>

algomafalcon

flight from kamakura wrote:

broadbent's interview really isn't so bad, i really like the guy: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=2210497285

wish he wouldn't go after mulcair, but i can't blame him.  it's healthy, and it's not really as bad as the print media suggested.

 

Not according to the commentators on Power and Politics - including Gerald Caplan who politely disagreed with Broadbent's intervention.

A lot of them were stating that the worst of Broadbent's attacks were directed at Mulcair's character - that he "can't be trusted" and "no one can work with him" (or something to that effect) Basically they were stating the worst of Broadbent's statements were his negative personal attacks.

Flanagan joked that Harper had called him up to prepare attack ads against Mulcair baseed on Ed Broadbent's quotes. (just a joke right now but that certainly sounds like something the Conservatives could do).

 

 

NorthReport

Just a word to the loser mentality within the NDP - don't let the barn door hit you on the way out

 

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tandt+Mulcair+would+hasten+Harper+drea...

 

josh wrote:
I see the Mulcairites are out in full force doing what they do best, spinning and smearing.

1springgarden

Right, your guy is luke-warm on proportional rep because he knows his divisive style would eventually lead to a permanent split.  Speaking of barn doors.

NorthReport wrote:

Just a word to the loser mentality within the NDP - don't let the barn door hit you on the way out

 

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tandt+Mulcair+would+hasten+Harper+drea...

quizzical

josh wrote:
I see the Mulcairites are out in full force doing what they do best, spinning and smearing.

r u for real?

From what I read in this and the last thread people including myself were responding to Mr Broadbents totally divisive comments and basic smear of Muclair with really weaselly words that I posted as  reported in that news item.

That is pretty offensive stuff you wrote full of its own spinning and smearing.

This stuff really needs to stop.

flight from kamakura

it's not helpful to call people with different opinions "losers".  i definitely see winning as the most important thing, but i'm also with topp that we do need to actually do well when we have power.  we need a gang of active idealists keeping the leadership honest.

socialdemocrati...

The media reading of Broadbent is far worse than anything Ed actually said.

Watching the CBC interview confirms that.

Ed Broadbent said he's not against modernizing. His beef with Mulcair is that he's suggesting the party hasn't modernized, not that Ed was against it. The NDP has undergone changes in language, changes in fundraising, changes in organization.

Ed is really specific about his criticism of Mulcair -- half of his beef is that Mulcair's criticisms of the party have been unfair. He doesn't like that Mulcair said the NDP was too centralized, and responds that the Quebec strategy was developed in coordination with Ottawa. He thinks Mulcair's comment about  "boilerplate" is a charicature of the party who helped him, and "modernizing" is something we already did.

The other half of his criticism is that Mulcair is vague. If we've already modernized, then what does Mulcair want us to do? Ed points out that Brian Topp has a specific vision of how to modernize the party, using taxes as an example. Ed thinks Mulcair is making a mistake by avoiding this issue. Ed says that you don't avoid the issue just to avoid being attacked, because that could actually lose credibility with the voters.

He still praises Mulcair: he's successful, forceful, someone who can take on Harper. But he says that Topp's stance on taxes and equality is more clear, and he has a better idea of what Brian Topp wants to do.

Considering Topp has been in the party's inner circle for such a long time, Broadbent's comments that he trusts Topp's vision more is completely fair, and completely unsurprising.

josh

NorthReport wrote:

Just a word to the loser mentality within the NDP - don't let the barn door hit you on the way out

I think you meant to post this in the unity thread.

Howard

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Just in... former Yukon Premier Piers McDonald endorses Mulcair.

Mulcair doesn't have cross-Canada appeal, just ask Brian Topp.

Mulcair also got criticised during one of the debates for not visiting the Yukon by either Nathan Cullen or Paul Dewar.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

For the elder statesman of the party to take on the front runner a week before the convention - not good optics for me. And, yeah, Harper must be loving this.

josh

The party, or the idea of a social democratic party, is bigger than any leadership election, or any candidate for that matter.  Clearly based on his interview, Broadbent fears that Mulcair will be the Tony Blair of the NDP.  His fears are well founded.

Howard

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I think people need to read the article again carefully before getting disappointed in Broadbent. The supposed "blasting" of Mulcair isn't there when you read what Ed said in isolation. Most of the bile is added by Daniel LeBlanc, to make the comments seem far more biting and hostile than they were.

Ironically, it's the same way that Mulcair apparently is going to distance the NDP from unions. On the record, he proposed anti-scab legislation and said "I want to work with unions". But he said he has a difference of opinion with Topp on the 25% voting quota, so this gives the media a perfect opportunity to repeat the Conservative attack on unions, even if Mulcair never repeated it or agreed with it.

Broadbent's at it again, same day, this time in the Toronto Star.

Ed Broadbent wrote:
"I want the party to remain a left-of-centre party," the former federal NDP leader told the Star in an interview Thursday. "That is how it finally built up. It got support in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and British Columbia and Nova Scotia and Ontario and now a breakthrough in Quebec by remaining true to its core principles, not by becoming a Liberal party."

Ed Broadbent wrote:
"To be blunt - I was asked," Broadbent said about the eleventh-hour timing of making his criticism public this week.

Pages

Topic locked