babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

NDP leadership race #132

NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

;;


Comments

NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Cullen denies interest in pre-convention pact with NDP rivals

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/cullen-deni...


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Quote:

Speaking of the convention, all candidates are busy preparing 20-minute presentations which will be given on Friday night as a last pitch to voters.

In the case of Ottawa MP Paul Dewar, his “showcase” will feature a new duet with MP Charlie Angus and a Canadian hip hop artist. And he is promising a video introduction by a “surprise guest” .

Jack Layton?

Tommy Douglas?

Faîtes vos jeux, mesdames et messieurs!


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Ha!

 

 The NDP can rest content in its mission

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynol...


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Neil Reynolds wrote:
Old-school socialists these days know rhetoric from reality – and recognize clearly that society’s vulnerable 99 per cent rely for social control of the country on the productive 1 per cent who toil away diligently at the top.

Toil away while ye may, o noble 1%, for one day soon, your power shall be flushed!

 


Winston
Offline
Joined: Feb 17 2007

Mucker wrote:

...the current machinery within the NDP leadership sees the prospect of him as leader as a threat to their continued existence as the leadership. 

I question whether the party establishment is worried so much about what Mulcair might do to the party as they are about what he might do to their position within it.

+ 1 x 10^898

Did you ever hit the nail on the head!!!

There are some in the Party that would rather be big fish in a little NDP pond than smaller fish in an NDP-government lake.


Mucker
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2012

Winston wrote:

There are some in the Party that would rather be big fish in a little NDP pond than smaller fish in an NDP-government lake.

Agreed.  This is the way it's been within the Saskatchewan NDP for years, and this approach has had predicable consequences that I hope we can avoid at the federal level.


NorthReport
Offline
Joined: Jul 6 2008

Indeed!!!


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

I feel very torn about the internal party structure.

On one hand, I do think we need to evolve and grow.

On the other hand, now that the NDP is closer to forming government, the "careerist" type of person who ruined the Liberal party is taking another look at us. They see power. If we get into government, the lobbyists and corporate money will surely follow.

Personally, I think that whoever has been piloting the ship over the past ten years has been doing a great job. I wouldn't want to tinker with the formula too much. And I think there's a consensus among the candidates to be bold and compete everywhere, even if they bicker about each other's intentions.


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

 

Mucker wrote:

I question whether the party establishment is worried so much about what Mulcair might do to the party as they are about what he might do to their position within it.

Winston wrote:

There are some in the Party that would rather be big fish in a little NDP pond than smaller fish in an NDP-government lake.

As far as the establishment goes, these people do not exist. Period.

They differ with you on the path to becoming the 'Big fish'. And quite naturally, they think the best way to get there includes them staying in the saddle.

But at bottom, they are no different than you. Their self-interest makes them fair game for questioning. But we all have stakes in the positions we take. And its the positions that matter, not bottomless waving at motivations behind positions.


Coldwell
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2011

"I question whether the party establishment is worried so much about what Mulcair might do to the party as they are about what he might do to their position within it."

The irony is that Mulcair is the clear choice of the Canadian Establishment, as expressed through official organs such as the Montreal Gazette, the Globe, and the Toronton Star. Mulcair is their man because he evidently shares their disdain for the NDP and everything it stands for.

In a recent interview with the Toronto Star, Mulcair summed up the contribution of the NDP to Canadian politics in these terms:  "50 years of hectoring and finger-wagging and telling people what’s wrong with their decisions."


Earlier, in the context of a discussion about the role of labour in the party, Mulcair described trade unions as "just another interest group."

It's not just the "party establishment" that deplores such disparaging remarks about the NDP and its historic alliance with labour--an alliance that remains crucial at a time when workers are facing virulent attacks from employers and their political allies on both sides of the border.  Thousands of discerning rank-and-file members know only too well that Mulcair's aim is to transform the NDP into another Liberal Party. That, in turn, would rehabilitate the real Liberal party and disillusion both traditional NDP voters as well as millions of voters who are looking for a real alternative to the neo-liberal dogma of the past 30 years.


JoshD
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2011

Does anyone know if all the convention events on Friday will be aired on tv or online?


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

Coldwell wrote:

The irony is that Mulcair is the clear choice of the Canadian Establishment, as expressed through official organs such as the Montreal Gazette, the Globe, and the Toronton Star. Mulcair is their man because he evidently shares their disdain for the NDP and everything it stands for.

The bolded line appears to me to be 100% accurate.


CanadaApple
Offline
Joined: Dec 1 2011

Thought this was interesting...

Quote:
The Conservatives are prepared for Mulcair.

Senior sources claim they would welcome his abrasiveness in the House of Commons because they don't think that style sells well to voters.

They see a leader who will be so engaged in repairing the crumbling foundation of the party in Quebec, that the party's other flanks, particularly British Columbia, will be vulnerable.

They see a leader who will be busy putting out internecine fires - or fuelling them - after his victory, possibly even losing Vancouver MP Libby Davies whose antipathy for Mulcair is well known and who could be prepared to move into the provincial arena where a cabinet seat would await her if New Democrat Adrian Dix wins the 2013 B.C. vote.

Have any of the Mulcair supporters here thought about this?


josh
Online
Joined: Aug 5 2002

Yes, the MSM is pushing Mulcair as hard as they can.  They see a golden opportunity to have three pro-corporate parties.


Mucker
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2012

KenS wrote:

 

Mucker wrote:

I question whether the party establishment is worried so much about what Mulcair might do to the party as they are about what he might do to their position within it.

Winston wrote:

There are some in the Party that would rather be big fish in a little NDP pond than smaller fish in an NDP-government lake.

As far as the establishment goes, these people do not exist. Period.

They differ with you on the path to becoming the 'Big fish'. And quite naturally, they think the best way to get there includes them staying in the saddle.

But at bottom, they are no different than you. Their self-interest makes them fair game for questioning. But we all have stakes in the positions we take. And its the positions that matter, not bottomless waving at motivations behind positions.

Apart from the suggestion that there is no party establishment (which is pretty much false by definition) I think your comments are probably quite accurate.  I'm simply suggesting that the following attack...

Mulcair will move the party to the right, or at least to the centre.

Can more accurately be interpreted as...

If Mulcair wins, I won't have as much direct control over what the NDP does.

And as a result, I think the attacks are underhanded and childish.  We should be making leadership decisions based on the positions the leadership candidates hold, not on whether the selection of one leader over another will lead to a reduction in the influence of some bureaucrat, strategist or party elder.


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

Accept I believe that is what Mulcair will too likely do, independent that voices of the party establishment are saying it.

In other words, the position has its own legs.


Arthur Cramer
Offline
Joined: Nov 30 2010

All these concerns about Mulcair aside, I am interested in governing. It seems to me Jack (blessed be his memory) was moving laterally as well, so I am concerned but I'm voting for Tom. I'll count on the membership at the constituency level to do its job and keep the muckey mucks honest.


Catchfire
Offline
Joined: Apr 16 2003

From the previous thread:

josh wrote:
If you feel compelled to constantly fellate your candidate, at least get a room.

josh, this comment constitutes a personal attack on NorthReport and uses oppressive, homophobic language. Please refrain in the future.

This goes for everyone: I realize there's been a ton of leeway in the way of personal attacks (and general macho, masculinist posturing) in these NDP threads, but please try to remember where you are.

 


flight from kamakura
Offline
Joined: Nov 24 2006

this is sort of interesting, from the jamey heath op-ed in the globe: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=Thomas%20Mulcair,Brian%20Topp,N...

as for cullen, that comment about "don't vote for me unless you want the ndp to go in a very different direction" signals to me that he might be a little worried about winning.

also, as a meta issue, is there a way we could tone back the 'rah-rah' stuff, especially on the mulcair side?  i don't think there's a single person on this board who isn't very clear on who they support, and i can't be the only one it's turning off.  that said, always good to clarify mulcair's positions when people randomly attack his candidacy or person.


Coldwell
Offline
Joined: Jun 14 2011

Mulcair earns more glowing tributes from the corporate media. This Postmedia story, published today, confidently predicts that Mulcair will re-invent the NDP in the image of "New Labour."

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Mulcair+policies+heresy+style+establishment+Michael+Tandt/6323108/story.html

It is becoming increasingly implausible for Mulcair to deny he plans move the party to the centre (i.e., to the right of where it is now).


flight from kamakura
Offline
Joined: Nov 24 2006

let the media fantasize about what mulcair will do.  when have they ever told the truth about the ndp?  if mulcair does win, it just makes it that much easier for him to make credible arguments to the canadian people and that much more likely that we'll take government next election.


Mucker
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2012

Coldwell wrote:

Mulcair earns more glowing tributes from the corporate media. This Postmedia story, published today, confidently predicts that Mulcair will re-invent the NDP in the image of "New Labour."

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Mulcair+policies+heresy+style+establishment+Michael+Tandt/6323108/story.html

It is becoming increasingly implausible for Mulcair to deny he plans move the party to the centre (i.e., to the right of where it is now).

So, because the mainstream media - so villified on this board - says Mulcair will move the part to the centre, we all of a sudden believe it will happen?  Since when do we get to selectively believe the mainstream media when it suits our position, but ridicule it when it runs opposite?


Howard
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2011

I've been getting attack ad scripts from non-NDPers based on Broadbent's comments in my inbox. Three cheers for party unity and doing what's best for the party, Mr. Topp.


TheArchitect
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2011

Catchfire wrote:

From the previous thread:

josh wrote:
If you feel compelled to constantly fellate your candidate, at least get a room.

josh, this comment constitutes a personal attack on NorthReport and uses oppressive, homophobic language. Please refrain in the future.

This goes for everyone: I realize there's been a ton of leeway in the way of personal attacks (and general macho, masculinist posturing) in these NDP threads, but please try to remember where you are.

Catchfire is right: it's important that everyone on Babble try to always remain civil.  A spirited debate about the relative merits and drawbacks of all the candidates is fine.  Personal attacks on other Babblers are not.

On the subject of "oppressive, homophobic language," I was a bit disturbed by the following passage from a recent Maclean's article on Mulcair:

Maclean's wrote:

Mulcair was first elected to public office in 1994 as a Liberal member of Quebec’s national assembly. Journalist Vincent Marissal recalls first encountering Mulcair a year or so later, during a friendly game of hockey, Liberals against press gallery scribes. Marissal was skating in front of his own net, sans puck, when Mulcair knocked him to the ice. “I thought he was going to throw down his gloves,” Marissal says. Instead, Mulcair hissed at the prostrate columnist: “Stop complaining, you big sissy, and get back on your skates.”

(Source: http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/03/16/thomas-mulcair-is-mr-angry/#.T2NqYN7j...)

Isn't using the term "sissy" rather offensive and insensitive?  Personally, I'd like to have a leader who refrains from that kind of language.


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

Mulcair was obviously speaking to Marissal in French and I have no idea what French term would translate to "sissy" in English


TheArchitect
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2011

Stockholm wrote:

Mulcair was obviously speaking to Marissal in French and I have no idea what French term would translate to "sissy" in English

A good point.  I don't know what the original French term would have been either.  It's possible that the article translates Mulcair's word poorly.  If the word Mulcair used does translate into anything like "sissy," though, then the quote is rather perturbing.


TheArchitect
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2011

Double post.


Mucker
Offline
Joined: Mar 8 2012

TheArchitect wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

From the previous thread:

josh wrote:
If you feel compelled to constantly fellate your candidate, at least get a room.

josh, this comment constitutes a personal attack on NorthReport and uses oppressive, homophobic language. Please refrain in the future.

This goes for everyone: I realize there's been a ton of leeway in the way of personal attacks (and general macho, masculinist posturing) in these NDP threads, but please try to remember where you are.

Catchfire is right: it's important that everyone on Babble try to always remain civil.  A spirited debate about the relative merits and drawbacks of all the candidates is fine.  Personal attacks on other Babblers are not.

On the subject of "oppressive, homophobic language," I was a bit disturbed by the following passage from a recent Maclean's article on Mulcair:

Maclean's wrote:

Mulcair was first elected to public office in 1994 as a Liberal member of Quebec’s national assembly. Journalist Vincent Marissal recalls first encountering Mulcair a year or so later, during a friendly game of hockey, Liberals against press gallery scribes. Marissal was skating in front of his own net, sans puck, when Mulcair knocked him to the ice. “I thought he was going to throw down his gloves,” Marissal says. Instead, Mulcair hissed at the prostrate columnist: “Stop complaining, you big sissy, and get back on your skates.”

(Source: http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/03/16/thomas-mulcair-is-mr-angry/#.T2NqYN7j...)

Isn't using the term "sissy" rather offensive and insensitive?  Personally, I'd like to have a leader who refrains from that kind of language.

...

Are you serious?

It was a hockey game.


JoshD
Offline
Joined: Dec 23 2011

TheArchitect wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Mulcair was obviously speaking to Marissal in French and I have no idea what French term would translate to "sissy" in English

A good point.  I don't know what the original French term would have been either.  It's possible that the article translates Mulcair's word poorly.  If the word Mulcair used does translate into anything like "sissy," though, then the quote is rather perturbing.

 

Horrible! Even worse, I heard that at a meet and greet that Tom ate ribs for dinner! Appaling! I do not want an NDP Leader who eats ribs!


Hunky_Monkey
Offline
Joined: Jun 11 2004
I think if Tom used the word sissy almost 20 years ago, then it was wrong to do so. See the key word... "if". That said, all I've seen is a great respect and appreciation for others including women and the GLBT community in his actions and words. Funny how if the media say something positive about Tom, it's proof that he's a sell out and we shouldn't trust him... but if they say something negative about Tom, it's accurate and factual as if it's god's word. Priceless.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments