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
I think he makes an overstatement. But I think its more correct than not.
My reasons for being inclusive of left perspectives have to do with the integrity of who we are. [And that isnt as simple as it might sound.]
If you are talking about votes- looking on the left is essentially a waste of time. People who populate boards like babble are too cranky. They say it is X, Y, and Z that mean they cannot support the NDP. But change all those, and their support/non-support level will not budge. They'll never be satisfied. Their satisfaction is not within our reach.
Thats cool. Thats their pregoative. I respect it and completely understand it, on its own terms. My terms of understanding are irrelevant. But forget about pitching or catering to the left. Take your positions and let the chips fall where they will.
[The legion of habitual non-voters is different. The leftie political people we know who do not usually vote- in part at least because the NDP isnt worth it- are not representative of the mass.... not representative even of the whack of them that are more or less left in their inclinations. Demographics- especially age- has more to do with that than ideology.]
Its not going to sound like it, but I will say this in hopes it is helpful.
Let alone criticism getting through all the filters to people around Mulcair, as far as what criticism is effective, Dobbin and the content of what he says is pure flakeyness. Despite the parts of it that sound bordering on arrogant, Judy and what she says is this side of seen as criticism from a friend.
[And no, that doesnt by extension make Dobbin a hostile, or a Liberal. 'Just' a flake that gets dismissed.]
okay I understand what you are saying Ken. I was thinking about those individuals (mainly young and progressive thinking) that just don't vote and not because of some principled stand.
It'll certainly take a bit more than the sugar coated lollipop that appears always to be within reach of the easily satisified.
He'd be only performing the work he was hired to do. His resume suggests a particular specialty in this regard. As far as explicit displays of classic opportunism goes, the Liberals may very well spare their best flashing of the public for last, and actually attempt to switch places with the NDP through the use of leftish sounding teasers that attempt to paint the NDP as opportunistic with their scrunching up in the center. Nothing is beneath them after all.
I should have qualified that better Michelle and glad you tagged me out - I was being sloppy which happens in the morning - I remember back during the Dion liberal leader campaign and when May was the Green Leader that a group of prominent Lefties came out collectively (if I remember) with the "strategic voting" meme. I believe Council of Canadians were involved too, and of course ditto for Hargrove.
Hard to remember which election that was - lol - so many after 2006, like every couple of years. Those same liberals went on to support the Harper cons again, and of course as we well know, many of those liberal MPs are so not progressive and fit well within the Harper Conservative team.
I supported Mulcair, with reservations, after the first ballot. Although I realize he comes with baggage and several past positions that make some New Democrats nervous, I would suggest that if he is as bad as his severest critics claim, then they should also question Jack Layton's judgement in allowing him to run for the NDP in the first place, and making him Deputy Leader subsequent to his election. Are Mulcair's critics prepared to level some of those very same criticisms against Jack? Did our most popular federal leader since Tommy Douglas really screw up that badly?
If you can give your arrogant and imperious routine a rest for a moment, Michelle, where are the facts in Ms. Rebicks statement, as quoted, and in the article as a whole?
Did Mulcair have a lower percentage of women supporters than other candidates? If so, you or Judy should cite it.
Women who work for Muclair get fed up with him after a few months? Such as who? Got turnover rates? Got quotes?
What does 'not very many' mean?
What does 'how few' mean?
What do no names mean?
What do no examples mean?
Her article doesnt even bother to cite anyone on background: "one longtime party activist, who wishes to remain anonymous, said..."
What do no quotes mean?
Judy flung mud at all the women like mtm who did work for Mulcair in a shallow, badly written piece.
mtm threw it back.
Good for her.
@Geoff OB:
Here's where I get to revel once again in delightful harmony with the popular sentiment hereabouts, in saying that Mr. Layton knew exactly what he was doing. Indeed, quite the visionary was he.
The left needs to get over this propensity to try to read people's inner politics as if it were reading auras or something like.
Jack Layton recruited Mulcair to play what turned out to be a fantastic role in the party. He was not recruiting a future leader.
We were judging Mulcair as a leadership candidate. For which, Jack's summation of Mulcair, whatever that may have been, is exactly irrelevant.
And almost no one any more is judging whether Mulcair is suitable to be Leader. He is the Leader, and will remain so with our support.
The question is where we all go with that now.
If some of you think the only appropriate thing to do now is unreserved cheerleading about whatever is coming, why do you bother with the discussion?
@RR - Please don't come to conclusions based on a couple of comments from a couple of people on this board.
His re-appointment of Libby Davies should be seen as a serious move to dispel the "talking point" that he will rebuild the party in his own image. And we should distinguish between those on the "left" (inside and out) who want to see the NDP succeed with those who will never be satisfied with Mulcair or the NDP more generally. They're not worth the time because nothing Mulcair can do will satisfy them.
An unreserved 'Here here!'
I will relate to this political leader as such - he's not some warm figure I know and love, he's a political candidate. I wasn't here during the Jack love in - I'm glad Mulcair is in now it was starting to feel like a cult of personality on occasion and I distrust cultishness more than I mistrust Mulcair. I feel like the Mulcair haters just aren't over their grief for Jack or the loss of their candidate this weekend.
I'll support TM and listen to his ideas according to merit, as he listens to ours - that's easiest on my mental health. We're a democratic party so we can always vote him out or leave if he behaves like a Tory or a Liberal and sells us out. People evolve - TM evolved into a social democrat. I'm evolving too - we're all developing.
I think not trusting your leader is useful - critical talk means you can have a discerning eye. It is a check and balance that keeps the relationship healthy. And I'm glad the tories don't realize it.
Giving a new leader a chance is not "unreserved cheerleading". Until the "left" figures out the difference, it will continue to be immature when it comes to electoral politics. Those who have already charged, tried and convicted Mulcair are not serious players.
I was a PN supporter at the convention. Mulcair knows where I stand I waved at him while wearing a PN t shirt and gave him a big smile when we made eye contact.
You are right that giving a chance is not unreserved cheerleading, and that the [Canadian] left is immature.
But it is also true that all criticism is lumped together, 'immature' or not. Look back and see if you can see any substantive difference between the kind of reaction I get, and Murray Dobbin gets.
Not to mention the generalized response across all the threads to pointing out there may be some problems in this picture, is that there are none. Nothing to talk about, look how well hes doing, he's taking care of all that, etc.
The whole point of seeing the need to "reach out" to "activist types" is to acknowledge that the party has failed to engage their interests, and naturally this engenders hostility to the party. It's easier said than done.
Unless your idea of "reaching out" is aimed at people who are already on friendly terms with the NDP?
For Gaians consideration:
Earth doesnt care a fart for the differences we're talking about. And what effect we will have on Earth, and more our species surivval, is not given by you or anyone else making their pronouncemnents about where 'Earth's interests' lie.
There is a problem with standing back and waiting if you think there are identifiable problems that can be addressed by the new Leader.
There are two sides to that immaturity of the Canadian left. One is that the left says a lot of simply off the wall things. But the other side is that within the NDP serious internal deliberation is very undeveloped, to say the least.
There is at the moment a lot up in the air as to the directions that NDP will take in the near future. Even if the 'discussion' process is very opaque- and all of the real action is inside the bubble- say your piece now.
to be fair, I understand you don't have to be a member to criticize. I was more referring to Rebick's interview on CBC where she flung mud while establishing and proudly brandishing the fact that she wasn't at all a member.
In the midst of a leadership race, you can easily have a say by voting, and campaigning for the candidate of your choice. If Ms. Rebick had found the time to participate in the process to contribute to the outcome she would have liked to have seen in some meaningful way, I would welcome her criticism.
I just resent this feeling she fosters that it is all beneath her, and it is insulting to the activists who pour their heart and soul into making the party, and the country better. That is how it makes me feel when people who aren't even members of our party like to fling mud.
Two things as a disclaimer: Yes, I know Ms. Rebick founded this site.
Other disclaimer, I am a male, I just happened to work with and for many great women on Mulcair's campaign.
I wonder if the topic/issue of "reaching out" might make a good thread topic?
Dont hold your breath about Mulcair reaching out to social movements.
But I for one will not judge him on that. If there are results while people are held at arms length, fine.
For some perspective, how much was it worth Jack's reaching out to social movements? Really, how much was there? I'm not sure there was any more than being nice to us.