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 can't believe the hypocrisy from some of the babblers regarding Mulcair moving the party to the center. NOT ONE OF THE LEADERSHIP CANDIDATES STOOD UP AGAINST THE PARTY REMOVING SOCIALIST FROM THE CONSTITUTION!
All of these candidates want to move the party to the center to win power. So do most Canadians. They just want Harper gone.
To pretend like Topp or Nash are protecting party tradition is a hypocritical lie considering neither of those candidates stood up at the convention to protect the constitution. The only one who said anything was Topp who wanted to get it off the floor because he knew it wouldn't pass, but him and Lavigne were the ones who brought the amendment in the first place under the guise of Resolutions Committee.
I doubt you'll find any New Democrats who would claim they like losing. The anecdote about "if we earned power, that would be proof we sold out" is far more the exception than the rule.
But I still wonder if people believe in a realistic path to victory, though. I think a lot of people have this idealized fantasy that if we just stood tall, we would attract all these non-voters. If you had to point out that most of our votes in 2011 were from former Bloc or Liberal voters, they're the type who are far more uncomfortable than excited.
A study on non-voters from the US (digs into policy positions):
http://www.people-press.org/2010/11/11/section-3-voters-and-nonvoters-di...
A study on non-voters from Canada:
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/part/tud&docume...
A quote on non-voters from James Carville:
"There's a word for politicians that count on bringing new voters to the poll: 'loser'."
If we win a majority, we'll have a lot more Liberal (and a few more Green and Bloc and even Conservative) voters in our big orange tent. I'm not sure everyone here is aware of this, but many are definitely uncomfortable with that.
I just deleted 42 posts. Arthur, I appreciate you taking care to compose your post, but just do your editing in one thread!
This is a personal attack, dacckon. And it attacks left politics which are the point of this site. It's against policy. Please refrain from acting on your urges to insult the radical (and not-that-radical) left.
[joke deleted for copyright reasons]
Finally and not a moment too soon.
As early voting begins, NDP hopefuls shift into high gearhttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/as-early-vo...
i think libby was way off base with her attack on mulcair - there is a faction that believes that now that we have quebec behind us, people will vote strategically for the ndp instead of the lpc, and that'll put us into power. but quebec is hardly behind us, that lpc fade hypothesis is a joke, we've never won with any of the strategies we've employed thus far, oh, and there's only one candidate (mulcair) who could actually bring the libby scenario to day. so basically, she's saying something like: you won't win with that strategy you're using, ndpers won't support that, and this is proof again that you're probably a dependable progressive. my worry several months ago, when i was posting these 1000 word essais here trying to convince people that we needed mulcair, but which i'm less inclined to fret over today, as i think that i think it's pretty clear to all at this point that if we want to govern, it's going to require that we batter the cpc like mad, create clear contrasts with the rae liberals, HOLD QUEBEC, and put the party out as a reasonable alternative government, and the question about mulcair isn't whether he gives us the best shot at these - nearly everyone agrees that he is - but whether he'll be sufficiently progressive once in the big chair.
and oddly, if mulcair does manage to win, he'll be incredibly well-placed to stiffle the 'kooky ndp' line that harper's team has been using for all these years.
I totally agree. I also reject this fantasy that the NDP can win by getting all these "nonb-voters" to vote. I am not the least bit uncomfortable with the fact that to win in 2015, the NDP will have to get even more people who are currently voting for other parties to vote for us. Last May the NDP already succeeded in getting a huge chunk of people who had voted Liberal, Green or BQ to shift over to the NDP. But the job is not done. There are still 23% of people who voted BQ - in 2015 - we should drive that down to the low teens and make the case that even if you are a hard-core sovereignist - the place to fight for that is at the provincial level and at the federal level we should rally behind the one party that is placed to defeat the Tories. Of the 19% of people who voted Liberal last time - the NDP just needs to hammer home that we are viable. I think there was a lot of residual Liberal support in Ontario and parts of Atlantic Canada because the Liberals still had a lot of incumbents running and because the NDP had no serious campaign in a lot of areas. If you lived in Mississauga or York region - you probably still voted Liberal in May because in those areas they were still the far stronger opposition party. This won't be the case in 2015, after 4.5 years as the official opposition, i expect that the NDP will compete vigorously in those areas and if you live in Mississauga you will no longer regard the NDP as a "wasted voted".
I have no given up on getting soft Tory voters to go NDP in 2015 either. A lot of people who vote Tory respond to populism and the more it becomes evident that the Tories are NOT the party of Main Street but are actually the party of the elites - the NDP could make gains there too.
I honestly don't think that the NDP has to drastically change its message in the next election. I think it just has to go into the election being viewed as a serious contender for power with a competent front bech of shadow cabinet ministers.
If we had merely won a plurality of seats in Quebec, I think we would have been very pleased, and likely still have won Official Opposition combined with the results outside of Quebec. But aside from Toronto, the Orange Wave was much weaker across the country, particularly west of Ontario.
The key to winning in 2015 is pretty clear. Get fewer people to vote Conservative, (and to a lesser degree Liberal, Green and BQ) than did last May. That's what is guiding my ballot, not that it is structured yet. Phony ballony schemes to try to rig the vote are out, and so too are absurdist arguments that someone isn't NDP enough. What is important is a leader who can speak to our values and policies that resonates with the average voter. At this point I still see a few candidates who can do that, and Cullen would be one of them if he would drop this joint nomination nonsense. I am still surprised that people are attacking Mulcair, but not going after Cullen for the groups he is playing footsie with. Many of those folks do not necessarily have the best interests of the NDP at heart at all.
Holding onto our base in Quebec and winning the West is key to forming government.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/26/pol-ndp-leadership-winn...
I have to say it's disheartening that the only campaigns which have made proportional representation a signature issue both have terrible plans to institute it.
First Cullen promises to institute MMP as his first bill, but it turns out what he meant was call for a series of referendums on the subject. Now Peggy Nash has released a proposal for a Royal Commission within her first 6 months in office which sounds good until you consider how many commissions have recommended the decriminalization of marijuana in this country and the fact that it all but guarantees electoral reform could not occur during her first majority government.
I'm not giving the other candidates, including Mulcair, a pass on this though. Nobody has come out with a workable plan to make electoral reform happen in one term. The only way that happens is if we say we're going to pass it legislatively and we campaign on it exhaustively, hard to believe any of them are ready for that when they won't even camapign on a one term model in this contest where PR is popular.
You're right.
Are you referring to her comments that we'd need to look at the books first before advancing any changes? I thought it was a reasonable and prudent comment because it leaves lots of options open.
I really don't think Tom Mulcair could have gotten away with this:
Without all hell breaking loose around here.
Pointing out the double standards on Mulcair vs. the rest of the candidates is a fruitless exercise on babble. You can point out how no candidates are deviating from the 2011 platform (with very few exceptions), or that people spend more time miscontruing Mulcair's quotes than they do quotes from other candidates. I'm not saying that to be pro-Mulcair, but only to be pro-consistency and pro-evidence. Either way, accepting that inconsistency is the cost of doing politics here.
I'm still going to assume good faith that in most cases it's because he's the frontrunner, and frontrunners get more scrutiny. (I remember Topp got a lot more attention earlier on.) And some of us just honestly trust other candidates like Peggy Nash more, without having strong feelings against Mulcair. But for a select few, it's petty hostility to anything with a Liberal tinge, or perhaps sore feelings that they couldn't punish Jack Layton for the Libby Davies incident.
The difference is that Peggy is refusing to pre-announce her tax policy so as not to give the Conservatives a stick to whack the party with but keep our options open; Mulcair for his part did pre-announce his tax policy saying he would not raise taxes and would instead fund social programs via cap and trade revenue, both of which caused consternation within the NDP base.
Peggy's approach is better. :)
Problem is you're talking about substantive differences. When what's really important is positioning, modernizing and renewal.
Thomas Mulcair announcing today the support of Former Premier Mike Harcourt, former Mayor of Vancouver and the man who lead the B.C. NDP back into power after a 16 year exhile.
I agree with BA here about who Cullen is playing footsies with and for sure they don't have the NDP at its centre. I don't necessarily see him as a potential leader this time though because I so completely disagree with a joint nomination. I believe both Cullen and Mulcair are on the same page in that regard but just want to get "there" differently.
I saw that too. I think that's a pretty major "catch" for Mulcair...is he unstoppable now?
I'm sure it will help with securing the in roads in B.C. but endorsements don't win a race.
Its true - but every campaign is still trotting out endorsements wherever they can!
Tom Mulcair DID say he would not raise taxes and would instead get new revenue from cap and trade, he said it plainly during the Halifax debate. If he said in a subsequent Toronto Star article that we should look at the books and explore other sources of revenue BEFORE proposing to raise personal taxes, that is still consistent with his prior statement to look to cap and trade for revenue to expand social programs.
What about Mulcair's "alternative to new taxes" plan of diverting cap and trade to general revenue? If Nash had suggested the same, Mulcair boosters would be having a field day with it. The double standard is that Mulcair can say all kinds of controversial stuff and none of it means anything supposedly.
Brian Topp rabble-rouser Member: 13493 February 22, 2012 - 2:32pm #7I favour a mixed proportional house, blending the current House with a tier of MPs elected by proportional representation somewhat on the German model. A clear commitment on this issue – that if an NDP government is elected in 2015, the people of Canada will be voting on a mixed proportional system in 2019 – might be a compelling way to “unite the left” by persuading progressive-minded Greens and Liberals as well as New Democrats to vote NDP next election. And I favour enacting a Parliament Act in the first sitting of Parliament after we have rid Canada of the Tory government, for the purpose of forbidding a Prime Minister from ever advising the Governor-general to prorogue the house when a confidence vote is before it. Unionist \,,/ rabble-rouser-l33t \,,/ Member: 12323 Joined: Dec 11 2005 February 22, 2012 - 2:35pm #10 (permalink) You mean there would be no separate MMP referendum - electing an NDP govt in 2015 would suffice? Brian Topp rabble-rouser Member: 13493 Joined: Apr 21 2006 February 22, 2012 - 2:37pm #13 (permalink) I'm open to debate about a referendum but my preference would be that the election is the referendum.
(apologies for the formatting.)
Shouldn't be difficult for you to find that quote then. Point of fact Tom has proposed new taxes they just aren't the same as Brian Topp's blunt approach. He's proposed a financial trasactions tax and teased a target capital gains increase.
Unlike Nash he has not ruled out rolling out more tax proposals as the campaign continues.
Exactly. There's almost a "who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes" quality to the discussion.
This gets largely ignored, as usual.
I totally see Mulcair's positive qualities that his supporters are so hyped up about. I also have the same concerns as other babblers about the direction he'd take the party.
That's just Mulcair...his positives and his negatives. While it's certainly not over, it's looking like he's far ahead as the front runner. I don't have an emotional reaction to any of this. I will continue to talk about my perceptions of Mulcair's strengths and weaknesses, and I'm certainly not going to let anyone tell me that my concerns have already been addressed and are now irrelevant.
If Mulcair wants my vote then I want substance. I have not yet seen him offer us anything of substance. I have not yet heard any of his supporters address this lack of substance in any meaningful way.