NDP leadership race #128

Wilf Day wrote:

Despite your innuendo, Broadbent did NOT say "Andybody-but-Mulcair." If he had wanted to say "Topp is my first choice, or Nash, stop Mulcair" he would have said that a week ago before any ballots were cast. He didn't. He didn't say it yesterday either.

And this is my point.

The strong Mulcair supporters are taking this as the highest offense, and the strong Mulcair haters are excited that this vindicates their reasons for stopping him.

But in reality, the criticisms are far less than "nuclear". This isn't a pitch to stop Mulcair at any costs. This was a last minute pitch for Topp, when the media called up Ed Broadbent and asked him how he feels about Topp vs. Mulcair, and he told them what he felt honestly. He stopped far short of trying to destroy Mulcair, because he's expressing a preference, not an ultimatum.

Guaranteed, the top party brass will come together around the leader, regardless of who it is. They will do their best attempt at a love-in.

The only question is whether the members will be able to look passed the occasional ugliness of the leadership race, let go of any grudges, and cheer for the party.

I'm less worried about what the candidates say to each other than I am what happens on the convention floor. I worry we're destined for some kind of war, because people will start hooting and hollaring at the first criticism, no matter how slight. If there's anyone who can inflame this conflict, it's us, on the ground, in the blogosphere, and through the grassroots.

iancosh wrote:

In the previous thread (#127), North Star wrote:

"The Mulcair supporters have outed themselves to be as vicious as the Topp ones but have only come out when they have been cornered instead of going on the offensive like Topp did. If the party remains divided both the Mulcair and Topp camps are going to be responsible. Like I said I was willing to put Mulcair fairly high on my ballot but people like you [referring to NorthReport] have blown it for him..."

http://rabble.ca/comment/1328763

 

I'm astonished that people are equating commenters on Rabble with the actual campaigns of the candidates. A few supporters post some nasty comments, and then that's reason enough to reject the candidates whom they support? Talk about guilt by association!

Charles Manson may have wanted to be the fifth Beatle, but that didn't turn me off John Lennon.

I've noticed it outside of babble obviously. Of course not everyone who says they are supporting Mulcair are like this but certain people who are actively campaigning for him have begun to get rather cocky and dismissive.

My dad is in his 80s, mostly disinterested in the race, and definitely not excited about any of the candidates – Mulcair being no exception. We just had lunch. He told me about how he and others in his seniors residence think Broadbent is out of line, and has rendered himself irrelevant to the party. He feels that, whoever wins, the wise thing to do would be to get as much distance from Broadbent as possible.

My dad thinks it's a very sad last act for a senior politician. But then, what does he know? He's just an ordinary Canadian.

Michelle is talking a lot of sense.  And TheArchitect makes some perspicacious points about what actually is going to work in 2015.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Yes Rakhmatov. It is clearly the front runner who is having the worst campaign. Thanks for more of your valuable insight.

You're welcome.

But do try to pay attention, I didn't say he's running the "worst campaign" but an awful one for the supposed "frontrunner" (which I just said I don't believe is the case either).  I guess you've never heard of Mike Farnworth.

Typical Mulcair apologists, they ignore all substantive arguments and resort almost exclusively to hissy-fits and tantrums when anyone dares to question their Dear Leader.  That said, while I wish they would see the risk they are taking with the party and Jack's legacy, there are in fact a few more thoughtful advocates of Mulcair around here (i.e. a Nicky or Hunky_Munky for example) but fortunately I've been rather struck by how they are outnumbered by folks like NorthReport.  So many of Mulcair's advocates are fanatic, ignorant and reactionary hacks who in the end have helped turn off people from Mulcair and aided the Anybody-But-Mulcair forces with their arrogance and stridency. 

Charles wrote:

I'll leave most of your assinine, pedantic and simply wrong post aside but to this point, this is why we have leadership races... I'm simply pointing out if you take the hyperbolic extreme position based on nothing but hearsay and bullshit you can position things however you like.

Again, no attempt to even deal with legitimate arguments, just paroxysms.  Revealing really, when people get hysterical like this and start dishing out ad hominem you know it's because they can't respond.

Wilf Day wrote:

Rakhmetov wrote:

If he hadn't disingenuously talked about moving the party to the Right, the Anybody-But-Mulcair crowd may have been unable to find an issue to galvanize opponents together against him.

Despite your innuendo, Broadbent did NOT say "Andybody-but-Mulcair." If he had wanted to say "Topp is my first choice, or Nash, stop Mulcair" he would have said that a week ago before any ballots were cast. He didn't. He didn't say it yesterday either.

Another strawman, where did I claim Broadbent explicitly said "anybody-but-Mulcair"?  But it's pretty obvious what he's doing.  Nash is no doubt higher than Mulcair on his ballot, like a lot of Topp people.  Prominent supporters of a campaign don't like to be seen publicly endorsing other candidates as it takes away focus from and even undermines their first choice, amongst other reasons.  

And people can keep baselessly asserting ad nauseum that any criticism of Mulcair for his moves to shift the party to the Right is "innuendo" (despite the preponderance of compelling evidence that it's true) all they want but it's pretty obvious to most people by now what he's doing, i.e. to the membership, nearly all the other candidates, leading figures in the party, practically the entire media.  Everyone in Canada seems to get it except a handful of people on Rabble.  It's rather amazing how naive and in denial some can be, I guess when you get in a bubble and too deep into a campaign it's hard to be objective.  Intellectually honest proponents of Mulcair should make a case for him that he can win the middle by strategically tacking a little to the centre on some key issues, but instead they have to defend his muddled and dishonest narrative that he is not moving the party anywhere but forward followed by a wink.

writer wrote:

My dad is in his 80s, mostly disinterested in the race, and definitely not excited about any of the candidates – Mulcair being no exception. We just had lunch. He told me about how he and others in his seniors residence think Broadbent is out of line, and has rendered himself irrelevant to the party. He feels that, whoever wins, the wise thing to do would be to get as much distance from Broadbent as possible.

My dad thinks it's a very sad last act for a senior politician. But then, what does he know? He's just an ordinary Canadian.

I'm sure you will find a lot of Broadbent's old supporters would agree with your dad.

Anyways, I just read a tweet that noted that Broadbent's moves came on the "Ides of March". Wow. Seems like an interesting coincidence.

mark_alfred wrote:

A former Mulcair endorser, Sana Hassainia, a Quebec MP, has switched to Topp.  I think this is the first time someone has switched camps in this leadership race.

If she's willing to change leadership camps, perhaps she is open to crossing the floor too.  Will she be the next Lise St. Denis?  The Liberals would be happy to have her.    

1springgarden]</p> <p>[quote=howsannie wrote:

All of you Topp supporting/Mulcair hating brothers and sisters should take a look at ROI Capital Fund on whose Board of Directors Mr. Topp has sat for several years. He is one of eight members of that Board which includes such notoble social democrats as Bay Street lawyer John Langs, CML Industries's Claude Theberge or Trimark Investments' Brad Badeau. In any event, Mr. Topp's participation on that Board raises serious questions as to all of the bluster and rhetoric about his social democratic authenticity

Could be related to a labour pension fund or labour sponsored investment fund. As for the investments themselves, any union pension trustee could be associated with the underlying investments if one wanted to. It certainly raises a question, but doesn't really provide an answer that impugns Topp.

Actually, Springgarden, Thats way too easy and convenient an answer  for Mr. Topp. Under Mr. Topp's helm, ACTRA Toronto CHOSE to do close business with ROI Capital Fund. In addition he is one of only eight members of the Board and a member of the Fund's audit committee. He had and continues to have a a substantial and influential voice in the Company.

Wilf Day wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

For all his perceived strengths Broadbent is a loser politically. Always has been.

That's ridiculous. If you are supporting Mulcair, you do his campaign discredit. Ed not only always won in Oshawa, but he took the NDP to record heights in the 1980s and was, for a while, leading all other parties. "Once more popular than Trudeau."

Very true.

And let's not forget that until one year ago, Broadbent was the most successful NDP leader in history.

TheArchitect wrote:

The other point I should make is that I think it's a lot harder for left-wing parties to be elected as "least unpopular" than for right-wing parties.  This is because left-wing parties tend to benefit from higher voter turnout, while right-wing parties benefit from lower voter turnout.  (Think about the Cons' voter suppression schemes.)  An election where people are voting for the "least unpopular" party is not likely to be an election that will inspire high turnout.

New Democrats need to increase voter turnout to win.  And we can't do that just by making people hate the Cons.  We have to put forth a clear message about how we'll change the country and inspire Canadians not merely to vote against the Cons but to vote for the New Democrats.

see, i don't agree.  quebec was jack, quebec was mulcair, quebec was the campaign, but quebec was also and as much 1) very unpopular government; 2) very unpopular opposition; 3) suddenly irrelevant regional party.  the way that i see to power basically focuses on marginalizing the liberals, finishing off the bq as a major electoral force (and 4 seats is more major than the green party, mind), and going head to head with a deeply unpopular harper government.  that's when we win power provincially, and that's how we'll win power federally.  we will never have an obama-esque leader in canada, we don't have the same history or electoral system or even desire for a christ-like figure in our political system.  and that's good, because if we won on that platform, we'd let everyone down and you're right that it would be difficult to get re-elected.  i've been looking at old broadbent videos, and i was shocked to see how much his rhetoric lines up with that of topp.  unless i missed something and we haven't already lost all those debates, i can't see how we win going down the garden path.  no, we need to pummel them with truth and good ideas, expose to canadians how wrong these guys are, dish out our platform with the most credible possible messenger, and then marginalize all the rest by polarizing the argument as between our two parties.  that's mulcair.

Debater wrote:

Wilf Day wrote:

That's ridiculous. If you are supporting Mulcair, you do his campaign discredit. Ed not only always won in Oshawa, but he took the NDP to record heights in the 1980s and was, for a while, leading all other parties. "Once more popular than Trudeau."

Very true.

And let's not forget that until one year ago, Broadbent was the most successful NDP leader in history.

I suppose you mean, "the most successful NDP FEDERAL leader in history". He increased the NDP popular vote to peak at 2.5% above the previous record under Tommy Douglas.

Lest we forget, there are many provincial NDP Leaders who actually succeeded in getting their parties elected to government.

Tommy Douglas, Allen Blakeney, Roy Romanow, Lorne Calvert

Ed Schreyer, Howard Pawley, Gary Doer, Gary Selinger

Dave Barrett, Michael Harcourt, Glen Clark

Bob Rae

Darrell Dexter

Tony Penikett, Piers MacDonald

I might be missing some. And these are just the names of those who lead NDP governments. Not to mention those who served as opposition leaders.

Unionist wrote:

algomafalcon wrote:

Anyways, I just read a tweet that noted that Broadbent's moves came on the "Ides of March". Wow. Seems like an interesting coincidence.

 

You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Some amateur play company needs to re-enact the NDP leadership contest as a Shakespearean drama. 

writer wrote:

My dad is in his 80s, mostly disinterested in the race, and definitely not excited about any of the candidates – Mulcair being no exception. We just had lunch. He told me about how he and others in his seniors residence think Broadbent is out of line, and has rendered himself irrelevant to the party. He feels that, whoever wins, the wise thing to do would be to get as much distance from Broadbent as possible.

My dad thinks it's a very sad last act for a senior politician. But then, what does he know? He's just an ordinary Canadian.

My Dad is also in his 80s and an NDP member and he told me he had exactly the same reaction. He thinks Broadbent did damage to the party.

No doubt at the time Caesar's apologists claimed he was the only person able to rule and grow the Empire by 0015 BC and hold onto to the gains of the Olive Surge that he was solely responsible for.  Julius Caesar wasn't trying to take the Republic out of Rome, no, he was trying to bring Rome to the Republic.

Wayne and Schuster already did it, "Wipe the blood off my toga".  There, that should date me nicely.

These sort of discussion forums tend to get all pissy and mean spirited owing, I suspect, to the distance involved and the lack of spirits.

They are people, well meaning (I truly believe) and well intentioned to do what is best for the party.

Don't blame the Topp "camp" for Broadbent's comments and subsequent appearances.  Ed can stand by them all on his own.  I think they are wrong and tend to undermine his stature within the party - but that too will pass.

I want, again, to remind people that the "worst" that this campaign has gotten is on display right now and really is not that bad.  We have all seen much, much more vitriol when there was far, far less at stake.  We really ought to commend ourselves.

It is a fair question of how far Mulcair's leadership might divide the caucus (I suspect no more than any other choice might - there are always some "my way or the highway" types - and perhaps less given that he has more MPs supporting him than we previously had even had MPs) but I have seen nobody suggest that they would be unable to work with Mulcair.  True some on this board have suggested that Libby and he wouldn't be able to work together based on what happened but I haven't heard it from anyone directly.

Topp, in particular, has really pushed the "he's not a true Social Democrat" theme and it is a legit debate to have.  It is also one that we would be having as we get close to govenment regardless of the leadership choices on offer.  It was a question asked of Jack.  It is a question asked of Romanow, Doer, Dexter, etc.  It is also not bad to have it now, in public.  If Mulcair is the "right wing" candidate, and I'm not sure that is fair but whatever, then in some respect would that inocculate him (and us) somewhat from the "radical socialists" at the door arguement that will be coming from the Tories?  Perhaps Topp's attacks on Mulcair may have the effect of making him a less frightening NDP PM-in waiting than would be the case were this to be a Mulcair love-in.

i think i've followed this leadership contest as closely as i've ever followed anything in my entire life, including any of the past campaigns, the research for my master's thesis, the birth of my sister.  while i'm sick of it and really wish it were over, i actually worry i may go into some sort of withdrawal.  i went from being a once-a-week poster on here to stalking this board basically anytime i'm near a computer or phone, which is almost always.  if i were so far away from home, i'd think of starting a support group.

NDPP wrote:

Hebert: Broadbent Has Burdened The Next NDP Leader

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1147616--hebert-broa...

The avatar of conventional wisdom.

Oh, and CFL