I'll knock off these "personal attacks" (more like defending myself, and I did state "acting like") when Unionist ditches his nasty attitude.
Oh and it was hardly a "critique", but considering sexism is allowed to slide here, ditto the inconsistent moderation, I'm not surprised by how you framed it.
Allow me to change the subject-
There is a debate on the 5th. Will it be televised (cpac)? Will it be streamed or recorded and put on youtube?
I'll knock off these "personal attacks" (more like defending myself, and I did state "acting like") when Unionist ditches his nasty attitude.
Oh and it was hardly a "critique", but considering sexism is allowed to slide here, ditto the inconsistent moderation, I'm not surprised by how you framed it.
Unionist didn't attack you, OnTheLeft. He attacked/questioned Nash's proposals.
Oh yeah. He was very kind and respectful, and asked thoughtful questions.
Let me reiterate: Who came up with this idea? How is it compatible with the notion of universality of social programs? In short, what kind of crap is this??
Either you can explain it, or you can just repeat that it's a "good idea". I'll need a little more convincing than that.
OnTheLeft, the matter is done. Move on.
Try your best not to take the internetz seriously. I know its tempting to lash out at people who have an angry tone to their writing, but we must take into account that we are human beings and we will always misinterpret symbols, bla bla bla
I think most people are okay with the idea that in picking a leader, we're picking more than a spokesperson. We're picking someone who has actual opinions on where they'd like to take the party and the country.
And they're not going to dictate their opinion to us. They'll propose something to us, and if we like it, we support their candidacy, and support their ideas at any policy convention.
There are voices here asking for more policy details. Never thought I'd see someone asking for less policy from the candidates. But to each their own.
OnTheLeft, the matter is done. Move on.
I'm trying to.
Harkening back to the info on who has the most endoresements [answer: Mulcair, by a lot].
Who had the most endorsements, by a lot, in 2003?
Jack Layton had two I believe- the two lefties then in Caucus. [Nystrom might have had as few, but if he did, I know of at least two MPs then who said either Blaikie or Nystrom, but not Layton.]
Not only were the arguments in favour of those two-especially Blaikie- VERY similar to the arguments made in favour of Mulcair.... they were made then by some of the same people now making the arguments about Mulcair... including more than one person in this present Babble discussion.
Same compelling arguments.
Same impressive beard. 
Gravitas- check.
Does all that mean the main selling points about Mulcair are bunk?
No, they might be true this time even if they were not in 2003.
But the emphasis is on that word might.
Minimum point: take the compelling nature of that narrative with a grain of salt.
Another question.
If you can pick only one, what is one main reason that Jack Layton won the leadership race in 2003?
Harkening back to the info on who has the most endoresements [answer: Mulcair, by a lot].
Who had the most endorsements, by a lot, in 2003?
Jack Layton had two I believe- the two lefties then in Caucus. [Nystrom might have had as few, but if he did, I know of at least two MPs then who said either Blaikie or Nystrom, but not Layton.]
Not only were the arguments in favour of those two-especially Blaikie- VERY similar to the arguments made in favour of Mulcair.... they were made then by some of the same people now making the arguments about Mulcair... including more than one person in this present Babble discussion.
Same compelling arguments.
Same impressive beard.
Gravitas- check.
I don't see too many similarities between Blaikie and Mulcair's campaigns... what areas are you thinking of?
Another question.
If you can pick only one, what is one main reason that Jack Layton won the leadership race in 2003?
I think Jack was someone new and had flair for getting media attention.
I was on Sun TV (!) talking about my support for Romeo Saganash. Jessie Gresley-Jones spoke about Nathan Cullen's campaign.
Look back in this thread- what's the central selling point of Mulcair's campaign?
And you dont recognise Blaikie's campaign?
I'm sure the featured words are different, but that doesnt make the focal appeal different. And the message was delivered with the same air of the nearly obvious.
Look back in this thread- what's the central selling point of Mulcair's campaign?
Most popular party figure in Quebec, undefeated electoral record, cabinet experience?
Another question.
If you can pick only one, what is one main reason that Jack Layton won the leadership race in 2003?
I think Jack was someone new and had flair for getting media attention.
I was going to wait and see what kind of answers turned up. But I think before this goes sdieways [not because of you HM, just inevitable] I'll go ahead and throw in my answer.
The argument was made that Jack was good at media, but he certainly wasnt proving it by dominating.
All those characteristic arguments were the same as they are here- they got argued both ways. None of them were compelling enough for Jack to dominate the field- which he never did. For every person who thought Jack had flair there were at least as many who thought he was a slick phony. That didnt sink him, but neither did his 'flair' trump Blaikies assets.
Jack won because he out-organized Blaikie and Nystrom- left them behind in the dust.
I met Jack several months earlier- having barely heard of him when he came out here. I didnt think he had flair or charm.
I watched him for about 4 hours. Listened to him. And like some other people I was close to then- the ones who didnt suport Blaikie or Nystrom- I said 'this guy knows what he is doing. We need that.'
I was on Sun TV (!) talking about my support for Romeo Saganash. Jessie Gresley-Jones spoke about Nathan Cullen's campaign.
A lot younger than I thought you would be, writer ;)
Nobody is dominating this leadership contest organizationally like Jack did in 2003 (I think a first ballot victory is very unlikely this time), but Mulcair is giving it as good as anyone else. He's gotten the most individual donors, is pulling in endorsements far beyond his traditional constituency and I noticed only Mulcair and Nash seemed able to organize debate watching parties outside of Halifax in the last debate.
Hunky_Monkey, the crooked collar takes YEARS off me!
I was on Sun TV (!) talking about my support for Romeo Saganash. Jessie Gresley-Jones spoke about Nathan Cullen's campaign.
Great interview, writer.
Thanks, wage zombie!
what's the central selling point of Mulcair's campaign?
That even though he's a bit scary and a citizen of France, Canadian voters will switch over to the NDP if he's the leader?
Thomas Mulcair is an outstanding parliamentary performer, and a terrific M.P. Those people interested in policy are still waiting to see what he has to say beyond the three pieces on his web site: cap and trade, retirement security, and women's equality.
I have not attended a Q&A with him. Maybe he has said more in person.
On the other hand, those of us who are more interested in policy coming from the people of Canada and from party members are not waiting for any such thing.
On the other hand, those of us who are more interested in policy coming from the people of Canada and from party members are not waiting for any such thing.
Well said, writer. By the way, great interview!
And Duncan, I'm saying this respectfully, when it comes to choosing a leader, I'm far more interested in looking at what individuals have said and done in their lives than in the policies they promise to push for in convention (even though most of them, playing to the crowd, don't even remember that leaders have no special right to make or even propose policy in the NDP).
And when you actually look at some of the stuff they concoct out of their heads and post on their web sites - and dare to take it seriously and [b]critique[/b] it - you are looked at as if you came from Mars. These things aren't for discussion. They're for impressing the impressionable. Or playing through some ritual. Confusing a leadership race with an election, with all the platforms and promises to boot. And then they release them bit by bit, so you can just burst with the suspense. Not.
Oh yeah, I forgot Dewar. He's so stupid that he doesn't know you're supposed to hand out political favours in [b]secret[/b] - so he has already appointed his Deputy Leader!
Paul's all right. You, in particular, have no business calling anybody "stupid".
I don't think the comparison of Mulcair to Blaikie is very apt. As i recall Blaikie was sold as a great parliamentarian who would be a relentless attack dog toward the government. Mulcair may be praised for the same qualities but primarily he is being sold as a guy who has proven he can build organisations and win votes, which I don't recall people saying about Blaikie.
Paul's all right. You, in particular, have no business calling anybody "stupid".
You're new here, so you may be unaware that we're allowed to call public figures "stupid", but not make snide personal attacks (like yours above) against each other. If you can't tolerate Paul being called what he is (and I know him personally), why not pick another candidate?
One other thing that loomed large re Layton/Blaikie was Quebec. Jack had a strategy and his French was approaching fluency. Blaikie lacked both. And as much as I love and respect Blaikie, his vision and talents just weren't up for the job before the party in 2003. At least in this respect, Dewar may be the closest of the eight to a Blaikie figure. It's certainly not Mulcair.
OnTheLeft, the matter is done. Move on.
But for the rule of imperialism. Why are you bullying people?
Guess I need to do more flagging like others.
Paul's all right. You, in particular, have no business calling anybody "stupid".
You're new here, so you may be unaware that we're allowed to call public figures "stupid", but not make snide personal attacks (like yours above) against each other. If you can't tolerate Paul being called what he is (and I know him personally), why not pick another candidate?
You're old here, so why not respect some discussion? How is "stupid" not a SNIDE personal attack? I think I will pick another candidate.
I was only 11 or 12 back in 2003, but didn't Ed Broadbent's support help him?
I was too young for Jack's nomination too.
But my impression -- reading about it -- was that there were factions saying we needed to move to the left, factions saying we needed to move to the right, factions saying we need to go "Third Way" Tony Blair, factions saying we need to disband and start over, factions saying we need to double down on labor, factions saying we need to tap into the anti-globalization movement...
Jack won because he built a big tent. He could appeal to the left/right/pragmatists/idealists and heal some of the bitter disputes in the party. Those bitter disputes came because the party was at risk of disappearing at the time.
2012 is a very different time than 2003. I don't think any comparison is valid.
But since people asked about Mulcair, most of his supporters say "he's from Quebec, he polls well in Quebec, we need to hold Quebec." I'd just point out that there are no major policy differences between the candidates, so we're basically electing the best spokesperson. Mulcair represents continuity in policy with Jack Layton, and probably one of the best speakers in both languages.
But I maintain that Mulcair's advocates turn a lot of people off by focusing on the wrong things.
I was only 11 or 12 back in 2003, but didn't Ed Broadbent's support help him?
Yes, I think you're right. Jack also had Audrey McLaughlin's declared support as well. There was quite a wave of support moving in Jack's direction, I recall. I don't remember if Alexa declared support for anyone, but that may have been less appropriate for her as she was the out-going leader at the time, whereas Ed and Audrey had more distance from their times as leader.
Back in 2003 I voted for Lorne Nystrom. I'm afraid I was a late convert to Jack's leadership, and didn't care for him for the first several years. Of course he ended up being one of the finest leaders our country has ever seen.
Back in 2003 I voted for Lorne Nystrom. I'm afraid I was a late convert to Jack's leadership, and didn't care for him for the first several years. Of course he ended up being one of the finest leaders our country has ever seen.
As has been said many times, especially by Brian Topp, the Jack of 2003 was not the Jack of 2011. Took eight years and three general elections to shape the Jack that Canadians felt comfortable giving him the keys to Stornoway.
As has been said many times, especially by Brian Topp, the Jack of 2003 was not the Jack of 2011. Took eight years and three general elections to shape the Jack that Canadians felt comfortable giving him the keys to Stornoway.
And remember: it wasn't just about giving *him* the keys to Stornoway. It was about giving the NDP the keys to Stornoway--which until 2011 seemed, to many, a "Sonny Tufts?!?" proposition...
And actually, digging back into the past of babble, I found a post from myself which reminds me that I did have Jack as my #2 choice, after Nystrom. And I noted that it was on the influence of McLaughlin's backing that I gave him the #2 slot. Interesting - I'd forgottent that!
Anyway, we're not talking about 2003, we're talking 2012. But I guess the point (and it's been made a number of times by others) is that we must strike a balance between a leader who is ready to be PM in waiting the day they are elected, and someone who can take the next several years to build their national profile (or regional profile).
I was not talking about Jack the public personality. [The Jack of 2003 was not the Jack of 2011.]
It is NOT all about public profile, and develeoping that or not having to.
My comment is that the Jack Layton of 2003 already knew what he was doing. That had everything to do with the success that followed.
I was not talking about Jack the public personality. [The Jack of 2003 was not the Jack of 2011.]
It is NOT all about public profile, and develeoping that or not having to.
My comment is that the Jack Layton of 2003 already knew what he was doing. That had everything to do with the success that followed.
Some might argue that only getting 19 seats in 2004 wasn't a great start :)
Some things I will be looking for in trying to assess the contours of the race:
I was too young for Jack's nomination too.
But my impression -- reading about it -- was that there were factions saying we needed to move to the left, factions saying we needed to move to the right, factions saying we need to go "Third Way" Tony Blair, factions saying we need to disband and start over, factions saying we need to double down on labor, factions saying we need to tap into the anti-globalization movement...
Jack won because he built a big tent. He could appeal to the left/right/pragmatists/idealists and heal some of the bitter disputes in the party. Those bitter disputes came because the party was at risk of disappearing at the time.
2012 is a very different time than 2003. I don't think any comparison is valid.
But since people asked about Mulcair, most of his supporters say "he's from Quebec, he polls well in Quebec, we need to hold Quebec." I'd just point out that there are no major policy differences between the candidates, so we're basically electing the best spokesperson. Mulcair represents continuity in policy with Jack Layton, and probably one of the best speakers in both languages.
But I maintain that Mulcair's advocates turn a lot of people off by focusing on the wrong things.
I think there are some major policy differences and approaches to the economy between the candidates (Nash's progressive or arguably Nordic model inspired economic policies, Martin Singh repeating right-wing Republican talking points like "grow the economy", Cullen practically gushing over the private sector and business, Mulcair supporting NAFTA and praising the Doer government for lowering small business tax rate to zero). I also think there are similaries between 2012 and 2003. There are different factions in the party and these could be made much worse with more polarization if a uniter like Jack isn't elected, and instead go with a "my way or the highway" type.
We do need to hold Quebec but also to grow our base in the rest of the country so that we can form government. Mulcair is a major reason we did so well in Quebec, and nothing suceeds like success.
I was too young for Jack's nomination too.
But my impression -- reading about it -- was that there were factions saying we needed to move to the left, factions saying we needed to move to the right, factions saying we need to go "Third Way" Tony Blair, factions saying we need to disband and start over, factions saying we need to double down on labor, factions saying we need to tap into the anti-globalization movement...
Jack won because he built a big tent. He could appeal to the left/right/pragmatists/idealists and heal some of the bitter disputes in the party. Those bitter disputes came because the party was at risk of disappearing at the time.
2012 is a very different time than 2003. I don't think any comparison is valid.
But since people asked about Mulcair, most of his supporters say "he's from Quebec, he polls well in Quebec, we need to hold Quebec." I'd just point out that there are no major policy differences between the candidates, so we're basically electing the best spokesperson. Mulcair represents continuity in policy with Jack Layton, and probably one of the best speakers in both languages.
But I maintain that Mulcair's advocates turn a lot of people off by focusing on the wrong things.
Humm and I though Mulair was concerned about Canadians having adequate pensions when they retire.
For the record, with comment, what Mulcair actually said about NAFTA:
“Canada has to be able to continue to stand up for its role in the world and in its negotiations with the Americans – whether on softwood lumber where it was a complete and utter sellout by the Conservatives and the Bloc – or whether it is on the current negotiations on perimeter security.”
“We’ve just got to stop being such chumps when it comes to dealing with the Americans. We have to understand that it is in their best interest and in ours to keep things moving.”
“To some people, the NAFTA is an anathema. The NAFTA is the first international agreement that had provisions dealing with the environment. You can’t throw out the baby with the bath water.”
“When you look at how Chapter 11 has been enforced, when you are told that a company has a right under the NAFTA to continue to export a substance that our government has considered deleterious, a substance that was an additive in gasoline. When you look at the fact that the Americans are now fighting back on a ban that I helped enforce in Quebec on 2-4-D, which is a pesticide, telling us that we have no right to ban 2-4-D, then I say we have to stand up and fight back and just tell the Americans that they are not going to determine for us that we have to add certain poisons to our environment and that’s not what the NAFTA is all about.”
Right, and he supports it.
Right, and he supports it.
Yes, the same way every candidate in this leadership race and Jack Layton "support it", if by "support it" you mean "wouldn't withdraw from it".
