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.
NDP leadership race #135
March 22, 2012 - 10:04am
;;
Is this for real? I know a lot of the stuff in the Globe is a waste of time but this crap takes the cake. How long has this trash talking person been writing for them?
The New Democrats have no shot, kumbaya
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/the-new-demo...
Topp's NDP leadership campaign 'not nearly as well organized' as Mulcair's, says NDP insider
http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2012/03/20/topps-ndp-leadership-c...
that what i called them globe n mail is "Uneducated" and ignorant lol i know they r not fans NDP supporter. but they will shocking if NDP beat tories and grits in next elections. look at toronto-danforth polls, they want ndp stay and cons lose only 5% is proof they reject harper recent environics ndp and cons are tied.
3rd time this article from March 20th has been posted on Babble. Source is a "ranking New Democrat who did not want to be named". Equals last minute mud throwing by Mulcair campaign.
No doubt momentum going into the Convention will be important.
Tom Mulcair absolutely dominates Quebec politial scene according to today's CROP poll. Is anyione going to still claim it is just a matter of "name recognition"?
CROP: Thomas Mulcair reigns supreme
By Raymond Giroux
The Sun
The March 22, 2012
Ottawa - Two days before the election of a new leader for the New Democratic Party (NDP), Thomas Mulcair is the almost unanimous choice of Quebecers in a position to comment on the subject.
According to a CROP-La Presse, Le Soleil directed by the Internet with 1,000 respondents between 15 and 19 March, the member for Outremont is supported by 45% of Quebecers, followed by Brian Topp with 6% of planned vote.
Follow Nathan Cullen 2%, Peggy Nash and Paul Dewar 1% each, while Niki Ashton Martin and Singh do not get any support.
Note that 6% of respondents say they support any candidate, while 41% do not know which of them would make the best leader for the NDP.
The domination of Mr. Mulcair is more evident among voters of his party, where he leads with 54% against 5% of support to Mr. Topp, 1% for Dewar and nothing for others. Surprisingly, 38% of NDP supporters do not express any preference.
These results tell the pollster Yuri Rivest, "Without Mr. Mulcair, the NDP is faced with a blank page in Quebec." The new leader finds the counter "to zero, he said, and must first make themselves known quickly voters."
The All-Seeing One strikes again...
just bookmark and file for review in 2015.
Linking to Margaret Wente on babble should be forbidden. Not because of babble policy, but just in the interests of public welfare and my own mental health.
she reminds me of several British columnists at The Telegraph and The Times, always explaining why things are what they are, and nothing can be reformed without severe consequences ...
Sorry bout that Catchfire, you're correct.
Now this story I like - primarily because it pisses off the Cons and other opposition parties so very much.
Six NDP rookies won their Quebec seats without spending a centhttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/six-ndp-roo...
The no-spenders include Ruth Ellen Brosseau, the former assistant campus pub manager in Ottawa who had not set foot in her riding, Berthier-Maskinongé, before the election.
Her return shows no expenses and an infusion of $22.50 from the New Democratic Party that apparently went unspent.
By comparison, Ms. Brosseau’s Bloc Québécois opponent spent more than $50,000 on election expenses. Her Conservative rival spent more than $26,000.
Another one of the NDP no-spenders is Philip Toone, a lawyer and a first-time MP for Gaspésie–Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
“I had me and my orange tie,” Mr. Toone remembered, saying he relied on word-of-mouth to spread news of his campaign. “Miracles are rare.”
Mr. Toone didn’t put up lawn signs or billboards and recorded no campaign expenses – though he did make note of $12.50 in auditing work that was marked as received in August, four months after the election.
Can't wait to prove morons like that wrong. We're still doing pretty well, but I guess it's unfair, because it's mostly Turmel-mania :)
Philip Toone may have spent 0$ in his campaign - but he is ny no means a parachuted "NOB", he is a notary based in Carleton-sur-mer in the middle of his riding of Gaspesie-iles de la madeleine and he is now the NDP deputy fisheries critic and is also official agent for Mulcair's leadership campaign. I have friends who live in that riding and apparently he has a very high profile locally and attends events everywhere. You can be sure that in 2015 he will spend the maximum allowed by law.
Oh, Margaret Wente's been around for a looooong time. And everything she writes is crap, it's almost astounding. She even had her own debunking blog for a while (google 'Wente Watch'). Her stuff is definitely not worth the paper it's printed on.
It's not even worth the bandwidth.
There was an announcement that she had become Atlantic Canada "bureau chief". So I thought they had exiled her- keeping her being our contrebution to sanity in Canada.
But apparently not, that was months ago. Nor do I see her name on any stories from here.
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/opinions/chroniqueurs/201202/21/01-4...
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/chroniqueurs/patrick-lagace/201203/18/01-45067...
Ed Broadbent était un politicien tout à fait respectable. Il a le coeur à gauche et en ce sens, je suis plus près de lui que de Stephen Harper. Ses 14 ans de politique ont laissé un souvenir chaleureux: c'est un homme sympathique.
Mais Ed Broadbent est un perdant.
En quatre élections générales, Ed Broadbent a été d'une constance magnifique: toujours chef du parti qui arrivait bon troisième, loin, très loin derrière les libéraux et les conservateurs.
Ça en dit long sur le boy-
scoutisme de la gauche canadienne quand son héros, sa conscience, est un homme qui n'a que des revers à son actif.
Et c'est ce gars-là qui donne des conseils au NPD de 2012?
Wow.
Si des militants néo-démocrates s'avisent de l'écouter, j'aimerais leur signaler que Blockbuster cherche peut-être des acheteurs pour ses clubs vidéo...
M. Broadbent croit que ce serait une «erreur» de déplacer le NPD vers le centre, comme le suggère M. Mulcair, en évoquant l'ancien premier ministre britannique Tony Blair, qui a fait triompher son New Labour justement en le déplaçant vers le centre politique.
M. Broadbent a droit à son opinion. Mais c'est l'opinion d'un homme qui n'a jamais même flirté avec le pouvoir. En fait, le NPD de Broadbent n'a jamais même effleuré, en 1979, 1980, 1984 et 1988, l'opposition officielle! Critiquer la recette de Tony Blair - élu trois fois premier ministre du Royaume-Uni -, c'est tellement prétentieux que c'en est comique.
Si je comprends bien Ed Broadbent, il vaut mieux se cramponner à des positions incapables de rallier une majorité d'électeurs que de modifier ces positions pour avoir une chance de gagner.
C'est ce que je veux dire: la gauche ne veut pas gagner, elle veut avoir raison.
The question the previous author asks Broadbent and the rest of the NDPers - "Don't you ever get tired of losing?"
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.ca/2012/03/on-warning-signs.html
worth reading for those who are considering voting during the convention online.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/03/20/where-did-jack-layton-stand/
Interesting perspective on Layton's philsophical leanings and practical contributions.
Will be interesting to hear Judy Rebick on The Current when it comes online. Is there a link yet? She said she was planning to outline her case why Mulcair can't be trusted. With tens of thousands of members yet to cast their vote, these sorts of pronouncements can have an impact. Was thinking more folks would have voted by now. There could be a significant amount of votes to play around with at convention after all. Given the margin of victory will probably just be a couple thousand votes, what happens at convention may be critical for the winner.
How ludicrous!
Yes, definitely Mulcair cannot be trusted, especially after the Orange Crush in Quebec during the last federal election campaign.
that lagacé article, while substantively correct and definitely pro-mulcair (as virtually everyone in the quebec media is, right or left), is annoying. the quebec media is really teeing this up so that if mulcair doesn't win, the ndp is going to sink. broadbent is a loser and, by extension, the ndp are losers if they heed his remarks on mulcair and select a different person as leader, it's not a good meme, even if mulcair wins.
One thing I've been wondering about is how the various lines of arguments for and against specific candidates will impact their popularity in the event that each is chosen as leader. The Topp line of argument (that Mulcair is a closet right-winger) seems to be dicey for a couple of reasons. First, if Mulcair wins anyway, it probably helps him in the eyes of anyone who might currently sympathize with the NDP, but worry we're "too far to the left of the Canadian mainstream". Secondly, Topp essentially painting himself as the only viable "true social democrat" might have a negative impact for the same reason. Those same non-voter sympathizers might think "hey, I've always worried that they NDP was a bit too far left, and this guy just spent a whole leadership campaign trying to convince NDPers that he's the only one left enough to lead the party. Guess I'm still voting Liberal."
It's comparable to the challenge in the US primaries. The GOP candidates spend the whole primary season arguing about who hates gays, women and immigrants more, and then when one is finally selected, they have to spend the general election campaign walking all of that ignorance backward.
Its not comparable to the US primary. Nat at all.
The Republicans have absolutely ripped each other to shreds. And since they spend BILLIONS in a PRIMARY, its wall to wall ads repeating 100s of times in every household how Santorum, Gingrich and Romney are hopeless losers.
THAT can only have a lasting effect. But we arent even on a continuum of that.
The othere thing that is happening in the US is that they are pressing their case so hard, that Republican supporters of a candidate that does not one, cannot help but aborb the narrative that [whoever wins] is no different than Obama. THAT will supress votes, altough even there, not necessarily a lot.
This little pillow fight in Canada? No way.
The NDP supporters who are marginal as to whether they vote or not- at least 90% will barely if ever have heard that Mulcair is some kind of Liberal in disguise. And a good many of them won't care anyway, because it is only part of the NDP leaning non-voters who stay away because the field isnt left enough to bother with.
Well, we're certainly on the continuum, but I would agree that the campaign has been quite civil comparatively speaking. The spirit of my argument isn't compromised by the degree of civility (or lackthereof). I still think that Topp's attacks against Mulcair, while potentially devastating to Mulcair's campaign for leadership, will have a negative impact on the NDP with Topp at the helm. They will have to argue that they're pragmatic and mainstream after spending significant time and energy developing arguments the Tories can use to imply they are anything but.
I don't see it that way.
1 - Mulcair had a lot to do with the Orange Crush in Quebec
2 - Quebec is the only province by far, where the NDP had such good election results
3 - Mulcair choose the NDP, he is one of us
4 - Broadbent and all former leaders should have stayed out of the fray - their time is done
5 - Quebecers have always been the most astute politicians in Canada, it's a survival thingy, so when you have a winner what possible reason could you have for not going with him
Dave W used the delightful phrase "without severe consequences" to signify what change means to the status quo columnist defending improperly gained ground.
The debate about what happens if Mulcair does not win reminds me of the Quebec debate about Meech Lake. Those who argued that severe consquences would ensue, did not necessarily support the accord. If it had passed the accord itself would have been denounced, instead of its non-passage.
How many severe consequences columnists will be delighted to report either the NDP commited suicide and created winning conditions for Marois in the referendum now just around the corner; or that Tom Mulcair is the foe every sovereignist wanted ... he is the perfect target for their ire because he always responds in kind, reviving debate.
If Mulcair loses, the man who delivered Quebec as the Member for Outrement can presumably do it again, this time helped by 57 colleagues.
If Mulcair wins he has to prove himself outside Quebec just lke every other candidate. The Tories won their majority in Ont. (75 seats) and B.C. is important to them as well. Those are the two battlegrounds in the next election.
The Quebec tale is fun, but the main story?
If Mulcair does win I think that it will have proved that he can bring in voters in BC and Ontario, he won't be able to win leadership without bringing in those voters as QC voters only account for about 10% of those eligible to vote.