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
Yup. Mulcair glosses on policy. It is a real weakness. When truly cornered, he or his supporters hide behind but that was the platform in 2011!
a) there were problems with the 2011 platform
b) when it comes to cap and trade, KenS has already pointed out that that is not true, cap and trade revenues were directed towards environmental initiatives and not general revenues.
sloppy, sloppy, sloppy...
Nathan was being really strategic bringing this up in the sole Prairie debate (especially harping on not just the Yukon debate, but the Edmonton one too). This sort of thing is a huge deal to Prairie New Democrats (and Mulcair's "Montreal Chamber of Commerce" response played right into Nathan's hands--could Mulcair honestly not have realized that?).
Winnipeg was the best debate by far to me. Every candidate had a point where I thought "whoa, good move!" It was scrappy and real differences were brought up, but not to the point where it ruined the sense of camaraderie.
I thought Cullen was as good as ever, and Mulcair took some hits but for the most part held his own, as he always does. The big difference, though, was Topp. I've found his debate performances either cringeworthy (toward the beginning) or just okay (more recently). He looked really good yesterday, though! Smart and sharp and with a really good closer that he barely needed his notes for. Good job, Brian, if you're reading this--let's see more of the same next week in French.
Back in August/September, if Tom could have announced he had Libby's endorsement no one would have bothered running against him for leadership. I wonder if he's even tried to patch things up with her.
What's unbelievable is the way progressives continue to accept losing, when there are real people suffering that need real help.
Of course "these types" exist. But Mulcair and his supporters talk about them as if they are representative of the party and what derives it. And the anecdotes relayed afterwards are of fairly clueless people working on no hope campaigns. And rethaer clueless does tend to go with the territory.... but what drives the rest of the party- volunteers through staff- is not like that in the least.
And by the way, Libby Davies is not the "purity politician" you portray her as Howard. Not in the least.
She just has different ideas than you of what you can do on the road and as part of winning.
You're right KenS. We are largely perfect. No need for introspection
Like legalising prostitution? Every country I've seen that happen in has a two-tier system of legal, regulated brothels and thriving illegal, unregulated brothels and street trade. Both horrible and exploitative in their own special way.
But hey! It's avant garde in North America!
I'm telling you I went to the Leadership Debate yesterday here in Winnipeg, but after reading the comments in this thread and 108 I have decided I don't know what the hell I am talking about. Look at my comments, based on what I have read in these two threads, I must be nuts. I still don't know for whom to vote any more. I was mind made up yesterday. But not so sure now.
Didn't I just check this thread, I thought. Why are there 42 new messages?
Arthur: I don't know if you're nuts, but you sure are repetitive!
IP, lol
I wish I could be certain about any one of these candidates. On top of that, I guess this will be punny, I am not so sure Topp is the top candidate, I never thought he was, but I just can't understand why the party establishment is pushing him. That "3rd-Way" Saskatachewan stuff turns me off, but he made good points on taxes yesterday. Singh though is a one-trick pony, but he held his own. I was hoping Nash would hit it out of the park but I thought she was evasive and weak. Check what I wrote in 108 regarding talking to her after the debate. Mulcair was very good. But based on what others have written, I still have my doubts. Ashton was very good, but I suspect I am having trouble with how young she is as I am with Cullen who I also thought was very good. But, I loved Topp's wrap up comments; they were like attending an old-time CCF meeting in a UC Parrish Hall somewhere. Being a Winnipeg North-Ender, I felt very comfortable with their tone. I don't get Dewar at all. Period. One other really funny thing, EVERYONE seemed very comfortable when they were speaking in French. Topp especially. That was very impressive.
I really haven't got a clue on for whom to vote! As General Anthongy McAuliffe said at Bastogne, Nuts!
Don't blame Arthur. It's Racknine.
Unionist, I always love your comments, but I have to ask, what is Racknine?
Fraudulent election calls traced to Racknine Inc., an Edmonton firm with Tory links
Unionist, LOL!
But I am not a Tory stooge, I am just a stooge. Yeah Moe! Lol!
I think some people are painting a picture of Libby Davies that is very much a parody. How many people remember that she negotiated the budget deal on behalf of the NDP with the Martin Liberals in 2005?
Seriously, now: Arthur, could you delete all but one of your "I must be nuts" comments? Otherwise this thread will get closed soon, and it's way too soon for that.
Don't worry Arthur, you are more perceptive than just about anyone else on Babble.
And you have just tied KenS for most number of posts.
Aren't you confusing her with Buzz Hargrove?
Here's another contemporary report:
Where did you see Libby's name?
ETA: I'm not suggesting Hargrove negotiated anything - he didn't, and never claimed he did. His role, along with Ken Georgetti and others, was to pressure Layton into trying for a deal with Martin rather than joining a Con-Bloc plan to topple the minority government - and then physically getting them into the same room together. If Libby was involved, that's the first I heard of it.
Nash releases good policy paper on proportional representation. We know Cullen's position on how to get there. Have any of the other candidates plotted out a road map?
One difference between the Cullen and Nash proposals revolves around the role of a referendum. Cullen suggests this is the only route to changing the system. Nash keeps her options open.
Remember that Jack Layton was elected leader in 2003 with the support of only two members of caucus: Libby Davies and Svend Robinson. Hardly centrist types, eh?
It amazes me when people praise Jack's work but then claim that people on the left of the party are somehow impediments to it. If NDP members had listened to more moderate voices than Libby's and Svend's, Jack would never have become leader.
(I say this, by the way, not as a huge Libby Davies fan; I disagree with her on a fair number of policy matters. But I've always had respect for her, and I think these attacks on her as somehow going against Jack's approach are completely ridiculous.)
Nicky, thank you for the kind remarks. I kind of worry sometimes that I just ramble on too much. I don't want to wreck this forum for everyone. It is really nice to have a place where you can talk with people who share some common views and points of reference.
But, I know my wife would disagree with you, she'll tell anyone I'm nuts, lol!
Regarding Libby Davies in 2005 - I guess I was unclear. She obviously didn't negotiate tete a tete with Paul Martin himself, but I have read many accounts of how she was the key person on the NDXP side negotiating the details of the arrangement with Ralph Goodale who was Finance Minister at the time. She was also one of the key figure in negotiating the coalition deal with the Liberals in 2008. All the years she was NDP house leader she was widely regarded as a very shrewd canny operator who was able to grease the wheels to get things done and was able to play hard ball with the total jerks who were Tory and Liberal house leaders at the time.
I think this depiction of her as some "patron saint of lost causes" is very, very incomplete
I read this thread and I found it amusing that people are implying that Libby doesn't want to win elections. What planet have you folks been on? And I suppose if you believe her to be the ultimate purist, then by contrast the other deputy leader must be totally impure? Let's not get into the buisness of pulling assumptions out of your arses. Although in my view, I believe that being a deputy meant that you represented some faction in the party, so why should one run against the other when a true leader in the middle of these two forces are needed? But then again, these are implications that I am making, perhaps you should judge if they hold any merit.Even if Libby had perfect French, I would not want her to run because she clearly represented a faction/spirit in the party. But then again, I am making assumptions and it is up to you to judge whether or not my own opinion can be weighted against the relentless spinmasters coming from a certain camp of posters. I do recommend however the abrupt ending of the logic that if someone other than your candidate is elected, everything goes down the shitter. I strongly believe that the posters who make these comments are in fact not only aware of this but more intelligent than what their posts sound like.But perhaps I am making more assumptions eh?
And if I can further add on my own opinion: Its better to elect a Willy Brant or a Clement Attlee as leader rather than a Gordon Brown. We shouldn't choose someone out of a primal emotion such as fear.
One last thing, I'd like to address the post of Supreme Comrade Buttface. You know, the type of poster who makes threads/comments blaming everything on the NDP for all federal actions because they 'didn't oppose them enough'.Hope ya ain't planning another Liberal-Labour pact heh. But lest we forget the past and the disney fantasy future you may hold you silly goose, that "every revolutionary ends as an oppresor or a heretic". But then again, I didn't enjoy Albert Camus' writings that much that I should be quoting them.
So not cool. Is it not enough that the board is dominated by the leadership horserace? We've got to attack fellow babblers who dare to be critical from a left perspective? How do we stop engaging in this kind of cheap, ignorant, stereotyping toxicity against each other?
For the record the NDP soared from TWO seats in Toronto EIGHT and the NDP popular vote across Toronto went from about 20% in 2008 to over 30% - while it may not have been quite as dramatic as what happened in Quebec - it would a somewhat under-reported part of the NDP wave last year....In some ridings in the GTA the gaisn were spectacular in Scarborough-Rouge River the NDP vote went from 12% to over 40%! and in Bramalea-Gore-Malton the NDP vote went from 10% in '08 to 35% last year and just missing winning by 500 votes (this paved the way to picking up that seat provincially in October).
So pardon if I'm getting a bit irritated by this implication all us New Democrats who were not lucky to be in Quebec and get on the elevator on the ground floor and ride it up - are a bunch naive losers who don't want to win and just recycle the same template over and over again. The party message techniques across Canada are in a constant state fo evolution and re-evaluation.
Thanks writer
We really do need more highbrow discussions here. I think a lot of folks have probably stopped reading about the NDP Leadership here because of the nonsense.