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 85 and bloody well still counting
February 2, 2012 - 1:16pm
Choosing a spokesperson instead of a leader would just cement another Tory victory in 2015.
Someone bloody well changed the thread title, so I'm bloody well changing my comment!
Well, I thought I'd kick off by reposting sdm's last post in the last thread, and maybe we can kick off some good discussion about changing the political culture, instead of imitating Liberals and Conservatives forever because of the fear expressed very nicely by Caissa above:
ETA: And by the way, Caissa, QS has more than one spokesperson. It isn't just a cuter, kinder, gentler way of saying "leader". Why do we need a "leader"? Where does Harper get off acting like Canada itself, when his position doesn't even exist in the Constitution? Does a family need a "leader" - who would that be, "Dad"? How about a neighbourhood? A workplace? What's with this military approach to politics? What would be wrong with the NDP being seen by the public as a whole bunch of different real-life faces and personalities, some of them in the national arena, some provincial, some right in the community?
If we can't change the rotten culture, let's join it - and then, when we trick and promise and lie our way into power, we'll implement our "REAL" agenda - if we can remember just what the hell that was...
Unfortunately, Unionist, I also agree with Caissa. Not only is it impossible to stop the leadership contest that's already under way. It's that our political culture -- which includes the swaths of Canadian voters -- now rewards the kind of "leadership" you saw under George Bush.
The key word being "rewards".
The media seizes on any inconsistency within a party and treats it as a lack of organization, let alone hypocrisy. You will be held to account for the opinions of people five years ago that you might have never actually conferred with. And when you get into power, you'll have an easier time legislating and changing the country if all the ministers votes robotically. And if the more extreme elements of your base refuse to go along, not only will you not pass any legislation, but the media will play up those dissenters and you'll wear their opinion around your neck whether you share it or not.
The irony is that if/when Harper loses, it won't be because he's been too rigid. It will be because his coalition starts to crack, and you start seeing the more radical elements of his base demanding action on abortion, gay marriage, immigration...
I've made peace with it. If we move to proportional representation, the expectation that your vote counts towards a party-and-platform will further override the idea that you're voting for a local candidate with independent opinions. I'm okay with it, because PR will also lead to more choice.
I'm well aware of QS unionist and there multiple spokespersons. I am also aware of how close they are to forming the Government of Quebec. And who edited my bloody thread title? ;^)
Great logic, Caissa:
1. QS has no leader.
2. QS is not close to forming government.
3. Therefore, if we want to form the government, we need a LEADER!
Reductio ad absurdum, Unioinist. I'm just suggesting that emulating them will not lead us to the promised land.
From leadership thread #83:
Thank you! This was not only extremely well said, but long overdue. I'm sick and tired of some of the Mulcair bots on here and their toxic slagging of other candidates, particularly Nash and Saganash. The sexist garbage with the comparison of Nash to McLaughlin is especially appalling.
Not sure what a "bot" is OTL but it sounds somewhat unappealing.
I think that those of us who promote Mulcair on Babble refrain from criticism of the other candidates much more so than do those who promote his competitors.
The criticisms of Mulcair in my view have often been very vituperative, personal and unfair.
By arguing that Mulcair is our best electoral bet we are stressing what is postive about him, not what is negative about other contenders. Similarly we are being positive about Mulcair in saying that by picking him we can affirm and consolodate Quebec's historic (and perhaps tentative) embrace of the NDP.
As for the Audrey McLaughlin comparison with Nash, that was made by a single poster from Winnipeg who is still undecided about the leadership.
For my own part I will say this about the 1989 leadership convention. I was there and saw a great many delegates lured into a questionable choice by the argument that "although she may not be ready yet she will grow into the job." That line persuaded many to pass over candidates who had demonstarted greater present political appeal. The candidate who won never did grow into the job and the federal party was crippled for a generation as a result. Forgive me if I am reluctant to accept the same type of argument in 2012.
No one is making this "argument" but it seems you're not so subtly spinning that Nash isn't qualified, that she's pretty much the same as McLaughlin.....because like McLaughlin, she's a woman.
You make me sick.
I think all of the current candidates are more qualified than Audrey McLaughlin was.
wow, some people are really flying off the handle here.
Here we go again. My, this
horseleadership race is good for unity and progress!No, just calling out sexist bullshit.
Wow I did not read that as a dig at Nash *at all*. If anything it would describe the situation with Topp more than anyone, and maybe I was just seeing though my own tinted glasses but that's how I read it. She's not my first choice but Nash is utterly qualified for the job in a way Audrey McLaughlin never was, it's apples and oranges.
Peggy Nash is more than qualified to be leader. She may not be the best choice (depending on your definition of "best") but she is certainly qualified and would do us proud.
Um wow. I don't think nicky's comment re: McLaughlin was aimed at Nash at ALL. It may have been a general comment for that argument in general, which I've heard being used for many candidates, from Dewar to Topp (and rarely Peggy).
Yes, they were. In leadership thread 83, there was an exchange between socialdemocraticmiddle and nicky:
Post #92:
Post #95:
Post #97:
At the risk of making OTL feel even more sick I will say this.
I have read over and over on these pages that this candidate or that candidate may not presently have the same level of political skills or language ability or media presence or esteem with Quebec voters as Thomas Mulcair now has. BUT wait four years. You never know how far they might progress or how much things might change so why not take a gamble on them.
That may be, but we took that same type of gamble with Audrey McLaughlin and we should think twice about taking it again.
This has nothing to do with the sex of a particular candidate and OTL is completely out of line accusing me of sexism.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Audrey the safe candidate?
Wasn't the other guy the populist one?
Do correct me if I am wrong.
It has everything to do with sex or otherwise there would be no need to raise her name in comparison to Nash in the first place. Nash is fluent in French and her language skills are excellent.
And like others, I'm not buying this bullshit narrative from the Mulcair bots that Mulcair is the only candidate who can hold Quebec for the NDP.
I'm not out of line. You're just incredibly transparent.
Jack Layton lost the 1991 Toronto mayoral race, and lost in Rosedale in 1993 to Bill Graham, coming in fourth with approximately 10.71% of the vote. So, I suppose then that Jack was unqualified as well.
You can spin it all you like, but the bottom line is that Nash, who is very qualified and has impeccable French, is being compared to McLaughlin due to sex.
I think the whole appeal of this (and other) forums is that people can rather anonymously say stuff that gets attention and inspires a safe reaction. If we were talking all this stuff in a pub or coffee-house somewhere in real life, we'd either be bopped in the nose or, worse, ignored (IE, "yikes, that guy or gal is whining/ranting/showboating/smart-assed/personally attacking/posting ads for her or his candidate/stupid/offensive/lying/passive-aggressive/condescending again! -- avoid!!"). And everyone would move away from us at the pub or coffeeshop.
It likely would be more useful if we left the computer and got out and volunteered with one of the candidates that we support (unless, of course, you have been assigned to volunteer here to try and convert the ten or so forum addicts like me who pollute this place, then naturally you should stay at your computer -- though really your energies would be best spent elsewhere).
That said, I enjoy the exchange of ideas, and I even enjoy the drama in which those ideas are exchanged.
PS, in spite of what one or two other posters here have suggested, I am not a liar. For a visual of me making that declaration, just recall how Nixon looked when he declared he was not a crook.
I'm through even responding to OTL. It's like reacting to Debater.
To answer Dacckon, however, about the 89 convention:
McL went into the convention with a big lead. She was the establishment candidate but her support was soft. She gave an anemic performance in the debate and folowed it with a completely ineffective speech.
You could feel her support bleeding away. Barrett was the populist outsider but it was clearly accepted in advance that he was the most effective campaigner. This was even more evident and universally accepted after the speeches.
McL's camp then stressed that there were three more years till the next election and she had only been in Parliamnet a couple years and was improving and wou;d be much better by the time the election was called.
Her backers actually put out a flyer claiming that Ed Broadbent had made the worst speech at the convention that chose him and look what a good leader he turned out to be. This argument rallied her wavering support and she prevailed.
The feeling is mutual.
I was there too, Nicky, as a delegate from South Shore.
My first-ballot support was for Ian Waddell, followed by Audrey for the next 3 ballots.
Why?
One reason in particular.
They were both opposed to the Meech Lake Accord.
That Audrey was female had little bearing on my decision to support her, although I remember a great deal of pressure to 'make history with a female leader!'coming from other delegates.
That's not what I look at in a leader.
Should Peggy Nash become leader, she will have my utmost support.
But I am supporting Mulcair for a number of reasons.
That's my choice, and no one has the right to say I should be supporting someone else's preferred candidate.
I've made my choice, and I'm prepared to live with it.
I think it was waaay back in September when the party establishment was pushing Topp hard and the talk was coronation that I mentioned I was reminded of '89. Language proficiency aside, I still think Topp would be nearly as awkward a leader as Audrey. The intellect isn't lacking but the people skills just aren't there. I don't see the same problem with Nash at all.
Bay Street ponies up for Topp leadership bid
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/02/02/bay-street-ponies-up-for-topp-leadership-bid/