NDP leadership race #128

Everybody can succeed if you aim low enough.

http://www.ndp.ca/press/statement-by-nycole-turmel-on-death-muammar-gaddafi

"our troops have done a wonderful job in Libya over the past few months.."

 Bravo nycole well done!

I recall that in one debate, Brian Topp referred to Mitt Romney three times. I was thinking, WTF? Maybe he thinks he is running in a Republican primary (just joking) - but he is such a backroom guy that I bet he religiously follows all the latest Republican electoral strategies. Maybe some of that is rubbing off a bit. 

well, let me jump back in here.  personally, i don't think broadbent's attacks will come back to haunt mulcair beyond the temper thing.  i really wish that hadn't figured so heavily, because that's nearly certain to be the cpc's major line on mulcair.  aside from that, i actually sort of like what broadbent did - he went to the wall for his candidate, and he did it in a way that seemed to me to be pretty sincere, and not really all that critical of mulcair, but maybe not so great for party unity.

the laurier st critiques are going to be completely irrelevant to all but the most insider of types, making me feel that broadbent probably could have done a better job of laying out his case, rather than giving a sort of "bubble" assessment of why the insiders don't like mulcair or whatever.  it won't play with members and really doesn't help morale (though i think that a few nice polls will do a lot to change that).

next off, i can't really decide if i still agree with the "topp is toast" line.  i really feel like that debate performance should have turned things around and then there came a few good new endorsements, and a clear bump in positive mentions online, and now they've asked broadbent to attack mulcair (and noone else).  it's looking like maybe the campaign is getting back on track here to close out, but then the gut kicks in and i think that maybe topp could still go out early.  if the guy had just run in 2008 and established himself in parliament and got known in quebec and really got his game up to the level it's at now (or maybe a little further still), he'd be sailing onto the final ballot, no question.

anyway, i feel like the last 140+ posts have been really unhelpful and even a little destructive.  broadbent probably shouldn't have stepped in to the arena, but it's not going to help to do anyone any good to answer that intervention from inside the mulcair bubble.

In Quebec it happens all the time. Look at how Parizeau and Landry are constantly denouncing more recent PQ leaders like Boisclair and Marois and how Parizeau in particular is always blatantly trying to be the "godfather" of the PQ anointing new leaders (with less and less success)

I have heard this theory said before concerning Harper so nothing new here. The only thing I say to the PM is be careful what you ask for, as you are probably going to be receiving it.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/15/michael-den-tandt-thomas-...

f anyone still has a shot at becoming the “anybody but Mulcair,” compromise candidate, it may be Nash. More likely though, observers say, is that Mulcair wins either on the first or second ballot. Cullen’s supporters are deemed likely to go to Mulcair as a second choice. Martin Singh’s supporters, we now know, have been asked to do likewise. (Keep in mind, much of this will have been decided before the convention March 23-24, since most of the party’s 125,000-plus registered members will have voted in advance.)

But let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that the smart money is correct, and Mulcair wins. And let’s further assume he names Cullen, a fellow centrist and a popular British Columbia MP, as his deputy in English Canada, perhaps with a strong female Quebec MP — foreign affairs critic and former diplomat Helene Laverdiere has been mentioned — as Quebec deputy. What then?

Mulcair has taken great pains to avoid open comparisons with former British prime minister Tony Blair, who held power in the U.K. from 1997 to 2007, after jettisoning the most impossible of the British Labour Party’s socialist policies. But the parallels are clear. A couple of weeks ago, I asked Mulcair about the NDP’s reputation as a party that doesn’t understand kitchen-table economics. “To concede the point,” he said, “we’ve always been very conscious of the fact that a majority of Canadians share most of our goals and values. It’s been difficult in the past to convince them that we can provide good, competent, confident public administration.”

His solution, he said, would be to demonstrate while in Opposition that “we’re capable of running a G7 country.” Reading between the lines, in my judgment, that means he intends to pull a Blair.

Small wonder then, that there’s more than a whiff of fear, in Liberal ranks, at the prospect of a Mulcair victory. Should he transform the NDP into a mass-market party, as Blair did to New Labour, what remains of Liberal support could easily bleed away, permanently. In that event, a merger — say in 2014, after the smoke of the Liberals’ own leadership race has cleared — would be more akin to a takeover.

How would this benefit the Conservatives? Gerry Nicholls, a conservative consultant who worked alongside Harper at the National Citizens Coalition, holds that this PM would love nothing better than to do politics in a two-party system. That’s because, in a standup fight between a socially moderate party of the centre-right and a party of the centre-left, this PM believes Conservatives will win every time — because most Canadians, while socially moderate, are economic conservatives. The Liberal party, because of its chameleon-like ability to mould its ideology as needed, will always be a threat to the Conservatives. But a Liberal-Democratic Party, with the history of the NDP embedded in its DNA? Perhaps, not so much.

It’s an interesting theory and, I think, plausible, with this caveat: It only works if the Tories avoid becoming reviled and disrespected, by the time 2015 rolls around.

And the Liberals were of one mind when Chretien didn't exactly endorse Martin as sucessor, too.

Sweet suffering sycophants.

Holy crap.

I have just read the last 150 posts and have a few observations although hoping not to make it worse.

I have not enjoyed Broadbent's comments from the first day-- his introduction of the first declared candidate saying this was the only person who could/should be leader was to me offensive. The latest round of comments have solidified my perception of the campaign.

I believe Broadbent is fighting for the party and so are the people in Mulcair's camp.

There is a division that goes beyond policy here-- Broadbent believes that Mulcair would be an unmitigated disaster and is doing what he can to protect the party from that. Those who support Mulcair feel that he represents either the only or the best opportunity for the party to win and it would be a disaster to not take that opportunity.

I accept that each side is not being selfish and both are acting out of what they see as the best possible direction for the party-- faced unfortunately with the belief that the alternative is an abyss.

I wish I could be absolutely certain of my choice. I would not want to bet anything valuable that I have it right. I suspect one side is though-- either Mulcair is an option we cannot pass up or a complete disaster. I am not surprised to see a tone of desperation as people confront that huge difference of opinion.

Frankly I have never seen anything like this. normally when I am unsure, I at least get to think well both are probably not that bad. But in this case I feel that it is hard to make a choice and the wrong one could be a disaster. I think most of us are acting based on what we have heard or believe or hope or fear but without enough first hand information to be really sure.

I am sorry to see the division but the panic does reflect how crucial I think this vote actually is and how frustratingly difficult it is.

I think we have to be careful about attacking people so hard when they could end up running the party. I must assume since I don't think Broadbent has lost it that his relationship with Mulcair must be so bad that he has nothing to lose. It worries me.

On a personal note-- I have heard enough about Mulcair to worry me. I have not heard enough to convince me that all I have heard is true. I have little evidence that it is not true though. Based on that if there were another candidate I thought was otherwise equal, I'd play it safe and support that candidate. Not because I am sure there is a problem with Mulcair but just in case. My problem is there is not someone else who has won me over to the point where I could replace my risky vote for Mulcair with a vote for them. Sadly, Broadbent may have a good enough case against Mulcair to worry people, but it is not conclusive. Worse, he has not made the case for his candidate who also looks very risky to me. The other candidates look either unready, or too risky or unfortunately unqualified (I have stated my belief that bilingualism is a qualification for the NDP leader at least this time.

I lack the strength of my conviction to say Broadbent is so wrong but I can say he has failed to convince me that he is right and has failed to back a candidate that was right.

Perhaps Broadbent's failure was backing Topp too early. Imagine if had waited until after Saganash entered the race before deciding? If Broadbent had backed Saganash he might have had the money and votes to stay in to win. If Topp loses Broadbent might have to ask himself that question. With the confidence of the establishment, the qualifications he had and without the risk of the others, Saganash might have been "the one."

The party will need to be healed. Let us at least stop insulting each other and assume that conviction, fear and hope is driving us all and that we do admit to a risky choice this time without a prohibitive favorite no matter what others might say. I can forgive those who bring some passion to the table including Broadbent. I can admit I don't know everything he does and I cannot fully understand his motivation.

I voted for Mulcair and would do so still-- but it was no easy decision and I can only hope that if he wins I was right and if he loses it is because I was wrong. I don't want the party to make a mistake and I can't even be sure I have it right never mind everyone else.

To other Mulcair supporters I hope this honesty is not found to be undermining. I have powerful reasons to support Mulcair and believe on balance he is mostly likely the best. I am so sad not to have the luxury of certainty that I had only a few weeks ago when Saganash was still in the race.

"Why progressives need guns in a populist knife fight" by Brian Topp, Globe and Mail, February 5th, 2010

Like fellow New Democrats with factual infelicities and unvarnished innuendo. "Tis not too late to build a better world!"

Debator wrote:

"As they said on At Issue tonight on CBC, it's unprecedented for a former party leader to rip into the frontrunner in a leadership race."

Stock makes a good point about this quote not applying to Quebec.

The panel is pretty weak on parliamentary history, to mention only that subject. Dief had to run for his own job against Standfield, he threw mud and so did others (at him mosttly) and when he lost Dief spend most waking hours trying, as former leader, to undermine not just the front runner ( that had failed) but the leader. 

Past leader Trudeau took on his entire party over Meech Lake, burning two leaders in the process, Turner and Chrétien. He won a ton of support so people forget where things stood before PET took up the fight. When Turner ran to replace him, Trudeau was not above making fun of him.

Dion would have fought Ignatieff if MI had not strategized himself out of a job by forceing an election the Libs were slated to lose, before Dion could do it. Dion did make a speech at the Convention that annointed IGGY, saying what he knew had to be done (sub-text, I should still be leader.

Pearson let people know how unhappy he was with Trudeau saying Canada needed a foreign policy, and slighting the FP Pearson had formulated and had won a Nobel Prize.

It will be fun to see how Rae reacts to his successor should he be denied the real leadership, the one without interim in front.

The NDP spedializies in bad blood towards the new leader from adversaries or visa versa. Argue quit the party and joined the Libs after losing to Tommy in 1961. Lewis worked to expell Laxer and Co. from the party, once he had bested Jim for leader. Dave Barrett caused Audrey problems, and one could go on.

Boom Boom we need you here, please re-consider.

"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages."

Brian Topp's apologia for caucus coups.

One of Brian Topp's many apologia for austerity, so long as neo-liberal austerity regimes are perpetrated by true "social democrats."