ndp leadership thread #129
wanted to put this here, as it's unclear whether he/she'll get the response otherwise:
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.
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.
also thought i'd add that i think this argument is totally out to lunch and that i hope members know it:
Nash said she thinks Quebec voters also responded to the NDP's core messages about the need for a ``progressive'' federal government.
``They seem to represent similar values to our social democratic values - whether it's about social justice, environmental sustainability, human rights. So I think there is a natural affinity there that Jack was able to communicate very effectively.''
Nash counts herself as someone who can do the job just as well as Layton did.
http://www.canada.com/Nash+next+leader+does+have+Quebecer/6314941/story....
and that chantal's evisceration of broadbent's most critical attack on mulcair (his truthfulness) is not at all compelling to high-info voters, or those outside of the ottawa/toronto bubble: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1147616--hebert-broa...
I'm not entirely understanding you, and it MIGHT be the highlighted part.
I'm pretty sure I understand the dotted line you are drawing in the similarity of old Broadbent rhetoric and Topp now. But I'm not sure I get what you mean by what follows from that. Even though I understand the part about 'we need to pummel them'... which wasnt Broadbent and isnt Topp. Dont get what comes in between.
Care to elaborate a bit?
meant to say that her evisceration of his intervention is completely in line with own thinking and i think further demonstrates either the lengths to which ottawa's laurier ave doesn't understand what happened in quebec, the topp campaign's willingness to fuck with low-info voters, the ottawa's laurier ave's misunderstanding of montreal's laurier ave, or just a plain smokescreen as guardia and co are scared shitless (probably unreasonably) that a mulcair victory means they're looking for work in the private sector for the next few years.
basically, ken, i don't think for a moment that we can win government without shifting our focus away from "we care about you" to "the conservatives don't care about you", from "fighting for families" to "preserving your families' futures", etc. and as much as i like the notion of a positive campaign vision, it won't work in a head to head fight unless we're way ahead. during jack's time it worked, the bad guys didn't bother with him and the ndp, it was all about the liberal/cpc fight. now, we're in a different position, with different tasks before us, our next leader will be striving for the purple (to continue the ides of march theme) and, yes, we have to do things differently, we actually won't win by being topp or nash new democrats - that we never have pretty much says it all. subtract 58 seats from our total and we're back down to broadbent. we have to go for it.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/gerald-capla...
I have to disagree with him on at least one thing, he says Mulcair is the only one who has charisma. Really? I personally find Nathan Cullen more charismatic than Mulcair, at least over the course of this race.
Caplan's right about that, but the main thing is Nathan is well placed to be a future leader.
Broadbent attack on Mulcair reverberates in NDP leadership contest
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/broadbent-attack-on-mulcair-reve...
The grenade lobbed into the NDP leadership race by former leader Ed Broadbent continues to reverberate.
Supporters of front-runner Thomas Mulcair, the target of some blunt criticism from Broadbent on Thursday, say the unprecedented attack has backfired, repulsing many New Democrats who fear for the long-term unity of the party.
And they say it's made Brian Topp, Broadbent's preferred choice for leader, look desperate.
But Topp's backers believe the intervention has helped define the race, heading into the final week, as a fundamental choice between Mulcair and Topp, sidelining the other five contenders.
For his part, Broadbent insists he'll support whoever wins.
Broadbent gave a series of interviews Thursday in which he questioned Mulcair's temperamental suitability to lead the party, denounced his apparent willingness to turn the NDP into a more centrist party and accused him of taking undue credit for the party's electoral success in Quebec.
"Perhaps the Topp campaign is desperate," northern Ontario MP John Rafferty, a Mulcair supporter, said Friday.
"That was the first thing I thought when I, when I read Mr. Broadbent's comment yesterday, that perhaps the Topp camp is very, very worried. This is clearly, you know, a last-ditch attempt to gain some votes."
Rafferty said Mulcair and dark horse contender Nathan Cullen appear to be the only candidates with momentum heading into the home stretch, and "that's got to ... make for a pretty unhappy camp in the Topp camp."
Yesterday was indeed quite a sad day for the NDP.
And yes I overreacted and unloaded on some, and I apologise for that. I was though and still am concerned, about the lasting damage Broadbent has done to our party
I encourage all you Broadbent fans to read the full article and reflect on his behaviour Thursday. He may have a great man once, but today not so much.
Every single person I have discussed this with, regardless of who they are backing, think less of Broadbent today than they did before yesterday.
Broadbent has burdened the next NDP leaderhttp://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1147616--hebert-broa...
With a broadside attack on Thomas Mulcair, former NDP leader Ed Broadbent has poisoned the well for whoever wins the leadership next week — including his own favourite Brian Topp.
If Mulcair should narrowly prevail in spite of Broadbent’s strenuous opposition next Saturday, he will be handicapped in his new role in a variety of fundamental ways.
It will be harder for the Outremont MP to unite a polarized party under his leadership now that its top elder has publicly questioned his suitability for the job.
At least as importantly, Broadbent’s intervention will have empowered status quo forces within the federal party to resist Mulcair’s efforts to rebrand the party every inch of the way.
Ironically, this is the very constituency against which Broadbent kept Jack Layton’s back over the past decade, allowing the late leader to set the NDP on a pragmatic path eerily similar to the one Mulcair is determined to pursue.
Broadbent’s hope is, of course, that his intervention will kill Muclair’s bid, not just wound him on the way to the top.
But that is not a foregone conclusion.
I totally agree with the above post. No matter who wins the leadership, this was not helpful to the future of the NDP. Mr. Broadbent should have known better.
Looking over the last few NDP leadership threads (3-4 in one day!) I'd like to make it clear that, while strenuous criticism of Mr. Broadbent's opinions are a part of the discourse here on babble, nasty personal attacks against the man are not.
There are plenty of ways you can frame your disagreement without resorting to such nastiness. I get that both supporters and non-supporters of Mulcair are very angry and feel Mr. Broadbent's opinions aren't valid, but leave off on the ad hominen attacks.
Thanks.
Oh, and BTW, does anyone remember the controversy when Broadbent supported Jack Layton for the leadership? I honestly don't, and would welcome some retrospective view on that race.
And if Topp really cared about the good of the NDP, rather than his own position in the party, he would publicly ask for Broadbent to retract his comments. What does Topp have to lose by being magnamious in defeat, as he is definitely not going to win after this?
Rebecca West: Fair enough, I guess it's a little harsh to compare Topp to Osama Bin Laden. But it was meant in a good way lol. Disagree with him on a lot of issues, but Topp is going to be high on my ballot, and have been more impressed with him in this race than Layton at a comparable stage.
I find it extremely interesting that so few people have commented or questioned my previous entry respecting Topp's involvement in ROI Capital and the questions it raises about his bona fides with respect actually practicing his allegedly social democratic values in his private business life. Why do you think that is? As someone who gave Topp my second vote and now regrets it, I would have thought these were important questions. Yet the Topp supporters out there appear to be in complete denial.
Rakhmetov, I've enjoyed very much reading your posts. Have you decided how you'll be voting?
http://blogs.canada.com/2012/03/16/ndp-leadership-ed-broadbents-comments...
With the vote so close, New Democrats who spoke with reporters on Friday in Ottawa were asked for their reaction to Broadbent’s comments, as well as whether the party would face schisms once the race is over. On the first point, Mulcair backer John Rafferty, a northern Ontario MP, was clear. He thought Broadbent made his comments as a last-ditch effort to vault Topp past Mulcair and into the lead in the leadership race.
This is indeed very foolish of Mr Topp, wwho is just adding fluel to the flames. It is now obvious there is an NDP Ottawa bubble. These boys need to seriously give their collective heads a shake. They represent quite the contrast to the positive upbeat campaign of Mulcair.
Topp defends Broadbent's attack on Mulcairhttp://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20120316/brian-topp-defends-broadbent...
In an interview with CTV's Daniele Hamamdjian Friday, Mulcair didn't respond directly to Broadbent's specific accusations, but said his campaign has been nothing but "positive" and "upbeat."
"My campaign has been about why people should vote for me, not why they shouldn't vote for somebody else," Mulcair said, adding that he's been merely trying to reach out to people who traditionally don't vote for the NDP.
It's clear to me that Topp has given up on winning himself, and is now playing the same role for Peggy Nash as people are accusing Martin Singh of playing for Mulcair.
He's got to know his tactics are seriously turning people off; his goal is simply to inflict as much damage to Mulcair as he can in the last 9 days.
OK, so here I am with my voter's kit and the right to vote for the NDP. I've been with the NDP since 2004 when I was 20. I actually ran for the party in my riding in two elections, when we were out in the wilderness in Québec.
I'm posting this because I'm still hesitating and I would like to offer a chance for people who are more decided to convince me. Here is where I come from:
I believe, having seen some of the debates, that Mulcair is by far the best "politician" of the gang. He has more presence and more experience, he really leaves a better impression. From a merely electoralist point of view ("I want the NDP to win" POV), he'd have my vote. That being said, I have serious reservations with how far to the center he wants to bring the party.
I actually agree with him that the party could modernize the rhetoric. I listened to Peggy Nash during the debates, and she seemed like the worse example of it, she uses pre-arranged sentences all the time that appeal a lot to old activists but mean very little when you get down to actual policy. We call it "la langue de bois" in French, the talent to talk a lot and say little. Niki Ashton is a younger version of this, whereas Nash speaks the language of the old babyboomer activists, Ashton speaks the language of the young (often online) activists. Both are, in my opinion, a dead-end for the party electorally.
If it was just the rhetoric, I'd be okay with his "modernization", but it's not just the rhetoric. What seeded doubts in my mind was how Mulcair balked at Topp's tax proposals. Rolling back the tax cuts on big businesses and shifting more of the tax burden back on the richest and those most able to pay it should be a matter of course I think for a New Democrat.
I like Brian Topp's focus on policy and the fact that he was one of the brains behind Jack Layton's leadership, but he failed to impress me as a politician. Singh is way too much of a centrist. Dewar leaves me cold and though I like Nathan Cullen for sharing some of Mulcair's down-to-earth approach to politics, I am wary of his plan to collaborate with Liiberals and the Greens.
So there I am. People who believe in Mulcair, I invite you to try to convince me that Mulcair is close enough to the principles and roots of the party to deserve my vote. Show me evidence of this, maybe I missed something. People who believe in Topp, please try to prove to me that he is a better politician than I give him credit for.
Greg Fingas of the blog Accidental Deliberations emerges as a rare voice of calm and sanity on the Broadbent issue:
Source: http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2012/03/on-saintly-proclamat...
@ Winston
Thats always been your opinion, you just feel more able to say it.
Its been the Mythology of the Topp Campaign since Day 1.
@ howsannie:
When questions came up about Mulcair's associations shown through his donations, which are comparable to Topp's associations there were only a minority of people who were concerned because of the association with big money in itself. And I dont think any of those people are posting in the discussions now.
There were more of us who really didnt care about that association with big money, but didnt like the political associations shown.
I dontt care about the questions you raised about Topp, just as I didnt about Mulcair. It may sound jaded or cynical or whatever to you- but when I saw the headline "Mulcair and Bay Street", even not liking Mulcair, my response was "so what". They arent my preferred associations, but there is plenty of that to go around.... and basically, I've got bigger concerns.
ETA:
I'm just one of many people who sees no contradiction between being wealthy and having social democratic values. Or a social democratic rubbing shoulders with the wealthy. [Whichever or both it is in this case, dont know.]
So how do you mean that you were just comparing Topp to Osama bin Laden "in a good way"? Please explain why you find Osama bin Laden to be such an amusing comic figure, along with such acts of terrorism like flying planes into buildings (obviously rerferring to the "truly hilarious" September 11 attacks where thousands of people were killed.)
I'm sorry, but I for one do not "get" why this is funny. I personally find most of your posts to be consistently the most offensive on this board, but your trivialization of terrorism and "Islamic Jihad", etc. is some of the worst I've seen anywhere.
I find your "humour" to be as offensive as people who make jokes about "Hitler gassing Jews".
FFK, thanks for that in post 4. I'll think about it. None of it is unfamiliar.
I dont have a problem with the realpolitik. What I have to think about is how much of it may be right, and not.
I think I agree with just about everything you say in this post—or did a couple of months ago. I no longer think Mulcair is the best in terms of winning. The fact that he feels he has to read his closing statements verbatim from prepared notes is a bit off-putting for me. And, whether it's his fault or not, he's clearly a divisive figure within the party who has obviously alienated quite a lot of people in the party. (Just look at how many people there are who are willing to back far less initially appealing candidates in order to stop him.) I also think he'll be easy for the Conservatives to attack, and will hurt our party's chances in the west.
And I certainly think he would represent a move to the right. This isn't just a matter of his policies—his refusal to accept Topp's tax proposals, for instance—but more importantly, a question of whether he's sufficiently commited to keeping the NDP focused on its core values and away from the politics-as-usual culture in Ottawa that Jack said was broken. There will be huge pressure on the next leader to fall into that Ottawa culture. I strongly believe we must resist that temptation. For one, because the NDP is only worth supporting if it's truly different from the Libs and the Cons. But also because the NDP's honest, values-driven approach to politics is its biggest electoral strength. It's why people like the NDP.
For these reasons and others, I really can't support Thomas Mulcair, and I can't advise you to do so either.
In all honesty, though, simonvallee, I don't think any of the candidates are great. Some will disagree, but I think we have a weak field of candidates. And I frankly don't think there's a single one of them that would be favored to win in 2015. Any of them has a shot of course, but I genuinely think that the Conservatives will, unfortunately, win another majority.
The "big money" accusations against Tom were stupid, meaningless and baseles in terms of what they say about his policies, as is equally the evidence Annie has been providing about Topp in that regard.
The reason that Annie's revelations are relevant is that they show much of Topp's campaign to be holier-than-thou hypocrites. How is it that Mulcair receiving a few very modest contributions from "questionable" individuals constitutes "proof" that he is on the Right, while Topp's sitting on the board of a very shady board does not impugn his committment to social democracy.
Mulcair has not been questioning anybody's "New Democratness"; Brian Topp has been. People in glass houses...
mulcair doesn't have to read his remarks, he chooses to. he only does that when he's trying to look a certain way, it's a lawyer trick.
as for simon, the internal logic of the ndp will never see the burden of paying for our proposals fall on those at the lower end of the spectrum. cap and trade is somewhat regressive, but it's necessary because regulations only go so far toward ensuring clean water, reducing consumption, reducing emissions and generally saving the world. some consumption taxes do that too. they're good regressive taxes, and we need to target them a bit better (never a sales tax on food, better rebate rates, or what we have in quebec, which is a solidarity rebate). mulcair has been explicit all along that, should he become leader, these are the non-negotiable aspects of his tax politics. from there, personal and corporate income taxes would be raised according to the need for revenues to fund programs and debt.
to make it clear - mulcair's view (actually, nash's too) is that there's no sense in promising in a programmatic way to raise income taxes when you haven't even costed things out, when you don't know if the economy will require x or y, when you can't know where we'll be in 3 years. mulcair is basically saying - i'm very open to taxing the rich and closing that gap, but i won't commit to a number or a shift until i actually know what we're dealing with but, in the meantime, i promise you that if the marginal rate is 25%, we'll make sure they pay that 25%.
it's a nuanced and reasonable line that is bullet-proof when the cpc and lpc try to attack it. ideally, he'd never mention anything about tax rates at all and then just tax the rich once he gets in there, but ndp faith in mulcair isn't such he can get away with much less than he's provided (more than nash, but less than topp).
and on another subject, if it does end up as a cullen/mulcair final ballot with a mulcair win, it might help with unity, but i think it would prove profoundly de-stabilizing to a lot of people who've invested a lot of time and life in the ndp. parties need to renew, but i sort of do hope that mulcair defeats nash for the win, so that it's clear that 1) the membership wants to win; 2) there's still a good solid progressive base that mulcair needs to consider in every decision and that feels empowered to insert itself into every discussion; and that 3) topp was a left-field choice that a lot of very smart people felt they had to make because none of their inner circle could speak french well enough, and their short-sightedness (and the mean campaign they ran) just wasn't up to the moment.
finally, i like cullen, but i don't think he's anywhere near ready to lead us.
I don't know why you care who the leader is if we're all doomed anyway. Doooomed.
I think we have a very strong field of candidates myself, especially coming from a little social democratic fourth-place party in Canada. The US has ten times our population and only two parties and their candidates still uniformly suck. I admit they looked a tad weak in the beginning but they've all grown into the race very impressively (well, not Singh or Dewar). I'm not sure on what scale you'd consider them weak. Are you thinking of a particular leadership race that was so much more impressive?
I don't remember any controversy over Ed's endorsement of Jack for the leadership in 2003, but that probably has something to do with the fact that Ed didn't also excoriate Bill Blaikie in the media and suggest that he was unfit to lead the party.
And this is why all the "Broadbent has done lasting damage to the party" people are engaged in a self-fulfilling prophecy. (And playing right into big media's hands, who love politiacl conflict as almost as much as they hate the NDP.)
If you decide that Broadbent's comments are so unforgiveable that you're going to hold it against him, even after the race is over. Then yes, that's lasting damage to the party.
If you're ready to move on as easily as Mr. Broadbent has promised, and get behind the leader no matter who wins, then there's zero damage.
The ball is in your court. Who wants to damage the party?