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
Not necessarily so. Last time the New Zealand Labour Party "modernized" it moved moderately left.
@Unionist Thanks for your confidence in my analysis on issues other than this one...
But no, of course I was not suggesting Topp didn't work in a Blairist provincial government in Sask, or that Nash will be leading re-occupations in Canadian cities this spring. I think I make it pretty clear throughout the article that I think the NDP's current version of social democracy is weak and inadequate to the great challenges of our times: defeating neo-liberalism and building alternatives to global capitalism. But I made note of ways in which Topp and Nash have indicated, however subtly, that they oppose a further rightward drift and/or understand that the times call for moves to the left and towards working with or at least identifying with the ideas of social movements. I'm simply arguing that there are some important distinctions in this race, and that the outcome matters.
I find utterly unconvincing the argument made by the likes of James Laxer that because the NDP is no longer a vigorous left party that somehow that justifies their endorsing a centre-right liberal with a record of attacking social movements when in power (in Quebec) and attacking the left within the federal caucus (ie then fellow Deputy Leader Libby Davies over the issue of Palestine). One doesn't need to think that the NDP is some kind of radical left party in order to oppose Thomas Mulcair moving the party even further to the right. This line of argument is specious and, when it's coming from a former Waffle leader like Laxer, a bit pathetic.
Wow, so now Mulcair's not just an evil "centrist" now he's "centre right". I'm sorry but how much hyperbolic bullshit are we expected to take? And "attacking the left"? Are you serious? An ill-advised salvo at Libby, which I thought was wrong, makes him someone who "attacks the left" in caucus? Nonesense. And offensively so. Do a little homework and try to think beyond the simplistic, absurd, and frankly, unreservedly, boorishy wrong.
I liked Topp's speech a lot. I really like how he doesn't limit himself to activist language, he's not preaching to the choir, but he is not reneging on principles either. He is merely expressing his views in a language that everyone can understand, and based on concrete policies.
It made me question a bit my choice to put him in second place instead of first. This is a pretty big step in my selection... Mulcair is first. It's a terrible decision I agonized over actually. It was like Jack had split in two, Mulcair inheriting his skills and charisma, Topp inheriting his principles. I ended up deciding for the leader most ready for primetime and most able to reach out to new voters.
You folks must have been watching a different channel than me. I found him stiff and decidedly uninspiring. He also strikes me as a pouter. If he doesn't win he will go off and pout. That is not someone who could handle the cut and thrust in the House.
Ashton: "I am proud to be a part of the Jack Layton generation". What does that mean, anyway???
A brief update from the convention floor.
Cullen unexpectedly fat but well received, esp when he decried litmus test.
Dewar just bad
Topp relatively upbeat but few backers on the floor. Notewworthy that
majority gave him either no or minoim$al support. People like him for his divisive campaign.
Ashton has limited suppory buit os being well received.
Muilcair and Nash supporters are the most visobe here w M supporters predomionating over N by abt 3 to 2
Yeah, I'll be surprised if Topp wins. I feel the same way about Ashton, Singh and Dewar. So that leaves just Mulcair, Nash, and Cullen.
@Charles Yes, attacking your fellow deputy party leader via the National Post does make you someone who attacks the left in caucus. And, ok, I should have written 'someone who has a record of governing as a centre-right liberal,' to be precise. Still, I think I have 'done my research' and so there's no need for the hyperbolic adjective-bombing. If you have a substantive response to my piece's arguments I'm all ears.
Mulcair up next, then Nash - and Singh gets to close.
How do you compose a substantive response to something so blatantly made-up? Prove that we weren't created by a flying spaghetti monster.
How can there be a substantive response to what amounts to a childish puff piece. Pretty language doesn't make something substantive.
Too many fundraising dinners?
Seeing people on twitter complaining about Mulcair being drummed in as this is some kind of Liberal/ego thing. Wasn't Andrea Horwath drummed in at the Ontario convention. I sort of remember someone saying that at the time- in a positive way. Does that mean Horwath is some evil centrist? Sure didn't sound like it at the opening.
I wouldn't take the comments on twitter *too* seriously. You'll see some hyper partisan stuff from a small group, and it has a way of sticking out from the majority who don't especially care.
Thought Mulcair did a very competent job. Nothing that made me want to get off my chair and cheer, but enough to make me confident that he'd do a good job as leader.
I actually found Topp and Cullen did the best job of exciting me thus far, and I welcome the depth of talent among our candidates.