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
Fair question Hoodeet.
I think like Lou Arab and others that all these accusations of campaign 'dirty tricks' are to be taken with a grain of salt. They happen, yes. But according to patterns that people say? Thats another story.
And I dont think its a big deal, but neither do I think Nikki's accusations of the Mulcair campaign should be taken at face value. Its a bully pulpit for her, and she's using it.
And while we are at it, I'm supporting Nathan Cullen, but take what he said aboiut his rankings also with a grain of salt. Assume that who he annoits, partially annoits, or does not, is heavily strategic. Not that its made up, or only strategic- but not to be taken as literal.
ETA: I made the mistke that she was saying she would not be intimidated by Mulcair's campaign. Dumb moistake, so no wonder I confused. But I'll leave that point standing about what she says about the Mulcair campaign.
Thats a good catch for Cullen. Not easy for him to break through the heavy campaign prescences there.
With the exceptions of Singh, Nash and Ashton.
I believe you agree that Mulcair and Topp are polarizing. I would add Dewar, because I think there are plenty of members who would vote for anybody but on account of his unacceptable French; and Cullen, because there's not an idea in this campaign that's more polarizing than "cooperation."
Saganash was the only candidate I actually wanted to vote for. Now I'm beginning to look at Ashton seriously as my first choice, because I'd rather save my tactical cyncism for further down the ballot.
Not entirely. Look at the URL.
Thanks, KenS. The gist of much of the debate on this thread is becoming clearer to me.
Yeah, I saw that - great!
So what is the strategy behind saying good things about Mulcair and criticizing everyone else?? If I was a Cullen supporter and I heard his comments my immediate interpretation would be "Nathan is suggesting I vote Cullen - 1, Mlcair - 2". How much more literal can you get than that?
Regarding the survey I mentioned above; I got this reply to my email asking who sponsored it:
Thank you very much for your email inquiry.
I can confirm that this survey is being conducted on behalf of a candidate. The Logit Group is a Gold Seal Member Agency of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Associaton (MRIA), Canada's governing body for all market research firms. As such, we conform to all regulations related to privacy and confidentiality. In this instance, the organization that provided us with member lists required that the survey be completed in a confidential, or "blind" method (whereby the survey sponsor was not identified at the outset). In return, the responses of individual members (such as yourself) would not be attributed to you specifically when reported back (survey findings would only be provided in aggregate form).
Please let me know if you have any further inquiries.
KenS, are you supporting Cullen? I thought you were a Topp guy. I'm interested to hear what you think of the strategic cooperation proposal. You probably already know my feelings on it.
Wow, that's crazy.
Imagine how mischevious it would be if someone asked that question about who your second choice would be from the first debate on Sunday. Back than it was funny but I think now it'd be treated as deadly serious.
I will try to offer my fair assessment of Thomas Mulcair:
Mr. Mulcair doesn't seem to accept the traditional framing of NDP ideas as supporting the "ordinary" Canadians. In fact, he despises the word "ordinary." As NDP leader, he will likely not use framing language such as "ordinary, working class, and working families." He will likely change the framing language to "Canadians" or "Canadian families." He might use quebecois(es) when speaking French.
Mr. Mulcair will likely be more pro-business in that he won't attempt to shut down the Alberta Tar Sands or stop pipelines permanently. He might demand more regulations including carbon-taxes. He might even start calling it the "Alberta Oil Sands" if elected prime minister. He might call it the "Alberta Sands Project" during the next election. As for other corporations, he won't likely talk about those "evil" corporations. He will state that corporations will need to pay their fair share in taxes. However, he probably won't implement much higher taxes on corporations.
On the issue of Quebec, Mr. Mulcair will need to strike the right balance between being supporting autonomous or assymetric rights for Quebec vis-à-vis the rest of Canada. This will be very important in the next election as the Conservatives will likely campaign as the "champions of Canada" vs. a "parochial opposition."
While the Israel/Palestine issue is important on the Rabble comment boards, I don't think that it will be important to most Canadians. While Mr. Mulcair is a strong supporter of Israel, he will likely state that he supports a two-state solution with the agreement of both the Israelis and Palestinians that ensures security for all. In the next election, the Middle East will likely be a low priority for the Mulcair campaign.
In the next election campaign, Mr. Mulcair will likely run a middle of the road campaign with about five points that will distinguish the NDP from the Liberals. I call this "the store front display campaign." The five points will be progressive platform polices that will invite Canadians to support the NDP. The details inside "the store" won't scare them away.
I have seen Thomas Mulcair debate live and on television. He waits for the right time to respond. He choses his words carefully. He projects his voice very well. Mr. Mulcair will be able to take on Stephen Harper.
A Thomas Mulcair led NDP will likely be leader-centric and more controlling than under NDP leaders of the past. His MPs will be more scripted. As for party members, he will likely ignore party policy platforms and rely on his charisma to espouse his own policies. He will not have time for ideological socialists. The NDP under Thomas Mulcair will be his party.
Just heard Peggy Nash on The House. Again, another very impressive interview. Such an experienced woman. It's a shame she wouldn't commit to increased corporate taxes, but for the most part (considering it was an Evan Solomon interview), pretty good stuff.
Are ANY of the candidates for leader actually pledging to totally shut down the oil sands in Alberta?
I realize this is just a matter of opinion, but i heard Peggy on the House as well. I certainly agreed with all the content of what she was saying...but I found her very "blah"
The real question is if Mulcair would be a departure from Jack Layton in anything but style. I'm just looking at Skinny Dipper's list point by point:
Under Layton, we already eased away from language like "ordinary" that doesn't translate well in Quebec, and might not even translate well in English to be honest. Layton didn't proposed banning the tar sands, and I'm not sure any other candidate has either. On Corporate taxes, we aimed to cancel or rollback certain cuts, and didn't reach much further for large increases. For better or for worse, we're now stuck trying thread the needle of Quebec autonomy but still federalism. The I-P policy is still to mediate a negotiation between the parties for two states, and it's still something we have low influence over. And arguably, the Canadian system has concentrated more rights in the PM and the "collective majority" than individual representatives for 30 years.
That's the main reason I'm not persuaded by people who say Mulcair wants to move the party to the center. Whenever they dig in on the policy, they find out that Mulcair either supports or expands on the current platform, and end up complaining that Mulcair will abandon a (supposedly) progressive policy that isn't in the NDP platform anyway. (e.g.: Nationalizing key industries, pulling out of NATO, and one that's dear to my heart -- raising taxes on the wealthy.)
I'm interested what the top 5 points would be for all the candidates, let alone Mulcair. But if I had to guess, they would/should be: electoral reform, universal child care, carbon pricing / kyoto 2.0, infrastructure investment, and expanding pensions. Maybe swap one of those out for expanding health/senior care, and/or re-instituting a federal minimum wage. I guess implicit in that should be a way to pay for it all.
It goes without saying, but undoing some of Harper's damage (wheat board, crime bill, census, foreign policy) will be easy things to campaign on and change.
If you think that any of the candidates would shut down the tar sands you are incredibly naive. Look at Topp's Environmental Policy Statement. I think you have totally ignored what Mulcair has said about the tar sands. Leaders tend to try to influence policy development rather than ignore policy. They have more control over the platform, and would hardly ignore platforms that they have heavily influenced development of.
I think things are looking good for Mulcair and picking up all that support in Saskatchewan is a good sign...I just wish that so many people backing him didn't have the first name "former".
It still makes most sense, imo, to support only the most progressive candidates on the first ballot (and the second, if there is one), unless we want it to be a coronation - dangerous, considering the growth of the PMO's power that a new PM would be inheriting, and what Mulcair's style promises.
It seems pretty much common sense to deny the front-runner(s) that coronation by sending a strong enough message. Ashton and Nash, to name just two, need to be guaranteed a strong place in cabinet (shadow or real) with a large base of support behind them and their positions.
I will be very surprised if anyone gets over 30% - let alone wins - on the first ballot.
Mulcair by no means has this thing wrapped up, vote for the person you most want to become leader. The candidates have all proven their worth to the party, no one is going to remember vote totals after the dust clears.
To be fair, I heard Peggy Nash this morning on CBC Radio say not only would she keep the Tar Sands open, but she'd also add to its infrastructure by constructing refineries. I would love to hear a candidate say "shut it down," but realistically the NDP (leadership, at least) has retreated significantly from that point. On this, Mulcair is no worse than any other.
Peggy Nash seems to me to have the perfect profile to be a finance minister (or industry, or trade). Sure of her facts, ozzing competence, professional demeanor, and dull. She's kind of a left wing Michael Wilson.
Having said that, I think it's possible to market 'dull' to Canadians. Dalton McGuinty has made a career of it. Stephen Harper isn't somebody I'd like to have over for a dinner party. I think if we are asking Canadians to take a chance on a party that's never held office before, there is worse things than to have a dull leader at the helm. It might make the NDP less risky looking.