NDP leadership #130

Some unexpected endorsements on Brian Topp's site today, including Des Morton:

http://briantopp.ca/news

Plus former BC Premier Dan Miller and Maureen MacDonald, Minister of Health in Nova Scotia’s NDP government.

I got a forwarded e-mail from MP Sana Hassainia:

Boze, I'm not trying to blackmail anyone. Is it blackmail to say look before you leap?

And Josh, the narrative is not a self-fulfilling one from the Mulcair camp but a very obvious one that you don't need to be very percetive to understand. The Quebec media has been saying these things as far back as August.

Actions have consequence. If you care for our party you owe it your best judgement. That includes a sober assessment of the political landscape.

And Brian, I frankly don't know what motivates some MPs but I have heard a number of things about why some of them have made their choices. I know that a number of them have personal connections with Topp going back years. I know one whose significant other is a prominent Topp organizer. There are rumours that some have been promised prominent critics' jobs. Some may have thought in the early going that Topp couldn't lose so they should join his bandwagon. Some committed before Mulcair entered the race. I have heard that a couple regret their initial choice not to back Mulcair. Some like Francoise Boivin have indicated they will switch to Mucair when Topp is eliminated. Mulcair's camp is confident that almost all of the Quebec MPs have him as their first or second choices.

At any rate Mulcair looks to have at least 70% of the Quebec caucus backing him on the first ballot and maybe 90% on the last.

I know the Mulcair campaign doesn't approve of Edmonston's "blackmail" column.

Sure.  In the same vein, any English endorser of Mulcair could possibly be explained away for their own leadership ambitions as well.  Maybe Don Davies is endorsing Mulcair because he wants to be leader in the future and knows that if Cullen wins he'll be out of luck.

Sure it's ridiculous, but it is, as you say, "one possible explanation".

Maybe Topp is blackmailing MPs into endorsing him.  I mean, it's the only possible explanation for why anyone would prefer Topp over Mulcair.

Right?

Boze wrote:

 

I for one do not like feeling blackmailed into supporting a candidate I do not like.

 I find it ironic that it is only Mulcair supporters that are threatened (as in the #129) or actually suspended here even though the vast majority of personal attacks are on Mulcair. I commented on this in the last post (copied below). 

 

 

I find the threats to suspend people once again for raising issues similar to those brought up against Mulcair again and again objectionable (I am not arguing the issue itself as I doubt anyone previously engaged in the debate of Mulcair as leader is going to change their mind one way or the other because of what is said here. All I want is an open debate for everyone - unless someone goes way goes way off the deep end in bitter attack). It reminds me of what happened in BC when mostly young environmentalists in the 1990s complained that not enough focus was being given to environmental issues at a riding meeting I attended in BC. The debate was cut off and they were told there was to be no more discussion of the issue. Many of those young people, feeling their opinions were not respected, left for the Green Party. At 45 at the time, I then became one of the youngest party members in a large riding association. Indeed, several Green Party candidates in other ridings were former NDPers who felt muzzled within the NDP. I stayed only because I felt the NDP offered the best combination of social and environmental policies (although with Clayoquat Sound and other environmental  issues I admit I was tested). Just in case anyone stereotypes me as a single issue person, I have negotiated several union contracts and was always considered the most militant member of the bargaining committee. The D in NDP stands for democratic. Being of Irish descent and this being Saint Patrick's Day I'll engage in an Irish stereotype (oops, am I banned) - their love of open debate - and end with an Irish saying: "Is this fight personal, or can anybody join in?"

Some people fear Mulcair will lead he party to the centre and be too angry. Others fear we will lose Quebec without Mulcair. Let people say what they want, read it or not, and vote for who you think is best. Part of the reason I decided to vote for Mulcair is I felt too many people were being censored for expressing their feelings - right or wrong (if I can engage in one more stereotype - I'm kind of a pig-headed Irishman that way). I didn't like it back then and I don't like it now.

I honestly see scenarios in which all of these candidates could end up being labelled as "failing" the party or electorally, although I personally commend all of the candidates for taking on this almost thankless task within the party (and debatably more so outside the party). I honestly could see a set of circumstances in which Layton, whom I loved, might have not been successful electorally.  After all, even he did not win every election he ran in. Even in the fall before the 2011 election, we did poorly in several byelections compared to our normal votes in these ridings. Most scientific theories end up being revised or overturned in the end as new evidence becomes available. Furthermore, some theories that sounded absurd to the vast majority of people eventually were accepted by everyone. We have even less evidence than scientists typically have to make a judgement on, so I hope people examine the evidence and make their own judgements without begruding others their judgments. 

 

 

ugh, here's another quote from broadbent:

“I have never had a personal vendetta or something so trivial or banal against Tom. But I have strong convictions about the truth in politics and I dislike intensely when someone gets a bum rap or when someone else tries to take credit for what other people are doing.”

from the post.  like seriously, wtf?  it's sunday, are we going to have to deal with this for the next several days?  i hope something huge happens that just pushes this out of the discourse for good.  okay, broadbent, you don't like mulcair, point made, membership understands.  going on about it now just makes keeps the negative ndp stories going.

An observation:

Mulcair the candidate has stayed positive through all of this. No slamming Topp or Broadbent. No strikebacks. No ultimatums.

Meanwhile, I'm hearing from Mulcair supporters that voting against Mulcair is to (1) shit on Quebec, (2) destroy the NDP, (3) vote for four more years of Stephen Harper, (4) take the wrong side in an intraparty civil war.

The irony being that some Mulcair supporters think that this kind of polemic "with us or against us" crap is justified, all because a top surrogate said "don't pick the frontrunner, pick my guy". (Not all of his supporters: and I give a respectful nod to the ones who are keeping their head high.)

Thomas Mulcair is handling this with a lot of grace. (For now, anyway.) I think that shows a lot of class and decency. I also think it shows a lot of intelligence, because a positive tone is a better argument against Topp than anything else he could say.

Nothing would destroy party unity more than some overzealous supporters, getting all pissy on the convention floor at the first hint of criticism. It would be a downward spiral of booing and catcalling, with the media lapping up every minute of it. At the Liberal Convention, Michael Ignatieff's supporters thought they were helping him by shouting down criticisms from rival camps. In actuality, they added to the negativity, and the feeling that Iggy wanted to shut down an honest conversation.

Mulcair has been smart enough to respond to his critics with positivity. His harshest critics will say he's hiding something, and his most strident supporters will wish that Mulcair would proclaim that he must be coronated in order to save the party. But his overall tone and approach has worked, letting supporters come to him by comparison shopping, instead of slamming the other choices. I hope he'll point this success out to his supporters on the eve of the convention: endure the criticism from the floor, and let Mulcair handle it when he has his turn on stage.

On a separate but related note: the other candidates have been very dignified through all of this too. Ashton and Cullen in particular.

Mulcair has been quite disciplined in this race in respect to refraining from criticism of other candidates, no matter how hard they deliberately try to bait him into getting his famous Irish up.  This mitigates his reputation of being a hot-head, will help him unite the party if he becomes leader, and courts second-choice supporters when running a mostly positive campaign.  Although he has engaged in some negative and mean-spirited attacks comparable or worse to anything Topp's said, like claiming that Topp has never been even elected dog-catcher in his entire life.

Thanks.  It looked like Topp was the anti-Mulcair at the beginning of the race, but Peggy Nash has emerged as probably the best candidate to stop Mulcair.  And on her own merits as well I will be ranking her as my first choice.  I think she would be a lot stronger than Mulcair in 2015 against the Tories.  The crypto-Separatist beholden to Quebec above the West line from the Tories will stick to Mulcair, but Harper is going to have a hard time beating up on a mother of 3, who just does not look like some terrifying union boss. She'll clearly do a much better job uniting the party and progressives, and animating the union and left wing base of the party, and youth and women.  Harper won a plurality of women in 2011, we have to beat him there, plus Nash would be stronger in Ontario and the West than Mulcair.  The ROC trumps Quebec, and if we win the ROC and appeal to the Left in Quebec like Jack did we'll hold Quebec too.  If we can make a breakthrough in the GTA and Ontario, we'll have enough seats to form gov't and conclusively supplant the Liberals.  Like Layton, Nash persevered and stormed Fortress Toronto, the Liberal stronghold they've held to form governments since Pearson.  And I think Nash will be effective in neutralizing or outperforming Harper on his main perceived strength which won him a majority, the economy. 

You find that lame anti-NDP cartoon to be funny?  And I don't see what's truly hilarious about mocking New Democrats for actually caring about the policies of the leadership candidates and the direction the new leader could take.

Look, I was just being facetious about how Topp is trying to take out Mulcair, even if he ends up being Samson and bringing down the temple on himself as well.  It's to their credit that he and Broadbent are sacrificing themselves for the good of the party and the country.  I stole this joke from Noam Chomsky who once amusingly described Alan Dershowitz's campaign against Norman Finkelstein as a "jihad".  No doubt you're going to have the same puerile tantrum about Chomsky for laughing about the deaths of thousands of people on 9/11.  You're just being dramatic because you're an apologist for Mulcair and I've gotten under your skin for making criticisms of him that you obviously are unwilling or more likely unable to answer.

"Look, I was just being facetious about how Topp is trying to take out Mulcair, even if he ends up being Samson and bringing down the temple on himself as well. It's to their credit that he and Broadbent are sacrificing themselves for the good of the party and the country. I stole this joke from Noam Chomsky who once amusingly described Alan Dershowitz's campaign against Norman Finkelstein as a "jihad". No doubt you're going to have the same puerile tantrum about Chomsky for laughing about the deaths of thousands of people on 9/11. You're just being dramatic because you're an apologist for Mulcair and I've gotten under your skin for making criticisms of him that you obviously are unwilling or more likely unable to answer." Indeed, how many of us would be up to jousting with the master of subterfuge? :)

I will agree with Socialdemocraticmiddle that Thomas Mulcair has run a positive campaign and that his supporters should be careful about polarizing the vote for or against Mr. Mulcair.

Do I think that the next leader should be from Quebec?  No.

Do I think that the next leader should understand the needs of Quebeckers?  Yes.

Do I think that the next leader should understand the needs of Canadians living outside Quebec?  Yes.

Do I think that the next leader should have a strong commitment to social democracy?  Yes.

Do I think that the next leader should have the skills to battle Stephen Harper and his Conservatives?  Yes.

Based on the question listed about, who will I pick on the first ballot?  Thomas Mulcair.

Do I think that Thomas Mulcair is the only one who can perform effectively as leader of the NDP?  No.  I think others can also perform admirably.

I would strongly advise Mr. Mulcair's supporters to stick with the positives about their preferred candidate.

I've been thinking about Edmonston's comments and I really don't think it can be put in the same league as Broadbent's .  What he said was a statement of fact. Even "Topp-firendly" journalists admit that a Mulcair loss would be seen as the "anglo-establishment" sticking it QC. Just listen to Daniel Leblanc on "The House" yesterday. http://www.cbc.ca/thehouse/ (The NDP leadership race: 13:50)

Everyone agrees Nash or Topp would initially be poorly recevied iin QC. The key questions are: Do you believe that he/she has a good chance of making up lost ground? And are Mulcair's faults big enough to justify this gamble? Some might legitimately answer "yes" to those questions and vote for either of those two candidates with their eyes wide open. Personally, I'm not willing to take the risk.

I saw Megan Leslie speak recently, and she is a really great speaker.  I knew who she was before but had never heard her speak, really.  Very warm, down-to-earth, funny, and conversational.  She would have made an excellent candidate.

James Laxer is a Mulcair supporter, right?  What a surprise, that Mulcair supporters would want people to reject Broadbent's comments.

Here is the convention agenda as set out on the NDP webapge.

 

It seems somewhat sparse. Does anyone know more details? Particularly, when are the candidates's speeches? When does balloting end? 

 

 

Friday, March 23

• 9:00 AM - Registration
• 12:30 PM - Call to Order
• Candidate Showcases
• Opening of First Ballot Voting
• 7:00 PM - Tribute to Jack Layton

Saturday, March 24

• 9:00 AM - Closing of First Ballot Voting
• 10:00 AM - Announcement of First Ballot Results
• Voting to continue throughout the day
• Unity - Leadership celebration