ndp leadership thread #129

 

Broadbent broadside backfires

Topp team scrambles after ex-leader’s criticism of Mulcair

 

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/74558-broadbent-broadside-backfires

And some of the front-runner’s strategists privately said disgusted New Democrats are actually moving to Mulcair as a result.

Ed's vision was once broad. Now it's just ...

 

I actually don't have that big a problem with candidates forming alliances and doing the "good cop, bad cop" thing with other campaigns.  I haven't quite figured out why people have such a problem with Singh realizing that he's never going to win, and going after his second choice's biggest rivals - as long as everyone knows it, and knows who is hoping to ultimately gain from those attacks, then who cares?  People can judge his criticism on its merits, and decide for themselves whether he was over the top.

The same can be said for Topp's campaign.  I think Topp is probably still in it to win, but I think most of us, and probably his campaign too, know there is not much chance of that happening since he's too far back, so he's signalling who he doesn't want to win.  What I don't think is clear is who he supports second, so it's not so obvious to me that he's working in concert with another campaign.  But if he were, I wouldn't care. 

I do find it amusing to see some Mulcair supporters bending themselves like pretzels over the issue, though.  They either wrinkle their noses at Singh or support what Singh has said about Topp and deny that Singh is Mulcair's attack dog despite all evidence to the contrary.  But then they feel morally outraged over Broadbent's remarks about Mulcair, and assume, with much less proof, that Topp is working for this candidate or that one by attacking Mulcair.  If he is, then so be it - it's not like it's beneath Mulcair's camp to employ such a strategy.

About 90% of the posts (on both sides) on the Broadbent comments have been absurdly over-the-top. 

I don't think Broadben'ts actions were wise, but he has as much right as anyone to engage in the leadership debate.

And I have no time for people throwing insults at Broadbent just because they disagree with him on the leadership.  Mulcair has wisely ignored it, and chosen to not throw insults back. His supporters would be wise to follow that lead.

I think Paul Wells summed it up best:

Nathan Cullen was delievering a similar reaction line to the Broadbent comments in this inteview.

This is shaping up less and less like a stop Mulcair movement and more and more like a desperate swipe from a lone (5th place) campaign.

I disagree with Broadbent (and many many others) for engaging in a divisive exercise and perpetuating an anti-democratic party structure where the leader and her/his clique are omnipotent. I particularly scorn Broadbent's comments because he, as one of those omnipotent leaders, was in a better position than most to do something about it. Instead, he misuses his reputation to keep the idolatry and infighting alive.

Here's the proof that he knows how it works, and acquiesces in it:

That statement would have been spot-on from an uninvolved observer bemoaning how a progressive party follows the cult concept on leadership, and the damage that concept wreaks when translated into practice. But he's part of it, he likes it, and he makes comments (at the start and the end of the dogfight) that intensify the civil war.

Sorry, but I have no use for him.

ETA:

That's right. If he had an ounce of humility and sentiment for building a healthier movement, he might have considered saying:

"I will support whoever wins and whoever loses on March 24th."

But no. It's all about following the winner.

 

 

I find the concept of Ed Broadbent complaining that someone is too centrist kind of funny.  For those of us of a certain age in the environmentalist movement we left the NDP because it was too centrist on the issues under Broadbent.  I guess if you hang around long enough everything old is new again.

RW, if you have read the thread, where those investments are made...and nobody had refuted the brand new babbler who posted it, for reasons that I have explained ...you should perhaps return to the source and ask for confirmation. Before pulling the trigger? He/she is obviously concerned about the absence of concern: "howsannie wrote: 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." But then perhaps you fnd my offering "offensive" :"You are right for condemning Topp for involvement ...not on the board of a corporation, but for the odious areas in which it is engaged. We can turn blind, embarassed eyes to our own dependency on the corporation, but not those that are the antithesis of ethical investment. Thank you for breaking the spell. It may not bring much discussion, for the reasons mentioned, but the occasional insight into the real world is cathartic."

Yeah I know, and there's a conventional wisdom that wars are about pounding the crap out of the enemy till they surrender. My question is, why have wars among allies?

Oh I see. It's about the winner. The leader. Not the party. And we can't focus on the losers. Because, well, they lost. Gotcha.

Here's how I understand what you just wrote: I'm more interested in living peacefully and building a bright future. Always have been. But at important milestones, we gotta have wars - and while the war is on, we stop talking about the peaceful and future stuff because we need to focus on who will emerge victorious.

"Under the new leader". Well put. Accurate.

 

Go to this link www.cbc.ca/thehouse and scroll down to the NDP leadership race for audio commentary.

both of those articles are complete bullshit.

;;

If Mulcair wins the leadership and a few months from now things go really badly and it turns out that there are major schisms and resignations and splits etc... (not that I expect any of that) - it won't be because of anything Broadbent said - it will be because Mulcair somehow managed to seriously mishandle his mandate, was a "sore winner" and went on some sort of vendetta against real or imagined opponents in the party and made no effort to reach out to people who didn't support him etc... If he makes that mistake it will be just as bad regardless of whether Broadbent had opened his mouth or not.

If on the other hand, Mulcair does the right thing and has a group hug with all the other candidates and calls a meeting with everyone at "Laurier St." and tells them he appreciates their work and needs them and wants as many of them as possible to stay etc..., then all will be well. Again regardless of whether or not Broadbent said anything.

The future of the party depends 100% on the actions of the leader post-March 24 - the sabre rattling right now won't matter.

How about a 'Freedom 70' campaign?

The NDP will need another 70 seats to form government after the redistribution comes into effect in 2015, so Topp and Singh can pledge now to become candidates then to help free Canada from Conservative rule.

There have already been candidates in 2011 who want another try (Lewis Cardinal/Edmonton Centre, Gregor Ash/Halifax West, etc.).

Freedom 70!  Join the campaign!!!

(Or should this be in another thread?)

Great reasoning.  Assume the best of Singh, assume the worst of Broadbent, and then compare the two impressions you've just constructed.