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 hate Bob Rae. Note: I know this is a silly comment, its just I REALLY HATE BOB RAE!
It's conceivable, though I do not think very likely, that one of those second four candidates would support another. Even that is not 'anti-Mulcair'.
And even if it were to turn out to be Dewar that does that, the email is campaign posturing and not to be taken as an indication of what drives him. For example, I have no idea what they think of each other, but he and Topp attach similar priorities to how the party 'works'. And they probably share a lot of support [which would be what that email was after, ham-handedly. Later I'll address the apparent and/or likely strategies of the four.]
But there is just about zero point zero chance of a gang-up on Mulcair. You cant coordinate that sort of thing. And I doubt in the first place there is a single one of the candidates feels that kind of antipathy or dread, to even have a notion to want that- let alone subsume their chances at the early stage a gang-up would have to happen.
It just is not a possibility.
There is a lot of what varies from wariness to strong antipathy to Mulcair in the party... but that is not the makings of an anybody but camnpaign. It 'only' raises the possibility that Mulcair will start out well ahead, but never get that majority.
There is going to be lots of incentive for shots at Mulcair. But that incentive has already been strong, and there's a reason we see very limited amounts of it from the candidates and their campaigns. Because for each candidate it only makes sense to go after Mulcair along a dimension where you have a specific concrete advantage your campaign can expect to harvest some benefit from.
Which is why Topp only went after Mulcair on his all over the place tax and fiscal notions.
And what Dewar's campaign was trying to do fits too. They were looking for the concrete and specific benefit of pulling some support from Topp.
Broad attacks against Mulcair like are in that email do not work to your generalized benefit in your competition with Mulcair.And that's not what the Dewar campaign was trying to do.
I've made the comment before that bluntness is often assumed to be candour. As with Elizabeth May, it only means a proclivity to say what you like. And one of the restraints that is shed is checking, or caring, whether what you siad adds up. Elizabeth May could get away with that because of the very limited scrutiny she faced. If the not adding up does not jump right out instantly at a reporter, it sails right by. By contrast, if it were Jack Layton, it goes under the microscope.
Mulcair has, and will most likely through the whole leadership race, never face that kind of scrutiny. So he gets the same kind of pass on what he puts out there.
And maybe putting out a key policy pronouncement that does not and will not add up, like using cap and trade for general revenues, does not fit some hair splitting definition of pandering. But whats the difference?
I never said anything about those people speaking on behalf of the Mulcair campaign, nor did I even imply that (which you can see for yourself if you review the comments I've made in this thread). I'm just making the point that if even Mulcair's own supporters had the impression that he would "clean house" of the existing organizers, why on earth would you attribute anything as sinister as a "whisper campaign" to his opponents having the same impression...and occasionally saying so out loud?
So we have a 5 year standing NDP policy on cap and trade, which in two election platforms strongly emphasises that ALL cap and trade revenues will go into green initiatives. Then Mulcair says a better way to go instead of raising taxes on the rich to stabilize Harper [and Paul Martin] starved social programs is to use cap and trade revenues for that.
This is respecting party policy?
[Let alone the demolishing of the political protection that is the reason for guaranteeing all cap and trade revenues go to green initiatives.]
If its a difficult policy area for him viz where the party is, and/or Mulcair has said things that make people wonder where he stands, it's "I support party policy." You know he actually supports it in a way you expect from the Leader if during the campaign he calls it 'my policy'. [IE, cap and trade]
You cant square that natural arc with his linking of taxes to cap and trade. THAT is a fundamental shift.
Topp's suggestion is exactly the kind of thing that starts with Caucus/Leader, and does not come from Convention policy processes. [As was also true of the entire climate change package.] It IS a departure as far as strategy to date goes. And that's certainly something that should be pondered and discussed. But the discussion is much more about how we win elections... which is the fodder of a leadership race and contrasting visions.
It would be great if Mulcair just stops talking about using cap and trade as a new/better source of increasing general revenues.
But even if he never says it again, and he becomes Leader, we're going to wear that. Because you can bet the HarperCons will dredge it up to 'prove' this is really what cap and trade is about.
That and the gem of EXPLICITLY linking putting a price on carbon to cooling down oil sands the will take pressure off the dollar and provide some relief for eastern manufacturing jobs. In other words, take jobs away in the West so the NDP can feather its nest in Quebec.
A new day dawns and thankfully, the anti-Dewar rhetoric seems to have died down - so mission accomplished.
Good to see the Toppites are back to slagging the Mulcairites.
For all the old goats out there, I would like them to point me to some legitimate examples of "perfectly legitimate complaints against him" - other than the second language issue (which as I have already pointed out amounts to discrimination based on first language). The words used in post #9 of this chapter (#94) are an example of the sort of "bad language"/name calling that I was objecting to and that other people get away with here, all the time. Seems to me that as in all things the (socialist?) elites appear rule the roost and are quite happy to dispensate with impunity against the those of "lesser" language and/or discussion skill.
Looking at the broader challenge of leading a party that often appears to be so self destructive, self interested and diverse (thankfully), I think Paul Dewar's experience in the union movement, human rights, etc. make him uniquely qualified to be leader.
Prominent human rights leaders in Quebec say:
"We are impressed by Paul’s deep commitment to social justice, his drive to be fair and yet forceful, and his charismatic personality. As Quebecers, we cherish his commitment to Quebecois values of justice, rule of law, respect for human rights and diversity, and of course his deep respect for Quebec’s unique place in Canada. We sincerely hope to see him as the leader of the NDP."
There are lots of other endorsements provided at his website, which I'm sure you can find and disassemble at will.
Odd that there has been little discussion here of Jack Layton's mother endorsing Topp so fulsomely. I think it's a potential game-changer. Are some here too close to the fine details to see the big picture?
http://www.briantopp.ca/news/jack-laytons-mother-endorsing-brian-topp
Gregbythepond, I'm an oldgoatite and I've always respected his opinion on babble.
Quote: For all the old goats out there, I would like them to point me to some legitimate examples of "perfectly legitimate complaints against him"
There is but one oldgoat, and thou shall place no other oldgoats before him.
Well here's one. Quebec seems to have become kind of a big deal in NDP fortunes, and his French sucks. He doesn't seem to grasp the importance of this which makes me question his judgement. He will be up against people whos French is good to excellent, and will look like a knob to a lot of very important voters. This alone I feel is disqualifying.
Oh yeah, and he eats kittens.
(just kidding about that last one)
janfromthebruce wrote:
Gregbythepond, I'm an oldgoatite and I've always respected his opinion on babble.
Holy cow! I have an oldgoatite. This is really kinda humbling.
Wilf, could you explain why you think it's a game changer, and how you imagine it could change the "game"?
Honestly, I don't think there are any endorsements that really have the potential to "change the game" at this point. They grab much-needed media attention, sure, but I don't think there are any endorsements that will actually change people's minds. It's good to know that Jack's mother thinks highly of Brian Topp, but that isn't going to make me more likely to vote for him (the way, say, Dewar's poll did).
Most campaigners make only teaser comments about what they know. Elizabeth May's campaigns are the only I know of to have a habit of releasing poll numbers. Most people just dont go there- whether the numbers are good for spin or not. Its a double edged sword for a lot of reasons. If nothing else- the benefit side is usually dubious whether it can work. That happens in a zillion ways, but this polll release of Dewar's is probably just another case. It unlikely will annoy as much as the intitial reaction here that will not last, but it also is not going to achieve its goal. Its a very blunt tool.
That said, I can see why the Mulcair campaign released the poll that shows pretty much the same dynamic as Dewar's poll. Doing that fits into the strategy of portraying him as the winner. He's already a target, so no added risk there.
It is a LONG time ago since Topp either set in motion or contributed to the narrative that he was THE front runner. He needed that to get noticed quick out of the gate.
The media of its own accord until recently referred to Topp and Mulcair as the apparent fron trunners. Thats how they work: since Topp was the front runner, and now Mulcair has probably taken over, that makes two front runners. Thats as sophisticated as most of the 'political reporters' get- drinking each others bath water.
Didn't Jack Layton's mother once support a Tory cabinet minister?
I agree, Wilf; I think Doris Layton's endorsement is a very big deal—and not just the fact of the endorsement itself but the extremely complementary comments she made about Brian Topp. While I continue to have a lot of doubts, I can say that I know I've been thinking much more favorably about Topp since seeing Doris's endorsement.
Babblers may be interested in a report being circulated by the Catch-22 people, entitled "The Logistics of Cooperation: A Study of Nathan Cullen's Progressive Primaries Proposal." It's written by Stuart Parker, so some will discount it immediately, but I still think it has some useful analysis.
http://bit.ly/xpqnyw
Doris's endorsement is more of a trust in values as opposed to an endorsement of economic value or one of the ability to attract people to the NDP in the next election.
ha ha ha - I just thought it was too funny in how it was framed - toppites vs Machaurites (or whatever) so I thought I'd just play. All kidding aside, I will be supporting your dog in the leadership race on first ballot -
Actually I found it more than a wee bit icky.
It also makes me wonder about the desperation level of the Topp campaign and what ever happened to his supposed strategic brilliance.
From here:
Doris Layton comes from the formidable Steeves family, descended from William Steeves, a reformist Father of Confederation from New Brunswick, who was appointed as a Liberal to the new federal Senate in 1867, and used the post commendably to lobby for better care for the mentally ill.
It was she who nudged Jack's father, Robert Layton, toward the provincial Liberals in the Quiet Revolution days of the early 1960s. Nancy recalls her mother attending a tea in support of the local Liberal member of Quebec's national assembly, Paul Gérin-Lajoie, and was impressed enough to encourage her husband to meet him. It was a consequential bit of wifely advice: Bob went on to be a stalwart Liberal organizer, before switching to the federal Conservatives and becoming a Tory MP under Brian Mulroney in the 1980s.
Actually that is why I supported Topp as leader since day 1 - I want to con't on the same path and I know Brian will con't on the path both Jack & Brian traveled together.
Architect reported the following caucus endorsements:
05 - Ashton
04 - Cullen
05 - Dewar
41 - Mulcair
09 - Nash
00 - Singh
12 - Topp
45 - Unaligned
It is too bad that the party opted for a So-You-Think-You-Can-Lead celebrity contest rather than allowing the caucus to choose their House Leader.
Closing for length