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
In actual fact, Topp's average was only $554. Someone forgot to add in the $11,850 he received in Q3 before dividing by 304 donors.
Which brings me to the real story that all of you are missing - BOB CHISHOLM. His average was $553, just a whisker less than Topp's. Clearly, he was Bay Street's fallback (is there a Bay Street in Halifax? - note to self: fact-check that), but somehow got exposed and had to bolt.
The coverup is unbelievable, and it has only just begun.
I followed your directions, and it seemed to be working, but for some reason the "Next 200" button was not there, so I could only see the first page. For option 2a (general donations) I did see the button, but not for the leadership candidates readout (2b). It could be because I'm using Firefox (actually Iceweasel) on Debian Linux.
Unionist, I did see your post about the timing of Layton's announcement before convention, and I do confess that I thought he had given more than a week's notice. So, I was wrong in that.
Hi all. First time post and probably will be my last but I've been reading you guys for about three months, every day. Most of you are old timers (in experience and knowledge - don't know about your ages) and can get right into the nitty gritty of this whole thing. I just wanted to offer a perspective that is outside of the nitty gritty, policy crunching and hashing of inside politics. It might be broadbased or it might just reflect my predilictions.
While never an NDP member, I always voted for the NDP provincially and federally except for this last go round provincially when I voted for an opposing party just to get rid of the NDP MLA who is absolutely ineffectual for my riding. First time I have ever done that and it felt awful to do. It felt like I was betraying a principle and it was always on principle that I voted NDP.
But that's the cruncher because even though I voted on principle I never felt the NDP would ever be in power federally. Unfortunately, the NDP have the appearance to alot of the average joes like me as having no backbone, no chutzpa and no fire to take on the heavy hitters. They are the flyweights in a world of heavyweights. Idealism is nice and light and airy but for alot of us, reality is heavy and we want champions to to be able take the punches. NDP'ers always seemed to be the group that ran around in socks and sandals, saying nice things but ran home crying at the first sign of trouble.
That appearance was altered for me and most of the people that I hang out with when Mulcair raised his head above the throng and spoke up. With fire, intelligence and backbone. Here was a guy that could possibly be in the big leagues and be a leader and a champion. He could take on the heavy hitters and could call to task an increasingly sneakier and more snide Harper and company. Doing this all the while by being a member of a party that in theory, would support my principles. A party, in theory, that would be there to also guide Mulcair's decisions as leader.
I've read, listened and watched the other candidates, but they just seem that they would take the party back to the sidelines again. To that place of appearances where they are the nice kids on the block, talking all the good things but don't have the muscle to be effective. They don't have the ability to inspire confidence in them as a leaders, let alone in the role of a prime minister.
...and in my opinion, that's what the party is shooting for, right? To form a government? To be able to act on those priniciples and take them from an idealistic place to a realistic place. Mulcair has that ability and he would appeal to a broader base of voters other than NDP members.
Anyway, thanks for listening/reading. I just wanted to offer a perspective that is outside of the the circle.
With greater profile comes greater scrutiny.
Good news! The NDP is growing. Got an email from the Singh campaign, stating, "NDP Leadership candidate Martin Singh has been very effective in generating new memberships in his bid to become leader of the NDP party. Mr. Singh is pleased to announce that he has signed up over 3800 new members from across Canada." He's also just released his environmental policy.
Has anyone checked out the new Peggy Nash videos? I like them, although I think the French one could still use some work (script-wise). I'm also slightly disappointed at all the work they did to do away with Peggy's wrinkles. She certainly looks good yet part of the reason I like Peggy and find her compelling, is because of the generation of women she represents and what she was able to achieve as a member of that generation. It makes her all the more impressive IMO.
Singh has actually grown on me. I doubt he'll ever build the groundswell of support to break out of the bottom tier. But I think his heart is in the right place, even when the way he presents our economic competence is a little tone deaf. I hope that he runs for MP.
Hi Panna. Thanks for sharing. If I may make a suggestion, I think rather than staying "outside of the circle", you instead should follow your conviction and join the NDP (it's just $25.00), get in the circle, and vote in the leadership race.
I haven't seen the videos (alas, my 56k dial-up modem doesn't do video too well). Regarding the alteration in her appearance that you detected, I'm reminded of all the work that was done on many of the photos of Layton where they either cut off the top of his bald head, or inserted a fine light haze just above his head to sort of make him look less bald. Alteration seems to be how stuff works nowadays.
Bingo!
Rude. Arrogant. Completely unworthy of any decent moderator.
Audrey was the last one left standing after a race of seven candidates where the first ballot leader had only 26.9%. Today we have an eight-person race where the leader has raised only 23.6% of the total, which (if the 2003 match between votes cast and funds raised is any guide) may be repeated March 24. That's what is starting to worry me. How much deliberation is going to go into the preferential ballots? In 1989 some people were voting "anyone but Barrett" while others were voting "anyone but McLaughlin" and they all ran out of choices.
http://www.punditsguide.ca/2012/02/ndp-leadership-fundraising-predicted-...
Okay, I have a question for those of you who are planning on voting real-time, online (rather than in advance, online): are any of you nervous that something will go wrong and your vote won't end up being counted? Like something could go wrong technically (the way it has occasionally with the live broadcast of official debates), or you could end up falling asleep (more of an issue for me here in Europe than for anyone in Canada, but still), or whatever?
I keep hearing people insisting that voting ballot-by-ballot is the way to go for strategic reasons, but I am paranoid, and therefore torn. Convince me? (Also, on a related question, does anyone have an estimate as to what time of day the voting is likely to be taking place, and how long it will take?)
Well, I went through Singh's environmental policy. Seems good. He doesn't beat around the bush with statements about cap and trade like "make big polluters pay". Instead, he's pretty clear that the cap and trade pricing scheme will come back to consumers. For instance, he states that "$100 per tonne price on carbon will result in increase of 24 cents per litre of gasoline." I find that kind of cool, actually. He also mentions legislation and water safety in it.
Things could get very interesting if Leadnow.ca decides to weigh in with a campaign on "Cooperation for Electoral Reform"
http://tfaforms.com/233344
http://www.facebook.com/leadnowcanada
Could this push Cullen over the top?
NR, do you think NDP'ers are "the flyweights in a world of heavyweights"?
Do you think NDP'ers "ran home crying at the first sign of trouble"?
Do you think Mulcair is the only leadership candidate that can "be in the big leagues and be a leader and a champion"?
Do you think the other candidates "don't have the muscle to be effective"?
Do you think the other candidates "don't have the ability to inspire confidence in them as a leaders, let alone in the role of a prime minister"?
Do you think that Mulcair is the only candidate that has the ability to "appeal to a broader base of voters other than NDP members"?
If all this is true, thank goodness Mulcair left the Quebec Liberals to save the scrawny weak NDP!
He left the Quebec Liberals because he couldn't work with weak and ineffective corporate toadies at either level, like Charest, Dion and the rest of the bribed hirelings for unsustainable environmental policies and fossil fuel industry.
There is no comparison to the protections that are built in for the on-line voting. Something can still go wrong- but it happens with snail mail too... especially from across the pond.
Maybe wage zombie or other IT people could weigh in on this.
As to falling asleep, there are these great things called alarm clocks. :) If you set it to half way through the next round, you can freely nod off over your book or work.
You might be able to say that, if we were reading records from the whole campaign.
From upthread:
I was a bit weirded out by the article that Mulcair posted on his site that claimed he was in favour of P3s, and I did mention that (had I found a similar article on Topp's site, I would have also mentioned it). But that was eons ago, and I've forgotten about it, so maybe you should too.
socialdemocraticmiddle had a very good post about Mulcair which I agreed with. However, for me personally I feel that having vision is the key to success for the NDP. So far, both Mulcair and Topp have put forward two different visions for tackling the Conservatives in the next election, and, so far, Topp's has appealed to me more. See my posting about this right here. And if you feel I'm unfairly portraying Mulcair by "paint[ing] him as someone he's not" within that post then do simply let me know rather than taking odd snipes at my character. After all, in the end, we are both supporters of the NDP.
Just to be clear: I have no intention of voting by mail. I will be voting online, whether in advance or ballot-by-ballot. (I voted online in advance last time and it went fine, but I have no experience with the online ballot-by-ballot system.) But if something goes wrong voting in advance, you can try again tomorrow. If something goes wrong while voting ballot-by-ballot, you're out of luck.
One thing is that there will be contingencies for that.
They probably would not be pretty, and its obvious why the party does not want to go public with those. But rest assured, if you cant get in for balloting, then gobs of others cannot get in, and the whole thing grinds to a halt, while Plans B and onwards come out.
So the issue is not what happens to your ballot. The whole thing is in trouble, whether your ballot is in or not.
I'm sure that assurancies of capabilities for dealing with the contingencies is a big part of what the contractor from Spain is providing.
Anybody want to take a stab at answering my other question, about what the timing of the voting is likely to be (e.g. from what time to what time)?
I dont really remember how long it took in 2003. There was only the one round. But we were waiting not knowing that.
It cant be any less than an hour- and I doubt that low- for each round, with all the precautions of tabulating and making sure all the votes are in that cleared by the stated time deadline for the round. And I doubt technological advancements will change that much [what there are will probably be eaten up by going for more security].
There is a big variable in guessing how many will be kicked out or will drop out each round. I dont know the threshold for staying in. Once that is known, there is still the estimate of how many will not make it. Then the estimate of those who will drop out rather than see their small number get smaller.
Mix together and estimate how many rounds.
[Estimate to be done close to the deadline for voting in advance. Because the emergence of a consensus identifyably strong front runner such as Jack was in 2003 changes the guesstimate on the number of rounds. But we could go ahead and do the exercise as if that deadline for choosing how to vote was now.]
To do that we need to know the % number required for a candidate making it to the next round. And we need a best guess about how long the rounds of voting will take.
Heh, a wonderful example of making up policy out of thin air. The only question I had was whether Singh had read it, including the footnotes, and could answer questions about it?
Actually- its very close to existing NDP policy. The amount that is not existing is in the category of implementation emphasis.
Which leads to the question, why is it called my policy? Thats a good question. But it works for Mulcair, so why not?
You can bet that Martin knows it inside out, and is ready to answer all manner of questions, which when he answered them would not lead to people wondering how that fits in with what else he has proposed.
Not that he will ever be asked.
I asked a fellow NDP member at work yesterday who she liked in the leadership contest. She said "Oh, I think I'll be supporting Thomas Mulcair" and went on to say she thought he had the skills to do well as leader in Parliament. I couldn't disagree but mentioned I had some nagging doubts about him. She concurred that she also had lingering doubts.
I subsequently itemized my list of doubts:
-Doesn't regularly donate $ to the party (as born out by KenS Election Canada link in previous post).
-Didn't stop by the Halifax transit workers strike rally after the Halifax debate (Nash, Dewar, Topp and Ashton were all there to their credit).
-Mulcair's wife is an overseas candidate for Sarkozy's right wing party in France.
-At the Halifax debate I noticed that Mulcair did not interact warmly with any other candidates, no before or after debate onstage chit chat with any other candidates, Saganash to his immediate right barely said two words to Mulcair and awkwardly shook his hand post-debate. Meanwhile, it was all hugs and post-debate chatter at the Ashton, Nash, Topp, Dewar end of the stage. I had to wonder if Mulcair is not a good team player and that there is some "on team tension" with fellow NDP MPs.
-The way he criticized fellow deputy-leader Libby Davies over her comments about Israel. Not the substance of his criticism, but the manner in which he made them.
So while Mulcair may be something of a "Globe and Mail consensus" candidate and may seem an obvious choice to many NDP members because of his strong public speaking skills and assertive personality, I think he and the other candidates deserve further scrutiny so that NDP members know just what kind of party leadership we are voting for when we cast our ballot.
That information would be much more helpful if I had an estimate of when it was supposed to START, Ken.
I mean, at the moment, the convention is scheduled to run from Friday, March 23 at 12:00 pm eastern time until Saturday, March 24 at 9:00 pm eastern time. Surely you don't mean that the voting will start Friday at 12 and might already be over at 1?