NDP leadership #130

NorthReport, at this point I'm finding the incessant drumbeat of "them or us" to be far more divisive than anything Broadbent said in the first place.

You have the right to speak your mind, of course. But I hope you sincerely look inside and ask yourself if anything you're saying is promoting the unity that you claim to be so concerned with.

Unionist wrote:

Do you think Broadbent anticipated the media reaction when he called them to give this interview? Just wondering.

I think he expected *a* reaction. After all, he wanted to promote Brian Topp at the expense of Thomas Mulcair. That's the nature of a race. It's a zero sum game.

But not this. Not the cherrypicking from the media. Not the numerous reports tying things Broadbent said to complete rumor that Mulcair is difficult to work with, which is a huge leap in logic from Broadbent's "some long-standing MPs prefer Brian".

Broadbent said he'd support whoever the members elect. Those aren't the comments of someone who wants to stop Mulcair at all costs. If he wanted to stop Mulcair at all costs, if the situation were that dire that he honestly believed Mulcair would completely ruin the party, he would have come out and said "Mulcair cannot and should not be leader." He stopped well short of this, because his primary goal was to promote Brian. Stopping Mulcair is not his goal. It's completely incidental.

Instead, the media wanted to interpret this as a civil war. Over what? Because Mulcair said the party was too centralized? Because Topp wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, and Mulcair prefers to remain a cypher?

The media hates us.

They will seize on the smallest detail to show that we're not fit to govern. If anyone criticizes us, they amplify it. If someone criticizes the party from the inside, they amplify it even more, and then piggyback whatever corporate pundit they can find. "See? If the NDP is having a battle about this, then that proves that the Liberals / Conservatives / Very Reasonable People are right that the NDP needs to abandon its principles."

The media wants us to lose. The media wants us to implode.

I'm getting very annoyed at people who are more than happy to let the media whip them into a frenzy.

NorthReport wrote:

sdm

If you were that interested in unity why don't you instead address the details of the article instead of attacking me? 

The details are wrong. The media wants to thwart any and all change, and go back to the good ol days when the Bloc battled the Liberals in Quebec, and the Liberals battled the Conservatives everywhere else.

The way they do that is to take any detail from this race, and use it as evidence why no one should ever vote for the NDP.

They're not experts. They're not truthtellers. Stop repeating them. 

NorthReport wrote:

The article which quoted our first NPD MP Phil Edmonston got it precisely right. For the first time ever, being in Official Opposition, our base is now in Quebec. To throw that away would destroy us, plain and simple. 

Have any of the NDP candidates come out and said "fuck Quebec"?

Seriously, I want to know, so that I don't vote for them at the convention.

Did I miss a meeting? Was it bured in a policy brief?

topp's french isn't perfect, and it's not just the pq and plc types who'll push it, it's a media narrative that will take on a life of its own if we're not careful.  there's very little upside either - if we do pick mulcair, there'll definitely be a boost, but not much more than we'd have scored had the media (with some new democrats) not gone with this line.

regruve wrote:

 

I’ve moved beyond the Broadbent comments by now, but I am still baffled by one thing, and it’s something that I haven’t heard anyone bring up. Namely, the affect this could have on the nascent institute, and whether that was given any consideration.

I mean, the Broadbent Institute was designated by the Layton family as the sole recipient of bereavement donations. You can’t get any more above the fray than that.  This brings up some practical concerns, at the convention, for example. At Jack’s memorial on Friday night, will there be a role for the Broadbent Institute as the designated charity, even as its founder is aggressively trying to affect the outcome of the race the next morning? I can see that as being more than a little bit awkward.

I suspect the convention organizers will work something out to ensure a "smooth running - no waves convention". I'm sure there are lots of people who can speak on behalf of the Broadbent Institute without launching into a tirade against one or more of the leadership candidates.

Even though I won't be attending the leadership convention, I do hope that all members who do attend will maintain the high road and welcome everyone in attendance including past leaders and people attending from other parties.

Unionist wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

NorthReport, at this point I'm finding the incessant drumbeat of "them or us" to be far more divisive than anything Broadbent said in the first place.

Do you think Broadbent anticipated the media reaction when he called them to give this interview? Just wondering.

 

Kathleen Monk is the Executive Director of the Broadbent Institute so I'm guessing yes.

You can be sure that Ed was out there on his own, and that Brian is not leading Tom in Topp campaign polls.

Ed and Brain share a vision of social democracy. It is one vision of the NDP, there are others. Ed has been fighting for that vision for ever. i think he is truly concerned that Mucair will not carry on in a manner befitting the Ed view of the NDP, so he took advantage of media attention to speak his mind. He spoke on behalf of his ideas.

Tom is a very skilled politician, he knows every statment makes someone upset, so he is saying little. He believes he is winning, I would say, or he would be making more efforts to mobize people behind  ideas.

I would certainly like a harmonious contest, regardless of Brian Topp's tactics. I can appreciate why some of you prefer no discussion about what our Quebec prospects may be like under a particular leader lest it feed into a negative press fixation if Mulcair looses.

I just don't think it is responsible for us to avoid this discussion. Here is why, as I see it:

1. It will come anyway. We are amply forwarned by numerous articles in the Quebec press.

2. It will take this form. Mulcair spurned by a party which is afraid of giving Quebec its rightful weight. Only 10% of the vote etc. And this following Quebec embracing the NDP in May. Mulcair  beaten by an insular party establishment. By politicians not nearly as talented as him. By politicains prepared to engage in a malicious whisper campaign culminating in an unprecedented attack by a former leader. Notwithstanding that Mulcair played fair, avoided negatives attacks, won every debate. Was the most eloquent in both languages. They will quote Phil Edmonston's line about the NDP expecting Quebec to shut up and look pretty. If you don't think we will be met with this narrative you don't understand poitics.

3. The pary's whole future depends on Quebec. We got 44 seats outside Quebec, no more than what Broadbent got in 88. There was no Orange Wave to speak of outside Quebec. Without Quebec we are back in third place. Once it becomes apparent that we are floundering in Quebec the ROC will look elsewhere. It is of the utmost electoral importance to the NDP to consolodate Quebec.

4. It is not just a matter of the NDP winning. It is a matter of preventing a Conservative dynasty that will permanently change Canada. These are enormous stakes that we are playing for.

So why can we not take a chance on Dewar or Nash or Topp holding Quebec? 

5. They will have to overcome 1-4 above. Mulcair will not.

6. Every poll shows Mulcair the best performer for the party in Quebec. There are no close seconds. There is no ambiguity. It is, in a word, overwhelming. Sure polls can change, but there would have to be a sea change to put any of the others in contention.

7. Mulcair can communicate and understand the Quebec political culture immeasurably better than anyone else.

8. He is by far the better campaigner as demonstrated in the leadership campaign as well as his unblemished electoral record.

9. Whatever Broadbent may pretend to the contrary, he is largely responsible for our breakthrough in Quebec.

10. He has the endorsemnt of every significant newspaper in Quebec.

11. We cannot count on the others improving their present low standing in Quebec. Some may comfort themselves with the notion that they will have three years to prove themselves. The CCF / NDP took from 1933 to 2011 to make that breakthrough, not 3 years. 

I appreciate the sincerity of those who wish to avoid this scrutiny. I ask them to accept my sincerity. I have toiled for this party in every election since 1971. We now have the best, and perhaps only chance in my lifetime to win power in a federal election. Unless we get the Quebec equation right we will fritter away that chance.

Therefore we need to be honest enough and responsible enough to confront it.

The Mulcairites are the ones who created the narrative that if Mulcair is not chosen it will be an insult to Quebec and kill the party's chances there. That this could create a self-fulfilling prophecy damaging the party doesn't seem to bother them in the least. But anyone who dares criticize their candidate should be ostracized.

Some unexpected endorsements on Brian Topp's site today, including Des Morton:

http://briantopp.ca/news

Quote:

Montreal-based political historian Desmond Morton today backed Brian Topp to lead the NDP.

Morton is professor emeritus at McGill University and an authoritative scholar of Canadian history. He has published dozens of books including The New Democrats and The Riverdale Story - important works detailing the party's formative years.

"Desmond's support carries enormous meaning for me," said Topp. "I think he, more than anyone, recognizes that we must keep this party's roots attached as we move forward."

Morton's history with the party dates back to his role as an advisor to Tommy Douglas. Morton also worked closely with the Ontario NDP, alongside Stephen and David Lewis.

"I strongly support Brian Topp. He's unmatched by any other candidate in his combination of deep intelligence, common sense, and experience at the highest level in an NDP government," said Morton. "And he is fluently bilingual."

Morton joins the ranks of other prominent Quebec New Democrats supporting Topp, including MPs Alexandre Boulerice, Françoise Boivin, Charmaine Borg, Isabelle Morin, Alain Giguère and Sana Hassainia as well as countless activists, organizers and long-time party members.

Plus former BC Premier Dan Miller and Maureen MacDonald, Minister of Health in Nova Scotia’s NDP government.

I got a forwarded e-mail from MP Sana Hassainia:

Quote:

As a newly-elected NDP Member of Parliament, I was very proud to see Brian Topp take a courageous position for a fair taxation system in which the top one per cent pay their fair share.

That is one of the reasons why this week I decided to switch my support from Thomas Mulcair to Brian Topp.

Like so many other New Democrats, I am convinced that the key to our success rests on our values of solidarity and social justice. When we are so close to forming a government, it is critical that we hold true to these values.

Over the course of this campaign, I've seen the passion within Brian and his determination to continue the work he started as a key member of Jack's team.

And I have been very impressed by Brian's depth and eloquence. Day after day, he has defended the very values that motivated me to join the NDP and that convinced Quebecers to support us in the last election. Brian has been very clear during this campaign: his vision for a more equal and a more just Canada must be at the very heart of an NDP government.

Brian proposes:

-A new 35% tax-rate on income in excess of $250,000.

-A new and better approach for taxing capital gains and stock options.

-To put and end to the gifts Stephen Harper gives to the most wealthy in the form of tax breaks.

Brian has also demonstrated a deep understanding of national and international issues, including his commitment to seek a peaceful settlement in the Middle East.

In closing, let me say that, after this campaign is over, it will be with great pride that I will continue to work in the House of Commons with our big NDP family (now made up with 58 MPs from Quebec) in order to defeat Stephen Harper in 2015.

In solidarity,

Sana Hassainia

MP for Vercheres - Les Patriotes

Boze, I'm not trying to blackmail anyone. Is it blackmail to say look before you leap?

And Josh, the narrative is not a self-fulfilling one from the Mulcair camp but a very obvious one that you don't need to be very percetive to understand. The Quebec media has been saying these things as far back as August.

Actions have consequence. If you care for our party you owe it your best judgement. That includes a sober assessment of the political landscape.

And Brian, I frankly don't know what motivates some MPs but I have heard a number of things about why some of them have made their choices. I know that a number of them have personal connections with Topp going back years. I know one whose significant other is a prominent Topp organizer. There are rumours that some have been promised prominent critics' jobs. Some may have thought in the early going that Topp couldn't lose so they should join his bandwagon. Some committed before Mulcair entered the race. I have heard that a couple regret their initial choice not to back Mulcair. Some like Francoise Boivin have indicated they will switch to Mucair when Topp is eliminated. Mulcair's camp is confident that almost all of the Quebec MPs have him as their first or second choices.

At any rate Mulcair looks to have at least 70% of the Quebec caucus backing him on the first ballot and maybe 90% on the last.

I know the Mulcair campaign doesn't approve of Edmonston's "blackmail" column.

doofy wrote:

One possible explanation for Francoise Boivin and Alexandre Bloulerice endorsing Topp, is their own leadership ambition. Remember at the 2006 Liberal convention, Martin Cauchon was one of the few Rae supporters not to cross over to Dion on the final ballot, instead supporting Ignatieff. The media speculated at the time that he did not want another QCer leading the party, for it would make his own bid harder.  Between Topp and Mulcair, Topp is clearly the least "Quebecois".  Despite his desire to run in QC, nobody in English Canada (or I fear QC) is fooled. It will be easier for B & B to succeed a "Pan-Canadian", rather than a "real QCer." I have no idea if this was a factor in their decision, but personal "carreerism" should never be discounted....

Sure.  In the same vein, any English endorser of Mulcair could possibly be explained away for their own leadership ambitions as well.  Maybe Don Davies is endorsing Mulcair because he wants to be leader in the future and knows that if Cullen wins he'll be out of luck.

Sure it's ridiculous, but it is, as you say, "one possible explanation".

Maybe Topp is blackmailing MPs into endorsing him.  I mean, it's the only possible explanation for why anyone would prefer Topp over Mulcair.

Right?

Boze wrote:

I for one do not like feeling blackmailed into supporting a candidate I do not like.

 I find it ironic that it is only Mulcair supporters that are threatened (as in the #129) or actually suspended here even though the vast majority of personal attacks are on Mulcair. I commented on this in the last post (copied below). 

I find the threats to suspend people once again for raising issues similar to those brought up against Mulcair again and again objectionable (I am not arguing the issue itself as I doubt anyone previously engaged in the debate of Mulcair as leader is going to change their mind one way or the other because of what is said here. All I want is an open debate for everyone - unless someone goes way goes way off the deep end in bitter attack). It reminds me of what happened in BC when mostly young environmentalists in the 1990s complained that not enough focus was being given to environmental issues at a riding meeting I attended in BC. The debate was cut off and they were told there was to be no more discussion of the issue. Many of those young people, feeling their opinions were not respected, left for the Green Party. At 45 at the time, I then became one of the youngest party members in a large riding association. Indeed, several Green Party candidates in other ridings were former NDPers who felt muzzled within the NDP. I stayed only because I felt the NDP offered the best combination of social and environmental policies (although with Clayoquat Sound and other environmental  issues I admit I was tested). Just in case anyone stereotypes me as a single issue person, I have negotiated several union contracts and was always considered the most militant member of the bargaining committee. The D in NDP stands for democratic. Being of Irish descent and this being Saint Patrick's Day I'll engage in an Irish stereotype (oops, am I banned) - their love of open debate - and end with an Irish saying: "Is this fight personal, or can anybody join in?"

Some people fear Mulcair will lead he party to the centre and be too angry. Others fear we will lose Quebec without Mulcair. Let people say what they want, read it or not, and vote for who you think is best. Part of the reason I decided to vote for Mulcair is I felt too many people were being censored for expressing their feelings - right or wrong (if I can engage in one more stereotype - I'm kind of a pig-headed Irishman that way). I didn't like it back then and I don't like it now.

I honestly see scenarios in which all of these candidates could end up being labelled as "failing" the party or electorally, although I personally commend all of the candidates for taking on this almost thankless task within the party (and debatably more so outside the party). I honestly could see a set of circumstances in which Layton, whom I loved, might have not been successful electorally.  After all, even he did not win every election he ran in. Even in the fall before the 2011 election, we did poorly in several byelections compared to our normal votes in these ridings. Most scientific theories end up being revised or overturned in the end as new evidence becomes available. Furthermore, some theories that sounded absurd to the vast majority of people eventually were accepted by everyone. We have even less evidence than scientists typically have to make a judgement on, so I hope people examine the evidence and make their own judgements without begruding others their judgments. 

ugh, here's another quote from broadbent:

“I have never had a personal vendetta or something so trivial or banal against Tom. But I have strong convictions about the truth in politics and I dislike intensely when someone gets a bum rap or when someone else tries to take credit for what other people are doing.”

from the post.  like seriously, wtf?  it's sunday, are we going to have to deal with this for the next several days?  i hope something huge happens that just pushes this out of the discourse for good.  okay, broadbent, you don't like mulcair, point made, membership understands.  going on about it now just makes keeps the negative ndp stories going.

An observation:

Mulcair the candidate has stayed positive through all of this. No slamming Topp or Broadbent. No strikebacks. No ultimatums.

Meanwhile, I'm hearing from Mulcair supporters that voting against Mulcair is to (1) shit on Quebec, (2) destroy the NDP, (3) vote for four more years of Stephen Harper, (4) take the wrong side in an intraparty civil war.

The irony being that some Mulcair supporters think that this kind of polemic "with us or against us" crap is justified, all because a top surrogate said "don't pick the frontrunner, pick my guy". (Not all of his supporters: and I give a respectful nod to the ones who are keeping their head high.)

Thomas Mulcair is handling this with a lot of grace. (For now, anyway.) I think that shows a lot of class and decency. I also think it shows a lot of intelligence, because a positive tone is a better argument against Topp than anything else he could say.

Nothing would destroy party unity more than some overzealous supporters, getting all pissy on the convention floor at the first hint of criticism. It would be a downward spiral of booing and catcalling, with the media lapping up every minute of it. At the Liberal Convention, Michael Ignatieff's supporters thought they were helping him by shouting down criticisms from rival camps. In actuality, they added to the negativity, and the feeling that Iggy wanted to shut down an honest conversation.

Mulcair has been smart enough to respond to his critics with positivity. His harshest critics will say he's hiding something, and his most strident supporters will wish that Mulcair would proclaim that he must be coronated in order to save the party. But his overall tone and approach has worked, letting supporters come to him by comparison shopping, instead of slamming the other choices. I hope he'll point this success out to his supporters on the eve of the convention: endure the criticism from the floor, and let Mulcair handle it when he has his turn on stage.

On a separate but related note: the other candidates have been very dignified through all of this too. Ashton and Cullen in particular.

Mulcair has been quite disciplined in this race in respect to refraining from criticism of other candidates, no matter how hard they deliberately try to bait him into getting his famous Irish up.  This mitigates his reputation of being a hot-head, will help him unite the party if he becomes leader, and courts second-choice supporters when running a mostly positive campaign.  Although he has engaged in some negative and mean-spirited attacks comparable or worse to anything Topp's said, like claiming that Topp has never been even elected dog-catcher in his entire life.

Brian Glennie wrote:

Rakhmetov, I've enjoyed very much reading your posts. Have you decided how you'll be voting?

Thanks.  It looked like Topp was the anti-Mulcair at the beginning of the race, but Peggy Nash has emerged as probably the best candidate to stop Mulcair.  And on her own merits as well I will be ranking her as my first choice.  I think she would be a lot stronger than Mulcair in 2015 against the Tories.  The crypto-Separatist beholden to Quebec above the West line from the Tories will stick to Mulcair, but Harper is going to have a hard time beating up on a mother of 3, who just does not look like some terrifying union boss. She'll clearly do a much better job uniting the party and progressives, and animating the union and left wing base of the party, and youth and women.  Harper won a plurality of women in 2011, we have to beat him there, plus Nash would be stronger in Ontario and the West than Mulcair.  The ROC trumps Quebec, and if we win the ROC and appeal to the Left in Quebec like Jack did we'll hold Quebec too.  If we can make a breakthrough in the GTA and Ontario, we'll have enough seats to form gov't and conclusively supplant the Liberals.  Like Layton, Nash persevered and stormed Fortress Toronto, the Liberal stronghold they've held to form governments since Pearson.  And I think Nash will be effective in neutralizing or outperforming Harper on his main perceived strength which won him a majority, the economy. 

algomafalcon wrote:

So how do you mean that you were just comparing Topp to Osama bin Laden "in a good way"? Please explain why you find Osama bin Laden to be such an amusing comic figure, along with such acts of terrorism like flying planes into buildings (obviously rerferring to the "truly hilarious" September 11 attacks where thousands of people were killed.)
I'm sorry, but I for one do not "get" why this is funny. I personally find most of your posts to be consistently the most offensive on this board, but your trivialization of terrorism and "Islamic Jihad", etc. is some of the worst I've seen anywhere.
I find your "humour" to be as offensive as people who make jokes about "Hitler gassing Jews".

....That is HILARIOUS and SO NDP.
Whats needed is someone saying, "We need a NEW politics", followed by someone saying "Yes, a new politics, but It must keep the Old Boilerplate". "Yes, Anyone who wants change is clearly a Liberal" + "and an Anti-equality Liberal at that".
Or something to that effect.
Finally some humor to lighten up the mood.

You find that lame anti-NDP cartoon to be funny?  And I don't see what's truly hilarious about mocking New Democrats for actually caring about the policies of the leadership candidates and the direction the new leader could take.

Look, I was just being facetious about how Topp is trying to take out Mulcair, even if he ends up being Samson and bringing down the temple on himself as well.  It's to their credit that he and Broadbent are sacrificing themselves for the good of the party and the country.  I stole this joke from Noam Chomsky who once amusingly described Alan Dershowitz's campaign against Norman Finkelstein as a "jihad".  No doubt you're going to have the same puerile tantrum about Chomsky for laughing about the deaths of thousands of people on 9/11.  You're just being dramatic because you're an apologist for Mulcair and I've gotten under your skin for making criticisms of him that you obviously are unwilling or more likely unable to answer.

"Look, I was just being facetious about how Topp is trying to take out Mulcair, even if he ends up being Samson and bringing down the temple on himself as well. It's to their credit that he and Broadbent are sacrificing themselves for the good of the party and the country. I stole this joke from Noam Chomsky who once amusingly described Alan Dershowitz's campaign against Norman Finkelstein as a "jihad". No doubt you're going to have the same puerile tantrum about Chomsky for laughing about the deaths of thousands of people on 9/11. You're just being dramatic because you're an apologist for Mulcair and I've gotten under your skin for making criticisms of him that you obviously are unwilling or more likely unable to answer."

Indeed, how many of us would be up to jousting with the master of subterfuge? :)