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.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I've seen an interview with Ashton in French on RDI and she did reasonably well (it did sound a bit "basic", but it wasn't painful to listen to)... but she really ought to have someone review the tweets she sends in French, because pretty much every single one of them contains a mistake...
I'm still not clear on whether the French of a number of candidates is suffiently fluent to serve as leader, although I have read that Cullen's is better than Dewars and both are "functionally bilingual".
Just thought I would add the following link to an article:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Cullen+tries+unconventional+approach/5748352/story.html
I would remind you all that, at this point in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race of 2009, maybe 200 members could have told you who Ryan Meili was. He came second on the first ballot, ahead of a senior MLA and a former party president, coming within less than 1,000 votes of winning on the second ballot.
Might I suggest that there are several possibilities where you offer a single conjoint one. It could be a lack of capacity in the early stages. It could be a failure to understand the importance of the event. It could be a deliberate decision to bypass what one friend of mine used to call "the activist elite." It could be a combination of two or more of the foregoing.
In the early days of the Meili campaign, it was often difficult to find an (appropriate) available proxy to atend events if Ryan wasn't able to do so. Nonetheless, as noted above . . .
The way Mulcair stands out is not on the amount of issues on which he takes stands, and the depth he does or does not put into it.
It is just like I said: he studiously aims for all things to all people, and steers clear of everything else.
It is early, but I am saying that Mulcair's strategy is evident, and unless he drops that strategy, we will see him continue to take the fewest, narrowest and safest stands possible.
There is no question that even with the little he said, Topp created an opening around issues. While other candidates have not got the same attention, they have put attention getting issues out there and will no doubt develop them in the course of the campaign [as will Topp with his].
Name me one issue Mulcair has put out there to be developed- even for now just as a hint.
Lets not base our arguments on mere speculation.
How are we progressives any better than market speculation which has let us to these bad economic times if we base our arguments on such unproveable things? Lets be patient and wait for the debates/full policy releases.
It is not just speculation.
Mulcair has a strategy that plays both sides- positioning himself as the safe centrist, while saying soothing [but only general] things to indicate otherwise to the base. "I want to bring the centre to the NDP."
In his case, I argue that it is not just too early to be expecting policy pronouncements... we will never see anything that deviates from the very safe.
Mulcair is free to prove me wrong, and I would love to see it.
Nor do I think it is at all premature to pursue this argument. I see people taking that line of bring the centre to the NDP and read into it what they want to believe. If you are comfortable with getting a centrist, then its not an issue. But for the rest, I am pointing out that is a blank cheque until Mulcair puts something on to it.
Blank checks get you governments like we have in Nova Scotia. And its not like I am difficult to please- unlike probably the bulk of opinion around here, I think MB and SK did get from their NDP governments something different enough than they would have got from the alternatives.
Here is something you might find refreshing KenS.
Mulcair is going to be adressing the Omnibus Crime Bill, a subject most polliticians are too gutless to deal with. Even most of the NDP members run for cover rather than risk being labelled soft on crime.
Hope you can make it to Toronto for the fundraiser.
Fundraising Event for
THOMAS MULCAIR
Candidate for the leadership of the Federal NDP
Monday Dec. 5th , 6pm
#103-30 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto
Come meet Tom Mulcair and hear him speak on the
Omnibus Crime Legislation now before Parliament, and on other national issues
You will receive a tax credit of as much as 75% depending on the size of your donation!
The minimum donation of $100 will cost you $25
Food & drink provided
RSVP to Christa Wong c/o James Lockyer at cwong@lcp-law.com
Hosted by Lockyer Campbell Posner and Zaduk & Kostopoulos
Look there is no need to be so testy. I observed what I observed. The thing is anyway you slice it it was a mistake. Beyond the usual crowd there were also a number of provincial candidates in attendance as special guests for a couple of campaign wraps ups. They are opinion leaders within the party at the riding level at least. This was something a serious candidate should have been at and/or sent someone to at least put out flyers. For a struggling campaign it was also a great place to recruit volunteers, rather than sneering at their commitment like you do in your post.
Is it an unrecoverable mistake? Of course not. But people are starting to focus and if a campaign can't get something to a meeting of so many New Democrats under one roof- all of whom will be making reports back to their riding, it is hard for me to take a campaign seriously, even when I really, really want to with one of the absent.
The email link should be correct Gaian. If it doesn't work you can RSVP Crista At Lockyer's office at 416-847-2560.
James Lockyer is a hero to the wrongly convicted in this country, having been instrumental in righting numerous signal injustices - Guy Paul Morin, Romeo Philion, Steven Truscott, David Milgaard and many others.
His endorsement of Tom is a very significant one in the legal community and beyond
Does Niki Ashton have a leaflet printed yet? If it's still at the printers, that would be early lack of capacity as you suggest, not necessarily fatal. If it was a failure to understand the importance of an ONDP provincial council meeting, that's not understandable. Either way, BA is correct: I and everyone else at this large meeting came home noting that Niki Ashton did not appear to be really in the race, which is very disappointing to the smitten.
@ Gain: talking about issues is easy, it is what you propose to do about them that we are talking about.
+++++++++++++++++++++
If Mulcair actually says something on the crime bill at that event that is differentiated and gets widely reported rather than being just words for a friendly audience... I get to eat my hat!
I should eat 5 of them.
Agreed, very significant.
I can't tell whether James Lockyer's endorsement is on Mulcair's website. It should be.
The reason I can't tell is because his website has neither an endorsers page nor a search feature. Odd. But I looked at the News page and it doesn't seem to be there. Also odd.
http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/?lang=en
And she picked the Press Gallery Dinner over ONDP Provincial Council/Leaders Levee, which may be the worse sin.
She could have been at Council in the morning and lunch break, and flown to Ottawa for the Dinner. I don't consider choosing the Press Gallery over the Leader's Levee sinful, and I note Mulcair agreed; he spoke to a decent group at lunch time, and had been so visible I didn't notice him leave early. If he could manage it, why couldn't Ashton????
Agreed, Wilf. Council was more important, though I know of a lot more New Dems who were at the Levee but not Council.
Endorsers page:
http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/supporters/?lang=en
And I've created my own search page - just add your search terms here:
Home-made search page
Works not too bad.
You know, KenS, I naivley thought you might actually be impressed by Mulcair taking a stand on the Omnibus Crime Bill. Instead we get the same kneejerk negativism. Is it possibible you are not entirely objective when it come to Mulcair?
Where is this stand on the bill nicky?
You reproduced a poster here. That is all I have seen.
It could easliy have been an either/or. Word would have gotten around either way. And as I said early I don't begrudge anyone a scheduling conflict. We all have them in life and we aren't running for leader of a national party. What I can't understand is zero visibility in any form. Given the late announcement I would have thought all the communication ducks were in order, so that the campaign could hit the ground running, and they should be, but this is a straight out mistake and reveals a real weakness. Which is too bad, because like Wilf I would like to see Niki Ashton do well, well and tell me what is 'new' in her new politics.
Which is supposed to be a response to this:
If you were not just harrasing that should suffice as an answer.
Substantively: You are looking for people to at least mention the issue you see as the most important.
I am looking for what is proposed to do about the issues.
To elaborate where Mulcair fits in: he can talk about an issue, and that binds him to no action in the future. That includes for example if he is going to feature a talk on the Ominbus Crime Bill. What counts is differentiation of what you will do as Leader- even in general terms. If Mulcair takes a stand on the Omnibus Crime Bill that is different than the critical but cautios stuff you get from the NDP- that means something. Demonstrating you are aware of the issues means sweet fuck all.
I would like to hear Mulcair's thoughts on the Omnibus Crime Bill. I hope we can get them without what seems to be the requisite shot from his campaign each time that others are somehow not as righteous as him.
While we're at it, I'd like to know his thoughts on P3 projects like the Pont Champlain too, because I hear he sat on his hands during the debate on that resolution in Alma.
What is the deadline for membership and being able to vote?
When I hear, I'll plop that in to when I think we should expect to see evidence of campaign organizational strengths.
Right now, that would be a surmise based on the little in appearances that gets through even to avid watchers.
I didn't get the impression in Toronto this weekend that Dewar was all that organized. If, for example, you are promising pizza to people to lure them in to your meet 'n greet, you should probably actually have pizza. It is a very small thing, and is hardly going to sink a campaign, but it speaks to getting the details right, which is one way of testing organizational strength and capacity.
Given the way a call I received went to help Brian Topp be visible at an event I am not terribly convinced they are all that well organized. I think that is an assumption based on reputation.
Peggy Nash has some really good people around her, so the slow start will likely pick up steam. The coup endorsement they received yesterday will help that. And Peggy herself is a strong campaigner.
I am getting the sense that Romeo Saganash might be a dark horse in all of this. They seem organized, have some very energetic folks behind them and Saganash himself is compelling. I predict he will be in the race much longer than anyone is expecting. They might be flying under the radar a bit as they are organizing outside the usual areas that get all the attention.
Mulcair has a lot of royal jelly about him, and I certainly was impressed by his direct answers to questions I asked both privately and publicly, but I haven't seen a lot of organization around him. I am sure it is there, but to date I haven't seen much outreach.
The rest are losing the organizational race by a mile.