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.
NDP leadership race #124
March 14, 2012 - 12:43am
;;
Sweet!
From the most successful social democratic businessperson person ever in BC
NDP hopeful Cullen gets financial backing from former B.C. premier Glen Clark
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/hopeful+Cullen+gets+financial+backing+from+former+premier+Glen+Clark/6295749/story.html
Do you ever even read what you write? The negativity towards an NDP candidate here is very staggering to say the least. Do you think you are having some private conversation that no one else is privvy to? Time to smarten up.
If doing better than we ever have before in the rest of Canada is doing very poorly. We gained ground in many more seats than we lost ground I think.
In the rest of Canada, the Conservatives won because the Orange Wave stopped short. We peeled off enough votes to disrupt the Liberals, but not enough to actually take as many seats.
Almost every poll since the election has been less favorable to the conservatives. While we've varied between 95 to 110 seats, a lot of Liberal votes have gone back home (both from us, and especially from the Conservatives). So a lot of polls give the Liberals 60 or so seats.
More specifically, almost every poll since the election shows that an NDP-Liberal coalition would have more seats than the Conservatives.
That's reason to be optimistic.
Maybe its penance??? (Just seems like such an odd match up) I could say more but I think I'll let that sleeping dog lie. ;-)
On attacking Syria, why it hasn't happened already:
1) Syria has no oil. In fact, it is bankrupt (Iran owns it through debt). Q: What is the gain to the West from having an ally there? A: Almost none.
2) Attacking Syria would likely cause a regional conflict possibly leading to a Middle East War.
Syria supports Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which would attack Israel (or the West). Iran supports Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas. All of these parties could easily become involved in Syria's response to an attack from the West.
Then there are the fairweather friends. Shia Iraq is Iran friendly these days. The Iraqi Shia leadership lived in exile in Iran during the Iraqi dictatorship. Jordan is majority Palestinian and borders Syria. If conflict produced mixed sentiments in Jordan (which it would if there was an attack on Israel for example), then Jordan has to sit the conflict out. Essentially, the only country that borders Syria and could be counted as an ally in an attack by the West is a NATO country: Turkey.
If Israel is attacked, Israel will respond, and the Gulf and other Arab states would have trouble allying themselves with Israel in an attack on Syria.
And these are just the foreseeable complications, with little discussion of what role Iran could play, among other considerations.
3) Attacking Syria would be harder than attacking Libya
The geography, the location, the impact on other countries borders would be hard to target. Lebanon could (would?) be invaded by Syria forces like it was for the last 30 years. Israel could (would?) disregard the post-1973 war borders and drive from the occupied Golan Heights right across the desert to Damascus, like it did in 1973.
So in other words, a Western attack on Syria opens the doors to a huge, huge mess.
War is not an easy fix, even in a situation as seemingly "clear-cut" as Libya.
1. I have no inside information about the pending Mulcair endorsements in Atlantic Canada but I do have some thoughts. Over the past 10 days his camp has been rolling out endorsements in geograpical bunches. About 100 in Sasksatchewan for example in one day, then 20 or more in BC and Ontario. I expect something similar today. Jack Harris may be the most prestigious unalligned MP from the Atlantic so I would keep an eye on him. Megan Leslie is also a possibility but I think she may have indicated she will remain neutral because she hs an important role at the convention. Stauffer has proclaimed his neutrality. Robert Chisholm had been endorsed by about a dozen Nova Scotia MLAs who have not yet expressed a final preference. I wd not be surprised to see some of them follow Chisholm's cue.
I know that some of you are not impressed by endorsements but they do have their effect on momentum. They are also reflection of where the race stands. If I am correct and Mulcair has about a third of the vote behind him then he might expect more endorsements in the final days. Perhaps mosre importantly, this process may deter others from endorsing his competition.
2. At the risk of being "divisive", let me say something about divisiveness. Although some are quick to proclaim Mulcair as the most divisive candidate, they are unable to point to anything much to back this up.
Mulcair has almost entirely refrained from commenting negatively on other candidates. There was the gentle criticism of Ken Neuman for trying to do and end-run around the paryt's decison to eliminate the carve-out. Then an early comment about Topp never having run for anything and not having lived in Queebc for 20 years. And that is just about it.
None of his critics say that Nash was much harsher on Topp for not having a seat.
Almost all of the supposed Mulcair divisiveness comes from a narrative created by his critics, from the Topp surrogates who invented the line that he "doesn't ply well with others" to the anonymos cranks behind the misinformation True Mulcair sites.
Mulcair hads run a campaign which has been relentlessly positive. He has been complimentry to his oppents, talking in the debates about the "great fron bench" etc. When he has asked them questions in the debates ,he has been positive and respectful. On the other hand most of them have ganged up to ask negative questions of him, often freighted with pejoratives.
We are told on this forum that the Mulcair supporters are also divisive. But most of the adverse comments we make about other candidates are refutations of their negative attacks on Mulcair. The line may be crossed on occasion but I think a fair minded observor woould sy that our negative stuff has lrgely been defensive rather than offensive. I don't think that same observor would say the same about some of Mulcair's detractorss.
And that was just as arrogant and condescending and works again as an affirmation. Thanks for coming out and con't the one candiate cheerleaders only in this thread.
add pom pom female cheering
4) Russia and China
Opposing a Western attack doesn't help either. They sell Syria its weapons and invest in the country.
Jan, I think you're being hyper-sensitive. If Topp is allowed to call Cullen a "defeatist" for wanting to cooperate with the Liberals, then asking whether the only other candidate that favours cooperation is not keen on fully competing is a mild critique. What's more, Duncan has said it is a strategic blunder to not open the doors to working with the Liberal party. I think it is a strategic blunder to act as if the Liberals are an honourable political party. It sets you up for losing votes both outside and inside the House of Commons.
Excellent coverage of Niki Ashton in TorStar.
“The clock is being turned backward,” Ashton said, citing the sell-off of Canadian resources, the rollback of women’s rights, the impending reduction of benefits and the widening gap between rich and poor. Why would the NDP abandon the people left behind by this dismantling of the social contract?
Niki Ashton is the brightest light in the NDP leadership raceNiki gets my number 2 spot!
Howard, I am so not interested in working to ever elect a liberal. Did that once in Huron Bruce in 1993 - young and Trudeau idealistic. Ended up working for and electing the most right-wing Liberal ever - but geez, aren't Liberals progressive. I'm talking about the party here and not people who tend to vote Liberal.
I had women who identify as feminist tell me they wanted to vote NDP (after 1993 and seeing that their "man" was so conservative that he was more conservative than the Reform party canidate) but were fearful that the con would get in so they would vote for this gun-toting man.
I'd much rather poke my eyes out than get sucked into having to work for another "pretend progressive" liberal. Oh, I have no problems working with the Liberal party but I'm so not into joint nomination meetings and all entails. And the last time we tried working with the Liberals and forming a coalition the Libs weren't interested.
And last time I checked the liberal party and their leadership have been quite clear that they aren't interested in cooperative joint nomination ideas. I see the joint idea as such a non-starter and also suggesting that the liberal party as progressive. I don't.
Martin Singh on The Current has just urged his supporters to vote for Mulcair if he is eliminated.
So this makes 3 out of 3 candidates, Chisholm, Saganesh, and now Singh asking their supporters to back Mulcair
NDP candidate Martin Singh tells supporters Mulcair is next-best choice
http://www.montrealgazette.com/candidate+Martin+Singh+tells+supporters+Mulcair+next+best+choice/6300142/story.html
CBC's The Current are saying that Mulcair is the only candidate who would do an interview with them, also Mulcair has turned down being on CBCs Power & Politics and The House. This is not an attempt to put Tom down (I am volunteering for his campaign) but isn't this a bit strange? He appeared on Sun News and CTV for interviews but nothing on CBC. What's the angle?
Because the CBC News Dept is a front for the LPC. Astute decision.
CBC = "the Liberal media"
Aren't the other ones fronts for the CPC? Like them or not CBC is a venue to get the message out, you can't ignore them if you want to try to get some of those Lib votes to come our way. Also, it's not like Tom can't handle defend himself from the usual attacks. It just strikes me as a missed opportunity.
Thanks Gaian, it makes more sense to me now.
Tom was on P&P not long after he entered the race if I recall correctly, although I don't recall seeing him since.
These kind of things are nevitable when someone is perceived as having a chance to become prime minister, and we should feel encouraged that the big players, Canada's decision-makers want to be friends with us.
This just tells me Mulcair has a lot of support, but it also means we need to ensure that we keep our party very democratic so these backroom boys don't get to decide NDP policy on their own, eh.
Welcome to 21st century politics for the NDP.
The 2011 NDP election results surprised most everyone. Are we going to squander this fabulous opportunity or take advantage of it and go on to form government? I know which side of the fence I am on. Do others?
I think we can count on whoever wins this leadership race to be to be the Anti-Harper in 2015, more or less.
Mulcair is a gambler - he has to be in order to win
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Mulcair+gambler+order/6298236/story....
Yeah, my feelings on fundraising are similar. If Niki Ashton were the frontrunner, you'd start seeing the corporate money flow her way too. Certainly, Topp, Cullen and others have raised some of that too. It's just how corporations play the game. I don't think it's because they sat in a room together, and said "we agree on so much!"
No matter who wins, we have to organize so our voice counts more than their money. They'll use money to influence the party no matter what, so we have to be vigilant.
Jean-François Lisée has an article about the time Mulcair spent in cabinet. He has quotes from (anonymous) former ministers who are all basically saying that Mulcair not only never formulated any objections toward the Charest government's "réingénierie" program (reduction of the size of government, privatizations galore, tax cuts), he apparently criticized at the cabinet's table those who didn't go far enough in that direction.
To wit:
One former minister recalls that he made "acerbic remarks" about unions.
Lisée does recognize that Mulcair has been efficient in managing the Environment ministry, doing more with less.
However, he concludes that Mulcair has been a "conscious accomplice of the rightward turn that Charest imposed on the LPQ between 1998 and 2006".
You mean three out of four. Cullen has told his supporters on his website that they should choose who they like for their second, third and fourth choices. This was mentioned on the last thread.