NDP Leadership 84

125 posts / 0 new
Last post
nicky
nicky

I am sorry to read of Ottawa Oberver's departure from Babble. She has made many valuable contributions and I hope she reconsiders.

Not sure what she means about"fish" but I must say of the 50 or so new posts that I read this morning hardly any were worth the effort. Many were petulent, insulting or just plain silly.

We have a very interesting and important leadership race which theMSM is not adequately covering. Babble in many ways has filled that vacuum for me, but not in the last few days.

Lets get back on our game.

 

 

dacckon dacckon's picture

I just wanted to weigh my own opinion on the whole campaign call thing, being someone who was worked in the industry of doing calls.

Quote:
He seemed a bit panicked

If he/she sounded young/nervous/paused in the script it means that they are on a new project or are new at doing this. Professionality is key, as well as sounding happy on the phone.

There is a chance that if this was contracted out that the caller, who would probably be paid minimum wage, was thrown under the bus and might be out of a job if the complaint is big enough and the supervisor wants to avoid blame.

The calls are usually monitored/recorded, so you may get a callback from them.

A recommendation would be that when you encounter something like this in a call you ask to speak to the management or you quiz them to see if they actually know what they are talking about.

There is a chance that this was evil, but we should not make that generalization/assumption and look at what may have happened as well. There are alot of things that could be futher said from the way the script sounded as well that points to errors, as well as how illogical it would have been to attempt to do what has been implied.

If anything, it may have been a script error that was meant to target Dewar.

mark_alfred

Thanks for the link.  Interesting how closely aligned the donation and vote percentage was in the last leadership contest, and interesting to see how close the top tier candidates are to one another in their fundraising to date.  It is shaping up to be a very interesting race, that's for sure.

Caissa

nicky wrote:
Not sure what she means about"fish"

 

Douglas Adams would know.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

ottawaobserver wrote:

I will no longer be posting to Babble. I've had it with you guys, and with the either non-existent or self-serving moderation. So long and thanks for all the fish.

NOOOOOOOO!!!!

So we've lost Sean, Malcolm, and now Ottawa Observer?!??!

This sucks. 

Moderators, please just apologize to Malcolm.

And Catchfire: Since when can't we mock radical politics?  I thought we could mock pretty much any kind of politics. I certain intend to keep on in that vein.

I can't beleive we still have two months before the NDP chooses a leader.

KenS

Chrissakes.

This is a LONG running discussion on the NDP leadership race- how much more mired can you get in the muck of electoral politics as it is?

So we have one person who wants to say how incredibly far that reality- and its mucky participants here- from his notions of what it SHOULD be like.

Saying that is certainly in the tradition and operative norms here. But he does not just SAY it, he rants on and on for post upon post.

And the moderator calls foul ONLY on the person who mocks him????

Give me a break.

KenS

Time for someone to come here and say 

"Long Thread"

and fuck all else.

Caissa

Has anything been learned from the last, long reaction thread?

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I would be very grateful if you could provide some evidence for your assertion. My recollection is that Layton made some statement to the effect of bringing the troops home approximately one day before Convention opened...

My memory is that the motion to bring the troops home was announced long before the Convention, and that the NDP thoroughly informed the membership of the upcoming motion along with the fact that Malalai Joya was going to be in attendance at the Convention to give some perspective on it.

Here you go, mark_alfred - Jack's statement is still preserved in the Internet Wayback Machine:

[url=http://web.archive.org/web/20080113141506/http://www.ndp.ca/page/4119]Au... 31, 2006: Wrong Mission for Canada: Layton calls for troop withdrawal[/url]

I was a bit off. The convention started Friday, Sept. 7.

And here was part of the extensive press coverage:

[url=http://www.thestar.com/article/95643]Layton wants troops home[/url]

It was a great day, and a great announcement. I and many others praised it here, on babble, and elsewhere. It was almost 5 years late, but far better late than never.

Unfortunately, right after the convention adopted the motion, Jack followed the lead of Dawn Black and others, and changed it into "withdraw our troops from the combat mission in the south of Afghanistan". That mantra carried on for years.

 

Unionist

KenS wrote:

So we have one person who wants to say how incredibly far that reality- and its mucky participants here- from his notions of what it SHOULD be like.

Saying that is certainly in the tradition and operative norms here. But he does not just SAY it, he rants on and on for post upon post.

And the moderator calls foul ONLY on the person who mocks him????

Give me a break.

I accepted sdm's retraction. I've never attacked him, or you. If you have a problem with one or more of my posts that can't be handled by normal debate, there's a "flag" you can use.

I'm challenging the way the NDP picks its leader, the selling of the right to vote by and for individuals (ludicrously called "membership"), the competitive instead of collaborative approach to defeating Harper, the sole emphasis on electoral politics, the semi-religious right of the leader to invent policy (now expanded to include MPs publicly stating opinions like disagreement with the Sherbrooke Declaration - and they're shielded from discipline because they're in a horse race I guess)... and you consider that I can't insert one 2-hour rant on that in a series of threads which is approaching 9,000 posts?

I'll try to stick within babble policy, and I hope others do the same. But if some don't like my opinions, they know how to debate them.

 

Howard

Ottawaobserver is a good contributor to rabble, but I haven't noticed it during the NDP leadership campaign. Instead I've seen this:

1) Innuendos against Mulcair

2) Criticisms of other babblers for potentially being male

3) Complaints about all the negativity

4) Anger at criticisms of Topp or Dewar or the central party

5) Anger at the 24 hour suspension of Malcolm

Honestly, I don't know what Ottawaobserver is looking for from babble. We are all trying to weigh our choices, some are more decided than others, and in doing so we are going to compare the positives and negatives of all candidates that interest us. Some of us are also here to follow and comment on the "horse race" or mention the policies, characteristics, etc that are important to us in a leader. Some are here to criticise the whole process. We are here for our own reasons, not Ottawaobserver's.

Curiously, for all the complaints about negativity, these threads started out by going off on negative innuendos about Mulcair. I didn't hear Ottawaobserver complaining then. I don't hear Ottawaobserver complaining about that now. There have also been some hard words for Ashton. Eighty-four threads later and this hasn't become an echo chamber of love for Ottawaobserver's (undeclared) sympathies, so they pick up their ball and go home. That's fine. I hope they will be back and when they do so, they won't insist on dictating some unspoken rules of the allowable boundaries of our debate or application of the babble moderating policy.

Another thing, after this campaign is over, I suspect the whole NDP will rally round and be a giant hugfest again (the media is claiming this is the case already). This isn't my idea though, I took it from Gerry Caplan.

Also, Unionist, I agree with you. So much of this race seems to be about the narcissism of the candidates. I mean, how else do you explain nine candidates in a race, two of which pale in their (in)abilities in French, most of which aren't even running like they expect (or want) to win, almost all of which don't have much political job experience, some of whom crassly trade on their last names, and most of which people cannot see any differences between. The only people following this race anymore are NDPers, because the public and media have tuned out on a race so crowded people aren't even able to keep track of names. 

There are a few other points worth raising: 1) In punditsguide's post about the fundraising tally and the vote in 2003, that was back before political finance reform. In other words, union's could donate scads of money. Now the new direction for big pots of money seems to be to target elite individuals. 2) You are right that the sums the NDP candidates are playing for are paltry. Even the number of donors is miniscule. Imagine that no donor donated to more than one campaign (i.e. something that is demonstrably false) and you get less than 2500 donors in Q1. With the fundraising numbers so far, most of the candidates wouldn't have even raised enough to register as candidates in the more traditional partie$. So this is small stakes poker.

Anyways, I weary of this stuff too, but the fact of the matter is that the job of leader of the official opposition is important. Even if they don't run government, the OLO's views are followed by the Canadian public and the public service and are incorporated into the smaller (but ultimately important) workings of government. Also, there is the off chance that the NDP can overcome its massive deficit in ROC and form government in 2015, if it is very lucky and chooses a leader well. The alternative is 4 more years of Stephen Harper or the next in line (Jason Kenney anyone?).

mtm

Unionist:

 

Wow. Your proposed "leadership" procedure looks right out of the Central Party Committee of Communist China.  We are the New Democratic Party, and I will fight tooth and nail to make sure that "D" stays in our name.

I can't even begin to explain what I feel is wrong with your "Consensus"-based plan, but first of all, say that all 9 people who were running for leadership got in a room and hashed it out as you say, and came out with one "consensus" candidate.  Here's my problem with that:  First, Paul Dewar, Brian Topp, Thomas Mulcair, whomever, do not and should not have any more say than you or I as to who should be the leader of OUR party.  They are but one voice, in a party of many thousands of individuals.  

Likewise, just as you or I cannot tell any one of them that they do not have the right to run, Peggy Nash does not have the right to tell Martin Singh he cannot run. Just as Peggy Nash cannot tell me that I cannot run! 9 people in a room, deciding who among them is "best suited" to be leader, is fundamentally anti-democratic.  There is nothing wrong with Peggy trying to convince Mr. Singh, or me, or you, why she should instead be leader.  

You decry campaigning and the process of democracy because it has warts.  Well, I'm not denying it can get nasty.  But it is about ideas, about competing views of what our Party is and which direction it should go, and who is best suited to getting us there.  I will defend your right to have a say in that process, even if you support a candidate I feel would be detrimental to the Party's interests in my own point of view.  

If we do disagree, I will however, try to counter your influence by signing more people up, or convincing more people of my point of view than yours - within the democratic rules.  Nobody should have to defer in that decision-making process, just because you think you, or an enlightened group of nine, know better than I, or any other single or collective group of members.

Yes, politics can get mean, divisive, even in some cases despicable.  With a lot on the line, that's inevitable - but NOT excusable. Why else would the role of Chief Electoral Officer even exist if it was not needed?

But democracy is worth those divisions.  It is simply worth the fight.  The alternative is minority rule, by any other stretch.  Internal "insider consensus" is open to tyranny, complacency, and hinders renewal.  The inclusiveness of this debate will inevitably lead to some conflict.  Some will go too far, and will often be punished accordingly (if not formally by the CEO, then putatively by the voters).  But in the end, the process will be worth it as the result will be seen as legitimate, and the vote inclusive.  People will not all be happy with the result, but they will respect the members' vote.

Someone here mentioned the Ignatieff coronation.  That's exactly what I see you advocating here.  And how'd that work out for Michael?  Party members were thrust upon with a Leader they didn't choose - and barely knew.  Not to say that Iggy was a potential dynamo, but I strongly believe that if the convention were held, with rival candidates, and Iggy had won - far fewer of those Liberals that stayed home on May 2nd would have done so.  We are wise not to make this mistake.

Sure - there are a lot of candidates.  But, I'd rather have more choice than none at all.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

nicky wrote:
We have a very interesting and important leadership race which theMSM is not adequately covering. Babble in many ways has filled that vacuum for me, but not in the last few days.

Lets get back on our game.

I'm with you, as long as we leave out manipulative bullshit like this, posted by Stockholm in a post above:

"This is a preferential ballot, the conventional wisdom is that Saganash is very very very unlikely to make it to the final count."

Stockholm

I noticed this was just tweeted by TeamTopp

"We got to the bottom of it this morn. What volunteer said was inappropriate, unscripted. Sincere apologies to

So much for that story...

socialdemocrati...

Catchfire wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
If you're horrified that politics involves tactics, strategies, and a lot of self-serving assholes... spare us the outrage and go firebomb something. We'll be happier and so will you.

sdm, this is a totally unacceptable comment--it's a personal attack and it's against board policy. Mocking radical politics is absolutely not on the level. Thanks for the semi-retraction, but as someone who happens to have an excellent sense of humour, I can't see a single thing funny about it. 

Sorry. I didn't realize we were so sensitive about radicalism. If that's the policy, then I'll abide. I'll know better next time.

I'll add that when someone starts spamming post after post about how the whole political system is failing us, I know no better response than to mock them. I'll try to find a better way to handle it next time.

NorthReport

KenS

I'm tired of the attacks on the moderators.

Quite frankly I think you are a large part of the problem here. 

From the very beginning of the campaign you have constantly been taking shots at Mulcair. They are usually sly little digs but you are not fooling anyone.

I don't agreee with everything he says but Unionist has just as much right to express his opinions as anyone else.

So you don't like what he says. Too bad!!!

You are not the moderator here, although you often try to create the impression that you are.

Maybe you should consider posting less. 

And I basically agree with most of what Howard just wrote.

 

KenS wrote:

Chrissakes.

This is a LONG running discussion on the NDP leadership race- how much more mired can you get in the muck of electoral politics as it is?

So we have one person who wants to say how incredibly far that reality- and its mucky participants here- from his notions of what it SHOULD be like.

Saying that is certainly in the tradition and operative norms here. But he does not just SAY it, he rants on and on for post upon post.

And the moderator calls foul ONLY on the person who mocks him????

Give me a break.

socialdemocrati...

Stockholm wrote:

I noticed this was just tweeted by TeamTopp

"We got to the bottom of it this morn. What volunteer said was inappropriate, unscripted. Sincere apologies to

So much for that story...

I think the point of this isn't anything that reflects on the Topp campaign. The real point is that somehow when people cross over from saying "I like several candidates" to "X is the only acceptable candidate", they become complete jerks. The differences between the candidates are not nearly pronounced enough to justify this kind of zealousness, let alone the mudslinging.

writer writer's picture

Yes, an apology was just released to the Twittersphere.

TeamTopp Team Topp
We got to the bottom of it this morn. What volunteer said was inappropriate, unscripted. Sincere apologies to @judemacdonald @romeosaganash

One of my responses:

@TeamTopp Thank you for apologizing about the bad acts of one volunteer. Let's hope others who smeared my name will do the same. #NDPldr

NorthReport

socialdemocrati

You need to seriously chill.

socialdemocrati...

I'm feeling pretty relaxed?

Unionist

mtm wrote:

I can't even begin to explain what I feel is wrong with your "Consensus"-based plan, but first of all, say that all 9 people who were running for leadership got in a room and hashed it out as you say, and came out with one "consensus" candidate.  Here's my problem with that:  First, Paul Dewar, Brian Topp, Thomas Mulcair, whomever, do not and should not have any more say than you or I as to who should be the leader of OUR party.  They are but one voice, in a party of many thousands of individuals. 

I agree. I never said (please read my posts carefully) that the candidates should actually choose the leader. That's up to the members. I said the candidates should have a meeting to try to reach consensus on which of them would make the best leader. Whether they reached a consensus or not, it would still be up to the members. They would have every right to reject the consensus candidate, if there were one. That's why I wrote this in response to the question as to whether I was advocating an Ignatieff-style coronoation:

Unionist wrote:
Actually, yeah, I'm talking about a process like that - except that the same process can produce crap in an anti-democratic secretive party of the super-wealthy vs. a party where (imagine this) everything is up for broad discussion all the time. The meeting of the 8 candidates I'm talking about could very well be public. Radical. And as I said, it might or might not produce a consensus.

So why wouldn't we want to just try for a consensus if one is available? Is battle the preferred formula?

Quote:

Sure - there are a lot of candidates.  But, I'd rather have more choice than none at all.

I don't think the alternative to "a lot of candidates" is no choice at all. In the progressive movements, including a political party, I personally favour unity and consensus over "choice" and competition. Sometimes "choice" (like the different brands on display in supermarkets, or the different banks, and often different political parties) can equate to no real choice at all.

In this leadership race, I see candidates inventing policies and people judging them on that basis. I find that counterproductive to the way a progressive party should determine its policy and its "leader".

And I'm not convinced (as I've posted before) that a progressive party needs a "leader", other than for some administrative purposes perhaps under some elections legislation. Québec solidaire has survived quite well without one for several years now. Naming someone as "leader" automatically seems to give them huge dictatorial powers, notwithstanding any party constitution which may say otherwise. The examples are too numerous to even start listing. But that's a separate discussion.

 

socialdemocrati...

For what it's worth, I agree with Unionist that it's a little silly that we need a leader. I've said a few times that in the absence of any major policy differences (and indeed, the platform should largely come from the bottom-up rather than the top-down), we're essentially electing a spokesperson. QS does essentially just that: pick some internal organizers, and pick a few spokespeople to represent us to the population at large. It lines up better with our political system, where we don't elect a President with veto powers. We have a Parliament where everyone's vote is basically equal, and where they are elected to be representatives, not rulers.

It *is* an unfortunate reality that we're moving towards a more Americanized style politics, where things like "message discipline" and "party-line voting" are expected, even rewarded.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I don't know why Ottawaobserver has left. I won't lose any sleep over it. As for the moderation in this thread, there was a complaint about a single post in this thread, which was dealt with. I didn't receive any other complaints in this thread and I certainly am not going to read every post, since there are only 24 hours in the day.

If you have a complaint, flag the post as offensive or PM the moderators. There's not much else I can say here.

Closing for length.

Pages

Topic locked