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
Sounds like a non-answer to me.
Welcome to babble, Pairie Lefty.
I think that Saganash would be a very big catch - especially since his last act as Leadership hopeful was to pen a list of qualities which he figured that the new leader should have.
Obama was never going to go for the public option. When he was debating Edwards and Clinton, Obama talked about bringing everyone to the table and rattled off a bunch of players - including the Health Insurance Industry! I remember thinking at the time that if Obama was going to implement single payer then why would he bother bringing the Health Insurance Industry to the table!
I think Nuances is important.
All MPs, including the leader, are beholden to what has been decided at Convention (one of the complaints at the last Convention was the lack of time allocated for voting on policy). That said, personal biases can determine how one deals with a policy that one presumably supports and looks for aspects of a policy area not covered by convention - which a lawyer can do quite well.
The new NDP leader should not only be able to go after Harper but needs to be able to stand up for the other MPs. The new leader has to be able to take two MPs that have disagreements on an issue and figure out how to find common ground which they both will find acceptable - even if the leader is a bit more favourable to the position of one over the other. If the leader can't do the "common ground" thing, the leader will have to step aside and have someone else in the party in charge of doing that for him/her and then be prepared to go to bat with whatever has been worked out.
That is one worry about Mulcair is whether he can do the "common-ground" thing and what he plans to do about it. Turmel appears like Stephane Dion's sister on TV but she seems very good at getting all the MPs on side and doing the "common-ground" thing - except for one incident, I haven't seen much mixed messages with the NDP since she's taken over.
God knows I'm not crazy about the emphasis on endorsements, but I agree with janfromthebruce: complaining about a union endorsement being "establishment" and about "telling you what to do" when you're not saying the same thing about other kinds of endorsements smacks an awful lot of anti-union sentiment. Unions have been an important part of the NDP for a long time.
This interview is worth listening to. For those interested in someone who can lead the party and become prime minister i suggest you take a few minutes to tune in.
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2012/02/28/ndp-leadership-hopeful-peggy-nash/
Yes, and Lloyd Shaw was a socialist. There are a few socialist capitalists here and there. But the number of capitalists who supported the CCF/NDP historically was very miniscule. Even Bob Rae could fit all of his Bay St. supporters in a phone booth when he was Premier of Ontario.
No control whatsoever on the line-up of the show the day you do it. It would be nice if the Canadian media would give the U.S. a rest, but any minor figure seems important if they happen to be American it would seem. In the meantime, Canada goes under-reported.
While Lou might include him I don't think Mulcair would include himself.
A good interview...she certainly articulates social democratic values very well and I'm glad she made the importance of the level of equality and societal health. A bit reluctant on the taxation question, however.
Running with PR as a major plank may help us considering the alternative may be another false Conservative majority. Also total number of seats is not the only reason for PR, it can also address regional disparities in seat numbers (Saskatchewan for example). Provincial NDP governments haven't run on a platform including PR and won yet. One of the grim jokes after the 2001 election in BC is that virtually all of the MLAs who opposed PR were defeated.
One important difference is that no provincial NDP party has won power with PR explicitly mentioned in their platform. If a federal NDP government reneged on PR, there would likely be a backlash that could cost the party a lot of support and credibility.
Fun with numbers:
http://www.punditsguide.ca/
This is all based of course on Dewars poll which is about two weeks out of date. Mulcairs poll was about 5% bettter for him WRT both first and second choice preferece.
Both polls predate the new membership totals and recent events.
"First-Past-The-Post is the ultimate voter suppression scheme; it suppresses half the votes by throwing them in the garbage can."
Someone told me last night that live polling shows 30% undecided. I asked if they had added anything for the respondents who tell almost every candidate they are supporting them. She agreed; I bet the real undecided rate is a lot higher.
Is there a sociological study available that helps identify the LPC "base?" It would be very interesting. My impression anecdotally is that the LPC universe has few few characteristics, being those who, like many, live rather atomistically and are a bit nervous of "big" anything. They are not going to change, mostly, and we need those votes. We may be able to get a lot of them simply by being the best and only viable alternative to the Conservatives. And then earn their continued support "each and every day" (as the new cliche runs) by audibly listening to their views. Workstyle more than ideology. Jack embodied that. I think all our leading candidates are capable of it too.
Once we have PR, that works. Meanwhile, they are among those who, like most Greens, will (once they get the point of PR) happily vote NDP to get it. (Remember that almost 70% of Canadians do support PR.)
http://wilfday.blogspot.com/2011/01/poll-results-on-canadian-public-supp...
A lot of Liberals agree.
Easy, there. Harper did his polling on that one. Outside Quebec, that was a move that a lot of folks applauded.
Agreed. Somebody wasn't thinking. Leo Gerard is a great catch, but someone please go edit out the title from the Topp website if it's there.
Do you really think Jack's mother would have endorsed Topp without Olivia's blessing?
Toronto candidate, eh?
Thanks for your work, Prairie Lefty. Welcome to Babble! A great name you've chosen for yourself.
Peggy Nash has been endorsed by former BC cabinet ministers Colin Gabelmann, Evelyn Gillespie and Darlene Marzari.
http://peggynash.ca/2012/peggy-nash-picks-up-endorsements-from-former-bc...
The press release also mentions several other past BC endorsements that Nash has received, one of which had escaped my notice somehow: former Vancouver East MP Margaret Mitchell.
———
Meanwhile, Roy Romanow heaps praise on Brian Topp, calling him "the perfect candidate" in a new video from the Topp campaign.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hcoz_TCzZv8
I dunno, LP. Just Bob's brother John couldn't fit, at least not if you included his bags of money. Is he still an Executive VP of Power Corporation?
Maybe that's a good argument to keep FPTP?
*ducks for cover*