NDP leadership race #127

205 posts / 0 new
Last post
Gaian

What is Ed doing to party unity? Do you really think that that could be foremost in his mind?

Quote: “I want to be fair to Tom,” Broadbent said. “I’m not saying he said it’s going to be a Liberal party, but he did talk about moving to the middle. What he means by that, I don’t know, but I do know where Brian Topp stands, which is to keep the party left-of-centre with relevant, innovative policy and that’s what I think needs to be done.”

"What he means by that I don't know, but..."

How does that "reasoning" grab anyone?

algomafalcon

I don't know if any of you watched "At Issue" where they discussed this. They certainly seemed to suggest that Broadbent's comments could be damaging to the NDP and efforts to unify the part behind the next leader. All seemed to agree that Broadbents intervention was "unprecented" for a past party leader. Usually they stay neutral and above the fight, but to actually go so far as to attack the front runner - they thought that was totally unprecedented.

Mansbridge played part of an interview with Stephen Lewis. Peter ask Lewis why he had been silent during the leadership campaign. Lewis indicated that as someone who was an "old warhorse" from the party establishment, he thought it was maybe time for a new generation to step forward. And he said he was struggling to make a choice amongst the candidates.

nicky

This has been a very sad day in the leadership race. 

About a week ago I posted that I thought  the race could go in one of two directions. Mulcair would be perceived as a prohibitive frontrunner and that would result in a respectful and responsible debate for the balance of the campaign. OR the party establishment would embark on a scorched earth campaign to block Mulcair at any cost and regardless of damage to the party.

Unfortunately Brian Topp has steered the contest down the second road.

Make no mistake. It is Topp and not Broadbent. Broadbent says in his Toronto Star interview that he is speaking out because "I was asked to do it."

What is most disappointing is the personal attack on Mulcair, focused on supposed character flaws. This echos the surreptitious whisper campaign at the beginning of the race which was in retrospect so obviously designed to kneecap Mulcair and cripple his campaign at birth.

We have seen it more recently in the despicable Know Mulcair and True Mulcair slander websites. It is apprent to me that they are no longer anonymous except in an utterly unblievable sense.  Topp's fingerprints are as much on them as they are on Broadbent's broadside.

Tom Flannagan today on Power and Politics gloated that Broadbent has given the Conservatives a "great gift" - quotes and videos to be used in future attack adds against Mulcair.

Frankly I think Broadbent's tirde should be denounced by all candidates, including Topp.

If not, it is another reason not only to defeat Topp but repudiate him decisively for these destructive, irresponsible and utterly Nixonin tactics.

The myth of Topp as a formidible strategist should be buried with this latest blunder. Topp didn't have the guts to impugn Mulcair's character himself so he recruited Broadbent to do it for him. He can't deny it because Broadbent said so.

It is obvious now that Topp will do almost anything to win. We can only shudder in anticipation of his next move.

 

 

Howard

Chajusong wrote:

Howard wrote:

 Now which story do you find more credible? A campaign manager that showed up in the 80s, toiled imperceptibly for 30 years, or the Quebec lieutenant who was in the Quebec media every day for 5 years, recruited, and campaigned for almost all the Quebec candidates? Clearly Mulcair="high profile" window dressing.

Tom was a highly effective and articulate spokesman, yes. However, it's far from true that he recruited most, or even many, of our Québec candidates. In fact, his achilles heel in my view is that he kind of sucks at ground level organisation. Point at our high-profile front bench, and it's a bunch of people that were most pointedly not recruited by Mulcair. Boivin was brought in by Broadbent. Turmel was in the party for decades. Guy Caron's been around for a while. Hoang Mai and Boulerice were active in the party before Mulcair. Saganash was recruited by Jack. Laverdière literally walked into the Papineau office and asked "Uh, how can I help out?" Benskin served on the ACTRA executive with Topp and Guardia. The Québec City organisation is kind of more insular and do their own organisation and recruitment.

I'm not denying that there are several candidates that were recruited by Mulcair, and he certainly had a huge part in creating the climate that turned those great candidates into great MPs. But if we have a strong front bench from Québec, it's not thanks to Mulcair's recruitment efforts.

I appreciate the correction.

quizzical

It makes me want to sit out next election as why should I waste my time with a party whose "elderstatesman"  is a meally mouthed backstabber who does not know how to keep his mouth shut.

KenS

algomafalcon wrote:

I don't know if any of you watched "At Issue" where they discussed this. They certainly seemed to suggest that Broadbent's comments could be damaging to the NDP and efforts to unify the part behind the next leader. All seemed to agree that Broadbents intervention was "unprecented" for a past party leader. Usually they stay neutral and above the fight, but to actually go so far as to attack the front runner - they thought that was totally unprecedented.

For the umpteenth time- the media is in this for the circus aspects. "Could be damaging" is the stuff of stories and punditry. Doesnt make it true.

And it is true that most ex-Leaders stay neutral. Or, it used to be true until recently. At any rate, Ed has clearly never fit that mold. [Hes also remained more generally active than predecessors.] Ditto for Alexa [who never liked feeling obliged to stay neutral].

So now it has changed. Given that until recently ex-Leaders were expected to keep quiet, of course its unprecedented one of them would go after the front runner.

Duh.

Howard

KenS wrote:

I guess the histrionics of "what is Ed doing to party unity?" follows from being so sure that the party establishment has been intent on forcing something on us, and now they are getting desperate. Then it does follow that when its all over and Mulcair wins anyway, the shit is going to hit the fan.

If.

Who's engaging in histrionics now? If Mulcair wins, "the shit is going to hit the fan."

We don't need to worry about a candidate turning the NDP into the Liberals anymore. We are the Liberals now. Experts at stabbing eachother in the back and anointing leaders from on high.

Gaian

At the urging of the desperate candidate who led him into the arena in the first place.

Poor old Ed.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

The best thing Broadbent could have done is keep his big yap shut. He's become an embarrassment.

KenS

And where is this great blunder of Topp's?

People here are ready to crown Mulcair. Its been all but a done deal for months to a lot of people here. [Switching back and forth from "if it isnt a done deal, there must be a conspiracy to stop that".]

At any rate, if you think that Mulcair is running away with it, how is it bad strategy for Topp to be attacking Mulcair's bona fides? You dont like it. Fine. But hardly a surprise. You arent the audience. But lots of undecideds arent going to like it either- thats a fair point.

But that still doesnt make it bad strategy. Bad strategy is something that undermines your chances of winning. And if you think Mulcair is running away with it, then what is it the Topp campaign has to lose?

KenS

Poor old addled Ed.

Please Lord, spare me.

 

"No one is making you read it."

DSloth

Negativity will suppress the vote generally, which isn't good for the party.  It's hard to imagine any scenario where this plays well for Topp though, he needed people moving him up their ballot I don't think Broadbent gave anyone a reason to do that today. 

Gaian

Great strategy...if you don't give a fiddler's fart about those who have to follow and eat Steve's excrement.Or expect the party to trust you, on anything.

Get real.

KenS

See that word "hope" ?

And likely it will work out that way.

But it doesnt make it bad strategy- let alone establish that its damaging to the party.

KenS

@ G. :

But see- you are ASSUMING its damaging to the party. And that everyone agrees with that.

Since its obviously true, then.....

Gaian

Sure hope that's how it plays, DS. Can't take the illogicality of the effing echo hereabouts.

NorthReport

Oh, give it a break. For a brain-dead former leader to pontificate like that plays right into Harper's agenda. How much good is that? He's retired, and he needs to stay that way. Somebody out there needs to give him a shake. Who has some duck tape?

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

My overall point... the party is NOT imploding. We're having a leadership contest.

Ed Broadbent's points might strongly advocate for Topp, and say that Mulcair is a weaker candidate. But that's what's supposed to happen in a leadership contest. We all talk about who the best candidate is, in our minds.

Amazed that some Mulcair supporters can dish it out, but overreact to the most reasonable of criticisms.

Take a close reading. These aren't "attacks". They're not the kind of thing that will prevent Broadbent from supporting Mulcair, or prevent Mulcair from supporting Topp.

The only way this harms party unity is if the sewing circle starts gossiping and making it bigger than it is. If we start taking this stuff personally.

KenS

And that is downright comical that you cant take the echoes here, G.

We have dozens and dozens of posts of people yapping about doom for the party, for Topp, for poor old addled Ed.

We have two or three people interjecting in the waves, that this is more than a bit overwrought, and we are the echoes?

Howard

nicky wrote:

This has been a very sad day in the leadership race. 

About a week ago I posted that I thought  the race could go in one of two directions. Mulcair would be perceived as a prohibitive frontrunner and that would result in a respectful and responsible debate for the balance of the campaign. OR the party establishment would embark on a scorched earth campaign to block Mulcair at any cost and regardless of damage to the party.

Unfortunately Brian Topp has steered the contest down the second road.

Make no mistake. It is Topp and not Broadbent. Broadbent says in his Toronto Star interview that he is speaking out because "I was asked to do it."

What is most disappointing is the personal attack on Mulcair, focused on supposed character flaws. This echos the surreptitious whisper campaign at the beginning of the race which was in retrospect so obviously designed to kneecap Mulcair and cripple his campaign at birth.

We have seen it more recently in the despicable Know Mulcair and True Mulcair slander websites. It is apprent to me that they are no longer anonymous except in an utterly unblievable sense.  Topp's fingerprints are as much on them as they are on Broadbent's broadside.

Tom Flannagan today on Power and Politics gloated that Broadbent has given the Conservatives a "great gift" - quotes and videos to be used in future attack adds against Mulcair.

Frankly I think Broadbent's tirde should be denounced by all candidates, including Topp.

If not, it is another reason not only to defeat Topp but repudiate him decisively for these destructive, irresponsible and utterly Nixonin tactics.

The myth of Topp as a formidible strategist should be buried with this latest blunder. Topp didn't have the guts to impugn Mulcair's character himself so he recruited Broadbent to do it for him. He can't deny it because Broadbent said so.

It is obvious now that Topp will do almost anything to win. We can only shudder in anticipation of his next move.

+1

KenS

Watch out folks, Attikla is on the loose. No one and nothing is safe.

KenS

Tom Flannagan is having a ball.

But there is nothing Ed said that can be used with the general public... only inside baseball stuff witin the NDP.

He would know the Conservatives dont need Ed Broadbent for that material.

KenS

Howard, more than half of  the party doesnt give a fuck about what has got your knickers in a knot.

And the public is oblivious, other than the small slice of political junkies that appreciate the entertainment value.

North Star

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...

 

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

NorthReport, if you're going to promote stories likes Tandt which openly says Mulcair is like Blair and the Libs and NDP will merge while dismissing the "loser" mentality in the NDP, despite the fact that these "losers" have poured a lot of blood sweat and tears into the party to take it this far, you're actually kneecapping the NDP in 2015. These are the people that will donate all their free time to campaigns. If you want to piss all over them even if they are not a large part of the electorate, you risk the NDP losing if it is a close race should they choose to stay home because of the arrogance of people like you. Should this happen the party will also have to spend more money getting ready to train people in advance of 2015 while the Cons already have legions of passionate and trained campaigners with experience

The insults hurled by the Mulcair supporters since this afternoon are far more cruel and personal then anything that has come out of the mouth of Topp or Mulcair even though they have said things that are ill-advised. Someone who has been in politics a long time and is retired now told me, always take a look at the kind of people that a candidate or leader has around them, it can tell you a lot.

At one point early in the campaign I was putting Mulcair as my #2 or maybe even my #1 but now he's not on my ballot. I was aware of his "Third Way" leanings but interested in a leader that could beat Harper. What turned me off has more to do with his campaign and the people on it than his actual policies. 

Howard

KenS wrote:

At any rate, if you think that Mulcair is running away with it, how is it bad strategy for Topp to be attacking Mulcair's bona fides?

It destroys the party's electoral chances if Mulcair wins and destroys our image as a party with a shred more of integrity than the Liberals. This is a joke.

ETA: At 24 Sussex they are chanting: Four more years! Four more years!

Unionist

LOL!

I predicted on day one that this six-month beauty contest, by a party incapable of (/ afraid of) organizing broad popular consultations on issues of actual importance and principle, would end up in a self-destructive performance by a gaggle of greedy self-serving opportunists.

And so it has come to pass. Attacking each other in public. Undermining each other everywhere. With legions of minions wearing their star's jersey and attacking all the others.

As if it's a noble thing for a progressive organization to have a Supreme Dictator who decides everything, right down to whether the party goes left, right, or straight down.

And now you have the hallowed Saint Idiot Himself, Broadbent, staggering onto the scene in a last desperate effort to prove that he was right all along.

Oh, and anyone who doesn't like me launching "personal attacks" against Ed Broadbent, can consider themselves personally attacked in advance, in florid violation of babble policy.

On a sad and serious note: We will never build a new world in this way.

 

TheArchitect

jjuares wrote:

I am a little disappointed in Broadbent. Traditionally former leaders play the role of senior statesmen.If I remember correctly when Douglas retired he did not criticize Lewis even though there was hard feelings and he did not approve of a man not much younger than himself taking the leadership. Similarly, former provincial leaders have played a role in the party but usually not so partisan as Broadbent.  

Exactly, former leaders traditionally play the role of a senior statesman.  So a former leader wouldn't go out and criticize a leadership candidate unless he/she thought it was REALLY important: that the election of that candidate would pose an immense danger to the party—a danger so great that drastic action was justified to stop it.

I'm just stupefied by the attacks on Ed Broadbent here.  (I'm not talking about your comment at this point at this point, jjuares.)  I've seen Babblers claim, among other things, that Ed is being "manipulated," and, worse, that he secretly was angry with Jack Layton and wanted him to lose.  What a bunch of baloney.

Leadership campaigns, by the very nature, involve conflict.  That's fine.  I never thought I'd see the day, though, that supposedly loyal New Democrats would be launching these kinds of attacks on, of all people, Ed Broadbent.

It's fine to disagree with Ed.  I admit that I was a little disappointed when Ed endorsed Brian Topp so early in the campaign.  But to question Ed Broadbent's loyalty to our party and to Jack, or Ed's commitment to forming government, is just absurd.

Gaian

But boy oh boy what a $million in attack ads can turn it into. For the edification of the Great Discerning public.

Howard

KenS wrote:

Howard, more than half of  the party doesnt give a fuck about what has got your knickers in a knot.

And the public is oblivious, other than the small slice of political junkies that appreciate the entertainment value.

KenS, I look forward to having you re-read this post on election night 2015.

Howard

Unionist wrote:

LOL!

I predicted on day one that this six-month beauty contest, by a party incapable of (/ afraid of) organizing broad popular consultations on issues of actual importance and principle, would end up in a self-destructive performance by a gaggle of greedy self-serving opportunists.

And so it has come to pass. Attacking each other in public. Undermining each other everywhere. With legions of minions wearing their star's jersey and attacking all the others.

As if it's a noble thing for a progressive organization to have a Supreme Dictator who decides everything, right down to whether the party goes left, right, or straight down.

And now you have the hallowed Saint Idiot Himself, Broadbent, staggering onto the scene in a last desperate effort to prove that he was right all along.

Oh, and anyone who doesn't like me launching "personal attacks" against Ed Broadbent, can consider themselves personally attacked in advance, in florid violation of babble policy.

On a sad and serious note: We will never build a new world in this way.

You were right Unionist.

Gaian

Unionist wrote:

LOL!

I predicted on day one that this six-month beauty contest, by a party incapable of (/ afraid of) organizing broad popular consultations on issues of actual importance and principle, would end up in a self-destructive performance by a gaggle of greedy self-serving opportunists.

And so it has come to pass. Attacking each other in public. Undermining each other everywhere. With legions of minions wearing their star's jersey and attacking all the others.

As if it's a noble thing for a progressive organization to have a Supreme Dictator who decides everything, right down to whether the party goes left, right, or straight down.

And now you have the hallowed Saint Idiot Himself, Broadbent, staggering onto the scene in a last desperate effort to prove that he was right all along.

Oh, and anyone who doesn't like me launching "personal attacks" against Ed Broadbent, can consider themselves personally attacked in advance, in florid violation of babble policy.

On a sad and serious note: We will never build a new world in this way.

 

And Mulcair has erred by doing what?

Fidel

That's okay because we know that no matter how badly the old line parties have run Canada into the ground over the last 35 years, the entire back row will always demand miracles in putting Humpty together again. As far as they are concerned, two redundant conservative parties in-hand will always be worth a first NDP government in waiting. Let them wreck the country some more and see how that works.

algomafalcon

nicky wrote:

[snip]

We have seen it more recently in the despicable Know Mulcair and True Mulcair slander websites. It is apprent to me that they are no longer anonymous except in an utterly unblievable sense.  Topp's fingerprints are as much on them as they are on Broadbent's broadside.

[snip]

I think its important that we should not jump to conclusions that the "Know Mulcair" website is affiliated with the Brian Topp campaign. In terms of possible "authors" or "inspirations", a thought came to me today. That name "Know Mulcair" reminds me of the name of the campaign targetted against proportional representation in the BC referendum that was headed by Bill Tieleman "Know STV" (which is still on the web as http://www.knowstv.ca/knowstv.html).

Is this just a remarkable coincidence? It does so much seem the style of Bill Tieleman, who happens to be a prominent supporter of Peggy Nash.  Anyone out there can confirm or negate this possibility? There is such an obvious association in the website names that I figure SOMEONE would have asked Bill if the website was his initiative?

Howard

TheArchitect wrote:

jjuares wrote:

I am a little disappointed in Broadbent. Traditionally former leaders play the role of senior statesmen.If I remember correctly when Douglas retired he did not criticize Lewis even though there was hard feelings and he did not approve of a man not much younger than himself taking the leadership. Similarly, former provincial leaders have played a role in the party but usually not so partisan as Broadbent.  

Exactly, former leaders traditionally play the role of a senior statesman.  So a former leader wouldn't go out and criticize a leadership candidate unless he/she thought it was REALLY important: that the election of that candidate would pose an immense danger to the party—a danger so great that drastic action was justified to stop it.

I'm just stupefied by the attacks on Ed Broadbent here.  (I'm not talking about your comment at this point at this point, jjuares.)  I've seen Babblers claim, among other things, that Ed is being "manipulated," and, worse, that he secretly was angry with Jack Layton and wanted him to lose.  What a bunch of baloney.

Leadership campaigns, by the very nature, involve conflict.  That's fine.  I never thought I'd see the day, though, that supposedly loyal New Democrats would be launching these kinds of attacks on, of all people, Ed Broadbent.

It's fine to disagree with Ed.  I admit that I was a little disappointed when Ed endorsed Brian Topp so early in the campaign.  But to question Ed Broadbent's loyalty to our party and to Jack, or Ed's commitment to forming government, is just absurd.

Spare me your crocodile tears.

KenS

Unionist wrote:

On a sad and serious note: We will never build a new world in this way.

Oh, the wounds. Never had the bubble pricked before.

KenS

Dont worry. You wont have to wait any more than a month for this to slip below the waves. Forever.

Gaian

Gaian wrote:
Unionist wrote:

LOL!

I predicted on day one that this six-month beauty contest, by a party incapable of (/ afraid of) organizing broad popular consultations on issues of actual importance and principle, would end up in a self-destructive performance by a gaggle of greedy self-serving opportunists.

And so it has come to pass. Attacking each other in public. Undermining each other everywhere. With legions of minions wearing their star's jersey and attacking all the others.

As if it's a noble thing for a progressive organization to have a Supreme Dictator who decides everything, right down to whether the party goes left, right, or straight down.

And now you have the hallowed Saint Idiot Himself, Broadbent, staggering onto the scene in a last desperate effort to prove that he was right all along.

Oh, and anyone who doesn't like me launching "personal attacks" against Ed Broadbent, can consider themselves personally attacked in advance, in florid violation of babble policy.

On a sad and serious note: We will never build a new world in this way.

 

And Mulcair has erred by doing what?

Hellooo out there.....

Fidel

No party can ever be as worthy as the corrupt stooges of the day in Ottawa. Let's stick with the current bozos in federal powerlessness until the day of perfect revolution, or that one which will never happen. That's basically all they ever have to say in so many words.

Howard

Fidel wrote:

That's okay because we know that no matter how badly the old line parties have run Canada into the ground over the last 35 years, the entire back row will always demand miracles in putting Humpty together again. As far as they are concerned, two redundant conservative parties in-hand will always be worth a first NDP government in waiting. Let them wreck the country some more and see how that works.

Ah yes! Just like Ed Broadbent led us to promised land during the reign of Brian Mulroney, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan. I just love these ultra-conservative decades. They lead to such great things.

KenS

How can Topp do worse than people's worst expectations of him?

Even a lot worse than the worst.

Is there some overwrought machine somewhere?

Would someone please turn off the autopilot?

Howard

KenS wrote:

How can Topp do worse than people's worst expectations of him?

To quote Peggy Nash quoting Paul Dewar "Stay tuned..."

algomafalcon

TheArchitect wrote:

Leadership campaigns, by the very nature, involve conflict.  That's fine.  I never thought I'd see the day, though, that supposedly loyal New Democrats would be launching these kinds of attacks on, of all people, Ed Broadbent.

It's fine to disagree with Ed.  I admit that I was a little disappointed when Ed endorsed Brian Topp so early in the campaign.  But to question Ed Broadbent's loyalty to our party and to Jack, or Ed's commitment to forming government, is just absurd.

So its no problem when Ed Broadbent decides its his role to attack an NDP MP and frontrunning candidate for leadership, but us lowly members are just supposed to "sit down and shut up" when we think he is wrong???

Sorry, but Ed Broadbent is hardly a saint. I can remember that at David Barrett's retirement dinner, he seemed to be criticizing provincial NDP leaders Grant Notley, Allen Blakeney and Howard Pawley because they didn't side with Broadbent who supported PM Trudeau's plans for the federal government to unilaterally patriate the constitution without support from the provinces.

 

Gaian

I predicted here, long ago, that Topp would be tossed early on, and his troops would join Peggy's.

That would be some consolation.

Howard

The whole point of Topp's strategy, because there is no hope in hell of him winning, is to make all the Mulcair supporters feel miserable and thus suppress Mulcair's vote. Then, Peggy Nash, the candidate Ed Broadbent should have had the brains to support in the first place (if he really wanted an anti-Mulcair), will come from behind and win.

In fact, Peggy Nash, Peter Julian, Megan Leslie or anyone other than this cynical backroom hack named Brian Topp, would have made a much much much better non-Mulcair candidate for the establishment.

NorthReport

Oops, wrong thread

Howard

Gaian wrote:
I predicted here, long ago, that Topp would be tossed early on, and his troops would join Peggy's. That would be some consolation.

And Québec will largely be shut out of the leadership race.

Unionist

Gaian wrote:
And Mulcair has erred by doing what? Hellooo out there.....

I post an opinion about the intellectual, ideological, and organizational bankruptcy of a party which turns what should be simple, collaborative, adminsitrative exercise into a festival of self-immolation in full public view - and you ask me, "yeah ok, but what did this one out of seven do wrong? Huh?"

I don't think you understood my post, Gaian. Otherwise, you wouldn't be asking me when I stopped beating my spouse. Read it again, and tell me this: "Unionist erred by saying what?"

 

DSloth

KenS wrote:

But there is nothing Ed said that can be used with the general public... only inside baseball stuff witin the NDP.

KenS is right about this, (but not much else) it's still bad for the party to make a respected elder statsement the point man on your statue of liberty play. 

 

If Topp or Broadbent really believed the things they are saying about Mulcair they would have gotten out of the race and endorsed another candidate because the party is clearly not buying what they're selling.

Howard

Bomb the bridge by Brian Topp, The Globe and Mail, January 21st, 2010

TheArchitect

algomafalcon wrote:

TheArchitect wrote:

Leadership campaigns, by the very nature, involve conflict.  That's fine.  I never thought I'd see the day, though, that supposedly loyal New Democrats would be launching these kinds of attacks on, of all people, Ed Broadbent.

It's fine to disagree with Ed.  I admit that I was a little disappointed when Ed endorsed Brian Topp so early in the campaign.  But to question Ed Broadbent's loyalty to our party and to Jack, or Ed's commitment to forming government, is just absurd.

So its no problem when Ed Broadbent decides its his role to attack an NDP MP and frontrunning candidate for leadership, but us lowly members are just supposed to "sit down and shut up" when we think he is wrong???

Certainly you don't have to "sit down and shut up"—as I've said, it's fine to disagree with Ed; I myself have expressed disagreement with him at times.  What's unacceptable isn't disagreeing with Ed.  What's unacceptable is saying that he's not loyal to the party and secretly always wanted Jack to lose elections—absurd attacks which, unfortunately, we've seen some Mulcair supporters level against Ed today.

KenS

Howard wrote:

In fact, Peggy Nash, Peter Julian, Megan Leslie or anyone other than this cynical backroom hack named Brian Topp, would have made a much much much better non-Mulcair candidate for the establishment.

Probably true.

In the parallel universe where they were looking for such a candidate.

Pages

Topic locked