NDP leadership race #127

I'm starting to sound like a broken record, saying you guys are dramatizing this a bit too much...

But this is still a very amicable, peaceful race from where I sit. The relative peacefulness makes Ed Broadbent's interview seem like a huge event, but it's mostly a repetition of the obvious, and not much of an attack on Mulcair at all.

There are a ton of worse things that happened in the U.S. Democratic primaries four years ago. If he really hated Mulcair, he'd say "he's unfit to be prime minister" or "he would be a disaster for the party". He would point to some huge issue of principle that Mulcair is violating.

The worst thing he could say was that Topp is more specific about taxes whereas Mulcair is more vague. Maybe I'm biased, because I agree with Topp and Broadbent too. But it doesn't make it an attack. It just means he trusts Brian more, and has more confidence in him to maintain those principles.

We'll still come together when the race is over. Topp, Mulcair, or otherwise.

Howard wrote:

More mud:

<a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1146933--ndp-leadership-ed-broadbent-takes-aim-at-thomas-mulcair?bn=1">Toronto Star</a> wrote:

"It is indicative that something like 80 to 90 per cent of the old caucus is supporting other candidates than Tom," Broadbent said. "It's one thing to be forceful and direct and both Tom and Brian are that, they're both bilingual, but in terms of demonstrated capacity at team-building, I think Brian is the better candidate."

Broadbent also took Mulcair to task for suggesting that he more instrumental in the Quebec breakthrough that saw 59 NDP MPs elected in the province last year than any of the strategists running the show from Ottawa.

"That is factually wrong and I know it's wrong," said Broadbent, explaining that Topp and Raymond Guardia, who is now Topp's campaign manager, deserve more of the credit.

 

It is indicative that Brian Topp doesn't have any more support among the old caucus than Mulcair. It is indicative that Paul Dewar has support among the old caucus. It is indicative that only 2 MPs from the old caucus support Peggy Nash. It is indicative that it is indicative...

 

As my father used to say, "figures don't lie, but liars figure". (they twist the numbers to make their point)

 

Howard wrote:

TheArchitect wrote:

The point Paul's making is that while a lot of people might see advantages in electing Mulcair, he might be seen as a more conventional Ottawa politician, and might alienate voters who support the NDP because they believe, as Jack said, "that Ottawa's broken and it's time for us to fix it."

I think it's a good point.

Let's take a little walk down memory lane. The NDP was running on "Ottawa's broken and it's time for us to fix it" at the beginning of the 2011 campaign (i.e. first two weeks of April) and was slipping in the polls (link) and the media was writing articles about how the NDP was having trouble getting people to events. The Quebec slogan was "Travaillons ensemble." As the Quebec slogan caught on, the NDP's poll numbers rose and the NDP switched over heavily to the line "together we can do this," a translation of the Quebec slogan massed together with Obama's "yes we can." Which slogan worked better? Which one closed out the campaign? Which one was designed in Quebec using Mulcair's approach (discussed in the last debate) and which one was written by Brian Topp at Great Eggspectations on Laurier (link p. 57)?

Another interesting thing about the second link above is that Brian Topp spends several pages writing about the NDP's breakthrough in Quebec, and mentions Mulcair twice: once to say that Layton recruited him and that Mulcair had appeal and another time to say Mulcair was high profile. Otherwise, the reason the NDP won Quebec was because Raymond LaGuardia stayed with the NDP for 30 years (and presumably also Brian Topp). Now which story do you find more credible? A campaign manager that showed up in the 80s, toiled imperceptibly for 30 years, or the Quebec lieutenant who was in the Quebec media every day for 5 years, recruited, and campaigned for almost all the Quebec candidates? Clearly Mulcair="high profile" window dressing.

Is this for real- that there are over 100 posts in a few hours?

And what a bunch of overblown histrionics about Ed's interview.

1.] The grandees of thie party did not decide for us who is going to win. Unfortunately, people are not going to accept that. The attitude is not a determining factor in where we go, but it doesnt help.

2.] Apparently there is going to be a party unity problem if Mulcair doesnt win. [See histrionics.]

3.] Ironically, Mulcairites see Ed and the Topp campaign and the generalized anti-Mulcair as the problem in how things are after. But not to worry- your personal opinions of Ed and the Topp campaign are valid, but they are not a reasonanble basis for worrying about damage to the party or party unity. If Mulcair wins, that will pass.

I love and respect Ed Broadbent, but when he came out for Topp before anyone else had announced their candidacy and said that Topp was the only one capable of leading us to government, I knew there was something fishy going on.

It is one of two things:

1)He really believes Topp is the only one who can lead the NDP. This is dead wrong

2)He is being manipulated to say these ridiculous absolute statements, in which case I feel terrible for him, and hatred for Topp if this is the case

josh wrote:

Howard wrote:

Another interesting thing about the second link above is that Brian Topp spends several pages writing about the NDP's breakthrough in Quebec, and mentions Mulcair twice: once to say that Layton recruited him and that Mulcair had appeal and another time to say Mulcair was high profile. Otherwise, the reason the NDP won Quebec was because Raymond LaGuardia stayed with the NDP for 30 years (and presumably also Brian Topp). Now which story do you find more credible? A campaign manager that showed up in the 80s, toiled imperceptibly for 30 years, or the Quebec lieutenant who was in the Quebec media every day for 5 years, recruited, and campaigned for almost all the Quebec candidates? Clearly Mulcair="high profile" window dressing.

Maybe I missed something, was Jack Layton not the NDP candidate, and star, of the last election? Because if you believe some of these posts it was Tom Mulcair who was responsible for winning all those seats.

It wasn't all Jack or all Tom. It was a combination of many factors. Decline of the Bloc, Lib scandal, Tory stupidity

flight from kamakura wrote:

it's not helpful to call people with different opinions "losers". 

+1

Howard wrote:

josh wrote:

The party, or the idea of a social democratic party, is bigger than any leadership election, or any candidate for that matter.  Clearly based on his interview, Broadbent fears that Mulcair will be the Tony Blair of the NDP.  His fears are well founded.

Founded on what?

We've gone through this a million times. I've quoted the language and code words used about not being beholden to unions and the need to "renew" the way many other social democratic parties have. If you dispute it, take it up with your candidate. He's the one who said it.

josh wrote:

Howard wrote:

josh wrote:

The party, or the idea of a social democratic party, is bigger than any leadership election, or any candidate for that matter.  Clearly based on his interview, Broadbent fears that Mulcair will be the Tony Blair of the NDP.  His fears are well founded.

Founded on what?

We've gone through this a million times. I've quoted the language and code words used about not being beholden to unions and the need to "renew" the way many other social democratic parties have. If you dispute it, take it up with your candidate. He's the one who said it.

Oh josh, why must you josh around

algomafalcon wrote:

flight from kamakura wrote:

broadbent's interview really isn't so bad, i really like the guy: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=2210497285

wish he wouldn't go after mulcair, but i can't blame him.  it's healthy, and it's not really as bad as the print media suggested.

 

Not according to the commentators on Power and Politics - including Gerald Caplan who politely disagreed with Broadbent's intervention.

A lot of them were stating that the worst of Broadbent's attacks were directed at Mulcair's character - that he "can't be trusted" and "no one can work with him" (or something to that effect) Basically they were stating the worst of Broadbent's statements were his negative personal attacks.

Flanagan joked that Harper had called him up to prepare attack ads against Mulcair baseed on Ed Broadbent's quotes. (just a joke right now but that certainly sounds like something the Conservatives could do).

 

 

It sounds like to me Ed realized he crossed a line, not just trying to stop Mulcair, but actually hurting the party, aka giving Harper material he may actually use. Thankful it just paper that got the worst, not video with the original, and Ed was wise enough to dial it down when he realized he went to far.

It a an important race, alot at stake, and passions are high, and people sometimes say stuff they don't mean cause they want thier guy to win.

Broadbent is at risk for hurting his own legacy if he doesn't rein it in. If he keeps this up, he hurts the party. Maybe even hurts Topp's chances.

Brachina wrote:

I think Josh is writing the sequel to the Divinci Code. Its called the Mulcair Code. Tom Hanks has already argeed to star in it and Al Pacino is playing Mulcair ;p

Hanks is busy with the Obama campaign.

the mulcair code!

tom hanks = brian topp

christopher walken = thomas mulcair

meryl streep  = peggy nash

woody harrelson = nathan cullen

steve buschemi = martin singh

sean connery = ed broadbent

hilary swank = a combined paul dewar/nikki ashton character

morgan freeman = a re-tooled romeo, now from the deep south rather than extreme north

I watched the interview too and Ed talked about how Mulcair is overly critical of the staff in the federal office and believes that is not right - essentially they are like civil servants. I agree with that. I think it's poor political judgement to publicly critize your staff (and they are all our staff in the party) to score political points. Which is why some suggest that if Mulcair wins he will sweep out our long term staff who were central to getting us to official opposition and bring in his own crew - whoever they may be.

Incidently, I am not a loser.

 

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The media reading of Broadbent is far worse than anything Ed actually said.

Watching the CBC interview confirms that.

Ed Broadbent said he's not against modernizing. His beef with Mulcair is that he's suggesting the party hasn't modernized, not that Ed was against it. The NDP has undergone changes in language, changes in fundraising, changes in organization.

Ed is really specific about his criticism of Mulcair -- half of his beef is that Mulcair's criticisms of the party have been unfair. He doesn't like that Mulcair said the NDP was too centralized, and responds that the Quebec strategy was developed in coordination with Ottawa. He thinks Mulcair's comment about  "boilerplate" is a charicature of the party who helped him, and "modernizing" is something we already did.

The other half of his criticism is that Mulcair is vague. If we've already modernized, then what does Mulcair want us to do? Ed points out that Brian Topp has a specific vision of how to modernize the party, using taxes as an example. Ed thinks Mulcair is making a mistake by avoiding this issue. Ed says that you don't avoid the issue just to avoid being attacked, because that could actually lose credibility with the voters.

He still praises Mulcair: he's successful, forceful, someone who can take on Harper. But he says that Topp's stance on taxes and equality is more clear, and he has a better idea of what Brian Topp wants to do.

Considering Topp has been in the party's inner circle for such a long time, Broadbent's comments that he trusts Topp's vision more is completely fair, and completely unsurprising.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

That would be exploited no end by the other parties and the MSM.  I hope it doesn't happen.

Howard wrote:

More mud:

<a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1146933--ndp-leadership-ed-broadbent-takes-aim-at-thomas-mulcair?bn=1">Toronto Star</a> wrote:

Broadbent also took Mulcair to task for suggesting that he more instrumental in the Quebec breakthrough that saw 59 NDP MPs elected in the province last year than any of the strategists running the show from Ottawa.

"That is factually wrong and I know it's wrong," said Broadbent, explaining that Topp and Raymond Guardia, who is now Topp's campaign manager, deserve more of the credit.

Given his difficulties with French, I should probably take it easy on Ed too. Who knows if he has been able to follow the Quebec media, despite his stint at Rights and Democracy in Montreal.

In this leadership race, the Quebec media has been categorical about the importance of Mulcair's role in the 2011 breakthrough.

Boom Boom wrote:

Gaian wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

Broadbent is at risk for hurting his own legacy if he doesn't rein it in. If he keeps this up, he hurts the party. Maybe even hurts Topp's chances.

Topp has chances?

Sure. He could still win as the anti-Mulcair candidate if all the other candidates throw their votes behind him. Singh would probably go to Mulcair. But if Mulcair has the most votes on the first and second ballots but not enough to win overall, then we could see Cullen, Nash, Dewar and maybe Ashton move to Topp. If that happens, you will have a very badly divided party.

You are right, of course.
And it would signal that the division is along cultural lines. There would be NO recovery.

Wonderful just wonderful most people would not have known if Muclair did any of what Ed accuses him of in such a nasty public way and you just compounded it. NICE.  This is nasty politics and is doing no favours for any Canadian let alone any NDP. This stuff is what makes people turn OFF of politics.

I am so glad Nathan and Niki have not stooped to any of this.

janfromthebruce wrote:

I watched the interview too and Ed talks about how Mulcair is overly critical of the staff in the federal office and believes that is not right - essentially they are like civil servants. I agree with that. I think it's poor political judgement to publicly critize your staff (and they are all our staff in the party) to score political points. Which is why some suggest that if Mulcair wins he will sweep out our long term staff who were central to getting us to official opposition and bring in his own crew - whoever they may be.

Incidently, I am not a loser.

My overall point... the party is NOT imploding. We're having a leadership contest.

Ed Broadbent's points might strongly advocate for Topp, and say that Mulcair is a weaker candidate. But that's what's supposed to happen in a leadership contest. We all talk about who the best candidate is, in our minds.

Amazed that some Mulcair supporters can dish it out, but overreact to the most reasonable of criticisms.

Take a close reading. These aren't "attacks". They're not the kind of thing that will prevent Broadbent from supporting Mulcair, or prevent Mulcair from supporting Topp.

The only way this harms party unity is if the sewing circle starts gossiping and making it bigger than it is. If we start taking this stuff personally.

janfromthebruce wrote:

I watched the interview too and Ed talked about how Mulcair is overly critical of the staff in the federal office and believes that is not right - essentially they are like civil servants. I agree with that. I think it's poor political judgement to publicly critize your staff (and they are all our staff in the party) to score political points. Which is why some suggest that if Mulcair wins he will sweep out our long term staff who were central to getting us to official opposition and bring in his own crew - whoever they may be.

Incidently, I am not a loser.

 

 

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

[/quote]

Do you not think it's poor political judgement to publicly criticize a running fellow ndp member to score political points?

Incidently.  I am a new NDP member.  I am not one of 'your crew' and found that comment very elitist.  The NDP is not such a welcoming party after all to members who fall outside the standard idealogue.

"sewing circle" what the fuck is that?

not a inside NDPer here having only joined last month to support 1  person mainly and I do not believe in my world view that someone with the label "NDP elderstateman"  should be endorsing anyone let alone trashing a sitting MP. But that is just my world view.

And as I said is the stuff that drives people AWAY from politics not towards it, nothing like being a nasty conservative type person...and here I thought the NDP, according to my mom, is different. Guess not so and even worse you seem to think we should just shrug it off and stop "gossiping" about it.

 

And I took your nasty bigoted comments personally.

quizzical wrote:

"sewing circle" what the fuck is that?

not a inside NDPer here having only joined last month to support 1  person mainly and I do not believe in my world view that someone with the label "NDP elderstateman"  should be endorsing anyone let alone trashing a sitting MP. But that is just my world view.

And as I said is the stuff that drives people AWAY from politics not towards it, nothing like being a nasty conservative type person...and here I thought the NDP, according to my mom, is different. Guess not so and even worse you seem to think we should just shrug it off and stop "gossiping" about it.

 

And I certainly took your nasty bigoted comments personally

That is obviously not a universal view within the NDP

And your mom is right! It's just that you have fallen among skeptics and non-believers. :)

?

Howard wrote:

 Now which story do you find more credible? A campaign manager that showed up in the 80s, toiled imperceptibly for 30 years, or the Quebec lieutenant who was in the Quebec media every day for 5 years, recruited, and campaigned for almost all the Quebec candidates? Clearly Mulcair="high profile" window dressing.

Tom was a highly effective and articulate spokesman, yes. However, it's far from true that he recruited most, or even many, of our Québec candidates. In fact, his achilles heel in my view is that he kind of sucks at ground level organisation. Point at our high-profile front bench, and it's a bunch of people that were most pointedly not recruited by Mulcair. Boivin was brought in by Broadbent. Turmel was in the party for decades. Guy Caron's been around for a while. Hoang Mai and Boulerice were active in the party before Mulcair. Saganash was recruited by Jack. Laverdière literally walked into the Papineau office and asked "Uh, how can I help out?" Benskin served on the ACTRA executive with Topp and Guardia. The Québec City organisation is kind of more insular and do their own organisation and recruitment.

I'm not denying that there are several candidates that were recruited by Mulcair, and he certainly had a huge part in creating the climate that turned those great candidates into great MPs. But if we have a strong front bench from Québec, it's not thanks to Mulcair's recruitment efforts.

I guess the histrionics of "what is Ed doing to party unity?" follows from being so sure that the party establishment has been intent on forcing something on us, and now they are getting desperate. Then it does follow that when its all over and Mulcair wins anyway, the shit is going to hit the fan.

If.