2017 NDP Leadership Race Predictions

157 posts / 0 new
Last post
cco

For me, it's less about the potential time a leader would have to take learning French than the fact that said potential leader didn't consider learning French important enough to do before running for the top job, and therefore may not give a shit after winning the leadership. But hey, Harper improved his French after becoming prime minister. And isn't that the NDP litmus test, whether our leaders are as qualified as Stephen Harper?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And isn't that the NDP litmus test, whether our leaders are as qualified as Stephen Harper?

Perhaps.  But the NDP could also choose Jack Layton's French, or Jean Chretien's English for a baseline.

But I really get the feeling that this is just a new way to say "Singh and Angus are out" without actually saying that you disagree with Singh or Angus.  Sure, it's not for nothing, but even the once-vaunted Ruth Ellen Brosseau had to put some effort into it.  And it's my understanding that that matters more than perfect fluency.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
And isn't that the NDP litmus test, whether our leaders are as qualified as Stephen Harper?

Perhaps.  But the NDP could also choose Jack Layton's French, or Jean Chretien's English for a baseline.

But I really get the feeling that this is just a new way to say "Singh and Angus are out" without actually saying that you disagree with Singh or Angus.  Sure, it's not for nothing, but even the once-vaunted Ruth Ellen Brosseau had to put some effort into it.  And it's my understanding that that matters more than perfect fluency.

I know REB isn't running, but when did she cease to be "vaunted"?

​Is de-vaunting a painful procedure?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Well, it just seems that she hasn't been vaunted lately.

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
What a huge disadvantage the NDP will be at if their new leader, as opposed to planning for the next election, has to spend a lot of time take French language lessons.

What if they have to spend a whole lot of their time taking care of a newborn baby??

Good point, since if it was Caron or Singh or Angus whose partners were expecting a new baby, would that even be an issue?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Well, it just seems that she hasn't been vaunted lately.

Maybe they're just booked solid at the vaunting shop.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Good point, since if it was Caron or Singh or Angus whose partners were expecting a new baby, would that even be an issue?

Shouldn't be one, regardless of who.  I think it's reasonable to be concerned with Singh's and Angus' French skills in the context of the leadership race.  But to fret that, if chosen, they'd have to spend all day listening to Berlitz tapes and conjugating verbs instead of Making Canada Great Again is just concern trolling.  There seems to be plenty of good reasons to not prefer the two; no need to imagination a new one up.

mark_alfred

It's only here that I've seen Singh's French be deemed as bad.  Everywhere else, by those who speak French, feel his French is fine.  Generally, it's felt that Caron speaks the best French, Ashton and Singh speak well (generally Ashton being deemed to be a bit better, but Singh is seen as acceptable), and Angus' French is deemed as unacceptably poor.

blairz blairz's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

blairz wrote:
thank you

 

Not meaning to snark but just asking are there polls folks are going by for these predictions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party_leadership_election%2...

SeekingAPolitic...

I think the encounter with the protester sealed the deal with singh.  I had watching CBC most the day and evening,  alot good coverage for him.  The last thing the voters will remeber will be how skillfully dealt with protester and happy thoughts of him.  I thought there was chance for one of others to have a chance but not going happen.  Singh wins.  I don't know when (which round) but he is the new leader.  This is how I am voting.

1.Caron

2.Ashton

3.still deciding.

Mighty Middle

Just finished watching CBC Sunday Scrum and all three panelists agree that Jagmeet Singh has this in the bag. He will be the next leader of the federal NDP

josh

Mighty Middle wrote:

Just finished watching CBC Sunday Scrum and all three panelists agree that Jagmeet Singh has this in the bag. He will be the next leader of the federal NDP

And he'all join Maxime Bernier as a party leader.  The insiders guaranteed that one too.

pietro_bcc

The pundits have been agreeing that Singh had it in the bag since before he even entered the race. They also agreed that Hillary Clinton would currently be the president, that Brexit would never happen and that Max Bernier would be the leader of the conservatives. News channels really should start evaluating whether they extend someone's contract based on the actual accuracy of their punditry.

Mainstream pundits (at least in North America, I don't consume European news) essentially just repeat the consensus groupthink that all the other pundits are saying, except from the point of view of whatever political party they support, its a waste of time to even watch, their insight into politics is no more sophisticated than anyone who is even moderately informed on politics.

Hunky_Monkey

josh wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Just finished watching CBC Sunday Scrum and all three panelists agree that Jagmeet Singh has this in the bag. He will be the next leader of the federal NDP

And he'all join Maxime Bernier as a party leader.  The insiders guaranteed that one too.

Actually, no they didn't.  The Conservative race was up in the air although many annointed Bernier as the frontrunner.  

SeekingAPolitic...

Just heard on CBC that Mr.Singh is the establishment candidate, no more please.  That by default means status quo to me.  CBC don't rub it in.:(

Establishment<-------------------------->Populism  180 Degree opposite pole

**************<----------------------++->   Thats my politics

**************<---++-------------------->  Thats how I see Singh

**************<--------++--------------->  Angus

**************<---------------++-------->  Caron

**************<--------------------++--->  Ashton

I wonder how various rabblers would place the candidates in my ad hoc scale.

josh

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

josh wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Just finished watching CBC Sunday Scrum and all three panelists agree that Jagmeet Singh has this in the bag. He will be the next leader of the federal NDP

And he'all join Maxime Bernier as a party leader.  The insiders guaranteed that one too.

Actually, no they didn't.  The Conservative race was up in the air although many annointed Bernier as the frontrunner.  

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/conservative-leadership-berniers-t...

And that doesn't even take into account commentators like Eric Grenier on the eve of the vote.

Debater

josh wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Just finished watching CBC Sunday Scrum and all three panelists agree that Jagmeet Singh has this in the bag. He will be the next leader of the federal NDP

And he'all join Maxime Bernier as a party leader.  The insiders guaranteed that one too.

Good point.  There are no guarantees in politics, and surprises do happen.

It's possible that one of the other NDP candidates will pull an upset over Singh the same way Scheer did to Bernier.

But at the moment, the odds probably still favour Singh.

JKR

josh wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

josh wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Just finished watching CBC Sunday Scrum and all three panelists agree that Jagmeet Singh has this in the bag. He will be the next leader of the federal NDP

And he'all join Maxime Bernier as a party leader.  The insiders guaranteed that one too.

Actually, no they didn't.  The Conservative race was up in the air although many annointed Bernier as the frontrunner.  

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/conservative-leadership-berniers-t...

And that doesn't even take into account commentators like Eric Grenier on the eve of the vote.

I think Grenier's prediction was pretty accurate:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-conservative-ballot-1.4125522

He saw it going 13 rounds with a very tight finish between Bernie and Scheer.

NorthReport

'the Bernier campaign said they’re feeling 99 per cent confident he will win'

Aristotleded24

Michael Moriarity wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

4) His refusal to *absolutely* commit to running federally in the next election regardless of the outcome (which by definition rules him out for standing again provincially next year) is a challenge. (Not to mention claiming that he knows that he will win is very arrogant, and thank you so much Niki for calling that out) It says a great deal about his commitment to the party. He is currently very well positioned within the Ontario NDP. Is he prepared to risk all of that to challenge a sitting MP for the greater benefit of the federal party?

As an NDP member in Hamilton, I just don't see the sense of this argument. If Singh does not win the federal leadership, why is it better for me that he run (and quite possibly lose) as a federal MP in 2019, than that he run provincially in 2018 and help the ONDP get closer to government in Ontario. In the best case, he could be a minister in a Horwath government. Why should I want him to promise that he won't do any of those things?

Point conceded, but on some level, this does remind me of the career politician thing that Harper threw at Ignatieff saying he'd go back to Harvard if he lost. Some people might wonder if he's looking at what is the best way to advance his own career.

Either way, I would think that should he win the federal leadership that this would by definition preclude him from running provincially next year. Should he resign his seat right away? I don't know.

What I don't understand is why he was convinced to run federally when he has no seat and no clear path, when there is still much work to be done in winning suburban GTA seats for the NDP provincially. What if the NDP loses that provincial seat without Singh?

cco

Anyone taking bets on whether the online voting will work better this year than in 2012?

ETA: It did. for me at least. Done in 3 minutes.

NorthReport

Anyone can usually predict results one or two days before an event if there are several recent polls available.

It is those that can forecast results a month or two before the event that have talent. 

timothy

It's pretty clear Sing will finish first on the first and likely only ballot. Polling, membership sign ups, get out the voter operation, and money points to that obvious conclusion. We don't have the same system as the tories did. For example, people have been voting for 12 days now. In ALL of the party's one member one vote processes across the country the leader on the first ballot has won. 

 

Debater

Chantal Hébert's column today discusses the NDP voting system:

Under the NDP formula of one member, one vote, the edge that comes from being familiar to a large pool of potential support is particularly valuable.

Some New Democrats — especially but not exclusively in Quebec — lament the fact that the leadership vote is not weighted to reflect the demographics of the country.

The NDP may not have a shot at winning government unless it can win seats in Quebec but anyone can become its leader without showing well in a province whose party ranks are thin.

Among the three main parties, this is a feature unique to the NDP.

The party brass — under Tom Mulcair’s leadership — had four years to fix the leadership election formula in a way that better reflects the electoral reality of Canada and it did not.

The outgoing leader probably did not expect the issue of the leadership to resurface as soon as it did.

Be that as it may, the failure to give Quebec a voice on party affairs commensurate with its demographic and/or caucus weight could contribute to make the notion that the New Democrat presence in the province is a blip a self-fulfilling prophecy.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/09/18/is-jagmeet-singh-poised-t...

timothy

The other voting system the tories used which essentially rewards dead riding associations isn't any better and the tories are going nowhere in Quebec despite using it. I doubt the ndp will change its leadership rules. Why would Singh change the rules he won on?

 

timothy

The other voting system the tories used which essentially rewards dead riding associations isn't any better and the tories are going nowhere in Quebec despite using it. I doubt the ndp will change its leadership rules. Why would Singh change the rules he won on?

 

Aristotleded24

Debater wrote:

Chantal Hébert's column today discusses the NDP voting system:

Under the NDP formula of one member, one vote, the edge that comes from being familiar to a large pool of potential support is particularly valuable.

Some New Democrats — especially but not exclusively in Quebec — lament the fact that the leadership vote is not weighted to reflect the demographics of the country.

The NDP may not have a shot at winning government unless it can win seats in Quebec but anyone can become its leader without showing well in a province whose party ranks are thin.

Among the three main parties, this is a feature unique to the NDP.

The party brass — under Tom Mulcair’s leadership — had four years to fix the leadership election formula in a way that better reflects the electoral reality of Canada and it did not.

The outgoing leader probably did not expect the issue of the leadership to resurface as soon as it did.

Be that as it may, the failure to give Quebec a voice on party affairs commensurate with its demographic and/or caucus weight could contribute to make the notion that the New Democrat presence in the province is a blip a self-fulfilling prophecy.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/09/18/is-jagmeet-singh-poised-t...

People in Quebec who want to have a say in the direction of the NDP have the same chance to sign up for memberships and have their say as anyone else in the country. Regional weighting gives a perception of unfairness which can hurt a party and breed resentment.

One member, one vote. That's the way to go. If a party is weak in a particular region it needs to win, then it has to do the hard work of engaging people in that region and listening to them. There are no shortcuts.

God, Chantal and the rest of the pundits need to stop their pronouncements from on high and come into the real world and see how us peasants live. Have any of them ever looked at someone holding a cardboard sign at a busy street corner and thought, "that looks like a good way for me to make some money?" I doubt it.

brookmere

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Should he resign his seat right away? I don't know

I think a lot of reasonable people, both within the NDP and without, would find it intolerable for the leader of a national party to be a subordinate to the leader of a provincial party.

Aristotleded24

Speaking of predictions, are there any veterans of the 2003 campaign? How did people expect that campagin to go before the votes were actually counted? Did Layton's convincing first ballot victory come as a surprise, either to the punditry or anyone here?

brookmere

Aristotleded24 wrote:
If a party is weak in a particular region it needs to win, then it has to do the hard work of engaging people in that region and listening to them.

That is precisely why parties guarantee voting weight to regions rather than simple one member one vote. Do you think electing a national leader based on votes from Toronto and Vancouver is going to win the hearts of voters elsewhere?

Mighty Middle

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Should he resign his seat right away? I don't know

Remember the leader of the Bloc is still sitting as a provincial MLA

ctrl190

I attended the leadership showcase yesterday in Hamilton. I entered thinking it was a two (or three) way race, but left thinking Singh probably takes it on the first ballot. 

Aristotleded24

brookmere wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:
If a party is weak in a particular region it needs to win, then it has to do the hard work of engaging people in that region and listening to them.

That is precisely why parties guarantee voting weight to regions rather than simple one member one vote. Do you think electing a national leader based on votes from Toronto and Vancouver is going to win the hearts of voters elsewhere?

But that gives the party an accurate picture of what it is working with and where it needs to grow. If the leader does well in Toronto and Vancouver but gets its ass kicked elsewhere, then it knows that it needs to put in more time, energy, and resources into its weak regions, thereby growing the membership in those regions, and then then becoming a more representative party.

I did my part. I signed up for the party, paid attention, and cast a ballot. Why should those efforts count less than those identical efforts from someone else in a region where there is low NDP support?

lagatta4

Mighty Middle, MNA in Québec. But more significantly, she has faced a lot of criticism for that.

Mighty Middle

lagatta4 wrote:

Mighty Middle, MNA in Québec. But more significantly, she has faced a lot of criticism for that.

Thanks for pointing out the correction. Jagmeet could frame the narrative (keeping his MPP seat) the people elected him to a four year mandate, with just 9 months left he feels an obligation to finish his term.

cco

He could. At which point people would quite properly ask him, "Why did you run for a job you didn't intend to take until nine months after you got it?" It's bad enough our outgoing leader decided to stick around in an absentee capacity instead of stepping down. Having a new leader who, in the interim, is busy attending to his provincial constituents means the NDP will have gone effectively leaderless for three out of the four years of this parliament.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
Should he resign his seat right away? I don't know

Remember the leader of the Bloc is still sitting as a provincial MLA

Not sure she'd agree with the "provincial" part of that description-if the Bloc had its way, the National Assembly would basically be the Dáil Quebec.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

If Singh does win, I'd suggest his first step should be to change thweighting system and give Quebec a share of the votes commensurate with the vote shares it gave the NDP in 2011 and even in 2015.  That change, the change Mulcair SHOULD have made the moment he won the leadership, would do a lot to solidify NDP support in Quebec and to personally win over a lot of the people there who have had doubts about the guy.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If Singh does win, I'd suggest his first step should be to change thweighting system and give Quebec a share of the votes commensurate with the vote shares it gave the NDP in 2011 and even in 2015.

Would a "weighting system" be like proportional representation, or would it pretty much be the opposite of proportional representation?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

It is the opposite of PR, and at present it massively underrepresents Quebec.  Given that there is no chance of the NDP/NPD ever finishing better than third without the election of a large number of Quebec NDP/NPD MPs, it's indefensible that the current NDP/NPD leadership voting system treats Quebec like it doesn't matter.   If the NDP/NPD loses any significant ground in Quebec, that by itself will prevent any significant gains anywhere else.  Nobody in the GTA or Vancouver will ever switch to a party they KNOW will stay in third place.  What would be the point?

cco

That's not the leader's prerogative to change unilaterally, Ken. Those types of changes are up to federal convention. There'll be one in Ottawa in February. Feel free to run for a delegate slot and have your riding association submit a resolution. I'd be interested to participate in the debate.

Aristotleded24

Ken Burch wrote:
Given that there is no chance of the NDP/NPD ever finishing better than third without the election of a large number of Quebec NDP/NPD MPs, it's indefensible that the current NDP/NPD leadership voting system treats Quebec like it doesn't matter.

Can you please explain how it hurts Quebec specifically? As far as I know, the system is a simple one-member-one-vote system. If the NDP doesn't get many votes from Quebec, that means the NDP needs to strengthen its membership base within the province. True, Quebec has a unique challenge of having no provincial NDP section to count on, but can't the current crop of 16 MPs help towards this end?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It is the opposite of PR, and at present it massively underrepresents Quebec.

It's honestly not clear what you mean here, Ken.  Is there a "weighting" system, and does it not "weight" Québec appropriately?  Or does OMOV not "weight" Québec appropriately?

I ask because, as I understand it, everyone's vote should be equal and carry no more and no less weight than another, yes?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Quebec and each province are assigned a share of votes in the leadership contest, and the votes of people who live in areas where the NDP did well prior to 2008 are given votes out of proportion to their population size.  People who are actually party members here can explain that better than I can.

It means that the votes of people in Ontario, which in 2015 elected 2 NDP mps(and in 2011 elected 22), have greater weight than the votes of people in Quebec, which elected 16 MPS in 2015(and 59 in 2011).  

To be fair truly democratic, Quebec and each province should be represented strictly by population in this contest-the message to areas where the party did not do well in 2015 should NOT be "we won't give you much of a say because we're still mad at you".

 

Sean in Ottawa

I can understand both sides of this. The problem is the lack of representation in a national party neither solution is great. Having parties with fewer members in some provinces in a leadership contest is not optimal as some regions's voters end up with better representation in the choice of leader. Weighting regions raises the possibility of a small number of people in an underrepresented region taking over a party.

Voters who are not members lose an opportunioty and from a personal point of view this is a choice but from a public policy point of view it means a distortion.

Ceratinly it is best if parties end up with more even membership representation but if you can double your membership for the same resources in a province that is more fertile to you why would you not do so?

What happens when this distortion is by age, gender rather than region? Does this not already exist to some degree by income as higher income earners are more likely to be party members even though the NDP, for one, has policies to mitigate this.?

There is no simple answer and certainly there is a cost either way.

And yes, weighted provinces have a lot in common with FPTP except with province-size seats.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
To be fair truly democratic, Quebec and each province should be represented strictly by population in this contest-the message to areas where the party did not do well in 2015 should NOT be "we won't give you much of a say because we're still mad at you".

I would agree.  I thought it was one member, one vote.

Quote:
Having parties with fewer members in some provinces in a leadership contest is not optimal as some regions's voters end up with better representation in the choice of leader.

That "better" representation seems to be solely a function of their "more members".

If any region would like more representation, let them garner more members... yes?  What's the obstacle here?

I'm just struggling to understand why any member's vote should be any more important than any other member's vote.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
To be fair truly democratic, Quebec and each province should be represented strictly by population in this contest-the message to areas where the party did not do well in 2015 should NOT be "we won't give you much of a say because we're still mad at you".

I would agree.  I thought it was one member, one vote.

Quote:
Having parties with fewer members in some provinces in a leadership contest is not optimal as some regions's voters end up with better representation in the choice of leader.

That "better" representation seems to be solely a function of their "more members".

If any region would like more representation, let them garner more members... yes?  What's the obstacle here?

I'm just struggling to understand why any member's vote should be any more important than any other member's vote.

I am not arguing not to have one member one vote. I am saying it is not good for a party or the country when they have power to have these distortions.

This is not just the region it is both the party and region in this. Parties spend money to increase members more than even them out. I am not criticizing -- but I am saying when the distortions are unhealthy. It is hard to expect a party to put more effort in one place than another becuase it is getting less rewards and it is hard to expect a region to support a party that is less active. 

I do not have a solution but I think it is fair to acknowledge that this is a problem.

Mighty Middle

Just a quick note, Jagmeet Singh told Power & Politics today that if he wins the leadership, he will step down as an MPP "as soon as possible" (his words)

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
To be fair truly democratic, Quebec and each province should be represented strictly by population in this contest-the message to areas where the party did not do well in 2015 should NOT be "we won't give you much of a say because we're still mad at you".

I would agree.  I thought it was one member, one vote.

Quote:
Having parties with fewer members in some provinces in a leadership contest is not optimal as some regions's voters end up with better representation in the choice of leader.

That "better" representation seems to be solely a function of their "more members".

If any region would like more representation, let them garner more members... yes?  What's the obstacle here?

I'm just struggling to understand why any member's vote should be any more important than any other member's vote.

I am not arguing not to have one member one vote. I am saying it is not good for a party or the country when they have power to have these distortions.

This is not just the region it is both the party and region in this. Parties spend money to increase members more than even them out. I am not criticizing -- but I am saying when the distortions are unhealthy. It is hard to expect a party to put more effort in one place than another becuase it is getting less rewards and it is hard to expect a region to support a party that is less active. 

I do not have a solution but I think it is fair to acknowledge that this is a problem.

Maybe a solution would be to give the major regions of Canada voting weight according to their population? So Quebec would represent 23% of the vote in a leadership election, Ontario 38%, the West 32%, the Atlantic region 7%, and the Territories 0.7%? Or maybe ensure that a region's voting weight does not fall below a certain percentage of their population? If a region's weight could not fall below half of their population size then Quebec would be guaranteed 11.5% weight, Ontario 19%, the West 16%, the Atlantic region 3.5%, and the Territories 0.4%?

I think Quebec represents just 4% in this leadership election. I think that is too low and that they are underrepresented. Given their relatively large population size I think they should not fall below 11.5%.

Policywonk

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Speaking of predictions, are there any veterans of the 2003 campaign? How did people expect that campagin to go before the votes were actually counted? Did Layton's convincing first ballot victory come as a surprise, either to the punditry or anyone here?

I don't remember what the punditry said, but I remember the size of the victory as a bit of a surprise, not the fact that he won on the first ballot. 

Pages