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
Broadbent was interviewed on P&P - very rambling. More NDP leadership coverage coming up on P&P.
<usererror>
It is good theatre people need to think about this stuff. It sparks neurons, overturns old beliefs. Welcome to progressive social dialog I think. Ed Broadbent and Mr. Mulcair are two of the best. It makes us ask Who are we?
Craig Oliver and ??? (from LeDevoir) on CTV "Power Play":
Both did not give much credence to Broadbent's statement, saying that Broadbent is backing a loser (Topp).
Both seem to think Mulcair will win - Oliver saying Mulcair will likely lead on every ballot. He did add "watch out for Cullen", indicating he will be stronger than some expect.
I also heard that the convention will be delaying the results from the first ballot to a later time and that some commentators believe this might suggest there may be fewer ballots than some are expecting.
broadbent's interview really isn't so bad, i really like the guy: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=2210497285
wish he wouldn't go after mulcair, but i can't blame him. it's healthy, and it's not really as bad as the print media suggested.
Not according to the commentators on Power and Politics - including Gerald Caplan who politely disagreed with Broadbent's intervention.
A lot of them were stating that the worst of Broadbent's attacks were directed at Mulcair's character - that he "can't be trusted" and "no one can work with him" (or something to that effect) Basically they were stating the worst of Broadbent's statements were his negative personal attacks.
Flanagan joked that Harper had called him up to prepare attack ads against Mulcair baseed on Ed Broadbent's quotes. (just a joke right now but that certainly sounds like something the Conservatives could do).
Just a word to the loser mentality within the NDP - don't let the barn door hit you on the way out
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tandt+Mulcair+would+hasten+Harper+drea...
r u for real?
From what I read in this and the last thread people including myself were responding to Mr Broadbents totally divisive comments and basic smear of Muclair with really weaselly words that I posted as reported in that news item.
That is pretty offensive stuff you wrote full of its own spinning and smearing.
This stuff really needs to stop.
Right, your guy is luke-warm on proportional rep because he knows his divisive style would eventually lead to a permanent split. Speaking of barn doors.
it's not helpful to call people with different opinions "losers". i definitely see winning as the most important thing, but i'm also with topp that we do need to actually do well when we have power. we need a gang of active idealists keeping the leadership honest.
The media reading of Broadbent is far worse than anything Ed actually said.
Watching the CBC interview confirms that.
Ed Broadbent said he's not against modernizing. His beef with Mulcair is that he's suggesting the party hasn't modernized, not that Ed was against it. The NDP has undergone changes in language, changes in fundraising, changes in organization.
Ed is really specific about his criticism of Mulcair -- half of his beef is that Mulcair's criticisms of the party have been unfair. He doesn't like that Mulcair said the NDP was too centralized, and responds that the Quebec strategy was developed in coordination with Ottawa. He thinks Mulcair's comment about "boilerplate" is a charicature of the party who helped him, and "modernizing" is something we already did.
The other half of his criticism is that Mulcair is vague. If we've already modernized, then what does Mulcair want us to do? Ed points out that Brian Topp has a specific vision of how to modernize the party, using taxes as an example. Ed thinks Mulcair is making a mistake by avoiding this issue. Ed says that you don't avoid the issue just to avoid being attacked, because that could actually lose credibility with the voters.
He still praises Mulcair: he's successful, forceful, someone who can take on Harper. But he says that Topp's stance on taxes and equality is more clear, and he has a better idea of what Brian Topp wants to do.
Considering Topp has been in the party's inner circle for such a long time, Broadbent's comments that he trusts Topp's vision more is completely fair, and completely unsurprising.
Mulcair doesn't have cross-Canada appeal, just ask Brian Topp.
Mulcair also got criticised during one of the debates for not visiting the Yukon by either Nathan Cullen or Paul Dewar.
For the elder statesman of the party to take on the front runner a week before the convention - not good optics for me. And, yeah, Harper must be loving this.
Broadbent's at it again, same day, this time in the Toronto Star.
I'm starting to sound like a broken record, saying you guys are dramatizing this a bit too much...
But this is still a very amicable, peaceful race from where I sit. The relative peacefulness makes Ed Broadbent's interview seem like a huge event, but it's mostly a repetition of the obvious, and not much of an attack on Mulcair at all.
There are a ton of worse things that happened in the U.S. Democratic primaries four years ago. If he really hated Mulcair, he'd say "he's unfit to be prime minister" or "he would be a disaster for the party". He would point to some huge issue of principle that Mulcair is violating.
The worst thing he could say was that Topp is more specific about taxes whereas Mulcair is more vague. Maybe I'm biased, because I agree with Topp and Broadbent too. But it doesn't make it an attack. It just means he trusts Brian more, and has more confidence in him to maintain those principles.
We'll still come together when the race is over. Topp, Mulcair, or otherwise.
And Broadbent contradicts Broadbent (on modernization, good and bad)
More mud:
It is indicative that Brian Topp doesn't have any more support among the old caucus than Mulcair. It is indicative that Paul Dewar has support among the old caucus. It is indicative that only 2 MPs from the old caucus support Peggy Nash. It is indicative that it is indicative...As my father used to say, "figures don't lie, but liars figure". (they twist the numbers to make their point)
Let's take a little walk down memory lane. The NDP was running on "Ottawa's broken and it's time for us to fix it" at the beginning of the 2011 campaign (i.e. first two weeks of April) and was slipping in the polls (link) and the media was writing articles about how the NDP was having trouble getting people to events. The Quebec slogan was "Travaillons ensemble." As the Quebec slogan caught on, the NDP's poll numbers rose and the NDP switched over heavily to the line "together we can do this," a translation of the Quebec slogan massed together with Obama's "yes we can." Which slogan worked better? Which one closed out the campaign? Which one was designed in Quebec using Mulcair's approach (discussed in the last debate) and which one was written by Brian Topp at Great Eggspectations on Laurier (link p. 57)?
Another interesting thing about the second link above is that Brian Topp spends several pages writing about the NDP's breakthrough in Quebec, and mentions Mulcair twice: once to say that Layton recruited him and that Mulcair had appeal and another time to say Mulcair was high profile. Otherwise, the reason the NDP won Quebec was because Raymond LaGuardia stayed with the NDP for 30 years (and presumably also Brian Topp). Now which story do you find more credible? A campaign manager that showed up in the 80s, toiled imperceptibly for 30 years, or the Quebec lieutenant who was in the Quebec media every day for 5 years, recruited, and campaigned for almost all the Quebec candidates? Clearly Mulcair="high profile" window dressing.
You could also take this information to mean that almost 80% of the MPs from 2007-2011 are not supporting Brian Topp. Broadbent has the right to support his candidate in the way he choses, just as we have the right to respectfully point out that he has his facts wrong.
Is this for real- that there are over 100 posts in a few hours?
And what a bunch of overblown histrionics about Ed's interview.
1.] The grandees of thie party did not decide for us who is going to win. Unfortunately, people are not going to accept that. The attitude is not a determining factor in where we go, but it doesnt help.
2.] Apparently there is going to be a party unity problem if Mulcair doesnt win. [See histrionics.]
3.] Ironically, Mulcairites see Ed and the Topp campaign and the generalized anti-Mulcair as the problem in how things are after. But not to worry- your personal opinions of Ed and the Topp campaign are valid, but they are not a reasonanble basis for worrying about damage to the party or party unity. If Mulcair wins, that will pass.
I love and respect Ed Broadbent, but when he came out for Topp before anyone else had announced their candidacy and said that Topp was the only one capable of leading us to government, I knew there was something fishy going on.
It is one of two things:
1)He really believes Topp is the only one who can lead the NDP. This is dead wrong
2)He is being manipulated to say these ridiculous absolute statements, in which case I feel terrible for him, and hatred for Topp if this is the case
I always look forward to your substantive contributions to the discussion josh