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
Except this is not just about party unity - this is about not going out of one's way to provide fodder for political attacks by the other parties. I'm sure the Conservative hatchet factory is writing the attack ads against Tom Mulcair as we speak: "Even Ed Broadbent says Tom Mulcair is not a leader." Anyone remember this gem from the 2008 election? It was repeated ad naseum, to devastating effect. In my respectful view, it would be naive to assume that this is the last we will hear of these comments.
Of course Ed Broadbent is free to support whomever he likes, but as a former leader, in my view he has an obligation to act responsibly and diplomatically in making comments to the media about the current leadership race. It's one thing to say I support Brian Topp and think he's a better choice. It's quite another thing to say Tom Mulcair is not fit to lead the party.
What are the specific reasons for believing that Thomas Mulcair is not a genuine social democrat and is going to move the party to the centre? Has anyone summarized or stated the case, clearly, anywhere? I'm genuinely interested, if anyone can share a reference (or wants to write it up themselves!)
(P.S. Thanks North Star and Socialdemocraticmiddle for your reasoned replies to my comment on the previous thread)
This is the key point. Broadbent should have known better.
I'd rather not see the leader take that approach no matter who it is. That seems like a terrible plan to me, and I wouldn't really expect it to work. Getting politicians to keep their promises is hard enough, and I don't expect much in terms of bonus promises left unmade.
Is this kind of approach popular with people? Don't say anything controversial and then hope for the best?
I don't think it helps to get angry at Ed, because I think we want this incident to go away as quickly as possible. I honestly think he believes what he says. But as someone else said, that doesn't give him the right to say it or make it a good idea. I think Ghoris hit the nail on the head about why it was a bad idea. The truth is that he has the best chance to win at this point and we don't want to spend the last week of the campaign giving the Cons ammunition for the smear campaign we know is coming, no matter who we choose.
Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent compromises elder statesmanship
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/former-ndp-leader-ed-broadbent-compromises-elder-statesmanship/article2372387/
Ed Broadbent, by his withering attacks on NDP leadership front-runner Thomas Mulcair, has forfeited his role as elder statesman of the party in favour of that of a cranky partisan.
NDP MP Hélène Laverdière just distanced hrslf pretty emphatically from Bbt attack on @ThomasMulcair on Téléjournal de Radio-Canada #ndpldr
That's BS. There isn't a single quote from Broadbent that would make for a remotely compelling Conservative attack ad. If anything, the worst thing Ed said is that Mulcair wants to take the party to the center (a Topp statement -- not something Mulcair has said), and there's no way the Conservatives want to paint the NDP as anywhere near the center.
This could blow over so easily if folks would just let it go.
I agree that there hasn't been any permanent damage done to the future leader, but if the race ends on a bitter and hostile note it won't be good for the party. Fortunately the Mulcair campaign is not taking the bait and I don't think the Topp campaign has many more cards to play to get them a national platform in which to throw mud. If the other campaigns maintain a positive approach this story will be old news even before the convention starts.
Topp and his cronies caused this and no one else.
Why doesn't Topp repudiate Braodbent's comments if you want it blow over?
First of all that is incorrect sdm.
But more to the point, Topp and the cronies in his failed leadership campaign caused this mess and no one else.
Why doesn't Topp repudiate Broadbent's comments if you want it blow over?
I don't agree that often with Chantal Hebert burt she is absolutely dead on this time with her comments about Broadbent.
Because Ed Broadbent is Darth Vader and Brian Topp is Emperor Palpatine.
And Mulcair is Luke Skywalker!
iancosh, you're welcome! My issue with Mulcair isn't Israel, and I'm pretty damn sure he and I disagree on that one. A supporter of the NSNDP government, one that clearly get a lot of criticism from the left, even pointed out that Mulcair is vague compared to the other candidates. His policy statements are simply not as detailed as the ones put out by Dewar, Nash & Topp. Mulcair's site is mostly endorsements and media stories. They've posted media stories that mention that Mulcair is looking to push the NDP to the centre. I'd simply like to see an example of the language that Mulcair would like to bring to the NDP. Since he thinks it needs to be updated, I'm sure he must know what kind of discourse he wants to replace it with. Has he explained this more clearly during some of his meet and greets? I haven't seen any reports. I think especially if he is a good social democrat as his supporters say could say more than "I'm trying to bring the centre to the NDP."
Ed Broadbent gave his rant and all of a sudden the CBC is interested in the race! I think that Ed just decided to stir up a bit of controversy. Charlie puts the whole thing into perspective!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWJY6gbkIXc&feature=channel
I'm for Topp because I feel Canada has a structural deficit and this must be addressed. Avoiding this issue and feeling that repackaging the NDP, to "move the centre to us" or whatever, is not a winning strategy. Being a bold alternative is the winning strategy. But anyway, you should just make up your own mind, rather than counting on Babblers like me. So check out the websites of the contenders, view the debates again on CPAC, and come to your own conclusion. Good luck.
What kind of "trick" is it exactly? Though I don't think he has to read his opening and closing remarks either.
I quite like Angus. And yeah, the media does finally seem to be taking some notice of the race. I heard the Q media panel with Judy Rebick (who seemed to like both Nash and Cullen) and Margaret Wente (who seemed to like Mulcair) and they were saying that finally the race has gotten interesting -- well, Wente said this, since Rebick (no surprise here) has felt it very interesting from the very beginning. Rebick justified her stance by saying that the very core principles of the party are at stake here in this race, and the media have missed out on this important aspect of the story.
Its a good point. The ONLY reason Rosie Barton and (cough, cough, I've got something slimy in my throat) Evan Soloman have any interest in the race is beacause someone of "mass celebrity status" has something negative to say about a candidate.
Pulease. Just go s**** yourselves CBC.
These core principles that Judy is talking about - are they the ones concerning Topp's involvement with ROI Capital Fund and where they do their investments?
Who IS JUDES supporting?
Ed probably did what he did to stir up interest.
It doesn't get nasty until Topp supporters start showing up wearing red ridinghoods.
Stephen Lewis says that he hasn't made up his mind yet. He has another reason to want to stay neutral, though, Naomi Klein is pregnant! Both Naomi and Avi have been approached to run for office - Avi has been tempted, Naomi hasn't. Maybe "Grandpa" figures that he will have a better chance with the next generation.
Most of what there is about Mulcair out there is old news.
The Tories will probably portray Nash as an old hippy turned union groupie (neither which will hurt her).
What do they have on the rest of them?
Evan Solomon is a bit of a dud on P&P. At least Rosie keeps it interesting. Did you see her interview with Larry Flynt?
An excellent post. I wish I had a simple answer for you, but I share your dilemma. In defence of both, I can say that Mulcair has learned a lot about the party hors de Quebec in the last six months and seems to be focussed on modernizing the rhetoric more than becoming Tony Blair. And Topp was clearly far better in the last debate than he was in the early debates.
What do you make of MP Sana Hassainia changing sides?
Reading a lot in the final debate, not ad-libbing, was a classic front-runner's caution. I thought it was smart.
Mulcair has never said he refuses to raise taxes on the "1%," he has said that the tax plank should be written much closer to the 2015 election. That doesn't make him a rightist.
He did reject reversing the Liberal created (and Conservative enhanced) cut to capital gains taxes, though. Instead, he promised to release an alternative proposal on capital gains and/or stock options taxes during this campaign to spell out how he would deal with the growing wage gap in Canada, and to my knowledge he still hasn't done this.
^^^ part of the problem
It hasnt been Topp's campaign doing that questioning of Mulcair. Nor surrogates acting on his behalf. Thats just the assumption around here that everything against Mulcair comes from there.
"Not a real social democrat" is pretty obviously the stuff of campaign sloganeering. While it might be 'fair,' there is no substance to examine. It's a slogan. No more. No less.
The argument that Mulcair will move to the NDP to the centre is not a simple one. Becauese you can, and we have here, argue this endlessly from both directions. One thing is clear: Mulcair draws himself and what he would do as a blank slate. Which leaves supporters and detractors free to draw on their what they will.
I can summarise my argument: we have got mostly centrist positioning from all of our Leaders, and should reasonably expect that from all the candidates. Jack Layton was good at creating openings to "stretch the envelope." Not all of those were used, or used fully. But there is nothing to use if you dont set them up. Between Mulcair holding his cards close about what he would do, and only attending to 'air war' [short term] positioning.... we should expect that only more centrist positioning is what we will get from Mulcair.
And its not even clear that is the best strategy for winning, let alone achieving goals when we become government.
This never happens. If you think it is going to cost you votes to bring something out, after elected, you still will not do it. There is always a backlash to this kind of sneakiness- on such an obvious and clear issue as tax levels. You cannot do this sort of thing and get re-elected. [You can nibble around the edges, you can 'boil the frog' in littel steps over less obvious things like spending levels, but not this kind of 180.]
This option is just not available. The question is whether its too risky an election plank, no matter how much you may like the idea. But thats not what you are posing, you are saying "why go there at all before the election when you can just do it anyway?"