In summary:
In: Brian Topp, Romeo Saganash, Nathan Cullen, Martin Singh, Paul Dewar
Expected: Thomas Mulcair, Niki Ashton, Robert Chisholm
Possible: Peggy Nash
If I forgot anyone, I'll happily edit.
NDP Leadership 19
Thu, 2011-10-06 13:40
#1
Malcolm
NDP Leadership 19
Thu, 2011-10-06 14:03
#2
Thu, 2011-10-06 15:21
#3
Thanks OttOb. This helps flesh out Topp a bit for me. He was previously almost as much a blank page to me as he is in Odessa from which I temporarily view the race.
Thu, 2011-10-06 15:41
#4
I wonder if as New Democrats we pick leaders using a different critera than Liberals or Tories? I had one person say he wasn't fond of a certain candidate because he was a bit standoffish in person. Do we pick candidates we like the most as a person over who would be the best leader to win an election?
Pierre Trudeau was arrogant and standoffish. How many elections did he win?
Thu, 2011-10-06 16:03
#5
If I forgot anyone, I'll happily edit.
You have the power to edit the first post? You are the new God of babble!
Thu, 2011-10-06 16:26
#6
Malcolm
If I forgot anyone, I'll happily edit.You have the power to edit the first post? You are the new God of babble!
Oh yeah, forgot.
Thu, 2011-10-06 16:40
#7
Catchfire
I am the god of babble. Er, when GOD is off duty. If you want me to edit the first post, PM me or flag it as offensive(ly insufficient)!
Thu, 2011-10-06 19:15
#8
I wonder if as New Democrats we pick leaders using a different critera than Liberals or Tories? I had one person say he wasn't fond of a certain candidate because he was a bit standoffish in person. Do we pick candidates we like the most as a person over who would be the best leader to win an election? Pierre Trudeau was arrogant and standoffish. How many elections did he win?
This may sound silly - but I actually like to believe that my party is led by a good person - someone who is a kind compassionate person who treates people well and is in it for the right reasons. I find it hard to be feel enthused about the party if I think the leader is a personally unpleasant individual.
Thu, 2011-10-06 20:47
#9
This may sound silly - but I actually like to believe that my party is led by a good person - someone who is a kind compassionate person who treates people well and is in it for the right reasons. I find it hard to be feel enthused about the party if I think the leader is a personally unpleasant individual.
This doesn't sound silly at all, this is exactly what I want - and judging by the outpouring after Jack's death, this is what most Canadians want too, which is pretty important when you think we're looking for a Prime Minister.
Fri, 2011-10-07 07:04
#10
This may sound silly - but I actually like to believe that my party is led by a good person - someone who is a kind compassionate person who treates people well and is in it for the right reasons. I find it hard to be feel enthused about the party if I think the leader is a personally unpleasant individual.
This doesn't sound silly at all, this is exactly what I want - and judging by the outpouring after Jack's death, this is what most Canadians want too, which is pretty important when you think we're looking for a Prime Minister.
Thomas Mulcair: http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&h...
Mind you, it would be pretty difficult to maintain that gentle mien in exchange with Cons. :)
Fri, 2011-10-07 08:25
#11
I'm going to repost this from the end of the last thread, then segway from it.
To nicky, as to the case for Brian Topp, to take up that mantle for a second, it's worth noting that people with whom he's worked closely are supporting him, and/or feel he has a lot to contribute, and/or would be quite happy to see him win at the end of the day.
Brian can look about 10 steps ahead of where everyone else is, and separate out the important markers from the background noise. What you find to be simplistic messaging is actually the end-product of a lot of strategic thinking, because our messages have to do a lot. They have to be more nuanced, go against the grain of conventional wisdom, somehow get reported by a hostile media, and be understandable by our folks out there past the filter of the MSM.
It's not that he doesn't make mistakes, but he learns from them. It's not that he doesn't have a lot of thoughts, but he doesn't need to express every one of them (for fear of mixing the message). And as a person of fewer words, he has not always warmed up to people, or let them warm up to him, but he obviously knows that will be demanded of him in this new role. In his former role, it was his job to stay out of the limelight in favour of his candidates.
I don't know if he's the smartest person on the ticket of candidates we have now, but he's in the top 2 or 3. His integrity is unimpeachable, and I think he's mellowed over the years in terms of his relationships with others.
Was it a bold move for him to run for the top job? Sure. Getting the NDP from 4th to 2nd place in the House of Commons required a lot of bold moves, never mind what taking the next step will demand. People who've worked with him before clearly believe he has what it will take to get us the rest of the way.
[ETA: In fact, isn't that the definition of a "leader". One who sees where we all want to go, and whom we trust to guide us there.]
I could make a case for most of the other candidates as well (the ones I know), though it would be a different one in each case. In fact, I'm feeling pretty fortunate about the calibre of choices we have.
Personally, watching Brian's campaign has been very interesting. Just interesting, beyond the stake I have in the leadership race.
I've never met Brian, let alone worked with him. But from intersecting circles, or whatever, I've got the same picture of him.
Impressive. But lots of people are impressive. And it was as much a surprise to me as anybody when his name was first floated.
"Really?."
Getting a bit ahead of the thread of what I have to say... but I thinks it is emerging that very few people knew. Which is another one of the interesting things about this.
To be continued.
====
And I agree with the 'jerks need not apply' comments. Clearly, a prospective leader is going to be ambitious and probably a type A personality. But they dont need to be assholes, and we dont need them. There are leaders in the NDP I do not and never have approved of. But thats because of politics, and the politics matters. I also know them to be decent human beings.
Fri, 2011-10-07 09:04
#12
Is there a deadline for entering this race? it would be nice to actually have a race rather than what we have now which is people trickling in. I find this the most tedious part of the process.
Fri, 2011-10-07 09:25
#13
Nobody runs for the leadership without having done their thinking about it long ago, had a number of discussions with people they are close to and depend on for advice, and having pretty much decided that they are going to do it when the time comes.
What makes this race so unusual, is that notion of 'when the time comes' was not now. Not even close. It was at least a couple years into the future before even the characteristic 'pre-discussion' started. Sure, the names had alreay been kicked around- but that doesnt even count as pre-discussion.
Then of course- there is the surprise [to most of us] position the NDP is in, and how much of that is because of the man that just died.
Is there a normal leadership race? Maybe not. But the setting of this one is anything but.
But unusual as it is- ALL of the prospective candidates, including the ones who have bowed out, had extensive discussions running back months and years about their running. Jack Layton being Jack Layton- more than one of them got STRONG encouragement from him. [I'd bet on that including Brian Topp and Megan Leslie. And expect that more than likely there was at least another.]
And Brian Topp stands out, because of all of them, with some notable exceptions, none of us knew.
That is different. And whatever else is different as well, that is very significant.
Libby's endorsement sealed my basic understanding of what developed without any of us knowing. There were certainly indications before, Ed's off the bat endorsement being obvious. But that one could have been a one-off... even coming from Ed Broadbent.
So somewhere a year or two back- maybe more even... Brian was encouraged to do what is necessary to put himself in position, and had discussions with some people who said they wanted to see him do it. If Libby was not one them that far back, then with that kind of breadth of support.
Brian would assume he has a fair bit of time. Difficult and ambitious, for sure. But he had some time.
I had wondered why Brian was "only" Policy Co-Chair in this last campaign. Its no small job- but not characteristic of Brian's role right at the very centre. But I didnt question it. There are good reasons for people not to keep succeeding themselves as Campaign Managers, even when they have everyone's confidence.
But with hindisight, I think the change in campaign roles was a part of what was supposed to be an early shift in the kind of role Brian Topp plays in the party. Brian Topp the thinker and person who helps us express our values, rather than Brian Topp the [brilliant] backroom leader. Brian always was that thinker and values person too, but that its now time for him to be seen broadly that way... and to leave behind the backroom boy image.
When I look back at the themes in Brian's columns, I can see that narrative. It has always been there with him, but now its the main one. I suspect that he kept riding about the strategy because thats what gets him the eyeballs. [Certainly what the Globe wants, and what all of us always look most for from him.] Plus being President. Along with Policy Co-Chair, braodening the kind of people in the party Brian works with directly.
Only a few people neede to know about Brain's intentions- really only enough for Brian to have the confidence this isnt just some crazy idea. So, just a short few months ago, here he and a few other people were, still in what they assumed to be the early stages of getting people in the NDP used to a different side of Brian Topp.
[I'm going to break the logic of my narrative to say that I am continuoulsy, and still, puzzled that these people whose advice and support Brian thought, including Jack Layton.... had the full confidence that Brian could develop the necessary 'public personna skills'. Sure, Brian Topp impressives people. And obviously the more so for those closer up. Now, both Ed Broadbent and Jack Layton would know that you arent born with those public personna skills. You learn them when and because you had the opportunity. Most people thought Ed was wooden when he became leader. I've seen it myself in people I have encouraged: "look what you did when you HAD to- you can do ALL of it that is required." Nonetheless, I'm still puzzled about this. Like, where did even they ever see Brian Topp in action in a sufficiently braod public? But clearly, they saw to their satisfaction. And soon enough we will all get a chance to see what we think.]
Fri, 2011-10-07 09:35
#14
To Caisaa's question, the deadline is a formality. If you are not being talked about now, you will never be in the race.
And I would be very surprised if Peter Julian does not support Brain Topp. I think they are just waiting for the best time.
I'm dissapointed, and I'm pretty sure Peter really wanted to do it, and thought he had enough to go for it. But there are two sides to becoming leader, and first wanting to go for it. There is of course the personal ambition and all that adrenalin stuff.
But people who are only driven by that do not get far. And the other side is the needs of my party- as I see that. And even ambitious and eager people will deferr if they come to beleive, even if it dissapoints them, that someone else is better for the needs of the party [as I see it]. Part of that could be pragmatic ["I still think I would be the better leader, but I'm not going to get it, and X, who I also think would be good, can become leader"].... but it amounts to the same thing.
Some people really do decide mostly if not enitely "Not me." [Full stop.] I'm pretty sure that is Megan Leslie. But I really doubt that is the case for Peter Julian.
Fri, 2011-10-07 09:45
#15
That collectivist spirit should loom large in this party.
There is certainly lots of need for it this time out.
Fri, 2011-10-07 10:08
#16
I had wondered why Brian was "only" Policy Co-Chair in this last campaign. Its no small job- but not characteristic of Brian's role right at the very centre. But I didnt question it. There are good reasons for people not to keep succeeding themselves as Campaign Managers, even when they have everyone's confidence.
Topp was Policy Co-Chair instead of federal Campaign Director because he had prostate cancer in the year leading up to the election. He signed on to be BC provincial Campaign Director just after the federal election.
Fri, 2011-10-07 10:44
#17
And I would be very surprised if Peter Julian does not support Brain Topp. I think they are just waiting for the best time.
How about two hours before a rival's leadership launch? You could even embargo the news on a Sunday, the day after a death, etc. It'd be very strategic.
Fri, 2011-10-07 10:47
#18
dacckon
Ya know, Topp visits babble every now and then. Why doesn't someone organize a list of questions in a seperate thread for him to answer(respectable questions, not "herp derp why r u douchebag?") Or he can answer questions through youtube videos. All candidates should do this. Also this is floating around on twitter
Fri, 2011-10-07 10:56
#19
Brian Topp's recent cancer treatment was presumed to be the reason for him not repeating Campaign Director. At the time I had no reason to see otherwise. But even then, I knew that after being out of the full-full time for several months, Brian could have stepped right back into the job if that was what was wanted.
You can bet Brian reads Babble- or at least someone is getting highlights to him if hes getting super busy. Ask a question, or raise a concern, and its likely to be addressed. But not here.
Fri, 2011-10-07 11:20
#20
Continuing with my narrative of what I have pieced together about the Topp campaign...
So Brian wnated to be leader, and had the necessary encouragement and support sufficient for him to take the first step or re-positioning his role within the party. What was supposed to come after that, according to the plan- I have no idea, and have not even attempted a guess.
But whatever the plan, it went out the window when Jack Layton got sick, and died soon after. Presumably, then it was 'now what?' And no doubt, first of all, can I (we) still do this? Do I want to? Definitely not ready.
Anyway, however they got there, they came to the proverbial 'in for a penny, in for a pound' decision. If it made sense before, it still makes sense. Just harder now. [And harder, we have done.]
And I think I understand the basic strategy to date, and why everybody is still saying 'I dont know anything about this guy' 'Dont know what makes him tick' Etc. I dont wonder about those, but my big question is where and on what basis are people getting the idea that someone who has never done it has the 'punlic personna skills' in enough measure that they are confident the rest will come when they need to. Lots said about Brian, but not a peep about that yet. From anyone- let alone indications from Brian.
In fact, to date, Brian Topp, for all the opportunities he has had, says little.
On reflection, I think that is the strategy for this stage that they were forced by events to make up on the fly.
Brian Topp was always going to face deep skepticism when he came out with his intentions. And when he was actually forced to come out with them after very little of the planned prparing the ground- he faced guaranteed very deep skepticism.
I think this unusually deep lining up of support is first and foremost to blow that skepticism out of the water. To make sure that when Brian Topp does get up to speak, that people are listening. Because with the kind of skepticism that Brian faced at the outset, you are set up for failure- laughed off the stage before you say a word.
I havent paid much attention, but I'll bet that Topp's policy pieces are better described as vacuous, rather than 'poorly thought out'. And ditto for his live performances with media to date. It's possible it is because he really isnt any better than that. But the other possibility is that he is so controlled at this point, and so intent on staying in the background for a while yet, that tough questions are bound to get empty sounding answers.
We'll see which it is.
Soon, I think.
The stage setting is very good. Brilliant even. But it rather looks like any more, and everything goes flat.
[For those who have been impressed by how good the strategy has been: well, yeah. What else would you expect from Brian Topp? That isnt my concern.]
Fri, 2011-10-07 11:23
#21
I don't know about Mulcair but this whole everybody (of influence) jumping on the Topp bandwagon (so early) just smacks of an unfriendly "Stop Mulcair" movement from party insiders.
I remember how all the caucus (insiders) embraced Bill Blaikie only to see the energetic concilor with the renegade (MP) support win. Yes Broadbent endorsed Layton but that was much later in the game. Layton had already played several quarters of hardcourt.
So far, Topp has not excited me. Sure, I didn't really give him a chance initially because I could not see his qualifications for the office (still unclear) and found his entry unseemly, maybe even upsetting (having top national officials call top media figures within 24 hours of Layton's death to inform them that Topp was a frontrunner), but he hasn't exactly lit up the stage with his campaign yet. He isn't even a good stump speaker (yet), Dewar and Cullen are much better, he has none of the telegenic qualities (including a good voice), and he answers most every question except the one asked. Voters hate that. His first policy pieces have proven to be poorly thought out, sophomoric, and full of theatricality. Topp doesn't have an excuse here because he is supposed to be the "brains" in the race. He is the guy that chaired NDP platform committees, the brilliant strategic thinker, etc. etc. Is he out of ideas? Is he out of juice? If so, then I can't see a more eloquent argument for asking the membership to cast their vote behind someone who will clean house. If he and the insiders don't give us a seriously novel and exciting campaign, then they obviate the argument for their opponents.
Fri, 2011-10-07 12:29
#22
Fri, 2011-10-07 12:54
#23
Boom Boom
I think we all need to see these candidates in debates, and the sooner the better!
Fri, 2011-10-07 13:12
#24
Isn't Raymond Guardia the person who dumped Micheline Anne Montreuil as a candidate? Or was he just the bearer of bad news?
Fri, 2011-10-07 13:19
#25
Malcolm
I expect the field will be finalized by mid-November at the very latest. There are, at most, four more declarations. Mulcair has indicated a timeline for his (two weeks IIRC), and I expect one other candidate to declare sometime next week. That leaves one of the expected plus the mysterious Ms Nash.
Fri, 2011-10-07 13:34
#26
Does anyone have a link to comments that Davies might have made when she endorsed Topp? I'm interested in why she considers him the best candidate since I respect her opinion and place in the party.
Fri, 2011-10-07 13:37
#27
I saw all the announcement, and nearly all of the scrum, on a video made by Mark Kennedy at Postmedia, and posted to one of the Postmedia papers' sites. See if that gives you enough to locate it, or else I'll try and recreate my steps, Caissa.
Fri, 2011-10-07 13:38
#28
I don't have a horse in this race yet, mostly because I have informed questions about all of those declared so far.
It would be nice to think that I could come to a forum like this and articulate those questions and the reasons for them, in hopes of soliciting an informed answer, but to do so would risk being told by a number of people that I should wait for the process to unfold, that I am making baseless assertions, blah blah blah.
So can one of two things be agreed here? Option one would be for the not so subtle Topp partisans who dismiss speculation and/or expression of concerns about their guy's very real shortcomings and chide those who post such things, to apply the same insistence on hard evidence to their own musings about his putative brilliance, integrity and leadership ability? Option two would be for Topp's partisan's to accept that a proper discussion of the candidates will inevitably involve hard questions and less than wholly flattering assessments of their hero, and that political debates don't generally insist on rules of evidence typical of a criminal court.
Fri, 2011-10-07 14:16
#29
Lou Arab
Ya know, Topp visits babble every now and then. Why doesn't someone organize a list of questions in a seperate thread for him to answer(respectable questions, not "herp derp why r u douchebag?") Or he can answer questions through youtube videos. All candidates should do this.
Now we just need the canidates to show up!
Fri, 2011-10-07 14:19
#30
Brian Topp
KenS: A thoughtful post and worth replying to, I think.
A few notes:
I stepped down as national campaign director after the 2008 election in order to allow Jack's senior team to step up. We had worked together on three federal elections in rapid succession (04, 06, and 08 -- twelve years of "normal" federal political experience compressed into four years) and I felt they were ready to steer the next campaign. I also felt I needed to recharge my own batteries and my intellectual capital. So I asked Jack for a different role -- to instead do some project work around our policy offer. I felt (and feel) we need to up our game to contest seriously for office.
So then, instead, in 2008 and early 2009 I was asked to play a role in the coalition negotiations. Pity that didn't work.
So then, I dealt with a very early-onset prostage cancer, detected in a routine screening. I've written about this in the Globe. I was lucky -- mine was caught early, with a 95% cure rate from a number of good available therapies. I'm in the 95% group.
In the 2011 election Jack and his team asked me to do four things: (a) to attend a weekly strategy call; (b) to co-chair the platform committee; (c) to coordinate negotiations with the networks, and the debates; and (d) to consult about our parliamentary options in the event of another minority parliament.
Post-election, with a Tory majority in place, Jack asked me to consider running for President of the party, and I agreed to do so with several things on my mind: first, that policy review; second, quickly re-activating our field organizing in order to put down roots in the many new seats we represent, and to begin working up the addition 100 seats we came second in (a four-year job); and third, now that minority parliaments were done with for the time being, to let the party breath again -- to return to normal meeting practices; to get the party to ask itself big questions and debate and decide them. All in the cause of winning a mandate in 2015. And all in the cause of electing Jack Layton as Prime Minister in 2015 -- as he very much intended to try to do.
So then, tragically, Jack was tackled by a second cancer. His ill-fortune was unbelievable -- and damned unfair. He never gave up hope, not even two days before he passed away. But as we all saw, he became terribly ill. It is still hard to come to terms with that, it being so terribly unfair.
I visited him fairly regularly over the summer. We talked about many things, few of them political, and our conversations are going to remain between the two of us. I am not Jack's "dauphin". Everyone who runs for leader is just as much a part of Jack's team as I am, and when this is over we will be together as a team, carrying on his work.
After Jack passed away, a number of my friends talked to me about considering standing in the leadership, and I decided to put my name forward for the reasons I've explained in my statements, up on my website. There is no mystery about who spoke to me -- they're the folks you're seeing at my press conferences, and the people helping to run and organize my campaign. I'm very proud to have friends like that.
With regard to your thoughts on my Globe blog: I've continued to write my blob since announcing, because I think people involved in politics should do so. The European press is full of articles about public affairs by public figures -- ours should be too. The internet, including this website, gives all candidates ample opportunity to write about the issues and I think they should. I'll leave it to readers to decide if my articles are with or without merit. It's true that I've been writing less about the mechanics of politics and more about public policy issues as I've been getting farther away from my gig as campaign director, for the reasons I've explained above.
Finally, if people want to start a "questions for Brian" thread I'll look at it. I don't reply to incivility, conspiracy theorists, or mischievious interventions from communications people on other campaigns -- common currency on the internet -- but I'll try to answer serious questions as time permits.
All the best,
bt
Fri, 2011-10-07 14:27
#31
Boom Boom
Thanks for that post, Brian. 
Fri, 2011-10-07 14:34
#32
Continues to be interesting Brian.
I'm going to guess that one reason for replying to my post, is that if my surmises are allowed to stand, they could develop into 'the real story'- correct or not. A possibility I did not consider- since I really was just speaking out my thoughts on this.
And even though I would hope it is apparent there is no ill intention in my speculation, Brian wants to tell his own story.
So I will take that as a gentle admonishment that this is not Brian's story.
But I'll stand by my take of the basic strategy- blow the skepticism out of the water before really stepping on the stage.
[And even if THAT also is incorrect- it would be a serious error to step in and say its not true. 
]
Fri, 2011-10-07 14:36
#33
You are wearing tinted glasses.
I dont know of any Topp partisans here. I only know that by your implications you must mean to include me in that category.
I dont have a horse in this race. My preferreds have dropped out.
My sin that makes me a Topp partisan in your eyes is that yes, I dont like allegations that look to me like nothing more than suspicions stitched together. I treated the ones about Mulcair the same way. Those stopped, so the rebuttals are unecessary and get no further air time. Brian Topp on the other hand brings out the deepest suspicions in people around here. Where there is mystery, there must be a fire burning.
I'm not going to tell you not to be so suspicious, but I will deal with the substance of those when they are aired.
Fri, 2011-10-07 15:00
#34
Nice to have Brian Topp participating in the discussion here again. Our moderators and editorial people are discussing how best to bring candidates onto the site for some back and forth.
Fri, 2011-10-07 15:01
#35
That would be wonderful if you can pull it off.
Fri, 2011-10-07 15:06
#36
Ya know, Topp visits babble every now and then. Why doesn't someone organize a list of questions in a seperate thread for him to answer(respectable questions, not "herp derp why r u douchebag?") Or he can answer questions through youtube videos. All candidates should do this.
That would be great. I would like to ask Topp questions about his position on a carbon tax, austerity (if it's only good when left-wing parties do it), trade, and many others. He is a good man for engaging babblers.
Fri, 2011-10-07 15:11
#37
Thanks Brian.
Fri, 2011-10-07 16:21
#38
Thanks for offering to answer questions Brian. May I be the first to take you up on your offer.
You will know from reading Babble that many of us have concerns that the leadership mathematics threaten to minimize Quebec's weight in the process. We also worry that unless this is rectified the party may be badly damaged in Quebec. would you favor a mechanism to guarnatee Quebec a voting weight proportiate to it's population in THIS leadership race. Please begin your answer with either the word "yes" or "no".
Fri, 2011-10-07 17:42
#39
Nice to have Brian Topp participating in the discussion here again. Our moderators and editorial people are discussing how best to bring candidates onto the site for some back and forth.
Can't imagine how we would survive the next several months without some such input from the real McCoys.
Fri, 2011-10-07 18:09
#40
Boom Boom
Just saw on P&P Mulcair speaking on Topp (in French): "Brian Topp hasn't been in Quebec for five years". Unless the translation CBC used is faulty, someone needs to remind Mulcair that this is on tape and will be used by the Conservatives in the next campaign. Ditto for the debates - if the debates are broadcast, it'll all be on tape, so be careful what you say!
Fri, 2011-10-07 18:16
#41
Pfft. We are not going to run around censoring ourselves for fear of what the Conservatives will do. If we let them set the agenda for our leadership race, we don't deserve to win the next election.
Fri, 2011-10-07 18:17
#42
knownothing
Yeah Mulcair has been getting a little off-track regarding Quebec in relation to the leadership contest he needs to think like a PM not premier of Quebec
Fri, 2011-10-07 18:21
#43
Boom Boom
Remember the Cons used the Iggy - Dion debate to good effect - according to the CBC commentators. Why give them ammo?
Fri, 2011-10-07 18:28
#44
knownothing
Fri, 2011-10-07 18:31
#45
I don't think we should go out of our way to give them ammo over stupid stuff, but I'll be damned if my party lets the Conservatives dictate the terms of our leadership debate out of fear. If we did, I wouldn't support it any more.
Nicky, your question to Brian sounds like the kind that is posed as a chess-pin by a stated supporter of one of his opponents.
Fri, 2011-10-07 18:49
#46
I don't think we should go out of our way to give them ammo over stupid stuff, but I'll be damned if my party lets the Conservatives dictate the terms of our leadership debate out of fear. If we did, I wouldn't support it any more.
Nicky, your question to Brian sounds like the kind that is posed as a chess-pin by a stated supporter of one of his opponents.
Not only that, the rules have been decided and it's not up to the candidates any more.
Fri, 2011-10-07 18:52
#47
If I were Brian I would answer nicky's question with "no." Given all the votes the NDP received in Québec last time, if even a fraction of those signed up, Québec would dominate the NDP leadership election. I do agree with Mulcair though that the party should assist with a full out membership campaign in Québec and what's more, the party needs to start building structures to organise the vote in Québec and that means expanding the Montréal office and looking in to forging links with Québec political parties and movements at the municipal and provincial levels.
Fri, 2011-10-07 19:47
#48
If I were Brian I would answer nicky's question with "no." Given all the votes the NDP received in Québec last time, if even a fraction of those signed up, Québec would dominate the NDP leadership election. I do agree with Mulcair though that the party should assist with a full out membership campaign in Québec and what's more, the party needs to start building structures to organise the vote in Québec and that means expanding the Montréal office and looking in to forging links with Québec political parties and movements at the municipal and provincial levels.
That's the more relevant question given that the rules have already been decided.
Fri, 2011-10-07 20:00
#49
You are wearing tinted glasses.
Whatever.
I dont know of any Topp partisans here. I only know that by your implications you must mean to include me in that category.
I very deliberately refrained from personalizing the comment. It applied to a number of commenters. If you feel your comments conformed with the image I drew, I won't argue with you.
My sin that makes me a Topp partisan in your eyes is that yes, I dont like allegations that look to me like nothing more than suspicions stitched together. I treated the ones about Mulcair the same way. Those stopped, so the rebuttals are unecessary and get no further air time. Brian Topp on the other hand brings out the deepest suspicions in people around here. Where there is mystery, there must be a fire burning.
I'm not going to tell you not to be so suspicious, but I will deal with the substance of those when they are aired.
Again, whatever.
Fri, 2011-10-07 20:19
#50
Lou Arab
Whatever.
Sigh,
Who let my daughter open a rabble account?
Fri, 2011-10-07 21:10
#51
