NDP leadership 32

so strident and weird.  i like how we "choose between hard-core socialism and moderation", two undefined abstract concepts that float there, suspended above the fact that quebecers massively supported the heretofore socialist party.  anyway, the strangest thing isn't the faux concern for the future of the ndp, it's that the article reads like a distorted, al capone-style bum rush of the legitimate argument for mulcair's candidacy.

i would guess that the motivation for a piece like this would be to set the populist line for an anti-ndp campaign in the event of a mulcair loss, but that doesn't get even half of the nuance here.  it's probably more like something that the author just culled from various press accounts, just lazy and obvious, and broadly consistent with the right-wing nationalist tabloid bent of the journal.

as for mulcair in ontario, i personally witnessed his leading/attending events on 2 occasions.

RE(quote): "I worry that Peggy Nash has a lot of appeal as a second choice for many members - worry because she bores me...and if she bores a hardcore partisan, she will bore the Canadian public. But I have been known to be wrong. I did not think selecting Greg Selinger to succeed Gary Doer was a good idea for many of the same reasons, but Manitobans really came to like him over the last year or so." (endquote)

Before I got too sick and could go to these things, I remember when Greg Selinger was first elected as an MP. Selinger was recruited to run and joked that the only reason he got elected was because of his wife's large extended family in St Boniface. Even back then when Selinger was first elected, the speculation was that he would be the one to replace Doer - but they were in no rush to replace Doer. The idea was that he was the leader in waiting from the beginning. It was no surprise to me that he won. Steve Ashton ran against Selenger and lost (which is a factor one has to take into account!).

I predicted that it Dion would win. I knew that it would not be Rae or Iggy because people would consider it too divisive so it was between Kennedy's poor French and Dion's poor English. Dion wanted to mend fenses but was too trusting of his opponent's people. Dion was done in from the inside - that video proves it - that was something the party did to Dion rather than the other way around.

I don't think that it will be either Topp or Mulcair for the same reason that it wouldn't be Iggy or Rae - on top of that Topp has no guarantee of a seat. He seems good enough but it would be foolish to run him in Jack's old seat because of the feeling that he is being imposed upon people would be increased - and that sentiment would be exploited by the Tories. It would be better to get someone to run in Jack's riding that has Jack's spirit but no leadership aspirations. Mulcair is well-spoken in both languages but I agree he is not a team player. He smelled blood when Libby was tricked - and that does not make for cohesiveness - that instinct needs to be saved for the opposition!

Ironic that Nash, Saganash and Ashton all speak SPANISH! Don't know anything about Ryan Barker but Carl Kaufman has been credited with making it possible for Peggy Nash to take on more responsibilities and get deeper into Politics. It is expected that the wife of a male politician will make things easier for the husband to take on responsibilities by taking on more responsibilities at home, but husbands of female politicians have to do the same thing and more are getting the idea that they should. Not too many openly LGBT MPs with children or planning to have children - yet.

Nash and Saganash waited until their children are grown and Ashton should go now before she has any Ashton-Barkers (they have already chosen the surname for their future children). In fact, Ashton should probably wait until she is Prime Minister because then she has the job already and is doing it rather than while she is opposition leader where the nasty speculation would be whether she can handle being a mother and Prime Minister at the same time (a speculation that the male politicians would not face).

What I worry about Ashton is her niche - her riding is mainly First Nation and both Nash and Saganash is going after that constituency (Saganash is going after Environment too while Nash is also going after workers rights). I still figure that her issue will be water since "representing the youth vote" won't go too far and water is a big issue in many ways.

Re: Movember - hoping that Pierre-Luc Dusseault makes Mark Critch eat his words.

OttawaObserver says: My parents supported Ducasse on the first ballot, and were intending to switch to Blaikie on the next one, but Layton won in the meantime.

Same here. Sadly, this was the one election that Ducasse decided to sit out.

Stockholm: they mean tough as nails. There has been a tendency to tell tough women on the left in the past to not be so feisty - which always backfired. Speaking of Thatcher - the woman Tony Clement worshiped as a young boy ...

 

vaudree wrote:

Before I got too sick and could go to these things ...

Sorry you're not doing so good. Take care.

 

flight from kamakura wrote:

probably just picked it up automatically, like as a feed running on 'mulcair' and 'npd' or whatever.  maybe it they have some refined terms that picked it up.  can't imagine that anyone mulcair trusted enough to put in charge of releases would have such poor judgment as to send this one out.

His website only has a few articles, so it was chosen. It also is no machine translation into English, so someone had to do at least some work on it.

I think the person who chose it sees that it says "Tom Mulcair is mainstream enough to win" [and no one else can]. That much, you have said as much yorurself. The difference being that the campaign staffer choosing the article did not notice anything else in the article. What is the surprise to find that at the top of the campaign?

 

I think its disappointing that Mulcair has fit his own stereotype. I didn't want to say this before, but people in my family know Mulcair from way back as a lawyer. And they told me he was a complete asshole. Now of course I rebutted with, "well, maybe it was a bad day". The usual things I say because I believe in getting information from reliable, unbiased sources. But he is really fitting into that picture. He posted another article which bragged about his snipes at Libby.(Which Libby said she misspoke, which is ironic because Mulcair would misspeak on CBC about the photos later on)

He should have never ran for the leadership position anyways. Layton made Libby and Mulcair deputies because they represented two different wings of the party, and the leader of that party should be in the middle of these two forces.

Anyways... back to posting news. Here's some crap by the National Post.

Now now Daackon.

Don't you think it is ironic that Mulcair is castigated for responding to what he says is a "whisper campaign" when that same whisper campaign seems to be infecting Babble?

The criticism of Mulcair is becoming increasingly personal. His criticism of others has never descended to the personal but instead has largely been a defence against criticisms leveled at him as well as the tactics of his opponents.

For example, he rebuts the line that he is just a "Quebec candidate." Then he gets attacked for using his defence to this attack as a wedge and it is said that he is just making up the attack in the first place.

Let's remember that in endorsing Topp both Boivin and Guigerre in fact said that Mulcair had little appeal outside Quebec. And Godin attacked Mulcair as being divisive for asking that the party undertake a special membership drive in Quebec. All of these comments were made in Brian Topp's presence. And this was in PUBLIC.

What is wrong with Mulcir refuting these attacks, especially if it is OK for his opponents to make them?

Now the whisper campaign goes further than that. I expect some will say it is just a fantasy but I have certainly heard it. A senior labour lawyer of my acquaintance has told me he has repeatedly heard comments critical of Mulcair's personality by people supporting other candidates. And Mulcair himself is saying that it exists. Is he lying about this? It is not enough just to say, even in bolded and italicized capitals, that this is a fantasy or a media invention.

And if the campaign does exist is Mulcair not entitled to respond to it?

We can fully expect much worse to be said by the Conservatives against whoever the next leader may be. Should we be content with a leader who just takes it, like Dion or Ignatieff or Kerry? Or do we want a leader who is capable of effectively fighting back?

 

dacckon wrote:

I think its disappointing that Mulcair has fit his own stereotype. I didn't want to say this before..... 

You must have read this nicky. But read and think about it.

Dakkon is probably like me. Go back and look at my posts. There are numerous posts where I just flat out reject and dismiss, and argue substantively against the narratives that Mulcair is abrasive, not a team player, arrogant, etc. Pointing out that we have no evidence of this except a media narrative. I will and did go to the extent of seeing his unacceptable lashing at Libby Davies as one event only. Everyone is allowed to do something unacceptable at least once.

[And by the way, you were happy to accept that the narrative is only from the media when it was about Mulcair. But saw it as dissmissive when the same shoe was put on the Topp foot.]

It is the same for me as dakkon is making very clear: I am reluctantly changing my mind entirely based on Mulcair's own words. And no one off- a narrative line which he chooses to repeat across several interviews. 

It is sad, but unfortunately predicatble, that you choose to see thas as a consequence of people 'buying the whisper campaign'.

One of Tom Mulcair's virtues is that he does not whisper. And he is telling us what you think is coming from the whispering campaign.

For what its worth, I still dont think he is 'inherently abrasive' or something like that. He might be, but I dont have the evidence to say that.

But he is obvioulsy intent on playing wedge politics in the party, repeatedly and clearly.

If one honestly beleive that you have been unfairly tagged, and that it is holding you back.... then that is a known weakness of your campaign. And Politics 101 tells you in no uncertain terms, whatever else you do- do not play into that narrative.

But Tom Mulcair is doing just the opposite.

So either he is stupid- atrociously poor poltical instincts. Which would rule him out from being Leader.

Or he is doing this deliberately, because he thinks it is good for his campaign. This is what he wants. Which I think is a lot more likely.

 

 

It may be "Politics 101" not to respond to attacks but that is not the only view to take. Perhaps, Ken, you have seen the War Room" the documentary on Clinton's campaign in '92. Clinton abandoned the orthodox (at he time) view not to respond to attacks and instead mounted counter-attacks almost immediately. Many commentators say that saved his campaign.

I have also cited Ignatieff, Dion and Kerry as politicians who may well have lost because they did not effectively refute attacks in a timely manner.

For what it's worth, Warren Kinsella, whom I do not entirely applaud at all times, wrote recently that the NDP can expect vicious attacks from the Conservatives and recommended that  the party should learn to counterattack.

The view you express may have been a better fit in an era of kinder, gentler politics. But this is a much more bloodthirsty era and different tactics may be more appropriate.

nicky wrote:

For what it's worth, Warren Kinsella, whom I do not entirely applaud at all times, wrote recently that the NDP can expect vicious attacks from the Conservatives and recommended that  the party should learn to counterattack.

The view you express may have been a better fit in an era of kinder, gentler politics. But this is a much more bloodthirsty era and different tactics may be more appropriate. 

Another straw person.

As good as Jack Layton's final letter was, it was not given to us as a complete political agenda. Jack himself was a trenchant and persistent critic. His effectiveness was that he knew how to mix that up. If Jack's final letter had been meant as a didactic how to do, it would have been this:

Always mix your attacks with some positive propositional politics. With at least a passing reference to that, if not more, given the circumstances.

I think Jack wrote that letter because he knows what we are like- first and foremost the critics. So that is where we needed the most reminding and counter-balancing.

nicky wrote:

It may be "Politics 101" not to respond to attacks but that is not the only view to take. 

I did not say you do not respond. And have repeatedly used Kerry, Dion , and Ignatieff myself as examples of what you do not do.

Not responding is a straw person Politics 101. The consensus view is that you do not add  fuel to a negative narrative... which means that you take care in how you respond.

But then, Mulcair is not responding to or taking the sting out of a negative narrative at all.

Mulcair is seizing as his own a negative narrative that is out there, expanding it and wielding it as a demonstrative foil. Although it is possible he is inadvertently fueling it... I think it is increasing clear that it is just only barely 'possible'.

nicky wrote:

It may be "Politics 101" not to respond to attacks but that is not the only view to take. Perhaps, Ken, you have seen the War Room" the documentary on Clinton's campaign in '92. Clinton abandoned the orthodox (at he time) view not to respond to attacks and instead mounted counter-attacks almost immediately. Many commentators say that saved his campaign.

I have also cited Ignatieff, Dion and Kerry as politicians who may well have lost because they did not effectively refute attacks in a timely manner.

For what it's worth, Warren Kinsella, whom I do not entirely applaud at all times, wrote recently that the NDP can expect vicious attacks from the Conservatives and recommended that  the party should learn to counterattack.

The view you express may have been a better fit in an era of kinder, gentler politics. But this is a much more bloodthirsty era and different tactics may be more appropriate.

 

As an outsider maybe I can see this clearer.  But from what I see Mulcair is not attacking issues, or even attacks against him.  He is attacking the NDP and its culture as a party.  (and I am just going by his own words).  That to me seems like a really big lapse in judgement for someone who wants to lead that party.  Responding to attacks is one thing, and I have long been one who believes strongly you don't bring a knife to a gun fight, but it is the nature of the attacks by Mulcair that seems to be turning off people.  I had a totally open mind about Mulcair, but I have been increasingly turned off by the way he is conducting himself.  I expect that is not an uncommon reaction.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

I have a feeling, with this article, that his campaign team isn't up to scratch. Any media/pr person who sent that out should be given a good spanking. I'm not sure what they're thinking.

I think you are probably right. That when you are only posting a few articles on the site, and even if you intend to play wedge politics in the party, that article was a poor choice.

That said, it may also be that looking 'inside the cockpit,' it was just a little heavy a choice along the lines which the campaign has chosen to go.

Mulcair still has time to reset his campaign. Dump that article, and make a show of announcing some campaign staff who have roots in the party and are going to take it to the next level, and start talking environmental policy and stop trashing the party he wants to lead.

KenS wrote:

nicky wrote:

It may be "Politics 101" not to respond to attacks but that is not the only view to take. 

I did not say you do not respond. And have repeatedly used Kerry, Dion , and Ignatieff myself as examples of what you do not do.

Not responding is a straw person Politics 101. The consensus view is that you do not add  fuel to a negative narrative... which means that you take care in how you respond.

But then, Mulcair is not responding to or taking the sting out of a negative narrative at all.

Mulcair is seizing as his own a negative narrative that is out there, expanding it and wielding it as a demonstrative foil. Although it is possible he is inadvertently fueling it... I think it is increasing clear that it is just only barely 'possible'.

I think you're being unnecessarily verbose and I largely disagree with the essay that you've basically posted in this thread as it relates to general theoretical strategy.

That said, I do agree that Mulcair shouldn't be focusing so much attention on running against the party, when it's an internal party competition. It doesn't show the greatest judgment and it's unnecessarily divisive when ultimately the winner of this contest will need unified support. He needs to focus that fire on the real enemy, the Cons.

As was mentioned before, I have defended Mulcair in the past. Somewhere through my record of posts should we one where I link to a video where Mulcair slapped around a reporter for the rumour that he was trying to replace Jack.

The reason for my criticism is that he's seems to constantly enjoy attacking the party. He could have easily done something like : "Well I don't agree with the whole article, but I'll post paraphrases/quotes portions of what best sums up my candidacy."

And even if he's from the centre leaning wing of the party, it doesn't mean he has to conduct his candidacy the way he is now. Another simplisitic example: "Well I may not be as left-wing as some of my collegues, but I enjoy working with them. My goal for this leadership race is not only to connect with new democrats but to also bring progressives from other parties. The unoffical opposition parties are too blue-liberal and/or the other embracing milton friedman's ideas/'shadow tories' is not what progressive canadians want to see"

ottawaobserver wrote:

Dewar just announced his "jobs plan" in Vancouver:

Point 6 sets up an interesting contrast with Brian Topp's tax policy.

"Saying ‘no’ to expanding the HST or increasing sales taxes

An NDP government led by Paul Dewar will protect jobs and help make life more affordable for families by saying no to new sales tax increases and expanding the HST."

dacckon wrote:

Perhaps we should wait until we can actually contrast it with something not abstract. We should wait for Topp to fully detail his plans, as well as the other candidates.

It isn't necessary to wait for anything. He has already said that he would entertain increasing sales taxes "at some point". This contrasts with a policy not to increase sales taxes, by definition.

I'm happy to see some small evidence of differences among the candidates. It means that the campaign has actually begun in earnest. That's a good thing.

<a href="http://twitter.com/#!/briantopp">his twitter account</a> wrote:

briantopp Brian Topp @
@tomfletcherbc @adriandix @strategicthghts #GST #hst I have absolutely no plan to raise GST. Spoke of corporate and for-the-1% income tax.
23 Oct

I've been paying to much attention to this. Its way too early to compare policy until all policies are released and also way too early to judge how they will do in the debates until they debate

dacckon wrote:

. Its way too early to compare policy until all policies are released and also way too early to judge how they will do in the debates until they debate

So the only interaction that matters is in a formal debate?

Brian Topp said, and was quoted widely as saying, that he would consider a sales tax increase at some point. That's not a specific plan, but it's a philosophical position that can reasonably be contrasted with other positions - like point 6 in the Dewar release. That's kind of how politics is done.

Topp was widely quoted from that one interview. He said afterward that it was not what he said- and what he is saying now: no sales tax increase.

Which leads to the question how did he let that happen in an interview. No idea of the answer to that.

KenS wrote:

Topp was widely quoted from that one interview. He said afterward that it was not what he said- and what he is saying now: no sales tax increase.

Which leads to the question how did he let that happen in an interview. No idea of the answer to that.

I've seen nothing from Brian Topp that would contradict the views reported in the news media interview. That includes the tweet posted above by dacckon, which says there is no plan for a sales tax increase, not that he would be opposed to such a move. Since the original report had him saying only that he was open to a sales tax increase "at some point," there is no contradicition. Unless there is something more clear out there somewhere, the Topp campaign response to the news report has actually been a polished and finely parsed exercise in vagueness. It can all be cleared up with an unambiguous policy statement, of course, but since the Topp campaign has so far been more about who loves Brian than what he stands for, we are left to infer his real thoughts from fragments.

Anyway, I stand by the original point that started this exchange, that Dewar's release today sets up a contrast with Topp. Note that I did not say that it explicates a contrast in fine detail. Dewar says no sales tax increase. Topp's position is at best less clear. Many New Democrats see consumption taxes to be inherently regressive. This is an issue that resonates in the heartland of Topp's support (BC) with the HST referendum so recently passed, and I don't imagine it is mere conincidence that this was slipped into a jobs policy announcement released while Dewar is in B.C.

As for how it happened, I expect it has much to do with the fact that Brian does not have the instincts of an elected politician to stay on message 24/7. His instincts are those of a policy guy who, it seems, can be drawn into talking about what he really thinks about issues by a good interviewer.