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
If there's a legitimate downward trend, it's because there's nothing about the NDP to follow. The race is boring. No major issues. Our heavy hitters aren't in Parliament. The big headlines belong to Bob Rae, or no one. (Certainly not the Bloc.)
The polls are very soft and no one has actually done anything of note to steal NDP support. I doubt we will hit 20%. What ground we've lost, we will rebound quickly -- if only partially -- just by having our best people back in Parliament, and by having any competent leader at all.
Despite your panic (which is overblown, IMO), we can't pick our leader right now. It's two more months with no leader.
Today, I agree with you: when it comes to winning Quebec, I'm less sure about anyone who's not Mulcair.
But we have two months. Whether we like it or not. I'd rather wait and see than make assumptions.
Bärlüer, not surprised to see you write that, but do think it is a misrepresentation. This has been discussed before. I do hope Saganash comes out with a statement that is more satisfying (and straightforward).
Just to clarify: I meant 20% NDP support in QC, which is where we are trending according to all the polls.
My guess is the NDP has strong national numbers because the BC NDP is doing very well provincially. (as an aside, isn't it funny that nobody in the media is mentioning the national NDP's growth in BC??? I wonder why?!)
It's good that SD acknowledges that "when it comes to winning Quebec, I'm less sure about anyone who's not Mulcair". If/when SD is ready to make the case for another candidate, we should talk again...
Finally, let's not delude ourselves that having all the critics back in the House of Commons would change all that much. Our politics is so leader-centric, nowdays, that bench strength hardly matters. Even now, the NDP has a strong front bench; people like Boivin, Boulerice, Angus, Leslie, Harris, Christopherson, Julian. Has the media taken notice? Do they giive any Liberal, apart from Bob Rae, any air time? It's very unfortunate that it has come to this, but our politics is essentially contested between the party leaders; the rest of the caucuses are "nobodies".
I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of NDP members disagree with the 50% plus one formula. I bet most Canadians disagree with it, too.
I absolutely disagree with 50% + 1 as a formula for breaking up this country. Nathan Cullen is right to say that a 50% + 1 vote would just be the start of the discussion. And his point of view is undoubtedly that of the very vast majority of Canadians (and I am sure, Quebec residents as well, apart from the adamant seperatists).
http://www.themarknews.com/articles/8104-topp-ling-the-hope-for-victory
This article is disgusting. Its based on fear and nothing more. I could point out so many examples in Canadian policitcal history proving this article wrong, but it is not worth my damned time.
If anything, Topp running in QC is a good thing. Yes its a challange, but we can reinforce the connection we have and prove the pundits wrong yet again.
Please, let us post better arguments that are not based on primal emotions such as fear :)
I know of two provincial governments in Ontario and B.C. that would insist on double 60% threshold barriers for any decision by referendum. And the party name rhymes with mineral.
Philosophically I think super majority requirements are about the establishment trying to prevent the democratic enactment of the will of the people. I think this is also the case in this specific case.
You may well be right--that most Canadians as well as most NDP members may not recognise as 50%+1 as adequate. I would say that most Canadians (and potentially most NDP members) do not understand Quebec. This should be no surprise, as most Canadians have never been to Quebec and do not pay any attention to Quebec media.
Because over half of our seats are now in Quebec, understanding Quebec is a necessary qualification in my eyes. Maybe Cullen can develop a better understanding over the next few years, but that's a risk I'd rather not take.
All this article is solely about Topp not currently having a seat. That's it.
And it is a bit rich that a Dewar supporter is ranting about picking another candidate being "suicide".
definitely disagree with the ndp raising any issue with 50%+1 in quebec. that issue is just totally settled in quebec, and it would be inflammatory in the extreme even to raise it, definitely definitely will not help the ndp or the stability of the canadian federation if this comes up in english canada again.
on bench strength - this is far more important that seems obvious. essentially, really skilled critics make a huge difference in highlighting government failings, and weak critics do a poor job. the leader drives the narrative, but her/his lieutenants carry out the attacks. it's super important that we get our best critics (nash, topp whenever he gets there, cullen) back into the trenches.
on topp, i'd say that it's essential that he takes a seat in quebec, but we'd hope that he doesn't have to wait 3.5 more years. something in the whole lsd defection story makes me feel that she knew that she wasn't carrying her weight, and she feared that people were working against her within the caucus. i've tried to confirm that with people i know, but noone seems willing to dish. there's just this "oh, there was a reason..." sort of suggesting that she was just kind of daffy and difficult. anyway, if she flames out or croaks or whatever, that would be the ideal seat for topp to take a run at (otherwise, i love him in ahunstic or papineau, in one of those deeply progressive ethnic cocktail ridings that the lpc took for granted for all those years).
Oh, Christ, are we debating "50% + 1" all over again???
It's hard to say if Cullen is wanting to debate it or if that is the interpretation of the reporter. I guess we will find out at the French debate.
For all his amazing strengths Cullen seems a bit tone deaf.
Yeah, I think Dewar would be political suicide. No chance of holding Quebec based on where his French is at. His message is all over the place and is pretty tone deaf sometimes. And based on his demeanor and debate performances, I can't imagine him doing a very good job against the Conservatives, Liberals, or Bloc. I'm ready to cross him off my list entirely, if not for the faint hope that he might show something different at the Francophone debate.
I'm also disappointed with Cullen. Good speaker, but wrong message.
Yes, I'm willing to wait and see what Nathan actually said.
But my guess is that he did say something like that, and is not going to back away from it. Given how central it is, and how clear party policy is- let alone the should be apparent realities of our situation in Quebec- not explicitly backing away from what the story says amounts to him affirming he said it.
Hopefully, he only screws himself in Quebec, and doesnt give the media a circus to feed on.
As is evident not only in this thread- there are plenty of New Democrats who will not agree with the Sherbrooke Declaration when they become aware of exactly what it says.... so there's fertile ground if Nathan wants to play with fire.
I can see him blithely and almost obliviously playing wedge politics in the party.
And to be precise Boom Boom, we didnt debate 50% + 1. A few of us talked about its implictations at length. Most people apparently do not want to.
Tick, tick, tick...
I think that what Cullen said was technically correct, but he opened a can of worms by saying it the way he said it. I for one agree with the principle of 50%+1, but the fact of the matter is that regardless of whether Quebec voted YES by 50.0001% or by 80% i think everyone knows that it's not as if Quebec votes Yes to some refendum question and then PRESTO the next morning the maple leave gets lowered across Quebec and the fleur de lys goes up and border posts get set up. If Quebec voted YES by ANY margin it would set of a process of negotiations for Quebec and Canad to become two separate countries. O can be sure that like in any divorce, the negotiations would be very contentious and ugly and there would be some very tough issues to resolve that would involve some very fine points of international law.
Daily Brief host David Akin audio interview with NDP Leadership candidate Nathan Cullen:
http://audioboo.fm/boos/648204-daily-brief-audio-ndp-leadership-candidate-nathan-cullen
I made a big stink when Romeo stuck his foot in that. I also said that his follow-up on it was good- and I did not expect that.
I do not think Romeo was just grudginly saying that he stands by party policy. And I think that his error was in being the policy wonk and expert on self determination musing when he should not have.
But he does not seem to have put this to bed. And it would probably be a good idea if he did before the Quebec debate so that it is that much less of a distraction for the party, and not a distraction for him. I dont think a media interview is required. Whatever statement, or even bettwe some kind of interchange, that he releases will get circulated... and he can spare himself grief by referring to it at the debate.
On reading what was attributed to Cullen again, I think Stock is likely correct: that Cullen was musing about the practical realities rather than what the NDP's stand is or should be. Which is pretty much the same mistake that Romeo made.
But its up to Nathan to clarify now.
-
Of course there would be negotiations. But Quebec would still "be able" to separate with a 50% + 1 majority, contrary to what is implied in the article. And as you say, the required margin has nothing to do with the process after the referendum.
[double post]
I'll simply point out that, for me, Cullen's latest comments are to be put beside the ones about cooperation with Liberals and Greens across the country, and letting ridings decide what kind of arrangements they might want to consider. Except in Quebec. Where the Bloc is out to, in his words, destroy the country. So our party members and MPs, so newly rooted there, cannot be trusted with driving any kind of on-the-ground arrangements. But everywhere else? Sure, why not?
I'm not from Quebec. I am not a francophone. But I cringe to think what message is being received by the province that gave us this historic position.
Where do you get "blithely", KenS? Nathan has won more elections and has served longer as an NDP MP than any of our excellent leadership candidates.
If you think he's just making this up as he goes along, you're wrong.
When I said that about Nathan I was reading the attribution to him differently than I am now.
That said, how many elections he has won as an MP is irrelevant. There is a different bar for potential leader. I came into this thinking highly of Nathan. I spent several hours with him in meetings with local environmentalists a few years ago.
And his performance in the debates has been a pleasant surprise. He connects well.
But I'm not going to apologise for what I think is a well grounded suspicion that for a leadership prospect he's a bit of a loose cannon. That may be going too far. But one thing I am sure of: he does not listen. Thats a serious deficiency to say the least.
FWIW, I don't think he's making this up as he goes along. Not at all. But that doesnt reassure me.
KenS, I'm going to have to disagree on this point. You may not agree with Nathan's perspective, but that doesn't mean he isn't listening to you and others who share your opinion. As one of his constituents, I can say with certainty that he is a man of principle, that he listens to his consituents and that he acts both on his principles and the will of his constituents. The long gun registry is a great example of Nathan listening to his constituents, despite the obvious party pressures he felt.
I think he'll bring that same sense of duty to the position of party leader and listen to the party as a whole. Right now, however, he is seeking a mandate to execute his plan to fulfill his vision for the party and the country. If he succeeds, that's not him 'not listening'; that's him leading.
I think Nathan has a genuine difference of opinion as to how the NDP can win a majority. But it's one I disagree with. If we pitched ourselves as Liberal collaborators in Quebec, we never would have stolen so much Bloc support. I respect that he's trying to grow the party, but it's not a strategy I agree with, or believe in.
It's too bad, because I think he's great at connecting to people on a human level, and cutting through the political jargon and BS.
I'll bet a lot of people would vote to divvy up your assets and leave you with nothing.
Luckily for you, they don't get to decide. You do.
So it is with Québec. The majority of NDP members, like the majority of Canadians, have no say over whether we decide to leave Canada. That's what the NDP said in the Sherbrooke Declaration. If it turns out that you are correct, then the NDP will return to the 78-year wilderness from which it briefly emerged on May 2, 2011. And no one here will mourn its passing.
Anyway, carry on with your debates.
Anybody know which country s/he's talking about?
I was waiting for you, Unionist. Thanks for that.
You know, Boom Boom, when Cullen (and Saganash - I hope he didn't mean it) say what they do - like a few others in this thread - about the 50%+1, it's not just a denial of the right of Québec, like any other nation in the world, to self-determination. Having adopted and flogged the Sherbrooke Declaration, it says that the NDP are liars. I don't believe that to be the case. That's why it's important that people get with the program. It took 73 years (starting from the Regina Manifesto) to get there. Don't get derailed six years later.