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
With respect jan I am not sure what you are talking about as your comments are kind of unclear. Are you accusing me of something?
By letting the attacks from Topp go unanswered, Mulcair gets to have it both ways.
He gets to release policy after policy that basically repeats or expand on the NDP platform from 2011, and he gets to have all these pundits and even fellow candidates say he's "moderate" and "centrist". Moving to the center would involve a huge shift in policy. But if a perceived centrist is proposing cap-and-trade, electoral reform, and universal child care, then maybe Mulcair is right that he can "move the center to us".
Well BA, I have seen you come onto Babble and continual putdown Topp and so I find that interesting inself. And I hear you suggest that for example, many people, but of course, how many is many and it's all relative. I guess I am questioning the line or tack here - not sure why you are so against Topp and yet I hear you suggest you have not made up your mind in who you are supporting.
Beyond that, I guess I haven't really been "down" on any candidate except for Dewar when I received that silly email from his supporting team but outside of that I haven't been doing put downs of any candidates. I just find it interesting.
You may have missed it, but I definitely think that Topp went over the line to scorching the earth in his attacks on Mulcair. Specifically, on two different occasions, once to the Globe & Mail, and once on Radio-Canada radio show "C'est Bien Meilleur le Matin", he called Mulcair a "principal architect" of the Charest government.
Trying to tar Mulcair with the brush of the most impopular Québec government in living memory definitely, to an audience of the general public, not just party members, definitely goes over the line of harming the party long-term in my opinion. If Mulcair wins, it's something the Bloc will be able to try to hit us over the head with in Québec, though I'm confident Québec voters will see the line as the transparent bullshit it is. Listening to that Radio-Can interview is the precise moment I decided I wouldn't be ranking Topp on my ballot, and I'm not supporting Mulcair as my first choice.
Well isn't this what people wanted a couple threads back? An exciting race?
And when you attack the spin of one candidate, be sure to attack that of them all.
The media wanted us attacking each other, I don't think having a positive campaign labeled "boring" by Sun News was going to do any permanent damage once the new leader was selected. There's nothing wrong with the Leadership candidates having a broad policy concensus and a respectfuly even tempered campaign following. Everyone saw that Jack's approach was getting results no one wants to mess with success.
Yeah, I'm starting to see the upsides of boring. But I still wish there were at least one truly exciting candidate.
Just spoke to my 75 year old uncle who received a phone canvass call from the Topp campaign yesterday.
I wouldn't have placed much weight on it except that it is similar to other calls reported here. When my uncle said he was supporting Mulcair, the canvassers became testy and tried these lines to try to get him to change his mind:
1. Mulciar will "move the party to the right"
2. Mulcir is "rough around the edges" - i.e . temper , etc.
3. Mulcair had nothing to do with the party's breaktrough in Quebec.
None of this worked on my uncle who made it plain he did not appreciate the slurs and that he was dropping Topp to the bottom of his ballot. He also took delight in saying that he had signed up 25 of his friends at the local Irish bar to vote for Mulcair. (I know that he has in fact signed up six)
Perhaps this is the same rogue canvasser who has made all of the other calls that have been complained about. But it is starting to sound like a pattern, particularly because it reflefts some of of the negative things Topp has been throwing at Mulcair.
Perhaps the Topp camp thinks this is a good approach but I suspect that my uncle is not the only person turned off by it.
I might post once or twice in any individual thread on average- some none and others a few times. Given the ongoing, thread after thread, pedantic, overblown and nonsensical attacks on Mulcair by KenS, which is what I was resonding to, I hardly think I could be accused of "continual".
These threads are meant to allow open discussion about the NDP leadership race. Early on Topp was tied for first with me along with several others. Then I settled on a clear choice with Romeo, but Topp remained high on my rankings. Since then he has demonstrated to me that he is not leadership material. So I know who I am not voting for, but with Romeo out I have no idea yet who I am voting for. I strongly believe Topp's approach has the potential to do damage to the party. He is trying to generate bad blood to further his own ambitions. I don't like it one little bit. I think it is far worse for the long term health of the party than the supposed third wayism some candidates are accused of. I think it is reasonable and responsible to call someone on that. People can take or leave what I say any way they want. But your not so sublte suggestion that I have some kind of ulterior motive, beyond the success of the NDP as a whole, is more than a little insulting.
Topp is on The Current right now and I like how he's talking about progressive tax rates and speaking against the myth of Conservative economic prudence. "It's not true that Conservatives don't spend--they just spend it on tax cuts, and that doesn't make any sense."
I see a lot of anti-Topp sentiment for his attacks on Mulcair. Has much attention been paid to the, perhaps more subtle, digs Mulcair has been making against Topp during this campaign? I'm thinking of, for example, when Mulcair first mused about extending the race. He didn't, as you might expect, say "we need to extend the membership deadline so that we can sign up new members from Quebec." He said: "some NDP leadership candidates are against extending the membership deadline so we can sign up new members from Quebec." A subtle, but I think you'll agree, a potent, difference. One that made me think: there's the Liberal.
ETA. And I want to re-iterate that suggesting that any individual babbler has some ulterior motives in supporting/not supporting a certain candidate. So don't, k?
I don't expect the Mulcair supporters to agree with me. But that was my impression the moment he spoke the words. And I can't quite recall, but I think Topp might have been the only declared candidate at the time, and he certainly hadn't said anything about his preference for extending the deadline yet. But Mulcair managed to both get his extended deadline and frame Topp as against it before Topp had said anything about either. It was a crafty, even brilliant maneuver, but divisive and aggressive. To wit: a Liberal move.
I think we can call out both campaigns for their tough moves without likening them to right-wing policies. Unfortunately, the right-wing does not have a monopoly on negativity, cult of personality, groupthink, or even authoritarian censorship.
The issue is always one of perception. Cullen said "when Mulcair joined us from the Liberal party" -- which could be taken as a matter of fact, could be taken as a good faith point, or could be taken as a hidden reminder that "hey, if you didn't know, this guy was a Liberal". It could have been an innocent remark that he liked to repeat, or it could have been a really slick attack.
I think someone wisely pointed out that Jack Layton was completely capable of sliding the knife into a political opponent. He just knew how to smile when he did it.
Topp's attacks have been the worst, by that measure. Not any less hard-nosed. Only less elegant.
Mulcair announces strategy to make housing more affordable
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/925747/cep-supports-brian-topp-for-ndp-l...
From Boom Boom's article:
As a DTES activist and volunteer, this got my attention. Woodwards, on the contrary, is the emblem of gentrification and developer power in Vancouver. There is a handful of affordable SROs (single-room occupancy), but far less than originally promised--and its residents are strictly enforced to stay away from the luxury apartments. It is definitely not a "co-op." It also remains a powerful symbol of displacement and colonialization for low-income residents. The article continues:
The entrance to the art gallery in Woodwards is locked to the outside, keeping DTES residents literally and figuratively barred from cultural or "community" space. I could say more, of course, but picking Woodwards as a decent place to speak about a housing plan does not inspire confidence. Carnegie, a few blocks East, would have been a much more inspiring choice. I wonder, was Vancouver East MP (the riding in which Woodward's sits) and author of the National Housing Plan Bill Libby Davies in attendance?
Didn't know all of that, CF - thanks! If Mulcair decides to entertain questions here on babble, I'll put this to him - unless you plan to?
(no response to my email yet)
Why did he pick the Woodward's building, then, H_M? Why did he go to one of the most vulnerable communities in North America to give a stump speech without asking a single resident or activist who is actually affected by housing strategies and development policies? Could it have been because he only wanted the film set but not the extras? Actually, I'm sure Libby could have told him anything he needed to know. Do you suppose he asked her?
Or could be taken as ignorant, quite unlike Cullen. Is there any evidence he was ever a federal Liberal member or supporter? I assume not enough to get into donation records, or someone would have found it.
"Joining us from the Liberal Party" implies changing parties. There is no reason he couldn't still be a member of the Quebec Liberal Party, and I expect he is.
Let's stop being silly. We all know Libby Davies is not going to be in attendance at a Mulcair event. Her choice btw.
I swear, whatever Mulcair does will cause inevitable attacks from someone from the "more righteous than thou" crowd. It's almost too predictable now.
Well, I think all of the candidates are under intense scrutiny, as they should be. Without Catchfire's quick response to my post, I wouldn't have known how phony that Mulcair announcement outside Woodward's was - and I'm voting for the guy.
My point is that Woodward's is emphatically not an "affordable housing success story." Quite the opposite: it's an emblem of Vancouver's utter failure in that regard.
And I take offense to the usual "more righteous than thou" accusation. I work with DTESiders every week. I'm sorry if I value the hard work of activists, residents and volunteers over the pretensions of a politician.
I don't understand your comment, Gaian. Care to elaborate?