Most of the mainstream media, with the help of the Mulcair and Topp campaigns, constructed the leadership battle at the NDP convention as a battle between those who wanted to move to the centre to win government and those who wanted to win maintaining the "traditional" social democratic values of the NDP.
Brian Topp's bold-sounding declaration that he was a proud social democrat made those of us who have spent decades on the left of the party cringe. Isn't the NDP a social democratic party? Hasn't the history of the party been the struggle between a democratic socialist left -- best represented by the Waffle but succeeded by a series of progressive groups, ending with the New Politics Initiative -- with the social democratic establishment? Is that establishment now in the position of opposition pushing the party to the left? If it is true, it is depressing on the one hand and deliciously ironic on the other.
What is left out of this narrative is that there is a new force in the party that I would consider the new left and it was best represented in this campaign by Nathan Cullen. Cullen's language was very close to the politics of the New Politics Initiative. He speaks of social struggles and the alliance between the party and First Nations and environment groups. He speaks from the heart without the spin that has infected almost everyone else. He is at heart a democrat. This left is less sectarian. Many of them supported strategic voting in past elections and this time the more strategic electoral alliance with the Liberals. I don't agree with them on that but there is no question that they are the most progressive force in the party right now and the one closest to the social movements who are flooding into the streets and the parks across North America.
The strength of Cullen's campaign came from the power of this youthful movement represented by Lead Now's support for his proposal on an electoral alliance as much as from his winning personality and charisma. No one mentioned that Lead Now got 5, 500 people to join with the NDP to support what they call "co-operation." There were days when the women's movement had this kind of power in the party, reflected especially in Audrey McLaughlin's victory as leader. Peggy Nash's unjust defeat early in the balloting showed that this movement is much less a force today.
It is too bad that Peggy Nash or Paul Dewar didn't seize the chance of an alliance with this group or that Brian Topp, seeing that he couldn’t win, didn't throw his support to Cullen who could have won. But then I think the party establishment represented by Topp, with a couple of important exceptions like Libby Davies, are more worried about Cullen's politics than Mulcair's.
The other narrative promoted by the Mulcair campaign, Chantal Hebert and Gerry Caplan, is that a defeat of Mulcair would have been seen as a slap in the face to Quebec. After all, polls showed that Quebecois massively supported Mulcair as the leader of the NDP and he had majority support from the Quebec caucus of the party and a lot of endorsements and financial contributions from outside the party.
This is more complicated. It may be true that the initial reaction to the vote will be positive and that most media in Quebec supported Mulcair, but there is also intense criticism of him here. What people in the NDP don't seem to understand is that the massive move from the BQ to the NDP in the last election was less a move to federalism and more a move to the progressive party most Quebecois thought could defeat Harper. If the NDP moves to the right of BQ under Mulcair, it risks losing a lot of that support. Since no one including Chantal Hebert has any idea what the Quebec electorate will do in the next federal election, supporting Mulcair or opposing him for this reason makes no sense. It is positive that the NDP membership showed that they understood the importance of the gains in Quebec by giving their support only to the candidates who are fluent in French.
The third narrative is what has been called a whisper campaign against Mulcair. It was a pretty loud whisper turned into a shout by Ed Broadbent. No one can get along with this guy. He is a bully who doesn't brook opposition. Kind of like a certain Prime Minister we know. It was also suggested that Mulcair had nothing to do with the victory in Quebec. Quieter but just as widespread was the knowledge that not very many women who have worked with him for more than a few months were supporting him. I was shocked by how few women were among his publshed endorsers. Some of these whispers are true from what I can tell. On Quebec, he did establish a foothold in Quebec but he was not a major player in recruiting candidates or organizing the last election campaign. He is, however, the only one of the leadership candidates who is known in Quebec.
NDPers don't like whisper campaigns, which is to their credit. They may also have figured that we need a bully to face a bully or that Brian Topp's lack of charisma or ability to connect with a crowd was as big a problem as Mulcair's authoritarian streak.
My view is that the NDP has elected an old-style patriarchal politician who has the same politics vis-a-vis Quebec as the pre-Jack NDP, seeing sovereigntists as bitter enemies instead of potential allies, is more of a liberal than a social democrat and who will move the party to the right especially on international issues, including free trade and Israel, two issues at the centre of Harper’s agenda.
I didn't participate in this campaign because I see the hope for change in the new movements that are emerging around the globe rather than in electoral politics. That is where I am putting my energy these days but it always helps if the social movements can see their reflection in the social democratic political party. This hasn't been true in Europe for a long time which is why we see just a dramatic contradiction between what is happening in the Parliament there and what is happening in the streets.
In Canada, whatever the weaknesses of the NDP, we have always managed to have a strong alliance between them and the social movements. That alliance strengthened the women's movement, the anti-war movement, the labour movement and others. I fear under the leadership of Thomas Mulcair, that alliance will be lost and it will be a loss for all of us.
I'm absolutely thrilled to read that Spartacist - I feel exactly the same way.
What I'm talking about has NOTHING to do with the WEST BANK.
I"m talking about CANADA. And if you read my post you'd see that's quite clear.
Talk to me a few years - though I hope I'm wrong - I don't think you'll have any doubt as to what my point was. But frankly it's hard for me to see why you can't see it NOW...
StevieB no-one is talking to you cause we are not electing MP's to represent the West-Bank or Gaza. We are sending people to Ottawa to get shit done for us here first. Besides, we are not going to fix the middle-east situation by snapping our fingers.
Our first priority before anything is electing an NDP govt. Then we'll talk about our foreign policy and the middle-east.
The separatists in Quebec are not the friends of the NDP and it goes to show how out of touch Rebick is becoming. I know, I live in Quebec. One could only wish that she'd just move out of the country to a city like say, New York or Los Angeles where she could just get lost and never be seen and/or heard from again.
What happened at the NDP convention (and I was there) is the fact that unlike the convention of '89 (where the establishment endorsed Audrey McLaughlin over Dave Barrett), the party rank & file chose a street fighter. This must really sting Judy's craw and her 'champagne activist' crowd. I mean stead of Rebick taking just a mo' to give the Mulcair campaign and the working class activists that supported him their due, her first order of business is to dump on Mulcair, and take a giant shit on party activists that might have a different view than her own. Just wonder how many people that supported Tom at the convention she actually spend time talking to and/or during to the led-up to the leadership?.., But then again she seems to only talk to people that only agree with her.
Let's just see what Thomas Mulcair and his crew had to do in order to win the NDP leadership.
First thing, they had to increase party memberships from about 700 members in Quebec to about 14,000-15,000 members(not that it mattered in the end as the numbers generated in Quebec only were a little over 10% of the national numbers of 130,000 members).
Second, Mulcair had to raise the cash. Third, he had to go across the country to convince the general membership that he was a potential viable national leader and candidate to be elected to Prime Minister. Fourth, he had to do this during a campaign of idiotic accusations ie. Mulcair=The Manchurian Liberal Candidate. Mulcair is another Blairite. Mulcair is in the pockets of Israel and a zionist to boot. Mulcair will purge and massacre the left-wing of the party two minutes after his election a la Stalin. Indeed talk about an Everest climb over a guy like Topp who seemed to have had immediately the cash and the support of the party establishment on side. All Topp had to do was walk up a hill.
If anything this long process showed was how much of total fuck-ups Topp and the rest of the leadership candidates were. I mean these guys and gals could fuck-up a cup of coffee.
Rebick says she stayed out of the NDP leadership cause she was too busy doing the champagne activist tours that she calls "The New Movements". I think that there's a better explanation. She was just too lazy to put in the time as usual. It's much simpler for her to go out to a couple of demos, do a couple of lectures, and peddle a couple of books. All the while, sniping at those who are battling to get people elected that might actually implement some of those ideas that she spends her time droning on about.
Not one commentator has mentioned Muclair's pro-Israel credentials. Not an issue for those people? Or are these people pro-Israel supporters? Does Judy not think - or is she afraid to say - that Muclair is there because of he is a Zionist(supporter)? What gives? Do these people truly believe that what I'm talking about isn't really that important to Canadian democracy? Or to the future of the NDP, if that's what your primary concern is? Or are Canadians afraid to talk about it? This isn't just about an election - it's your children's future we're talking about here -it's the future of our great nation...
The discussion is useless if you aren't going to talk about the real issues....
I think this is a very interesting discussion. I can ensure you that everything I have said about Mr. Mulcair is based on talking to alot of people who have worked with him over many years, including two cases which were quite public. I have also know that Mr. Mulcair is a highly skilled politician and very charming if you don't cross him. Perhaps I should have siad that. Other than that I think the discussion is quite interesting and useful.
I supported Mr. Cullen from the start of his campaign because of his stand on co-operation amongst progressives to defeat the conservaive government. I also believe that the most of the gains for electoral support in the next election has to come from the people who didn't vote in the past election, mainly the under 30 group, and I believe Mr. Cullen to be the best candidate to be able to appeal to them. His non-partisanship and environmental focus are more closely aligned with the values of this group. And, he is likeable and charismatic, traits that greatly helped Mr. Layton pick up votes.
I think that too much emphasis was put on Mr. Muclairs ability to shore up the Quebec votes and his readiness to take on Harper in the house. I agree with Ms. Rebick he is an old style patriarchal politician and that we missed the chance to elect a younger and more democratic leader.
I am a new arrival on rabble.ca, having watched Judy Rebick on TVO this evening. I am dismayed by the attacks I found on Tom Mulcair by people who do not seem to be acquainted with him and wonder if this is just one more example of the left tearing itself apart.
You write, Judy, that no one can get along with him, yet many more MPs were supportiing him than any of the other candidates. You call him a bully, and use phrases such as "if the whispers are true …" You say he is not a major player in Quebec. Who could you have spoken to who would be saying that - not any of the new Quebec MPs, I am sure!
One of his greatest supporters is Charles Taylor, a world renowned philosopher and longtime socialist. Many of the most enthusiastic workers on his campaign were women. He is admired by many in Quebec for his principled stand on environmental issues, resigning as Minister of the Environment when the Liberal government would not protect Mt. Orford park.
Before you set out to damage the party by denigrating its leader, take some time to get to know him, and then write from your own experience.
What we do not have time for is nostalgia. We don't have the time to drape ourselves in the robes of the wobblies or the Mac-Paps or the On to Ottawa movement. We don't have the time to do a bunch of navel gazing about whether or not we are "social democrats" (who after all, were those for whom the word "socialist" was a bridge too far) rather than "left-liberals" or, god forbid, actual liberals. The NDP does have to stake out a position that has a chance of uniting most of those who do not see themselves as "conservative" and let's not kid ourselves, an awful lot of people, even those with well developed social consciences see themselves as conservative in some sense or other. Unlike those who formed the CCF, at a time when there was more than one type of communist and labour activism included direct action in the streets and at the plant gate we live in a time soured to the idealism of those days and poisoned by both a relentless ruling class effort to brand the left and, if we are honest, a certain self inflicted blindness to the weaknesses of left ideology.
In their heart of hearts those who see themselves as carrying the torch for “socialism” really see themselves as romantic heroes, true voices in the wilderness fighting capitalist ideology, not presiding over an economy that is not only capitalist to the core but increasingly a rapacious force around the world. Those, on the other hand, who are interested in politics as a means to an end and who are one day liberal and the next social democrat or vice versa, who have over and over again been selected to lead a provincial or national NDP precisely because they do not carry the torch for a thorough social revolution and thus are seen to have a chance to win will of course show their true colours in power. We do not have time to be perpetually right and powerless and we must not fight to win only to lose our way.
Since Das Kapital, published the same year of confederation, 1867, the world has come a long way. It is beyond ironic that those like Stephen Harper who are unapologetic in their promotion, not so much of the ideas of Adam Smith as the ideas of those who misunderstood Smith and coloured his misunderstood theory with the misunderstood ideas of Charles Darwin can escape the moral burden of the excesses of unrestrained capitalism and all of its attendant evils while those who seek to merely establish a modicum of fairness and equity cannot move an inch without carrying the morbid chains of Stalin, Ceausecu, Pol Pot and so on. I submit that before we waste one more chance to do some tangible good we need to break out of the politics of the 19th century, recognize that in many ways the politics of “free enterprise” is the politics of the 17th century and that the task before us is to make plain that however much we owe to Tommy Douglas and his generation we live in this time, we are for a better life in real ways and that our opponents are stuck in a narrow cul de sac with no answers for the problems of this century and those to come. Judy Rebick and those who are disappointed with the election of Thomas Mulcair as leader would win my admiration if they would spell out how capitalism can be defeated and replaced with a socialist system by participating in what Lenin used to call bourgeois parlimentarianism or if she cannot identify with that objective she could favour us with a vision of how the NDP can achieve political power by adopting the rhetoric of class warfare without any real intention of seeking the overthrow of the class enemy. I, for one, would settle for a government that eschews class warfare in favour of tax fairness, good government and a sustainable future. I admit that there is room in that formulation for the entrepreneur, a vigourous conservative party in opposition, some kind of a working relationship with the chamber of commerce and even support from some sectors of small business but there is also room to establish real fairness, actual sustainability and durable integrity in office. Unlike the idealogues of "free enterprise" who are emeshed in promoting corporate self interest and phony culture war issues, the NDP has a chance to articulate a vision of the future that is at once modern and conservative in the old fashioned sense of valuing that which is worth conserving. I honestly believe that that is ground the ordinary NDP, Liberal, and even some conservative people could share and defend.
Hinting at Mulcair acting inappropriately or unfairly towards women without actually providing examples or other evidence is pretty nasty politics. Also, if you don't participate you can't really complain about the results, can you?
Proving once again that Convention speeches are not as important as some make them out to be. Mulcair's speech was hurried and not as effective as some expected but he still won handily.
I agree with a lot of what Judy says, but my take on Cullen varies to the point were in the end I voted for Mulcair. When it became very clear that Ashton, who I guess Judy dismissed as irrelevant though she had the most left-political and the best delivered of all the speeches, Dewar and Nash had no future in the voting, I once again briefly considered Cullen. His solid pro-market stance reflected the right wing of the social movements, essentially a Green Party position. I could not be convinced that this was more dangerous than Mulcair. The little top hats pinned to supporters’ heads finished off any possible support for Topp. Mulcair was the last man standing. While it is not possible to neglect Political power, it is once again back to building political movements working for collective solutions that will be the backbone of political change.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Once again Canadians will be completely dumbfounded as the Israel Lobby continues to dictate what leaders Canadians can vote for. Once again Canadian commentators will throw the baby out with the bathwater, as they talk about 'progressive values' and winning elections as though they have any say in those matters at all. All four major parties are compromised by Zionist politics - until there is an anti-Zionist political party alternative you can expect the head-scratching to continue as Canadian values are completely scrubbed from the election ballot. I will not vote until Zionism is scrubbed from the ballot. I hope other's do the same.
Thinking about this, "It is too bad that Peggy Nash or Paul Dewar didn't seize the chance of an alliance with this group or that Brian Topp, seeing that he couldn’t win, didn't throw his support to Cullen who could have won. But then I think the party establishment represented by Topp, with a couple of important exceptions like Libby Davies, are more worried about Cullen's politics than Mulcair's."
Perhaps "my view" was clouded because I was a Team Topp supporter but how one could read that Brian "seeing that he couldn't win, didn't throw his support to Cullen who could have won" because Brian stayed 2nd throughout the ballots and we are talking a "strong second".
One could also surmise is why Cullen who "seeing that he couldn't win, didn't throw his support to" Topp - oh I guess that was because he supported Mulcair in the end.
I like Cullen but like another poster, I don't see him much different from Mulcair althought one may think he's packaged differently, like a new progressive in the leadnow style. Sure glad we didn't sell out last election or the NDP wouldn't have become the official opposition and we would have had the libs as the OO, and the capitalist political alliance would have remained safe. You see perhaps the youth, having not been around the Liberal block so to speak, buy into the Liberals are progressive, but Judy you know as well as me they are not but do the progressive trojan horse very election - lol.
I have been a social movement activist for almost as long as Judy and agree with almost everything she says. But in the current political context I believe electoral politics has become a way more important. Social movements in Canada have been able to get the support of a majority of Canadians on issues like climate change, global and domestic poverty, inequality, the need to raise taxes on the rich, etc. It is difficult to do much better than 60% support for progressive causes, yet even with this level of support social movements have been almost completely blocked in getting legislative or government policy change. It was possible to pressure previous governments to do certain things in response to broad social movement campaigns. But not with the Harper government - which is not worried about having to have majority support for anything. It is amazing that Canadian public opinion has remained as progressive as it has been - but this could change given time and the relentless propeganda and power of government in the hands of Harper Conservatives and the systematic attempt to destroy social movements that they have begun. At this time I would argue it is imperitive that all social movement activits shift their efforts to the electoral arena because if we don't stop the Harper Conservatives in the next election everything could be lost. That is why I supported Nathan because only he had a workable plan to defeat the Conservatives and implenet electoral reforms that would make sure they could never form a government again. Mulcair does present some challenges but we should try to keep the pressure on the NDP to move in directions Cullen has been suggesting.
I didn't vote for Mulcair, but the women I know who know him like him. And he's been the Quebec lieutenant for a while, hasn't he? He's been regularly quoted in the Quebec media since he won his seat, so whatever he may or may have had to do with strategy in Quebec (here), he certainly has often been the pubic face of the party. Anyway, I'm with Judy: there has to be pressure from outside the party system if the NDP is to stay true to itself. Mulcair will only be OK as prime minister if he's pressured to be OK, otherwise he'll turn into a Roy Romanow. And may he oppose war.
I live in Quebec, and I'm very relieved that Mulcair won - because no one else of the candidates had any hope of keeping and growing NDP strength here.
I voted for Nikki Ashton on the first round because she alone represented the younger generation in the NDP. It is to this generation we must look for a renewal of left politics in the NDP. I attende an all candidates meeting and watched each of the debates . I fail to see any thing progressive in Cullen;s presentations. His main point was the need of collaboration with the Liberals to defeat the Evil of Harper. Cullen had no analysis of why Harper is evil nor did he really diferentiate between himself and Mulcair.
Aproximately 90% of the votes were cast weeks before the convention so who crossed the floor was irrelivent to the out come of the vote. A few thousan of NDP members like myself struggled for hours to cast our votes all the while knowing the results were already cast and just waiting to be tabulated.
The real problem with the NDP lies in the failure to keep to a program or to offer voters anything different from the Llberals and Conservatives. Voter turnout is falling because None of the Above is the real choice of millions. Voter suppression has been the real winner in elections .
During the last election Layton offered Hope and Honesty to the voters. That message of Hope resunated with voters . I believe that Hope resunated with Quebec voters who parked their vote with the NDP. Notice I said Parked notbecause they voted against the Bloc not for the NDP programitaclly. The Bloc was promoting another refrendum the NDP asmetrical federalism. The NDP may or may not keep the vote in Quebec. If the NDP moves to the center it may lose its base in B.C. and Ontario.
The result of the convention is that the party is very divided with over 43% of those who voted even on the final ballot opting for the candidate other then Mulcair.
You raise some interesting points Judy. The relationship between the NDP and the social movements are at least as strong as each of the parts. That symbiotic relationship benefits both "sides". The social movements have a foot onto Parliament Hill with some influence, voice, solidarity and advice to the party, while the party translates that into votes in elections. Perhaps - notwithstanding real policy differences within and outside the party with Mulcair - his victory is an opportunity to strengthen and expand that relationship.
In his victory speech, Mulcair said that his strategy is to win the next election, in part, by networking and winning over movement activists and groups which are disengaged from electoral politics. I think that should be seen as a positive signal. As well, he has asserted that finding an broader NDP constituency means reaching out to people who don't vote because they don't see the point. That's another positive signal vis a vis Nash and Cullen's push for prioritizing proportional representation.
A process that would enable the social movements and Tom Mulcair to get to know each other better could be a vital first step to building the kind of machine that will be needed to defeat Stephen Harper. Fillmore's comment at the top of the comments lays out a challenge to social movements / ngos. The stakes are too high to substitute sound bites for concrete analysis. There are many creative approaches that can be taken which can help both the social movements and the NDP get closer to their goals.
As Nathan Cullen said, we need to have a respectful conversation and never be afraid of ideas.
"... ending with the New Politics Initiative -- "
Right. I suppose the old Left Caucus, who kept opposition alive in the Party after the Waffle dissolved, and the Socialist Caucus, who get up to 25% of Convention votes on some issues and in elections for some Party offices, are chopped liver? (Ritual disclaimer here ... I am a co-ordinating committee member of the SC and its former website manager, as well as being on the St Paul's NDP executive.)
I was Cullen all the way .
I chose to vote in real time because I thought it would help Nathan get closer to the front.
I am a senior, but a product of the 60's movement, so we saw Nathan as a bro'!
Mulcair certainly had some heavy weights in the NDP supporting him.
Topp was way down on my list.
After watching Thomas on the CBC media scrum today, I must say, I am warming up quickly to him.
I never really liked Jack Layton until the last election.
Remember when Jack was barring Elizabth May from the debates. Boy, did we soc k it to him.
We can do that with Mulcair if he steps out of the circle
There is support for Mulcair because he's ressembles a winner. And there are people in the party who would sell their souls to be a winner. They know how right wing he is on the Middle East. They let him get away with that postion paper of his and no foreign policy debate. They wanted a winner and they got one. It may be that the NDP doesn't have a foreign policy since Layton took over only a domestic policy dressed up as a foreign policy. Thank Jack Layton for that. But Mulcair does have a foreign policy. Wouldn't it be delicious irony if the man from Quebec wound up with a fractured caucus because of his right wing views paving the return of the Bloc?
Hey Judy
I just finished reading your article on rabble and I have a couple of observations to make.
I feel that I need to remark on the fact that as a lifelong Liberal (who sees very little hope
the party of my youth currently in utter shambles) I am excited that Mulcair was elected
as leader of the NDP. I see him as a very viable opponent to Stephen Harper. I sincerely
hope that all members of the NDP party will rally behind him, and not splinter into the
old guard NDP and the new NDP, thereby destroying any hope for our country right now.
And I also have to take issue with your remarks about how he allegedly treats women.
We opened our home this weekend to two women who came from Montreal working
for Mulcair and have been since the last election. They have nothing but praise
to sing about him. Is he perfect? No. Does he need to temper his speeches? Yes.
Is he Jack? No. But nobody else is either. Do they believe in him? Absolutely.
They feel that he is the hope for Canada, and my opinion is that if we don't want
another Conservative majority, we as the 63 percent of Canadians who didn't vote
for Stephen Harper, need to become as excited, heady and exhilarated
as these women are about the possibilities that an NDP government under
Thomas Mulcair might bring to Ottawa.
The view of avoiding electoral politics is naive.
Leftist Politics
Brady argues, and his analysis shows, that the generosity of the welfare state the single best predictor of poverty rates—is strongly related to the strength of institutionalized leftist political influence; that is, the ability of parties of the left, such as the Social Democrats in Europe, Labour in the United Kingdom, and the New Democrats in Canada, to gain and hold political power. It also refers to the ability of these left political parties to influence governing parties to implement public policies under the threat of electoral defeat. This analysis is consistent with data provided in Brady's book which shows that greater left Cabinet share is strongly associated with lower poverty rates. Brady argues that the influence of parties of the left reduces poverty by strengthening the generosity of the welfare state. Parties of the left work closely with organized labour to promote public policies that promote citizen security through better wages, improved employment security, and stronger benefits. Unions contribute to the strength of parties of the left, and parties of the left enable and strengthen the ability of organized labour to form unions. References Brady, D. (2009). Rich democracies, poor people: How politics explain poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.Raphael, D. (2011). Poverty in Canada: Implications for Health and Quality of Life. Forewords by Jack Layton and Rob Ranier. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.
I don't see where else the labour, women's and anti-war movements will go. They could perhaps court membership within the Conservative Party, but I do not think they will find a home there. In the end, these movements will return to the NDP (if, indeed, they ever leave) because only the NDP supports their aims and ambitions.
What is new, I think, is the idea of an NDP that is not *owned* by these movements. This is the NDP that will take seriously more recent campaigns such as those of the environmentalists, the Occupy protestors, cultural and national movements. It is an NDP that has to define itself as aligned to a set of values rather than with a class or movement per se.
It was this - and not some mythical movement to the centre - that attracted me to Thomas Muclair. I feel confident in a party that can reach out to that wider progressive community, not by moving toward the centre, but rather - as Mulcair says - by being the centre toward which these movements will naturally gravitate.
Hmmmmm . . . . interesting comments at the end Judy. Unfortunately, Canada's social movements are pretty much ineffective these days against a power as evil as Harper because they are using weak, outdated tactics. Do they have the courage to make a huge step and develop a cooperative movement that can have some impact on the national scene? http://nickfillmore.blogspot.com/2012/03/part-two-of-three-part-series-what.html