babble-intro-img
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 #97

106 replies [Last post]

Comments

Winston
Offline
Joined: Feb 17 2007

This hits the nail on the head:

DSloth wrote:

Well at the very least he could have tried not living in Quebec!

No true born New Democrat would ever join the PLQ, after all it has the word Liberal in there, just because it was the height of the secession crisis as in 1994 is no excuse.

Likewise any Quebecker who wasn't fighting for the federalists in the Referendum better scurry off as well. We're a federalist Party here and no seperatist is going to get elected in the ROC.

Sorry, Province of Quebec, thanks for the MPs but unfortunately your citizenry has all failed our purity test. 


jjuares
Offline
Joined: Jan 21 2012

Winston wrote:

TheArchitect wrote:

What I'm saying is that merely choosing the NDP over the other parties is not proof that one is deeply commited to a social democratic philosophical position.

One of our candidates recently mis-spoke and said she wouldn't endorse the Canada Health Act, this after working years for a union whose leadership repeatedly encouraged people to vote Liberal.  Should we not accept her years in the Party and in activism as proof enough that she shares our values?

Another one of our candidates has been accepting money in this leadership campaign from Bay Street types and presided as a senior strategist for a government that closed 50 hospitals.  Should we not accept his lifelong committment to social democracy in Canada as proof that he shares our values?

Yet another of our candidates voted against the gun registry and is now saying that we should voluntarily cede ground to our competitors.  Do his exemplary work in his community and for the environment not prove his committment to social democracy?

And we have another candidate who was in government under a right-wing (by Quebec standards, mind you) but federalist leader, but who was a cabinet minister in a government that kept anti-scab legislation intact, provides $7/day child care and has the lowest tuition fees in the country and who quit on a progressive matter of principle.

I trust all of their committment to the Party and to the cause of social democracy, fairness and justice in Canada.  I just happen to think that one of them is most likely to be able to win government in order to finally act on that committment.

Yes, I agree. I have been a constituency president, a candidate, and a member of the party for 37 years. yet, I doubt I would pass some of the purity tests. I am not sure one can be a social democrat in a capitalist society without having to put some water in your wine at least some of the time.


mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Just got an email from the Nash campaign:

Town Hall with Peggy Nash
Monday, February 27
7:00 pm - 8:30 pm (doors open at 6:30 pm)

Church of the Holy Trinity, 10 Trinity Square, Toronto
(just west of the Eaton Centre, between Dundas & Queen subway stations)


Free and open to everyone, this will be a special opportunity for us to come together to discuss issues of importance to Toronto and the GTA. Please mark your calendars and notify your friends and neighbours to do the same. We will forward you more details closer to the event.


Hunky_Monkey
Offline
Joined: Jun 11 2004
mark_alfred wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

He had been minister of the environment with the Quebec Liberals, but then was demoted by Charest to a lesser post (I can't recall what post exactly.)  Anyway, annoyed, he quit.  Later he ran for the NDP.

He was Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks with the only federalist party in Quebec. He passed North America's first Sustainable Development Act including amending Quebec's Human Rights Charter to include the right to live in a clean environment. He left when he wouldn't play ball with Charest turning over a provincial park to developers so they could build condos. You're slamming him for that?

Not at all.  His standing up against developers was a great thing.  However, the scenario you describe conflicts with the assertion that he "left a prestigious job to join the NDP because he believed in them", which is what I was responding to in the original post.

He was offered another cabinet post! They wanted him out of Environment. He still would have been an MNA and a cabinet minister. He gave that up and left. Wow.

mark_alfred
Offline
Joined: Jan 3 2004

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

He had been minister of the environment with the Quebec Liberals, but then was demoted by Charest to a lesser post (I can't recall what post exactly.)  Anyway, annoyed, he quit.  Later he ran for the NDP.

He was Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks with the only federalist party in Quebec. He passed North America's first Sustainable Development Act including amending Quebec's Human Rights Charter to include the right to live in a clean environment. He left when he wouldn't play ball with Charest turning over a provincial park to developers so they could build condos. You're slamming him for that?

Not at all.  His standing up against developers was a great thing.  However, the scenario you describe conflicts with the assertion that he "left a prestigious job to join the NDP because he believed in them", which is what I was responding to in the original post.

He was offered another cabinet post! They wanted him out of Environment. He still would have been an MNA and a cabinet minister. He gave that up and left. Wow.

He rightly felt he deserved better treatment from Charest.


Policywonk
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2005

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

And yes, that historic victory involved some amount of modernizing under Jack Layton, including such reforms as killing affiliated membership.

What the heck are you talking about? We still have affiliated members. Check the federal Party Constitution.


socialdemocrati...
Offline
Joined: Jan 10 2012

Policywonk wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

And yes, that historic victory involved some amount of modernizing under Jack Layton, including such reforms as killing affiliated membership.

What the heck are you talking about? We still have affiliated members. Check the federal Party Constitution.

My mistake. I mangled that one -- I meant to say the special voting quota for affiliated members.


algomafalcon
Offline
Joined: Oct 14 2011

Doug wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:
This got my attention:

 

Ew. I'm voting for a candidate with better taste in furniture. Tongue out

 

I'm sure that Steve and Chris would TOTALLY agree with you. Who wants a Canada filled with ugly chesterfields?...


bazie
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2011

For those interesting in the Israel/Palestine issue, I took a couple hours to compile an outline of the various candidates positions and statements regarding Israel/Palestine. Nash seems to be the most supportive of palestinian rights, Mulcair the most supportive of Israel: http://progressiveproselytizing.blogspot.com/2012/02/ndp-leadership-candidate-policy.html


Policywonk
Offline
Joined: Feb 6 2005

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

And yes, that historic victory involved some amount of modernizing under Jack Layton, including such reforms as killing affiliated membership.

What the heck are you talking about? We still have affiliated members. Check the federal Party Constitution.

My mistake. I mangled that one -- I meant to say the special voting quota for affiliated members.

That was part of an evolution from delegated Conventions.


jerrym
Offline
Joined: May 30 2009

jjuares wrote:

I am also getting very tired of the tribalism of the NDP. There is a historical opportunity here. I am sorry but the canddidate who has the best shot of beating Harper is going to be near or at the top of my list. For me that is Mulcair.

 

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

And as a Torontonian, I'll tell you that *I'm* disappointed in the lack of diversity in the NDP here. I have a lot of friends who work with racialized youth and other poor/marginalized/anti-racist groups. But if you ask them about politics, a lot of the stakeholders in these communities are either non-political, or Liberal. And if you ask them why they support the Liberals over the NDP, they can't tell you why exactly. They sympathize with us, but they never really connect to us. We just hope our message delivers itself, and our organization remains largely anglo-protestant.

 

I grew up in Lanark county in Ontario, where when given money to market their communities in order to attract industry in the 1960s, they put out a brochure that said one of the reasons firms should locate there was that the region was 80% hard-working Anglo-Saxon Protestant stock (most of the remaining 20% being heathen Irish Catholic like me at the time), not even realizing how this would be seen by others. I am not saying the NDP purists are racists but their strident claims for lifelong socialist purity can be seen as alienating to others thinking of joining the party. I have seen it happen. However, I have to admit that as people join they do have an impact on the party's value system, just as marrying someone is going to have some affect on each partner's values if the marriage is to survive. Jack and Tom realized that by changing how the NDP spoke to Quebec it had the potential to grow the party without betraying its principles. There are other groups we can reach who have not previously voted for us without betraying our principles. That is why I am voting for Mulcair. 



Idealistic Prag...
Offline
Joined: Aug 29 2011

CanadaApple wrote:

Okay, I've asked a few questions about to the Mulcair supporters here, now I want to ask a question to the Topp supporters and other people who have him as one of their top (no pun intended) choices. How do you view his "retail skills", with only a little over a month to go 'till the convention? Personally, without ever having met or seen him in person, I think they're pretty good. But of course, I want to know what the rest of you think.  What do you think of him in front of a camera? Giving an interview? During the debates? Giving speeches? Doing meet and greets? Kissing? ; ) Is their any differences in him between in english and french?

All answers welcome!

I don't know if I qualify as a Topp supporter, but I've always had him ranked highly and often had him ranked first (I swear, I won't have my final list until the moment I sit in front of the computer to vote), so I'll give it a shot.

I had two experiences with Topp in person during this campaign before I took off to Tulips-and-PR-Land. The first time was at the very beginning of the campaign, at a very informal, stand-around-and-chat-with-hors d'oeuvres meet-and-greet. He was awkward and clearly not at all comfortable in his own skin, and a lot of people were really taken aback by this, especially since the event also included several of the other candidates who were working the room much, much more effectively. The second time was at a local riding event that I helped organize, a few months later, that was structured around a short intro speech followed by a long, long Q&A and then a short informal chat-with-members time. It was like he was a different guy: when he spoke, his points were always wrapped in a compelling narrative that made you stop and listen, and he was funny and warm and yes, even charismatic. Even in the informal chat part afterward, where he clearly wasn't as much in his element, he was good--I watched him trade jokes with our discussion moderator with ease and listen carefully and say thoughtful things to a local First Nations activist. There was a real magic in the room that night--many people who started off opposed to him ended up liking him despite themselves, and many who started off open to him but undecided ended up thinking he was the cat's pajamas.

My take on this at the time was that he was improving, and fast. I've since realized from talking to a lot of people in different places, though, that it's not that simple. Like I said earlier this morning in another thread, I think it's pretty clear that Topp is much better in some situations than others (he has the best chance to shine in an informal forum where he can tell longer stories to get his point across), and that when it comes to more personal encounters, he has good nights and bad nights. As for his debate performances, I think they're nowhere near as good as many other candidates' (and nowhere near as good as Topp himself can be in another format), but steadily improving.

Where should that leave you? Only you can decide that. I am really encouraged by that one "magic" evening event, because it suggests that he really can connect with people in a real human way, but I admit I would be even more encouraged if he were better able to translate that to other formats.


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

A whole thread overnight. Amazing.

Probably another one I won't see.

I concurr, to the letter, with what IP just siad about Topp. I've even had the similar very different experiences.

I said earlier that I think he'll do fine- he has a public personna that works. For all the hype, thats all thats required. There are plenty of very successful PMs and Premeirs who only have that- Stephen Harper for one. Darell Dexter was more awkward in public at early stages, including unsettling ticks like sort of locking his lips, and people liked him.

At moments Brian even does well in the public forums. He's clearly learning to be short and to the point. Earlier he would just end abruptly. He ends more smoothly now, and at times does very well.

I made the counter-intuitive remark earlier that I'm confident he has the speaking skills to make his message resonate enough to win this. The real challenge is that it appears not to be a simple message to get across, which means you have to have a damn good campaign to succeed at it. And even though that is Brian's strong suit, we'll see if he is up to it.


KenS
Offline
Joined: Aug 6 2001

V


nicky
Offline
Joined: Aug 3 2005

In light of the long overnight discusion about ideological purity, a couple of old points bear repeating;

1. Tom took out his first NDP membership in 1974. Topp only in 76. I am very sure it was long before any of the others except perhaps Nash. Ashton wasn't even born and Cullen was one year old.

2. I understand that in the Charst cabinet / caucus there were four or five former NDP federal candidates. Perhaps someone could verify this. There was always a significnt left-wing faction in the QLP and it included Tom.

3. I get the impression that even if Tom had signed the Regina Manifesto that still would not give him sufficient credentials in the eyes of some. 

And Wilf, your intereting list in post #54 is slightly dated. Denis Blanchette endorsed Tom last week.


MegB
Online
Joined: Nov 28 2001

CFL


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments