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
bingo. and i'm a mulcair supporter, but i've become less stridently so as i've come to understand the other view, but i'm still confident that what we need is to absolutely discredit the cpc and lpc from all perspectives, so that we can get a shot at power. i'm happy getting into government as the "least unpopular" party, because from there we consolidate, and i don't see topp (or nash) as able to get us there.
There's a reason you're the Mulcair supporter on Babble for whom I have the greatest respect, FFK; you're willing to express your position in a reasonable, nuanced way, as you have here.
I can see if one is okay with the idea of being elected as the "least unpopular" party, there might be some good arguments for Mulcair. A couple of months ago, I would have said that Mulcair, while I had doubts about him, was probably the candidate with the best chance of winning in 2015. I no longer think that, as Mulcair's recent debate performances—featuring him reading his closing statements from notes—have, in my opinion, been weak, while Brian Topp, who I thought was a weak choice a few months ago, has really improved in his public performances to the point where I think he's stronger. Still, though, a reasonable argument could be made that Mulcair has the best chance in 2015. (In all honesty, I think that the Conservatives will probably win another majority regardless of who we choose.)
The true difference I have with your position is that I don't think that we'd be able to "consolidate" in government if we did not enter government from a position of strength. My fear is that if the NDP forms government under the wrong conditions, we would not only be uneffective but also become hugely unpopular (similar to the way the Rae government became unpopular in Ontario) and would likely set up a Conservative victory not only in the subsequent election but in election after election to come, with the NDP possibly being reduced to third-party status (as in Ontario). Any short-term benefits from such a government would be outweighed by the long-term consequences.
I also don't think Mulcair would be able to "discredit the cpc and lpc from all perspectives," because I think he's someone who would, to too great an extent, play the traditional Ottawa game, and while he would play it very well, I think we would lose some of the narrative that differentiates the NDP—the traditional outsider party—from the insider CPC and LPC.
The other point I should make is that I think it's a lot harder for left-wing parties to be elected as "least unpopular" than for right-wing parties. This is because left-wing parties tend to benefit from higher voter turnout, while right-wing parties benefit from lower voter turnout. (Think about the Cons' voter suppression schemes.) An election where people are voting for the "least unpopular" party is not likely to be an election that will inspire high turnout.
New Democrats need to increase voter turnout to win. And we can't do that just by making people hate the Cons. We have to put forth a clear message about how we'll change the country and inspire Canadians not merely to vote against the Cons but to vote for the New Democrats.
Oh my! This is the 1st time in a very long while I am unsure who will be my no 1 choice. There is something about Mr. Topp that annoies me but I do not know him and am all too aware that TV does not show the real person. That said, he comes across possibly as too much of a WASP maybe? Unsure about the P part - I could care less what his religion is really. (unless it is some sectarian zealotry that will harm women and minorities and deprive ppl of their rights). I do think the final two will be Mulcair and Peggy Hash and I think Peggy has done well - I do not know (a rhetorical comment) why Mulcair does not go on these interview shows like everyone else- I think it would humanize him. I admittedly do not care if he has a temper, the better to get back at the govt and if he the Liberals feel threatened by him, that shd be seen as a good sign. I do miss the days when socialist, feminist and oppression were heard and think really, we do need to heed our CCF begininngs even IF the times have changed so hence my hesitation. I also think we need to win and do not like running a candidate from another party. We did it in Quebec, we can do it in Canada with time, the correct (do not want to say right) combination of leader and candidates. Let's try to be a little kinder to ach other, PLEASE!
All of you Topp supporting/Mulcair hating brothers and sisters should take a look at ROI Capital Fund on whose Board of Directors Mr. Topp has sat for several years. He is one of eight members of that Board which includes such notoble social democrats as Bay Street lawyer John Langs, CML Industries's Claude Theberge or Trimark Investments' Brad Badeau. In any event, Mr. Topp's participation on that Board raises serious questions as to all of the bluster and rhetoric about his social democratic authenticity and causes me, at least, to wonder whether his direct and indirect attacks on Mulcair's record as a former Quebec Liberal cabinet minister are merely disingenuous or actually a manifestation of self righteous hypocrisy and demagoguery. Lets look at some of the socially responsible investments made by this Fund and which are included in its top investments:
1) Canadian Natural Resources whom many of you will remember was bringing into Alberta Chinese guest workers, forcing them to work in unsafe conditions(three fatalities) for sub-standard pay and whose work force is represented by CLAC(the company union par excellence);
2) Noble Corporation who owns and operates a major oil field in Tamar Israel and does major business with major Israeli private and government entities (this is for you Israel Apartheid week supporters of Topp);
3) Freeport McMoran Copper and Gold who owns the largest copper mine in Indonesia (the Grasberg Mine) and who pays the Indonesian military and police to ensure "security"at the mine. The New York times and Amnesty International have reprted repeated violations at that mine of worker's basic human and labour rights as well as brutal repression;
4) British American Tobacco: 'Nuff said.
Since Mr. Topp and his proxies have repeatedly asked Mulcair what positions he took while in the Liberal cabinet, I believe it is fair to ask Mr. Topp the following questions:
1) What was his position as a member of the Board of RIO if and when the above investments were discussed. Did he articulate his principled social democratic objections to such investments?
2) As a holier than thou paragon of social democratic values, how is he able to sit on the Board of a venture capital fund that has made and continues to make investments into such morally dubious companies? I guess the salary is pretty good.
I'm curious, howsannie: Did you only recently become aware of these issues? If not, why have the issues not been raised previously?
(Welcome to Babble, by the way.)
Thanks for the welcome. I have always been suspicious of systematic, sanctimonious,self righteous indignation so after enduring months of these criticisms and seeing them become more and more direct I decided to put Mr. Topp through the holiness test. I really didn't think I'd find anything interesting because I really was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Imagine my surprise when researched his bio and discovered his little mentioned board seat on ROI Capital. A little bit of digging into ROI turned up the info I mentioned above. Personally, as one of many ordinary NDP members to whom Topp has been lecturing about the purity of the NDP and his social democratic values, I would like him to explain his activies on that board and answer my above questions.
I think you raise some very important issues, and I'd like to see Brian Topp answer them. After spending most of the race undecided and a bit disappointed by what I continue to regard as a weak field of candidates, I, after mostly leaning toward Nash, decided to back Topp after the final debate. I think that you've raised important questions about Topp, and while maybe there's something that I'll learn that will make me feel comfortable with Topp's role in all this, I think that if these issues are not addressed, he may lose the top spot on my list to Peggy.
I agree that what happened to Libby was terrible and I hold Mulcair partly responsibly.
If you're in Toronto there's a meet and greet with Brian at Ciros tonight (Friday March 16), so you could meet him in person there. Peggy had a meet and greet there last night. Ciros has a great selection of international beers, but it also has a good working class feel to it.
If you're interested in meeting any of the candidates, they generally post dates for meet and greets on their sites.
And this is my point.
The strong Mulcair supporters are taking this as the highest offense, and the strong Mulcair haters are excited that this vindicates their reasons for stopping him.
But in reality, the criticisms are far less than "nuclear". This isn't a pitch to stop Mulcair at any costs. This was a last minute pitch for Topp, when the media called up Ed Broadbent and asked him how he feels about Topp vs. Mulcair, and he told them what he felt honestly. He stopped far short of trying to destroy Mulcair, because he's expressing a preference, not an ultimatum.
Guaranteed, the top party brass will come together around the leader, regardless of who it is. They will do their best attempt at a love-in.
The only question is whether the members will be able to look passed the occasional ugliness of the leadership race, let go of any grudges, and cheer for the party.
I'm less worried about what the candidates say to each other than I am what happens on the convention floor. I worry we're destined for some kind of war, because people will start hooting and hollaring at the first criticism, no matter how slight. If there's anyone who can inflame this conflict, it's us, on the ground, in the blogosphere, and through the grassroots.
In the previous thread (#127), North Star wrote:
"The Mulcair supporters have outed themselves to be as vicious as the Topp ones but have only come out when they have been cornered instead of going on the offensive like Topp did. If the party remains divided both the Mulcair and Topp camps are going to be responsible. Like I said I was willing to put Mulcair fairly high on my ballot but people like you [referring to NorthReport] have blown it for him..."
http://rabble.ca/comment/1328763
I'm astonished that people are equating commenters on Rabble with the actual campaigns of the candidates. A few supporters post some nasty comments, and then that's reason enough to reject the candidates whom they support? Talk about guilt by association!
Charles Manson may have wanted to be the fifth Beatle, but that didn't turn me off John Lennon.
Hebert: Broadbent Has Burdened The Next NDP Leader
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1147616--hebert-broa...
I've noticed it outside of babble obviously. Of course not everyone who says they are supporting Mulcair are like this but certain people who are actively campaigning for him have begun to get rather cocky and dismissive.
Unfortunately, a lot of people DO think this way, and feel this way. Whether you like it or not, everyone who promotes a candidate becomes an official representative that candidate. Feelings of ill will can carry over. If people have a bad experience with a self-appointed volunteer, it can make them feel so angry that they would never support that candidate.
That's why it's so important that discussion on babble maintains a feelings a comraderie, or at least civility. We should assume good faith that all of us are trying to build the party in a positive direction, be quick to point out lies no matter where they come from, and forgive any negativity quickly as if we have short memories.
What's a leadership race without criticism?
Could be related to a labour pension fund or labour sponsored investment fund. As for the investments themselves, any union pension trustee could be associated with the underlying investments if one wanted to. It certainly raises a question, but doesn't really provide an answer that impugns Topp.
My dad is in his 80s, mostly disinterested in the race, and definitely not excited about any of the candidates – Mulcair being no exception. We just had lunch. He told me about how he and others in his seniors residence think Broadbent is out of line, and has rendered himself irrelevant to the party. He feels that, whoever wins, the wise thing to do would be to get as much distance from Broadbent as possible.
My dad thinks it's a very sad last act for a senior politician. But then, what does he know? He's just an ordinary Canadian.
Michelle is talking a lot of sense. And TheArchitect makes some perspicacious points about what actually is going to work in 2015.
You're welcome.
But do try to pay attention, I didn't say he's running the "worst campaign" but an awful one for the supposed "frontrunner" (which I just said I don't believe is the case either). I guess you've never heard of Mike Farnworth.
Typical Mulcair apologists, they ignore all substantive arguments and resort almost exclusively to hissy-fits and tantrums when anyone dares to question their Dear Leader. That said, while I wish they would see the risk they are taking with the party and Jack's legacy, there are in fact a few more thoughtful advocates of Mulcair around here (i.e. a Nicky or Hunky_Munky for example) but fortunately I've been rather struck by how they are outnumbered by folks like NorthReport. So many of Mulcair's advocates are fanatic, ignorant and reactionary hacks who in the end have helped turn off people from Mulcair and aided the Anybody-But-Mulcair forces with their arrogance and stridency.
Again, no attempt to even deal with legitimate arguments, just paroxysms. Revealing really, when people get hysterical like this and start dishing out ad hominem you know it's because they can't respond.
Another strawman, where did I claim Broadbent explicitly said "anybody-but-Mulcair"? But it's pretty obvious what he's doing. Nash is no doubt higher than Mulcair on his ballot, like a lot of Topp people. Prominent supporters of a campaign don't like to be seen publicly endorsing other candidates as it takes away focus from and even undermines their first choice, amongst other reasons.
And people can keep baselessly asserting ad nauseum that any criticism of Mulcair for his moves to shift the party to the Right is "innuendo" (despite the preponderance of compelling evidence that it's true) all they want but it's pretty obvious to most people by now what he's doing, i.e. to the membership, nearly all the other candidates, leading figures in the party, practically the entire media. Everyone in Canada seems to get it except a handful of people on Rabble. It's rather amazing how naive and in denial some can be, I guess when you get in a bubble and too deep into a campaign it's hard to be objective. Intellectually honest proponents of Mulcair should make a case for him that he can win the middle by strategically tacking a little to the centre on some key issues, but instead they have to defend his muddled and dishonest narrative that he is not moving the party anywhere but forward followed by a wink.
+1
I'm sure you will find a lot of Broadbent's old supporters would agree with your dad.
Anyways, I just read a tweet that noted that Broadbent's moves came on the "Ides of March". Wow. Seems like an interesting coincidence.
I think I like your dad.
If she's willing to change leadership camps, perhaps she is open to crossing the floor too. Will she be the next Lise St. Denis? The Liberals would be happy to have her.
And the NDP convention winner is...Stephen Harper
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.
Very true.
And let's not forget that until one year ago, Broadbent was the most successful NDP leader in history.
To what base uses we may return, Unionist. Why may not imagination trace the noble dust of Broadbent till he find it stopping a bunghole?
see, i don't agree. quebec was jack, quebec was mulcair, quebec was the campaign, but quebec was also and as much 1) very unpopular government; 2) very unpopular opposition; 3) suddenly irrelevant regional party. the way that i see to power basically focuses on marginalizing the liberals, finishing off the bq as a major electoral force (and 4 seats is more major than the green party, mind), and going head to head with a deeply unpopular harper government. that's when we win power provincially, and that's how we'll win power federally. we will never have an obama-esque leader in canada, we don't have the same history or electoral system or even desire for a christ-like figure in our political system. and that's good, because if we won on that platform, we'd let everyone down and you're right that it would be difficult to get re-elected. i've been looking at old broadbent videos, and i was shocked to see how much his rhetoric lines up with that of topp. unless i missed something and we haven't already lost all those debates, i can't see how we win going down the garden path. no, we need to pummel them with truth and good ideas, expose to canadians how wrong these guys are, dish out our platform with the most credible possible messenger, and then marginalize all the rest by polarizing the argument as between our two parties. that's mulcair.
For me, Broadbent's comments reflect less poorly on Broadbent himself than they do on Topp and his campaign, who most assuredly are behind the timing and content.
A last ditch, panic laden attempt to damage the new regime. If they can't be at the helm when the NDP wins government, then no one can.
I suppose you mean, "the most successful NDP FEDERAL leader in history". He increased the NDP popular vote to peak at 2.5% above the previous record under Tommy Douglas.
Lest we forget, there are many provincial NDP Leaders who actually succeeded in getting their parties elected to government.
Tommy Douglas, Allen Blakeney, Roy Romanow, Lorne Calvert
Ed Schreyer, Howard Pawley, Gary Doer, Gary Selinger
Dave Barrett, Michael Harcourt, Glen Clark
Bob Rae
Darrell Dexter
Tony Penikett, Piers MacDonald
I might be missing some. And these are just the names of those who lead NDP governments. Not to mention those who served as opposition leaders.