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 23

132 replies [Last post]

Comments

Malcolm
Offline
Joined: Mar 14 2004

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

. . . and you can bet there will be those who will remember that [Mulcair] was the only candidate who wasn't there.

 

And you can also bet that there will be those very quick to remind anyone who forgot.


Malcolm
Offline
Joined: Mar 14 2004

knownothing wrote:

The party takes stances on issues that aren't settled at conventions or in federal caucus so who makes these decisions?

A lot of it depends, of course, on how fast and unexpectedly an issue emerges.  Sometimes the party's position ends up being established by the leader (or sometimes the caucus spokesperson) almost on the fly - and sometimes they get it wrong.

On a fast emerging issue, if the leader (or whoever) responds too quickly, it can be very difficult to change course if it becomes necessary or appropriate.

Best example of this, I think, was Ed Broadbent's ill-advised decision to support the Trudeau constitutional package in the early 80s without having consulted anyone at all.  There was no need for an immediate response.  Broadbent would have looked sage and statesmanlike to say "I'm going to examine the proposal in more detail and consult with party leaders from across Canada."  Within a matter of days he could have consulted fairly broadly and (ideally) come to an agreed position.  And even if an agreed position wasn't possible, we could have dealt with the division with far less acrimony.

Instead, the caucus, the party president and the only NDP premier in the country ended up finding out "our" position" from the news media.  We got a split betwen the federal leader and the only NDP premier in the country, with the "gang of four" in caucus (Nystrom, Anguish, Hovdebo and deJong) bucking the leadership.  At convention, we ended up in a position where the party membership split approximately 60/40 (with at least some of the 60 motivated by the desire to support the leader rather than a clear position on the substantive issue).

(The most annoying part was the end of the convention debate, where one particular SOB from the ONDP decided to make it an issue of who did or didn't love Canada.  Nice way to alienate 40% of the membership.)

Had Allan Blakeney's leadership at the ensuing first ministers conferences not resulted in an alternative deal (which, of course, created its own problems), the NDP might well have been irrevocably split between a populist west and a synicalist ONDP.


Malcolm
Offline
Joined: Mar 14 2004

scott16 wrote:

Also are there any candidates from Saskatchewan and/or the prairies?

 

Churchill (MB) MP Niki Ashton is widely expected to run.  Otherwise the closest thing to a prairie candidate would be Brian Topp, who was deputy chief of staff to Roy Romanow for several years.  Brian was born in Montreal and lives in Toronto.


ottawaobserver
Offline
Joined: Feb 24 2008

This Q-and-A profile with Mulcair in Le Soleil uncovers the fact that in his private law practice, when he took on labour issues it was always on the union side.


Wilf Day
Offline
Joined: Oct 31 2002
knownothing wrote:
I feel at a loss because I don't understand how the power structure of the party works. The party takes stances on issues that aren't settled at conventions or in federal caucus so who makes these decisions? Is it the party president? Secretary to the Leader? Ed Broadbent? Unions? Can someone explain this to me?

The late great Harold Winch, in a rare cynical moment in the 60's, once described the policy resolution process to a bunch of young New Democrats as follows: "The convention refers it to the Council. The Council refers it to the Executive. The Executive refers it to the Table Officers. The Table Officers refer it to the Caucus. And the Caucus refers it to the wastebasket."


flight from kamakura
Offline
Joined: Nov 24 2006

Stockholm wrote:

One thing about Mulcair - for a guy who was supposedly angling for the leadership - it seems to be that he has never really gone out of his way up to now to be visible among New Democrats outside of Quebec. I don't see him having any presence on facebook or twitter, I have never heard of him speaking at NDP gatherings outside Quebec. I never hear about him campaigning for the NDP in provincial elections. I go to a lot of NDP social events and conventions and Mulcair is never "present". In fact he is the only person running (along with Saganash) for leader who i have never so much as shaken hands with. If i didn't know any better i would think he was a bit reclusive.

the guy was all around doing events for the ontario election, and anyway, as we've all said before, he's a household name in quebec... because he has been ndp on in quebec 24/7 for 5 years.  i've never seen libby davies or nathan culllen or even pat martin in quebec.  you know, there were a lot of mps working to get mulcair elected in 07, but like 3 of them spoke french. just saying.


flight from kamakura
Offline
Joined: Nov 24 2006

ottawaobserver wrote:

Speaking of jumping all over newly-joined Babble members, which I suppose some folks believe I did to Azana over comments she dug up from Mulcair during his time in Quebec City that were marshalled to argue he is anti-labour ...

I thought it might be worthwhile to dig up his speech on the June filibuster motion, because I remember at the time Peggy Nash tweeting that he had just given a barn-burner.

Here is the introduction and wrap up (and follow this link for the full thing). Tell me if it sounds anti-labour to you.

Thomas Mulcair in the House of Commons, June 23, 2011 wrote:

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP):      Mr. Speaker, sometimes debate influences a government's actions and also public perception.

     If Canadians initially had the impression that the Conservatives were a heartless and untrustworthy bunch who flouted human rights and freedoms, well, the government's actions are now giving credence to this perception.

     If there is one area where good faith must prevail, it is labour relations. The Supreme Court has told us that labour relations are guaranteed by the charter because they constitute a subset of our economic rights, our freedom of expression, and our freedom of association.

     What have we seen over recent weeks from this Conservative government? Why does Canadians' mistrust of the Conservatives now appear justified?

     Let us consider the government's concrete actions, and the response we have heard here today. To begin with, this is a crown corporation. The government owns the corporation on behalf of all Canadians, and it has the last word when it comes to what Canada Post Corporation does. Throughout the bargaining process-with the government on one side, and employees and their union representatives on the other-everything was going along swimmingly. There were a number of attempts by the employees-legitimately and according to their rights-to voice their point of view through rotating strikes, for example, which did not significantly affect service to the public.

     That was one way for the employees, who had the right to strike, to say that the bargaining process had gone off track, and to give us a sense of the steps they intended to take to make management see reason.

     What happened then? The very same Canada Post Corporation, owned by the government, locked out its own employees. They locked their doors, with the employees on the outside. The government, through one of its own bodies, a crown corporation, has shut its employees outside and is keeping them there. Then they turn around and look at the situation they just created and pretend to be surprised, saying, "For God's sake, this cannot go on like this. Look, these people have stopped working." That is how one of the Conservative backbenchers just put it.

    "We have to bring these people back to work".

    Those creeps, those things, as if they were not citizens endowed with all due rights, which they are exercising in a calm, practical way under legislation duly passed by the House of Commons. That is what we are talking about here. These are people who exercised a right guaranteed by legislation passed by this House. Not content just to trifle with this, showing their usual bad faith, the Conservatives are going so far today as to tell us that they are not only going to throw these people out but they are going to lock the doors and come up with a solution to the problem they just created themselves by throwing these people out. Special legislation will be passed to deprive them of their rights, even though those rights are guaranteed under the Charter and in legislation passed by the House of Commons.

     This is not a new way of doing things. My colleague from Vancouver East already showed us how the very same thing was done in 1997 by a Liberal government. It was very interesting the other day to hear certain leading lights of the Liberal Party pretending to be outraged by the tactics employed by the Conservatives when they are a carbon copy of Bill C-34 passed by a Liberal government in 1997.

     Governments change but the tactics remain the same. When it comes to showing respect for working people and their rights, what the Conservatives are doing is clearly in line with all the social and economic policies of the Conservative government. It is as if we were in the early 1980s, in the Reagan era with the air traffic controllers. What could be better for a government of the far right than to flex its muscles at the expense of working people, look at its Reform Party base and say, "Finally you can see why you supported us from the beginning. We will put working people in their place". The Conservatives will do that, even though the bad faith is as obvious as it is right now.

     It is the Conservatives who are imposing a lockout, bolting the door themselves, throwing everybody out, and saying how terrible it is that these people are not working anymore. But it is the Conservatives who locked them out, and now because they are not working any more, the Conservatives want special legislation to force them back to work. The funny thing is that the Conservatives are even going so far as to copy from the Liberals' legislation the part where the Liberals lowered the salary offers already on the table. Several of my colleagues, including the hon. member for Chicoutimi-Le Fjord, asked about this. But as we all heard, there was no answer.

    They cannot answer because this makes absolutely no sense. If the objective is to settle a dispute between an employer and its employees, they would have at least put on the table what the two parties had already agreed on. But no, the Conservatives are rubbing salt in the wounds of workers who were just locked out and telling them not only that they are the bad guys for getting locked out, but also that they are being punished and getting less than they managed to agree on with the employer. They are being told they should have been happy with the crumbs they had been offered. Now even the crumbs are being taken away, because they did not appreciate the fact that their employer is a good employer and they should have accepted whatever they were offered. So it is their fault.

....

    At the beginning of my speech, I said that the right to negotiate working conditions, the right to join forces with other workers to negotiate working conditions, and the right to collectively withdraw the offer of work in accordance with the law when the collective agreement has expired and all other conditions have been met are rights that are guaranteed under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and recognized by courts across Canada.

    There was initially some indecision in this regard, particularly in terms of the RCMP's right to unionize, but all these issues are currently being upheld by the courts. These rights are a subset of the rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am thinking of our freedom of association, our freedom to work with others to ensure that these same rights are respected and our freedom to speak out when those conditions are not met.

    The moment the government enters into the negotiations, a major conflict of interest is created. When that same government controls the employer and the tools through a majority government in the House, it is a complete conflict of interest. The basic obligation to demonstrate good faith in all negotiations is even more important when this clear conflict of interest exists.

    Rather than rising above the fray, the Conservative government is playing a shamelessly partisan game. That is why the New Democratic Party, which has always understood the role it plays in defending the rights of workers, will stand up and do everything in its power to stop this despicable and draconian bill from passing.

[emphasis added]

I went to this trouble not because I support Mulcair as leader at this stage, but because I want a fair and dispassionate consideration of all the leadership candidates. Dig up a couple of clippings if you like, but don't stop there in your research. There are a number of trade unionists in our Quebec caucus supporting Mulcair (and some not, or not yet). I'm assuming they wouldn't be doing so if they thought he was anti-labour.

honestly, what's not to love?


dacckon
Offline
Joined: May 19 2011

Any online streams about today's meeting in alberta?


dacckon
Offline
Joined: May 19 2011
Azana
Offline
Joined: Oct 12 2011

ottawaobserver wrote:

Speaking of jumping all over newly-joined Babble members, which I suppose some folks believe I did to Azana over comments she dug up from Mulcair during his time in Quebec City that were marshalled to argue he is anti-labour ...

I thought it might be worthwhile to dig up his speech on the June filibuster motion, because I remember at the time Peggy Nash tweeting that he had just given a barn-burner.

Here is the introduction and wrap up (and follow this link for the full thing). Tell me if it sounds anti-labour to you.

Thomas Mulcair in the House of Commons, June 23, 2011 wrote:

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP):      Mr. Speaker, sometimes debate influences a government's actions and also public perception.

 

    At the beginning of my speech, I said that the right to negotiate working conditions, the right to join forces with other workers to negotiate working conditions, and the right to collectively withdraw the offer of work in accordance with the law when the collective agreement has expired and all other conditions have been met are rights that are guaranteed under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and recognized by courts across Canada.

    There was initially some indecision in this regard, particularly in terms of the RCMP's right to unionize, but all these issues are currently being upheld by the courts. These rights are a subset of the rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am thinking of our freedom of association, our freedom to work with others to ensure that these same rights are respected and our freedom to speak out when those conditions are not met.

    The moment the government enters into the negotiations, a major conflict of interest is created. When that same government controls the employer and the tools through a majority government in the House, it is a complete conflict of interest. The basic obligation to demonstrate good faith in all negotiations is even more important when this clear conflict of interest exists.

    Rather than rising above the fray, the Conservative government is playing a shamelessly partisan game. That is why the New Democratic Party, which has always understood the role it plays in defending the rights of workers, will stand up and do everything in its power to stop this despicable and draconian bill from passing.

[emphasis added]

I went to this trouble not because I support Mulcair as leader at this stage, but because I want a fair and dispassionate consideration of all the leadership candidates. Dig up a couple of clippings if you like, but don't stop there in your research. There are a number of trade unionists in our Quebec caucus supporting Mulcair (and some not, or not yet). I'm assuming they wouldn't be doing so if they thought he was anti-labour.

Thanks for this OO. I find it somewhat reassuring that Mulcair is in the right party. I'm still not convinced he's the best candidate for leadership given what he has said in the past.

I was feeling particularly attacked on babble. Not so much from you. I found Gaian's comments way off base and considered reporting her comment as inappropriate. Instead, I'll repeat them here:

Gaian:

I watched CPAC for more than a day as young New Democrat MPs and old, right across all of the ridings, stood in Parliament and argued passionately regarding the unfairness of a government that would allow the locking out of postal workers and then denial of their bargaining rights.

Would the people bleating about the anti-union tenor of some elements in the New Democratic Party please cut the anti-NDP rhetoric? It is becoming a bit bloody much. Keep your remarks positive and about the person you support. That's the Layton way. Shove up your derriere the remarks about a candidate where you are apparently willing to damage the party in the process. Do not say again that you are only out to reform the party and expect it to be believed if you are ready to damage the party in the process.

Gaian, that is an unfair and total mischaracterisation of what I said. I don't find the NDP to be anti-labour at all. That would be insane. I was as proud as you when I heard the Commons debate on the postal worker question. My concern is with one leadership candidate.

It is not anti-NDP to question a leadership candidate's earlier statements. Mulcair was denounced by the CSN for his anti worker statement. It is a fact that I did not make up. I have every right to wonder, here on babble, if he'd be good or bad for the party. Am I, and everyone else here, supposed to silence ourselves on significant concern out of fear we will damage the party? And do you actually think anthing that a person like me says here can possibly damage the party? If thats true, then thank you. You have a greated opinion of my abilities than I do.

There have been plenty of negative comments about candidates here. It's not un-Layton like to bring them up in a way that's honest and not insulting. It is perfectly appropriate for someone to voice their concern that Brian Topp doesn't have the experience that they think is necessary for the job. It's a negative comment, but a reasonable one that Brian has to take seriously. I believe my comments about Mulcair's history was in the same, perfectly acceptable, vein. I never invited him and his supporters to shove anything anywhere. I never claimed that people who have the audacity to question Brian Topp's ability are attacking and harming the NDP.

By the way, my intention is not to reform the party. The party is great the way it is. I don't want a leader who may damage the party by reforming it down to its core beliefs.


dacckon
Offline
Joined: May 19 2011

People change. Tom Mulcair may have become more progressive as a result of being in the NDP for so long. Tony Blair once declared(this may have been a lie) himself a very very very long time ago as being on the left of the labour party. Former blairite ministers today are now saying that they screwed up and blinded themselves to the market. We must judge people on the policies they present to the membership. If we pick and choose quotes to justify assumptions, then how are we truely understanding what they are offering to the party. Let them release their policies, release their bio, do a couple of rallies, and some debates before we judge them.

You know, people here at babble attacked Topp for the romanow endorsement. And when Libby Davies endorsed Topp, a small few roughly called Libby a traitor. But there are even more silly extremes we should not follow, As I was checking NDP pundits guide, I saw a tweet by a guy called JewishNDP who said that Topp's Libby endorsement was akin to getting an endorsement from Arafat.(Which by the diction used, was negative, although I don't see how one can attribute fatah to the root of all evil in the current conflict today). Let's not rush to attack people we don't fully know yet, unless we wish to look like fools.

Anywho, Here is an AWESOME analysis of the race so far. And also a Singh story


JeffWells
Offline
Joined: Dec 15 2003

dacckon wrote:

Anywho, Here is an AWESOME analysis of the race so far.

Thanks for the link, that is the best I've read yet. Particularly wonderful on the shortcomings of the media's own analysis.


ravenj
Offline
Joined: Apr 1 2004

I got the Topp email (in Ontario).  I can only guess my email address was provided by the federal party, and that other candidates have equal access to the party mailing list.  I will be extremely displeased if Topp somehow got the inside track.


Brian Topp
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2006

ravenj wrote:

I got the Topp email (in Ontario).  I can only guess my email address was provided by the federal party, and that other candidates have equal access to the party mailing list.  I will be extremely displeased if Topp somehow got the inside track.

Just to reassure you, all campaigns are given access to the membership list once their filings are complete.

vaudree
Offline
Joined: Sep 7 2001

Re Jack: I think that the NDP MPs knew more than we did since their twitter accouts were very quite after Jack announced he was stepping down for a while. I saw a picture of Jack at Pride that Olivia posted where he did not look very well and still, with the announcement, I was hoping it would be positive like Olivia becoming pregnant.

Re Mulcair Liberal: The 20-22 years olds are young enough than they have never been anything else but NDP. The Media can do the old Mulcair=Bob Rae bit - and, though it wasn't all his fault, Bob Rae's record has been haunting the NDP in Ontario for years.


Steelworkers say that their Quebec Branch speaks for itself and hints strongly that it did not endorce Topp.

RE: "I laugh every time I hear Tories say they're gonna attack Tom Mulcair for having a temper the way they attacked Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff on other fronts."

Compared to John Baird, Jason Kenney and any notable curling champion - including Russ Howard? Mulcair dissed Libby and some people won't forgive him for that.

Stephen Harper wearing glasses has made him seem less intimidating to some.

RE: Topp letter LOL about the cat! He does have a sense of humour. His sons being in the arts and his wife keeping her own name also sounds good - since both are a contrast to Harper's way of things. Was it my imagination or was there better music at Jack's funeral than for Will and Kate when they came?

RE: "Angry, negative campaigning works better for Conservatives than for social democrats, because it motivates conservative voters while persuading progressives not to vote."

True. Obama was good at getting digs in at his opponents when running for President without appearing to do so - think Topp is planning a similar strategy. Though I do sense a dig in what surrounds the above quote against Mulcair.

PS. Am I the only one getting tired of that commercial where Kevin O'Leary keeps talking about his testes?

 


Lord Palmerston
Online
Joined: Jan 25 2004

Obama is a "social democrat" now?


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

Reposting here a couple comments I made in that excellent Pundits guide survey of the race linked above already.

 

Quote:

Very true about the campaigns not being dependent on the media.

The media is used for announcements and other things to 'drop out there' to get attention and to set out markers.

Even at this early stage when some of the campaigns are only barely organized, and none of them are really sure how to incorpoarate the new means of communication, the candidates are already getting through to members and supporters and beginning to identify themselves through other channels.

So yes, the media is even worse advised than usual to presume they can read the shape and contours of the campaign through how it is being 'reported'.

It is nice to for a change have the confidence for once that the typical media distortions will not matter in the end.

At this early stage the majority of members have still not heard that much... so a higher percentage of what they have heard comes via the media 'filter'.

And it is irritating to hear people repeat some of the baseless interpretations. I do not like hearing it even about candidates I am not likely to support.

Irritating, but not concerning. These are our stories and our discussions we will tell each other- like all politics should be.

 

 


Idealistic Prag...
Offline
Joined: Aug 29 2011

The Pundits' Guide piece is definitely the best thing that's been written on the race so far. It does suffer a bit from what looks like a regional bias rooted in what I can only assume is a lack of familiarity with some of the candidates, though. It has a long paragraph or two each on Topp, Mulcair, and Dewar, a shorter paragraph on Saganash, and then an attempt to sum up Ashton, Cullen, and Chisholm in a single sentence between the three of them. The unfortunate impression this gives is that these three come across as the also-rans. Given that Ashton and Chisholm are not yet in the race, that's probably not unfair, but judging from what I saw at the Alberta conference and the Occupy Edmonton rally yesterday, Cullen already has a very active campaign with a lot of grassroots support that is definitely not just based around the environment.


Gaian
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2011
"Keep your remarks positive and about the person you support. That's the Layton way." Hell, if Jack could do that in the face of Baird's attacks, surely professed New Democrats can do it in an environment controlled largely by a MSM that are going to root out whatever history they can that might embarrass. In fact, it's the only bloody time they show any concern for history.

Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

I'm trying to think back to the 2002/03 race for the NDP leadership and to what extent it ever got "nasty". I know that by backstabbing Liberal standards - what passes for being negative in an NDP leadership contest is usually a joke. Nonetheless I think there was some sniping here and there. The Blaikie people went on and on about how the party would be destroyed if it had a leader with no parliamentary experience and no seat. There were a lot of whispers (possibly coming from the Layton camp) about whether Blaikie's French was non-existent or just very sub-standard. There were whispers here and there about whether the west and northern Ontario would reject a leader from downtown Toronto since "everyone" hates Toronto! There were also rumours circulating that Layton was a far left extremist who was totally controlled by Buzz Hargrove (lol). Am I forgetting anything?

Of course in that 2002 contest the NDP was the 4th party and the media was paying almost no attention to the race - a few acerbic comments by Blaikie or Nystrom went unreported. In contrast, Topp and Mulcair etc... can the media's residents "NDPologists" dissect every word they say to determien if they "attacked" one another!


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

BTW: Does the Socialist Caucus still exist? I thought for sure they would run a candidate for the leadership like they did with Bev Meslo in 2002. If they do still exist will they bother endorsing anyone? So far the MPs who are most associated with being on the left of the party seem to be all over the map. Libby Davies and Alexandre Boulerice are for Topp. But then again Mathieu Ravignat and Philip Toone are for Mulcair...

I predict that at some point the three or four pepple who make up that "faction" will hold a news conference to announce with great fanfare that they are endorsing Brian Topp for leader. Then if and when Topp wins the leadership, Barry Weisleder will claim that the only reason he won was the "critically important" (not) last-minute endorsement by the Socialist Caucus!


Bärlüer
Offline
Joined: Aug 20 2007

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

flight from kamakura wrote:
across quebec today, loads of articles on mulcair's candidacy, including interviews with regional ndp mps.  the most interesting and tenor-setting will come on saturday (tomorrow) when vincent marissal publishes a long-form article on thomas mulcair.  this will likely be big, and cover everything about the guy, good and bad, so we'll get a sense of what sticks thenceforth.

FFK, could you post a link to this when it appears? Yes, despite the language barrier. Thanks!

I'm not FFK, but here's a link to the Marissal piece. The piece is actually not very long... and it's not particularly interesting either.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

Stockholm wrote:

I predict that at some point the three or four pepple who make up that "faction" will hold a news conference to announce with great fanfare that they are endorsing Brian Topp for leader. Then if and when Topp wins the leadership, Barry Weisleder will claim that the only reason he won was the "critically important" (not) last-minute endorsement by the Socialist Caucus!

Why is this reactionary socialist-bashing permitted here??? Undecided


AnonymousMouse
Offline
Joined: Sep 19 2011

jerrym wrote:

I am concerned about Topp's promise to take the high road in dealing with Harper (it might be appropriate or not) while taking the low negative road in attacking Mulcair for being negative and not being in the party for a long time. I do not know yet who I will vote for leader, but this does not impress me and makes it less likely that I will vote for him. Mulcair also could have avoided commenting on Topp's electoral inexperience, although I don't think this was as severe as Topp's attack. It is very early in the campaign and the attacks on both sides could get a lot worse if everybody starts playing tit for tat.

----------

Topp promises to take high road

Mulcair's negativity won't defeat Harper, candidate says as he heads to Surrey

By Peter O'Neil, Vancouver Sun October 15, 2011

Brian Topp heads to Surrey on Sunday, possibly the NDP's most crucial political battleground, while taking aim at his famously hottempered rival Thomas Mulcair.

Topp, a candidate for the New Democratic Party leadership, is telling party members the NDP can't succeed by using anger and negativity to defeat Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Topp's declaration follows the announcement Thursday that Mulcair, the combative Quebec MP nicknamed "The Grizzly," had entered the leadership race with the support of a third of the party's 102-member caucus.

"I don't believe that straight negative campaigns aimed at the Conservatives will defeat them," Topp said Friday, noting that the Liberal party failed miserably in its hardball campaign against the Tories. He acknowledged that his nice-versus-nasty comment was in relation to Mulcair's candidacy.

Topp heads to Surrey on Sunday for a campaign-style event where a number of provincial and federal politicians will endorse his candidacy.

On Thursday, former Saskatchewan MP Lorne Nystrom, Mulcair's most prominent backer, said New Democrats need a leader like Mulcair who is a "fighter" to "get in the ring" with Harper.

Topp challenged Nystrom's proposition in an email sent out to roughly 30,000 New Democrats, about a third of the total party membership.

"The style of our next campaign may emerge as a point of debate in this leadership race. In my view, we won't defeat Mr. Harper by 'taking him on,' by 'hammering' him, or by 'facing him down,'" Topp wrote. "Angry, negative campaigning works better for Conservatives than for social democrats, because it motivates Conservative voters while persuading progressives not to vote." Topp, in his "let me say hello" letter, said Jack Layton's "propositional" approach that focused on policy solutions rather than attacks is the way to win government. Topp, derided by Mulcair for never having been elected to public office in his life, also drew attention to Mulcair's "relatively brief" time in a party that usually values loyalty and commitment to principles over political skills.

Has anyone ever heard Mulcair referred to as "The Grizzly"? Very strange.


Wilf Day
Offline
Joined: Oct 31 2002
Bärlüer wrote:

here's a link to the Marissal piece. The piece is actually not very long... and it's not particularly interesting either.

On the contrary, I find it very interesting. I love most of the picture it paints. But parts are damaging to Mulcair:

Quote:
Un ancien collègue ministre de M. Mulcair affirme que le différend à propos du mont Orford n'est pas la seule raison du divorce Charest-Mulcair. «Tom avait des relations extrêmement tendues avec ses collègues, il voyait des ennemis là où il n'y en avait pas et c'était devenu intenable, dit son ancien confrère du Cabinet» . . . Lucide, il reconnaît toutefois que la bataille pour la succession de Jack Layton s'annonce difficile. «Je sais très bien que je ne suis pas le candidat de l'establishment du parti, dit-il. Je veux sortir des sentiers battus, faire les choses autrement, comme je l'ai fait au Québec, je veux recruter du nouveau monde. Einstein disait que la définition de la folie est de toujours se comporter de la même manière et de s'attendre à un résultat différent. L'establishment a un comportement classique, normal, de peur du changement.»
Quote:
A former colleague of Minister Mulcair says the dispute over Mount Orford was not the only reason for the Charest-Mulcair divorce. "Tom had extremely tense relations with his colleagues, he saw enemies where there were none, and it became untenable, said his former Cabinet colleague." . . Lucid, he recognizes that the battle to succeed Jack Layton will be difficult. "I know very well that I am not the candidate of the party establishment, he said. I want to think outside the box, do things differently, like I did in Quebec, I want to recruit "du nouveau monde" (translation?). Einstein said the definition of insanity is to always behave the same way and expect a different result. The establishment has a normal, classic behavior, fear of change."

By the way, google translates "il a vraiment pété une fuse" as "he really farted a fuse." I love the phrase, but is it the correct translation?


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Meh - I'd say something like, "he really blew a gasket".

 


dacckon
Offline
Joined: May 19 2011

Nothing new, also nothing new, some images of the candidates in Edmonton, and the same old media assumptions.


Bärlüer
Offline
Joined: Aug 20 2007

"pété une fuse" = "blew a fuse"

(Written "pété", but pronounced "pêté". A widespread variation on the expression is "pété une coche".)

"du nouveau monde" = "new people", tout simplement

As for the substance of the article:

To me, it's mostly a rehashing of known stories (for the political aficionado). I expected more new information (and more of an in-depth look).

The stuff that relates to unions, in particular, is not handled very well. Marissal sort of implies that the Steelworkers' Topp endorsement is somehow a reaction to fears about Mulcair's stance on trade unionism. Furthermore, it would have been much more interesting to read about the sort of comments Azana quoted in these threads rather than Mulcair's comments on "meta", race-related issues (the carve-out). On the "defense" side, Marissal mentioned Mulcair's involvement in his union when he was a civil servant, but failed to mention the interesting (and new-to-me) information that he worked on union-side mandates when he was a lawyer in private practice (this appeared in Mulcair's bio on his leadership bid website).


AnonymousMouse
Offline
Joined: Sep 19 2011

Wilf Day wrote:

Quote:
"A former colleague of Minister Mulcair says ... said his former Cabinet colleague."

Remember, this is a comment from a Minister in a cabinet that Mulcair left in protest over an issue that made Mulcair the most popular politician in Quebec and disgraced the government.


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

AnonymousMouse wrote:

Has anyone ever heard Mulcair referred to as "The Grizzly"? Very strange.

It sounds like a slur to me, but maybe I'm over-reacting. I think of all the candidates, Mulcair is the one I associate with 'bonhomie', although I suspect Brian Topp has a friendly and good-natured character as well; I just don't know him as well as I know Mulcair through the media.


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