Picking sides - Macleans.ca

Picking sides


Martin Singh and Jack Harris go to Thomas Mulcair.

Tom Mulcair stands out as the one who has the experience and skills necessary to defeat Stephen Harper in the next federal election and help us form the first NDP government,” said Harris, MP for St. John’s East.

But Sana Hassainia goes from Mr. Mulcair to Brian Topp.

I have carefully followed the debates as well as the race in general. After serious reflection, I decided to switch my support to Brian Topp. I have truly appreciated his determination to put forward progressive values.


Picking sides

  1. I think you missed most important side picker yesterday, Wherry.
    Broadbent is desperate to keep control of party in Toronto with his anglo comrades and they don’t like Quebec guy. It seems like voters in BC are going to decide balance of power between toronto elites and Que newbies. 

    Globe/Mail ~ March 16:
    “Ideological and personal fault lines are growing in the NDP as rivals gang up against the program and leadership skills of front-runner Thomas Mulcair in the final days of the race to find Jack Layton’s replacement.

    Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent, who has endorsed backroom strategist Brian Topp, got things going by criticizing Mr. Mulcair’s promise to move the party toward the political middle. In an interview with The Globe and Mail, he said it would be a “central mistake” for the party.”

    • And I think Ed Broadbent is dead right.

      Keep in mind Broadbent has dedicated his entire political life to this party.

      Under his leadership the NDP increased their seat count election after election.

      When he left the party crashed.

      It was Broadbent who then pushed and supported Layton for leader when no one else would, and Layton made his gratitude very clear in this regard.

      The recent breakthrough for the NDP was thanks almost entirely to Jack Layton’s experienced leadership, and Broadbent had the clear vision to promote Layton years in advance of this.

      Broadbent’s political instincts and honest straight forward manner are above reproach in my opinion, and I say this as someone who would vote NDP when hell froze over.

      That he came out now demonstrates his great concern for his party and nothing else, as Ed has never demonstrated anything but honest integrity.

      How many politicians can one say that about anymore?

      P.S. Your “anglo” comments are utterly ridiculous. Ed Broadbent has been crystal clear in regards to his respect for Quebecers and the absolute and undeniable need for the leader to be both fluent in french and respectful of their culture. I’m not sure how one can claim otherwise frankly.

  2. Personally I think Mulcair would be a one-way ticket to marginalizing the NDP again.

    I mean we’re talking about a guy who days after a landslide victory for his party, went on national television claiming a US conspiracy concerning the assination of Osama Bin Laden.

    Crazy like that doesn’t win government.

    While I’m sure Mulcair could probably help the party hold on to a good number of seats in Quebec, they would get killed outside of the province.

    And in the context of history, counting on votes in Quebec is an insanity of sorts itself. I mean we’re talking about an electorate that creates and destroys political parties like it changes socks.

    • Agreed.  If Mulcair gets it I think we can kiss the NDP goodbye again.

    • “crazy like that doesn’t win government”… but crazy like that might very well win an NDP leadership contest. We are after all, talking about Canada’s Truther party. I can’t imagine a whole lot of Dippers would have been anything less than intrigued by his wild and baseless musings.

      • You’re right of course, which is likely why Broadbent came out at this juncture, because otherwise I can’t imagine it from him.

        The best gift the NDP could give to the Liberals is Thomas Mulcair. LOL

  3. Broadbent should recall that in the two following elections after his retirement the NDP won 9 seats each time under weak leaders, not controversial leaders.

    • He already seems keenly aware of that. He was the guy after all who stepped in to push Layton forward after it was clear his party couldn’t fight its way out of a paper bag.

      Layton was not weak but he also wasn’t “controversial” in sense you seemed to mean it.

      Mulcair simply loses control of himself too much. He has a massive temper and tendency to go so far over the top that it’s nearly impossible to climb down from.

      A leader without some sense of self-discipline is a disaster waiting to happen, mark my words.

  4. Sorry to see all the negativity. Mr. Mulcair regards the support of Maclean’s and
    its’ commenting cohort as so vital to his cause.