So, to say that Topp is likely to "go Hazen Argue," you must mean that whoever eventually wins (or the staff of the eventual winner) will inevitably freeze Topp out of any leading role in the front or back rooms of the party.
I think to "go Hazen Argue" would just mean to switch parties after having run for the leadership; though, there is not a single candidate who has been seriously talked about for the leadership who I think would do that.
Regardless of the exact words used, the part I found unusual was that Broadbent endorsed Topp without having had any opportunity to see how he'd fair as a candidate (as unlike the potentials being mentioned, Topp has never run for office). That made me feel that the endorsement was based more on a personal relationship than an objective assessment of who would make the best candidate for prime minister.
Especially this: "...no one can match Topp's breadth of political experience and judgment".
Yeah, "no one can match" unless you count people who've run for office, right?
Obviously I don't mean that quite literally--Topp has lots of experience as a strategist--but the "no one can match" language is plain bizarre when describing someone who's never run for office.
I think it depends how you interpret "political experience". I think it's fair if that's Broadbent's opinion. If there's anything I have an issue with it's the early endorsement with no one else in the race, moreso than the choice of words. I'm sure Broadbent is quite familiar with all the other potential candidates though...so if he's made up his mind it's unlikely to change, I'd think.
Oh Please will more MPs please put thier name into the leadership race so we can stop hearing OVER THE TOPP news coverage of the backroom boy who thinks he has more appeal and more experience than one of the many elected, experienced NDP Members of Parliament.
I think to "go Hazen Argue" would just mean to switch parties after having run for the leadership; though, there is not a single candidate who has been seriously talked about for the leadership who I think would do that.
It may come as a complete surprise, but I actually did understand that "go Hazen Argue" meant "leave the party after losing."
What I didn't understand was the rationale for making this completely unfounded slam against Topp. Frankly, it was a stupid and ignorant thing to say and had no basis in reality.
But the OTHER point of my comments is that far too many people forget WHY Hazen Argue chose to leave the party after losing. He was treated abominably by the people around Douglas, and he was completely frozen out. Which was itself mindnumbingly stupid.
As I read the over the Topp whinging about the perceived attempt to "anoint" Brian as the new leader, I seriously wonder if some of the posters here actually know anything about politics.
Seriously.
Of COURSE the Topp campaign is trying to create a sense that he is the chosen. Given his relatively low recognition factor, positioning him as Jack's natural heir is an essential part of his candidate narrative. That's also why he needed to get in early and why he needed big name endorsers off the Topp.
Mulcair's narrative will be different - although he will also try to position himself as Jack's heir in a variation on the Topp talking points. But Mulcair's strategy involves creating what amounts to a draft, with assorted MPs (and eventually other party grandees, I expect) periodically calling for him to run.
Julian's strategy, so far, is similar to Mulcairs, with an assortment of endorsers pushing for him to run.
Dewar seems to be going a slightly different direction, emphasizing his family roots and his policy credentials.
I suspect Chisholm and Ashton (presuming they do run) will start off emphasizing a regional narrative and hope for the window to open for them to move up to a higher tier. Chisholm will also emphasize having been Leader of the Opposition with a mostly rookie caucus in Nova Scotia, consolidating their initial breakthrough.
I don't expect Nash to run. I have no inside dope to support that one way or another - just my own interpretation of events. That said, I'm not sure how she'd go about setting up her candidate narrative. I don't know how much her CAW roots would imply any connection to either Hargrove or Lewenza. Frankly, I think she'd need to put as much distance as she could between herself and Hargrove especially (though after Lewenza's stupid comments earlier in the month, he's just as bad). Personally, I could not see supporting any candidate tied to that lying Liberal hack Hargrove.
How about talking policies as opposed to this continual silly petty and personal character assassination crap.
For example, what is Brian's actual position on the Labour movement, the unionization of the workforce, in Canada?
As I read the over the Topp whinging about the perceived attempt to "anoint" Brian as the new leader, I seriously wonder if some of the posters here actually know anything about politics.Seriously.
Of COURSE the Topp campaign is trying to create a sense that he is the chosen. Given his relatively low recognition factor, positioning him as Jack's natural heir is an essential part of his candidate narrative. That's also why he needed to get in early and why he needed big name endorsers off the Topp.
I don't object to Topp trying to create the impression in the mainstream media that he's the "front-runner" in the race, but what many on this board seem to be arguing is that there's no way the media would be taking that idea seriously except that there are clearly party officials promoting it (party officials generally being required to remain neutral in leadership races) .
Topp's a party strategist most people have never heard of. The mainstream media haven't been calling him the front-runner since the day after Jack Layton died because he called them up and asked them to. Members of the mainstream media have outright said that there have been party insiders telling them that they support Topp and/or that he's the frontrunner.
On the other hand, you may disagree with the argument that there are indeed party insiders trying to promote his campaign narrative with the press, but that's what I, for one, take issue with. Not the narrative itself.
Again, of COURSE there are party insiders promoting the Topp narrative. In similar breaking news, there's a high probability of snow this winter.
I suggest you set aside the paranoia. Topp has no iron grip on the party apparatus. Some insiders will support him. Some will not.
You have exactly zero evidence that Topp - or anyone associated with Topp - "called up the media" to plant the narrative of Topp as frontrunner. In fact, the date of the leak is moderately damaging to Topp, so the idea that it was a deliberate leak from his campaign is counterintuitive at best. But I suppose when one wants to spin a conspiracy theory of birther proportions, such petty concerns as making sense fly out the window.
What if the "party insiders" who called the media (it did happen) were people not currently running either the party office or leader's office, but known to the media as having a long history inside the party? Those folks, who by our definition would not be current party insiders, would still get called party insiders. The only criteria for being "inside" is being more "inside" than the reporter.
Broadbent would have developed a strong sense of Topp's abilities during the coalition negotiations, not to mention Topp worked for him in the late 1980s/early 1990s, and then there were all those campaigns in between times.
I think Malcolm is right on the money in his assessment of the different narratives different candidates will probably adopt. As for Nash, I think if she runs it will be in response to a draft to have a serious woman contender in the race. I would not worry about any apparent association with Hargrove/Lewenza. So far as I'm concerned, she was likely the brains in that operation when they were lucky enough to have her.
What if the "party insiders" who called the media (it did happen) were people not currently running either the party office or leader's office, but known to the media as having a long history inside the party? Those folks, who by our definition would not be current party insiders, would still get called party insiders. The only criteria for being "inside" is being more "inside" than the reporter.
Broadbent would have developed a strong sense of Topp's abilities during the coalition negotiations, not to mention Topp worked for him in the late 1980s/early 1990s, and then there were all those campaigns in between times.
I agree completely vis a vis Broadbent. I imagine his endorsement is based on the personal relationship they've obviously developed over the years. I see that as completely separate from the "party insiders" issue.
On the question of the leaks potentially coming from former party officials, I agree that that use of language by reporters (former officials still being called insiders) would be perfectly normal, but there have also been repeated references in the media to current officials supporting and/or promoting Topp ("Jack Layton's team", "the party establishment"). So, for the scenario you're suggesting to be true reporters would have to be making up the fact that current officials are talking up Topp to the media while simultaneously former party officials actually are talking up Topp to the media.
I think what happened here is pretty obvious, and I honestly don't want to belabour the point, but I do think it's a very important issue. The best way to maintain a good race is to call people out when they sometimes (even inadvertantly) cross the line. If it then descends into a debate over the facts of what actually happened, that can defeat the purpose of trying to keep things above board in the first place. But I do think this stuff is important.
I think it's important too. Which is why you would need some actual evidence to assert it, rather than simply saying "I think what happened here is pretty obvious".
How about talking policies as opposed to this continual silly petty and personal character assassination crap.
For example, what is Brian's actual position on the Labour movement, the unionization of the workforce, in Canada?
If you're referring to the discussion about people annointing Topp leader, I disagree with your opinion that any of this is "personal character assassination"--and I think it's highly insulting for you to accuse people of that--but to your point:
I don't think there are gonna be very many policy disagreements in this campaign, or very much "policy" in any meaningful sense. Certainly we've heard very little about policy so far, and what we have heard has been mostly straight out of the party playbook. I don't remember many disagreements in the last campaign, either, but I'd bet there'll be fewer this time around. Unlike most circumstances, we're not choosing a new leader after the party has suffered a defeat or a setback. Given that we're on the up swing, I think most or all of the candidates will fall squarely behind behind the Jack Layton policy consensus within the party. There may be a few creative new ideas, but not much of the "what's your position on this?" stuff, I'd wager.
If there are party policies that you disagree with, lack of policy debate will/would be negative or at least boring, but I think it's a good thing in principle. I think the party is pretty united about the vision we're offering the country (even if people disagree with elements of it). If we maintain that kind of consensus, we can focus on picking the best standard bearer for our message.
You have exactly zero evidence that Topp - or anyone associated with Topp - "called up the media" to plant the narrative of Topp as frontrunner. In fact, the date of the leak is moderately damaging to Topp, so the idea that it was a deliberate leak from his campaign is counterintuitive at best.
Many people have raised this issue on these boards and found the "evidence" pretty compeling. Don Martin directly asked Brian Topp whether supporters of his leaked those stories and Topp gave a non-answer. Journalists have said publicly that "members of Jack Layton's team" (i.e. staff) want to "pass the torch" to Topp. And I think that the timing of the stories is pretty obvious as well, but if you don't agree, that's fine. I'm just making it clear that I don't have a problem with the narrative itself, I have a problem with party insiders using their positions to advance it in the media.
I will reiterate, however, that I don't blame Topp for any of this personally and I think the impulse is natural on the part of whoever precisely is involved to want to support one of their own. But I also think the appearance that we have backroom insiders trying to put one of their own in as leader could be very deterimental to the party and we should be vigilant to ensure that this sort of behaviour stops.
I think it's important too. Which is why you would need some actual evidence to assert it, rather than simply saying "I think what happened here is pretty obvious".
But, again, I'm not simply saying it. Don Martin asked Brian Topp whether his supporters leaked these stories and Topp gave a non-answer. Reporters have repeatedly said that this is going on (that current party officials are supporting Topp). Combine that with the timing of the three stories that gave rise to this whole conversation in the first place, and then I think it's pretty obvious.
Just after posting my last comment I got a Google alert on the leadership race with this story about a former NDP Saskatchewan cabinet minister and BC deputy minister who's talking to the Globe and Mail about similar tactics that he's heard are being used, saying "They give the sense that this machine is too strong and nobody should get in the way. MPs and party members talk about it in private. It's pretty much a known story among a lot of people around the party".
I don't think you're going to be getting people like this delving into every detail they know about this stuff in a public forum, because that only makes the whole thing more bitter, but I think the case is pretty clear based on the public record and is only bolstered by inside views such as this.
I just saw the same story about Doug McArthur, whose contacts would be pretty good.
And yet I'm still a bit surprised, because the folks I'm in contact with in the various putative campaigns don't necessarily feel intimidated. There is a feeling that they need to line up a strong entry now, to be seen as competitive with Brian, and also a sense that it would be unseemly to be seen to be trying to lock up organizers before a bunch of provincial elections are out of the way.
I mean it's not extreme wrestling, but leadership campaigns are not "after you Alphonse" events either. They are competitive, after all.
Now Brian did give Don Martin a non-answer about whether his "supporters" had called the media in the first place, but though I don't have an insider's perspective, I do have one from a pretty close distance, and I think people in leadership and decision-making roles are bending over backwards to be fair and impartial to all the campaigns, and I haven't heard anyone complain otherwise to me.
It's not as though any half-cut yahoo can wander in off the street and make themselves a candidate on a whim. There are qualifying requirements with quite steep thresholds.
* Candidates must obtain the signatures of 500 members. including at least 50 in each of Quebec, Ontario, Atlantic Canada, the Prairies and BC/North, and at least 250 of the members signing must be female.
* Including the $15,000 non-refundable registratio fee, each candidate will have to raise at least $200,000 in increments of no more than $1100 per donor.
All of which kind of dashes any hopes of attracting a broad range of "credible" candidates.
I just saw the same story about Doug McArthur, whose contacts would be pretty good.
And yet I'm still a bit surprised, because the folks I'm in contact with in the various putative campaigns don't necessarily feel intimidated. There is a feeling that they need to line up a strong entry now, to be seen as competitive with Brian, and also a sense that it would be unseemly to be seen to be trying to lock up organizers before a bunch of provincial elections are out of the way.
I mean it's not extreme wrestling, but leadership campaigns are not "after you Alphonse" events either. They are competitive, after all.
Now Brian did give Don Martin a non-answer about whether his "supporters" had called the media in the first place, but though I don't have an insider's perspective, I do have one from a pretty close distance, and I think people in leadership and decision-making roles are bending over backwards to be fair and impartial to all the campaigns, and I haven't heard anyone complain otherwise to me.
Don't get me wrong, as I wrote earlier, when it comes to the rules, the conduct of the election and all those related matters, I have heard the exact same thing. And I'm sure it's true. I have complete confindence in all of that. I also don't know if "intimidation" is the right word, but I think McArthur is referring to exactly the sort of tactics we're discussing here.
Specifically with regard to the media leaks/front-runner narrative, though, everything I've heard and seen in both the media and from those in the know is exactly the opposite of what I've seen and heard about the rules, etc. It all confirms what people have been posting here in previous threads (which is why I was surprised to suddenly start seeing so much pushback on it). If you asked the people you know about the specific media leaks that started all this, I suspect they would confirm the commentary we've seen from reporters: that the leaks came from current party officials. Frankly, though, when you see so many reporters saying the same thing about leaks on the Hill and officials supporting a given candidate, I don't think you really need to be as skeptical as people are being here. If there's one thing Hill reporters know, it's leaks and backroom bullshit.
Two points for this early in the morning.
1. Over the weekend I was at a small gathering of NDP members in Prince Edward County to support the provincial candidate. Of about 20 people present only three expressed any clear preference for the leadership (all for Mulcair, myself included). The rest seemed geuinely open minded. What was clear however was that a significant number (maybe six) were perturbed at what they saw as an attempt by the party establishment to stampede the selection process.
So the perception is out there, even in a rural Ontario backwater. These people want to take a good look at the field. They sure resent being told it's already over.
2. Surely there is ample evidence now that the Topp camp has attempted to define the narrrative about Mulcair before he ever enters the race. In the same intial stories that Topp was suddenly the front runner there were comments about Mulcair being abrasive and had anagonized people in Jack's inner circle (read Jack himself). Then the curious refrain by MPs openly supporting Topp that Mulcair has no support outside Quebec and presumably would be an electoral disaster. (Nicely belied by the Angus Reid poll out on Saturday which shows that Mulcair runs even with Topp in English Canada and TWENTY-ONE points ahead of him in Quebec.)
So I think there is much to suggest, one, that Topp's camp has indeed attempted to wrong-foot his rivals, and, two, it isn't working.
There isnt ample evidence Nicky, not even close. You have a 'rationaly based suspicion' with zero actual evidence.
And to my mind, the impression of 'rural Ontario backwater' [your words] activists is the most likely to take up the media narrative... not to mention that you would yourself play an influencing role. You think there is a basis to it, is it a surprise people around you do, even if you have not been talking to them about this?
The narrative about Mulcair being abrasive MUCH pre-existed all this, so of course the media takes that up. They didnt need any nudging. [And it has been argued against here by the same people and as strenuously as those who have argued against the media myth making about Topp. The diference being that the Topp myths have sponsors here on this list, while the Mulcair myths do not. So little time was required on the latter.
Back to the stock people are putting here in early on media references to what 'party insiders' say about Topp- that it must be people currently in the loop. That it is 'pretty obvious' even.
Just not the case at all. I am a party insider. I am not currently engaged in anything that gives the label any substantive meaning. But on the basis that a number of reporters know I have a long histroy in the party, including 'inside the bubble,' if I want to pitch some narrative to get repeated about what is happening in the party, I just pick up the phone.
And what I say will simply be referred to as coming from a party insider.
There isnt ample evidence Nicky, not even close. You have a 'rationaly based suspicion' with zero actual evidence.
And to my mind, the impression of 'rural Ontario backwater' [your words] activists is the most likely to take up the media narrative... not to mention that you would yourself play an influencing role. You think there is a basis to it, is it a surprise people around you do, even if you have not been talking to them about this?
The narrative about Mulcair being abrasive MUCH pre-existed all this, so of course the media takes that up. They didnt need any nudging. [And it has been argued against here by the same people and as strenuously as those who have argued against the media myth making about Topp. The diference being that the Topp myths have sponsors here on this list, while the Mulcair myths do not. So little time was required on the latter.
Let's be fair. There was a pre-existing narrative of Topp being arrogant and aggressive as well. I heard Joan Crockett talking about it on mainstream television about his old days in Regina after she talked to Murray Mandryk out here. Maybe it is justified or maybe it isn't but at least we should put the two of them on an even field of prickness. I think most of the country wants to see these two beat the crap out of eachother. Many members included. Although that would kind of go against Jack's vision of the party!
Specifically with regard to the media leaks/front-runner narrative, though, everything I've heard and seen in both the media and from those in the know is exactly the opposite of what I've seen and heard about the rules, etc. It all confirms what people have been posting here in previous threads (which is why I was surprised to suddenly start seeing so much pushback on it). If you asked the people you know about the specific media leaks that started all this, I suspect they would confirm the commentary we've seen from reporters: that the leaks came from current party officials.
1.] If the media leaks were done by party officials that woulld definitely break the rules, and long well understood custom. But you treat that 'if' as if it were some mere formality. As if the evidence is compelling in its own right. Not just to you and like minded people.
2.] It 'confirms what people are saying'. The only thing that warrants the label 'confrimed' with the attendeant authority that brings in, is that we have confirmation that people keep repeating this narrative. Evidence it is correct or most likely correct is another matter.
3.] You are 'surprised' to see so much pushback. Why? People dont like the repetition of what they think are myths. The myths repeated about Mulcair got the same pushback. The pushback stopped whan they want away. The myths about the role of [mst be] party officals in the force of the 'Topp juggernaut' keep getting repeated.
So there will be pushback.
I suggest people who support the NDP should be be cautious about how far they go attacking anyone who could end up leader in a few months.
I think we can discuss policies and even behaviors without going so far as to create enough animosity that the party is split come April. This is why I have avoided crossing any lines in my comments about candidates even though I have argued about the way one is being promoted.
Specifically with regard to the media leaks/front-runner narrative, though, everything I've heard and seen in both the media and from those in the know ....
Who are these 'people in the know'? And are they recounting actual events, or 'how things work' therefore we can deduce X must be happening?
I'm not dismissing the value of deductions- somethimes its all we can have to go on. But there is an air of compelling authority to 'people in the know'... so I want to know the basis of that.
Long thread!
