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
This is a nicely put description of the challenge. And it needs to be seen from both sides (we need to be careful not to presume those who want to modernize are trying to bury the issues and to make sure that we are not burying issues).
This is one reason why ongoing discussions of themes and principles and policy tests are important.
If you are proposing to change your language you need to be careful that people understand what you want to say not something quite different.
There is no shortcut here.
Ken, your last point resonates for me-- I feel strongly as well that they have to come together.
As I said earlier, rhetoric without proposals is a waste of time and only makes us sound like Liberals. Policies without purpose is the stuff of a hidden agenda.
Purpose and proposal coming together sound like we identified a problem and are proposing a solution.
It is important that politicians stop providing policies without any clear message about why and the impacts -- who is getting the benefits and who is paying the costs (Henry McCandless's first step to accountability). Borrowing again from Henry, also what are the measures of success laid out from the start?
It is also important that politicians stop trying to get political points for caring and for identifying solutions. We need people who are going to be part of the solutions not just sympathizing with us expressing how much they understand even if deep down their understanding is just a political ploy.
Well Brian Topp use to read babble and also thank us for our contributions and support throughout the last few campaigns and also at different times. Not sure he will be doing that going forward.
And considering that the Mulcair crew didn't think it was important to come online and take questions and answers, like every other leadership candidate, well where I am going with this, IS DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH. I'm not feeling the love for babble/rabble from the new Management Mulcair crew so I think this thread is a nice exercise and that's it.
Perhaps I am not feeling the love and not feeling all hopeful and optimistic.
Which brings to mind with everything all shiny and new, does this mean the NDP will be ditching the "loving, hopeful and optismistic" meme - just curious and wonder what sense others have about the party that was based on "hope".
Don't you think it's more likely that Mulcair didn't come to babble for a Q & A because his crew does read the boards? I bet he wasn't feeling much love from babble either. Everyone I know of who's involved with this site was actively speaking out against him, not just as a poor choice for leader but as a pretender to the principles the NDP stands for (I always feel like they're talking about some other party that I've never heard of when they start in with this stuff, but nevermind), and any random cursory scan of the leadership threads would show no small amount of hostility towards him.
I'm not critical of that at all. This is a place for debate. I'm glad the discussions here were so lively over the leadership, but really, being the frontrunner trying to run a safe campaign free of blunders for the opposition to latch onto, would it have made sense for him to expose himself to the naked animosity of us armchair socialists? As much as it was kind of lame, I had to admit that coming here probably wasn't a smart move.
Communications Director Joins NDP Exodus Under Mulcair
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/communicati...
"..More New Democrat officials who had been close to former leader Jack Layton and failed leadership candidate Brian Topp are leaving the party in the wake of Thomas Mulcair's arrival at the helm. Drew Anderson, the NDP director of communications, told staff Monday morning that he is leaving, a source said...On Sunday, Brad Lavigne announced his departure as the NDP's national director.."
He knows his stuff, he's right, he's far from the only one brave enough to say it, he repeated it on his terrific first-day CBC interview, and he clearly intends to keep saying it. Good.
Fine.
He may know his stuff on the issues. But thats different than having a good grasp of the full implications of what you are saying.
What he repeated Wilf in the interview is general comments about the oil sands, the petro dollar, etc. And yes, all the candidates said that.
But Mulcair did not repeat then his earlier comments that he is the only one in the NDP to make: drawing an explicit line between our cap and trade initiative [which has its substantial political vulnerabilities already] making the oil sands more expensive and therefore less new capacity [fewer Western jobs], taking pressure off the dollar and therefore relief for Eastern manufacturing.
Trust me, we'll be hearing about that when the right time comes for it.
jacob 2, not sure how one could come to that conclusion. Anytime anyone here suggested anything critical of Mulcair they were swarmed by Mulcair supporters, piled on with demeaning trirades and often personal attacks. It was constant posting of pro Mulcair.
As a Topp supporter, I would say that the ignorant and mean things wrote about Brian Topp and also ditto since the election outcome stands in direct opposite to what is stated above. And considering that, Topp came on and answered questions. And oh, Topp actually personally posted to babblers, prior to that.
That's how I felt and know many other posters felt the same thing. So to suggest Mulcair didn't do so because he felt "victimized" is for sure a "stretch".
Mulcair wouldnt have thought of coming here, even fleetingly, because it is miles and miles fro fitting with his very controlled and limited messaging during the campaign.
I personally do not have a problem with that. But its disengenuous to say he didnt come here because of hostility.
I agree with that KenS - Tom is no "victim-type" and painting him as such was the wrong narrative frame in the first place and so lacked credability.
Ha. I certainly didn't mean he was scared of us. I was saying the same thing you are, Ken. He was the front runner and his strategy was to skate to victory by not saying too much or getting tripped up. Coming here didn't fit with that, given that a lot of people here hated him and they would be prominent in any discussion that took place with him.
The most troubling signal Mulcair has sent re communication was his victory speech. Not that it was so weak - it'll soon be forgotten, and we know he's capable of much better - but that he refused to even look at the speech the party offered to the front runners. And that might not have bothered me, if only he'd had a speech prepared by actual speech writers. Winging it from his own scribbled notes in such a spotlight isn't what I think of when I think of "modernizing."
He needs communications people whose judgement he can trust and who can tell him No. I hope he recognizes this.
I had not heard that about refusing to consider the speech offered. I can see not likeing, and ultimately refusing, save some parts of the speech that you think fit you rather than just everyone.
Hopefully we can chalk it up to the exhaustion of everyone in the campaign. Mind you, even that is a question of management and 'style'. Its pretty clear that Mulcair is intense and mercurial- even if you reject the 'angry bear' description as I generally do. Its OK for the Leader to be intense and mercurial. But then its an absolute neccesity for a very senior colleague to have the 24/7 job of stepping back from the intensity. Which is going to be also one of them- hopefully with other people- who considers ALL the angles.
Which gets back to the trusted person who says no. Even the chief communications person is not usually that high up the food chain. But presumably the very top advisors are equally capable in communications.
I think mulcair is quite good today in his speech to caucus. This is the kind of speech he should have given Saturday night!
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/caucus-address/#clip646534
Sounds like a great caucus speech Stock.
Coming here would amount to the same thing thing as going to the CBC. Depending where you are in the race you strategise where you are going to spend your time, and as a front runner what would he have gained here?
I like Tom in this As It Happens interview too:
http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?clipid=2215926722
Mulcair was very good. He has a gift for metaphor. The comparison of Harper to a firefighter, setting fires to put them out so he can be acclaimed as a hero, was memorable.
One quibble, though; I wish he'd stop saying the Conservatives are very good at branding. Not that it isn't true, but that not every listener will grasp his meaning. We shouldn't say the Conservatives are good at anything, lest we be misunderstood.
But I think, maybe, this week the national media have had their Bob Who? moment.
Why would depictions of protestors necessarily result in the 'branding' you propose? I don't see the necessary link so I need you to teach me why this branding will necessarily happen, despite the efforts of a good director and writer, for example. I'm proposing the NDP say it will fight for social justice despite the 'optics' and 'branding' concerns. I'm proposing that they tell the truth even if it is hard to look at even once (and yes, the images should be hard to look at - instructive). I don't see why "images of protestors" equals "the NDP are outsiders/victims". I think these images symbolize a regime that has offered people security, and instead given them chaos.
The problem with worrying about branding is one may erode truth by means of exclusion. So rather than exclude these facts, I think democracy is best served by presenting these facts because they are real events - from proroging parliament, to the G20, the omnibus crime bill, election rigging - these facts strongly suggest a state using force and deception to contain their population. The crowds of protestors and typical Canadians shows typical Canadians that they are not alone, but their government doesn't care, and is an abuser.
Your gentler approach about the NDP being hope for change (that's how I interpret it) is pleasant. But in your quest not to upset the sensibilities of middle class Canadians, know that non mention of issues like the G20 informs some of us that when the NDP does get into power it is going to be like a vichy government - no different from the bad guys, because the NDP doesn't 'view' the abuses as abuses, else, they'd make reference to them in an explicit manner that helps Canadians reason through current affairs. Such ads would show the abuses of power unleashed on Canadians and shame the government for shameful governing. You Tube videos could even be shown on television ads.
Sean, we can agree it is someone's job to speak for social justice. Are you suggesting the protestors should do it(?), or someone else but not the NDP? Perhaps it should be the Liberal Party of Canada who comes to represent the interests of the poor or those beaten up by Harper's thugs, or some new party from the left, who are more responsive to Canadians? Or maybe the NDP should be the ones to speak for protestors - that's the job of a 'new democratic' political party I would submit - to represent people who believe democracy isn't working for them.
You like metaphor well I like it too, so here's my metaphor: It has been suggested if you want to get the issue of nuclear armaments discussed properly you put a bomb in a shopping mall and have people walk around and look at it. You don't put it in a silo bunker and pretend it doesn't exist. That's status quo and we know that doesn't change anything. The public knows it too, Sean.
And to bring things back to 'branding' - your term - you don't like my brand, ok, I think your brand isn't very different from the Liberal brand. Or is it? To many NDPers your brand is NDP, but from my vantage point way over on the left, not showing the protests means you don't see the protests as valid/real/of merit and the abuse as reprehensible. In a word, silent negation of the abuse/protests affirms the correctness of police action/Harper policy. Is that the brand you want for the NDP? Surely the NDP can acknowledge the conflict, make it's perspective on it known, and not take credit away from anyone.
<Naw I've said enough...damn this is addicting>
Veteran NDP MP Lorne Nystrom Among Mulcair Transition Team
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/03/28/veteran-ndp-mp-former-judge-part-of-m...
"Longtime NDP MP Lorne Nystrom, a former Ontario Court judge and two architects of his leadership victory will be part of NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair's transition team..."
Nystrom is also a director of the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA)
See NDPP your addition, just the info you've given, link aside, just makes me think more and more that the NDP needs to do some soul searching - maybe Ed should jerk Mulcair's chain again and ask him about justice for the Palestinians, but I digress.
I'd present a more opinionated opinion NDPP but I tried your link and someone advertising for Ernst and Young wanted to get me to pay or log in or something and I said myself none of that noise and closed the window fast - I don't like those cookies on my machine. Do you have a free link where I don't have to log in? I don't know Nystrom's record on justice for the Palestinians but I found this from IJV:
http://ijvcanada.org/2012/ijv-canada-urges-ndp-members-not-to-vote-for-t...
This person seems to have a feel for the injustice and the 'fairest' remedy:
Manuel Erickson
March 22, 2012 at 11:26 am · Reply
It's obvious to me that Mulcair has not sufficiently analyzed the Palestinian-Israeli problem, or he would not support the 2-state solution. A separate state of Palestine in Gaza and the West Bank is simply not viable in terms of economics or resources. The only resource it would have is tourism which isn't enough. To my mind the only viable solution to this long, bloody and tragic impasse is a single state in which both Palestinians and Jews can live as equals. Sure, it's idealistic, but if you think about it, it's the only way.
It seems strange to say 'the only way' but perhaps he means that the only solution is the most just solution for both parties - to share the land in religious freedom free from persecution. Mulcair's approach though isn't to be judge and jury - that's 'encouraging', but he's still proposing a non solution for the Palestinians.
@RI
Please do if you still think there's a soul to search. Sorry, that link seems to be it I'm afraid. As for Nystrom's record on Palestine, I would assume if it didn't square with Israel's he wouldn't be on that board, no? I know IJV and agree with you...
here's more on two-state/one-state etc.
http://rabble.ca/comment/1334187
I am more anti-Fascist than pro-NDP. If the NDP can position itself as the main engine for toppling the increasingly authoritarian government and asserting "traditional" Canadian values, regardless of where they reside on the political spectrum, then the NDP can win in 2015.
So far, I am less than impressed with the underwhelming rhetoric coming from the opposition benches. Even Elizabeth May by voting against the extension of the Libyan mission showed more guts than the NDP which gave its ascent to the new Con-Liberal neo-Imperialist consensus.
Good. Best stay that way..
Thuis is a thread about communications, how to do it, and strategy.
There is already another thread with identical content to the last bunch of posts.
URGENT need to focus messaging (***and Action *** ) on: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs ...
The Federal and Provincial Municipal proposed cuts would be severe job killers...they must be stopped!
***(Via messaging and real ACTION)***
The risk is our unemployment rate would go to 20% as in Greece..
Not on our watch....our kids and grandkids deserve a future!
We can stop this if we all work together....
...behind the new leader...and just as importantly broader concerned social groups....
I was glad to see Mulcair go after the the Con economy right out of the gate, because I'd like the NDP to finally get aggressive about their economics. I'd like to see a forceful case made for social spending as an economic booster, and the whole austerity model taken to task. It's about time we stopped shying away from this. There needs to be a public debate over these matters to build support for social investment so that Harper has little room to move in the years to come. The sooner we can prompt this, the better, because we want to give the public lots of time to digest our argument before the election.
Basically I'm saying we should start campaigning now and we should start with this.
Agreed, Jacob. I remember too many campaigns in which the NDP surrendered the economy to the Liberals because it was thought we had no credibility there. We have the most credibility there, and it's time we started sounding like it.
Communications concern:
Mulcair's Budget Response Separates Canada, Quebec
The Conservatives will be fine with stirring up anti-Quebec sentiment to stymie the NDP, especially in the West. Of course there's good reason for delivering a separate response, but the party needs to start countering this. (Delivering on other regional statements would be a good beginning.)
Yeah, one of my friends out here is an alarmist Liberal who has taken to branding the federal NDP as "the new Bloc" and proudly rants on about anything that the NDP does in regards to Quebec.
Yes there is good reason for a distinct response... many of us know that a large number of progressive voters in Quebec do not take kindly to being glossed over as generic "Canadians" by politicians. There is no doubting Mulcair's federalist credentials, but in the political parlance of Quebec, even federalists use very specific terminology (e.g. you never refer to Quebec's "provincial government", even in English - it's the "national government", not to be confused with federal). And he is certainly used to this language from having worked in Charest's government. But he does have to find a way to tread cautiously.
Many Westerners will probably be approaching local NDP representation to ask why they supported Mulcair in the race - for example in BC Don Davies, Jenny Kwan and Mike Farnworth were among his many prominent supporters. Perhaps Mulcair should maintain an ongoing dialogue with the people who are receiving questions about him across the country, in order to be better connected to what's happening on the ground. And at some point when Parliament is no longer in session, I'd like to see him tour the country again just as extensively as he did when running for leader.
No time to lose. Easter Break from April 5 to 21. May Break from May 19 to 27. Invite him.