NDP Leadership- 44 threads before the first debate

KenS, you're so cute.

I think the notion is more daft now, than I thought when it first came up... which is also before I had anything more than surprise and curiousity about Topp's candidacy.

Topp and people around him knew they were going to surprise everyone. "Brian Topp, huh?" even among what would be his [pretty small] natural consituency.

So obviously, he had to move VERY fast to overcome that skepticism. The bigger the blitz the better- just to be taken seriously.

And the very idea that Thomas Mulcair, of all people, could be shock and awed out of running.... just too laughable. Not at all the type of person, AND with many times more starting assets, without a word needing to be spoken. Reporters who dont know any better- I can see that.

I have no problem at all seeing that Topp and friends had motive [if it was possible], and I know nothing at all about what kind of gutter ball tactics any of them are capable, so I would never say "Topp wouldnt do that." What do I know?

But the idea that Mulcair could be just pushed aside- thats not a feasible strategy, its a joke.

And by the way... where is all this 'party establishment support' trying to annoit Topp? What you saw right away, that's it. If it existed as more than what we saw right away, we all would know by now.

And the first couple months have if anything proved the point that Topp needed that fast jump just to be out there- becaue so far, Mulcair has a lot more traction.

It

Who's laughing, you sadistic twerp. I'm just hoping that others are taking into account your list with an understanding of how your type will use it...and if Mulcair does not take the leadership, how your species in Quebec will come forward.

Beautiful people all.

Mulcair's main pitch is that he is the winner, who will win more. He had those cards at the deal. Playing them well is required. But it is straightforward.

The rest have less to start with. Sure they've all amde their statements in various ways. But their elementary pitch- even its startup- is a more complex and uncertain. And even the other top 3 have not had a chance for that yet. It was possible for one of them to pulled that together already, but not likely. Only for Mulcair was it likely- maybe even expected- already.

Apologize, please.  That type of personal attack is uncalled for.

As someone who has voted NDP, but is not an NDP partisan, the only candidate I like at this point is Paul Dewar, who I've always liked. With the possible exception of Thomas Mulcair I could possibly have a problem voting for the NDP under the other candidates. 

My sincere apologies. I took the laughing face smiley to reflect your sentiment. Must have been mistaken.....

I agree with all of this, but I think there's another take on the whole "shock and awed [people] out of running" meme.

First of all, I don't think trying to scare other candidates out of the race was necessarily all or even mostly about Mulcair. Sources in the Topp campaign leaked that they thought they had Romeo Saganash's support "locked up" before he suddenly announced he was running. Peter Julian is a close friend of Topp's campaign manager and would have been a strong contender for much of the MP/MLA support Gerry Scott has helped Topp secure, but he didn't run either.

Secondly, even if you don't succeed in keeping a candidate out of a race, that doesn't mean intimidation can't serve a purpose. Mulcair took a month to get in the race. Maybe the idea that it was already sewn up kept him from jumping in earlier.

Either way, for me the issue was never (mainly) about whether Topp campaign was specifically "trying to convince candidates not to run". For me, it was about whether people supporting Topp were behind the leaks in the days immediately after Jack Layton's death which declared Topp the frontrunner and slammed Mulcair. That was enough to drop him WAY down my list. If, as part of that, he or his supporters were also actively trying to convince people not to run, that just makes it worse.

That's exactly how I feel about it AM. I have some repect for Topp's abilities. I really liked his book and many of his Globe writings. But the pettiness of many of his backers in trying to kneecap another candidate has really diminished him in my view. He might have been my second choice but his camp's tactics drop him down several places.

Argh! The dreaded double-post. Was supposed to be a small edit.

Still catching up from the previous thread ...

Slideshow:

Topp="inequality" versus "equality"
Mulcair="well-connected" versus "public interest"
Nash= "temporary" and "precarious" versus "good jobs"
Dewar="neglect" versus "build" and "restore"
Cullen="falling behind" versus "potential" and "responsive" and "fairer"
Saganash= "conflict" and "recrimination" versus "reconciliation" and "respect"
Singh="challenges" versus "solutions"
Chisholm="individual" versus "collective" and "collaboration"
Ashton="old" versus "new"

Chisholm talks about it being a bad idea to have a detailed plan. Ashton has a detailed plan - but it basically sounds like existing NDP policy put into her own words- and is well worded, well organized and easy to understand. This seems like a difference of opinion.

Mulcair says: "One of the great aspects of Jack Layton's legacy is that he built a broad policy consensus within the party. He did so by bringing together the largest possible number of stakeholders to craft policies that reflect the values and hopes of the vast majority of Canadians.

I'll be presenting more detailed policy proposals in the New Year, but thanks to Jack's consensus-building approach, I don't expect us to have many differences on policy throughout this race."

1. Mulcair seems to value this quality in Jack; and
2. He seems to figure that most of the heavy lifting has already been done
3. He doesn't say whether he has this quality himself - which he will need to be an effective leader. Jack did personify ideas that others did not have before but have incorporated into their behaviour. Libby Davies was talking about how the right wing church groups which support the Tories are also big on affordable housing and that, by working with them, she figures that she can get something done - and I never heard her really talk like that quite as strongly before.

Nash says: "And we need to reshape the economy to not only create jobs, but to create a green economy by ending subsidies to the oil sands and using those savings to diversify our energy sector and invest in transit across the country."

Nash doesn't elaborate on what she means by "diversity" except that buses mean less cars on the road - but they still use gas. Cullen seems to be talking home renovation strategies.

Olivia Chow and Peter Stoffer are staying neutral as well.

Apart from a few Mulcair partisans, sentiment on this board (at least among active posters) seems to lean towards Paul Dewar and / or Peggy Nash.  A few posters apear to have written off my preferred candidate as lacking the potential to generate broad support.

I merely point out that my preferred candidate, despite her advanced youth, has attracted 50% more endorsements that Peggy Nash and Paul Dewar combined.

I will also reiterate that she was the only candidate who chose to announce her candidcy in a place that was not an assumed base of regional / demographic support.

I'd say it's just his persoanlity, unless he really wanted to get involved in a certain campaign what's the sense of endorsing one of your colleagues over another?

Interesting to note that on the day of Mulcair's launch, one of his parliament hill staffers attended his announcement. That was it. Wasn't working it. Some other camp lodged a complaint...

Niki Ashton is the future. That's why her "New Politics" slogan resonates, at least with me. Before Marshall McLuhan, people asked what was the message, missing the point: the medium is the message. Niki Ashton is the message; she is the new politics.

But assuming the party is not yet ready for her, I still feel confident we will do very well with either Topp or Mulcair.

And of course everyone likes Saganash and Nash and Dewar; and many like Cullen and Chisholm and Singh. It's really an amazing field. The party is very fortunate. And when the public starts to see them, they will agree.

Malcolm, it's the same 10 people retweeting each other all day long. Also, Niki's own tweets don't say anything much beyond using the word "Exciting!" all the time, and way too many explanation points, which only make her sound too young to be serious. This is the department of counting meaningless things. The only reason a study like this didn't appear on 308 is because he doesn't have the programming skill to do it.

Also: 

.... TO THIS POINT. By the time we get to the start of advanced voting, I'm willing to bet that's not only no longer the case, but very obviously no longer the case. You don't seriously expect us to believe Nash and Dewar don't have endorsements in their back pocket for momentum purposes, do you.

If Niki knocks my socks off tomorrow, great. But an endless cycle of retweeting "Exciting to be in X! New politics!" might be working for Wilf, but it's not exactly grabbing me.

Some people here may not agree but a large number of Canadians would have a tough time voting for a 33 year old for Prime Minister in 2015, particularly one who looks very young. 

Running a province is much different then running a country. Robert Ghiz is young, but he's premier of a province of 140,000 people. Many people will say she lacks the life experience needed.  

Remind me not to cross anyone who can slide in the knife so politely and brutally.

Excellent! Now, how do we stop the government from driving First Nations off their lands?

EDIT: found it

thanks anyways <3

Ms. Ashton is doing very well in the tv debate, very confident and lots to say.

I am really digging how everyone is being so much more respectful and courteous than they are in the US GOP debates which I have been suffering through recently. It really is a nice refresher to see how the Canadian left does things vs the American right. I have written up my initial impressions on the NDP debate here. 

This is only the first debate.

Onwards to the second debate...

Who do you think can legitamately improve and do much better in the next debate? Who has the most to lose after the first debate? Who do you think doesn't have the lingustic capacity to continue?

So... no one won the French debate???

Thanks!   I thought Saganash did much better in French than in English, but I'm not conversant enough in French to really evaluate him.

So, how was Dewar's French? Is he able to communicate well in French working to improvement over the next few years?

His French is supposedly on par with where Harper's was a few years back. Some here have said he should drop out because it's to weak but if that's the case I think imperfections could be found with each candidate to say that they should drop out. 

Just wondering if the focus on the quality of spoken French in this thread is reflected in francophone society on the whole?

I haven't spent much time in Quebec and there are cultural things I don't understand.. but as a native speaker of English, if someone listening to my speaking at an Engligh language debate was evaluating me based on accent, diction and vocabulary in my native language I would consider that person something of a picky, classist, schoomarm...

Is speaking nice French really that big of a deal? I mean aren't a few of the candidates native French speakers?

(This isn't a troll but may come off as one)

3:45pm Dec 4

I was watching the debate at a pub with radiorahim, Kim (rabble publisher), oldgoat and kids (get it?), plus a few others.

I'm completely allergic to Mulcair - I am holding a permagrudge against him until he apologizes for the atrocious way he joined in viciously attacking Libby Davies at the time the other parties and the media were doing it, and afterwards too.  She's the best MP in the House and he's - well - definitely not.  So I couldn't care less what he had to say during the debate, despite his "I'm just a loveable teddy bear" routine.  I just might join the party in order to be one more vote against him.

I really like Nash, Ashton, and Saganash for the leadership, although I thought Saganash's performance was probably the weakest of the three during the debate.  But I'm actually not overly hung up on public speaking as the be-all end-all qualification for leadership (although it's important).  For me, substance and progressive policy are far more important.

I don't know Dewar much beyond his support for war, so I'm not inclined to support him.  And nothing I heard in this economics debate made me change my mind - I didn't think he stood out in any way, at least not enough to overcome that.

Chisholm - cringe.  French is a pre-requisite, not something to learn on the job.

Cullen - I didn't know much about him before the debate, and nothing he said during the debate really stood out for me. 

Brian Topp?  I thought he did relatively well, although he did come across as slightly aggressive in places.  (I'm not so sure that's a terrible thing.)  I'll give him a few points on these things:

1. He's not afraid to actually have real conversations publicly with people. He does it on babble, and I mean having a real conversation, not just talking points and platitudes, and that's more than most politicians will do in any forum.  I appreciate it when politicians act like real people on social media rather than press releases.  And it's probably his communications background that gives him that confidence. 

2. Libby Davies has endorsed him.  That doesn't mean I'm all, okay, if she says so then I say so.  But I do think it means that he is someone that the most progressive person in caucus thinks she can work well with, and that's saying something.  I want it to be easy for progressive people in caucus to get their message out and to do their work within the party.  I don't want them to be stifled. I'm assuming that Libby thinks that will be the case if he becomes the leader.

3. He's a good communicator and that's important.  It's not the be-all end-all, as I said above.  But it's a good thing.

However, he took a REALLY cheap shot in the debate, and that was invoking Buzz Hargrove with Peggy Nash.  That was really crappy dog-whistle politics.  Nash was a staffer and you can't blame her for the whole Buzz/NDP debacle.  And yes, I know that wasn't the context of his question, but we all know that by actually naming Buzz Hargrove (as opposed to just leaving it at "CAW"), that was exactly the thing he was hoping NDP activists would snap-associate. 

And his mention of Ed Broadbent at the end of the debate was eyeroll-inducing too.

Other than that, I thought he did quite well in the debate.  And honestly, I didn't mind him trying to get a real debate going.  I mean, the whole thing was so deadly church-sunday-school-picnic dull, and the questions they were giving them from YouTube were so mom-and-apple-pie softball questions that I thought I was going to fall asleep.  He was the only one who actually made any attempt to discuss where his platform was different than those of the other front-runners.

Singh - well, we know he's a small business owner - he mentioned it enough times.  Although I also felt he was an excellent speaker and from what I heard and saw, I liked him well enough.  But being a small business owner doesn't necessarily mean you know how to create jobs across the whole country and deal with the economy on a macro level.  And another thing about this fixation the NDP has on small and medium-sized businesses: I've worked for small businesses.  They were the worst jobs I've ever had.  Usually minimum wage, and usually lots of violations of employment standards.  That's not saying all small businesses are like that, but I think a whole lot of them are, so let's not pretend that small businesses are automatically Jesus Christ.  And I don't think any of the candidates said anything about the erosion of public services being one of the reasons the economy is not recovering and good jobs are getting more and more scarce.

Mulcair's campaign is first out of the gate to espouse their candidate's campaign performance, followed by Topp.

Yes, that needed to be said. It would have been nice to hear something about small business employees.

And Barry Weisleder or no Barry Weisleder, I'm sorry there wasn't a single candidate who wanted to speak to the systemic crisis of capitalism during an economic debate. That does suggest to me that our distinctiveness maybe ain't so distinct anymore.

As numerous press gallery reporters pointed out on Twitter, Mr. Saganash has bronchitis, which would account for the throat clearing and delivery issues. It's hard to do a debate in front of a huge crowd when you're having trouble breathing, right?

After the English language segment I thought Cullen and Ashton improved their positions, while Dewar, Topp, and Saganash did not.

Sagansh came back nicely in the French language segment, while Aston, Cullen and Singh all showed they could operate in French. Ashton has serious language skills, and it shows when she speaks French. She and Nathan Cullen brought real energy to the event. I want to know more about what each has to say. Saganash will no doubt be better in English by the last debate.

Overall, Mulcair deserves to be rated highly; he handled himself very well in both segments.

The first debate did not help Paul Dewar or Brian Topp. Dewar has lots of supporters, he may recover ground in subsequent debates. His French improved as the segment went on, but he stumbled badly early, and it is always hard to earn a positive performance mark, after a bad first impression. I did not understand what Topp was trying to accomplish in the debate. Why was he taking on Paul directly, suggesting he was neglecting the national debt of all subjects? One explanation is that it was a mark of respect for the strong campaign Paul is running, and he was trying to take Paul down a notch. Similarily tieing Buzz to Peggy was that a transparent attempt at a birds of a feather stick together strike at her? Brian should be worried about Peggy, she is running strong in the GTA, where the number of New Democrats is significant. Did Brian leave himself open to an interpretation that he meant to diminish two other candidates because they are doing well? 

He did, I agree - but that was in spite of the bronchitis too.

Martin Singh didn't connect with me at all, and neither did Chisholm. It's truly historic and ground-breaking for me that I put Niki Ashton in my top three (after Nash and Mulcair) after the English debate today. She indeed is the future of the party.  I see Topp as main party strategist or party president, not as the leader going against Harper.

Did he have bronchitis in the summer too? His delivery issues in English were exactly the same at the June Vancouver convention. And yes, he was absolutely effortless in French. I'm not quite sure why but speaking in English actually seems to make Saganash physically uncomfortable.

Well as a Jew, I am personally fed up with the Israeli lobby, and the arrogance of a large portion of North American Jewry. Isreal is like South Africe, and destined to disappear as a Jewish state. That is just how it is. History and demographics. You can't fight it. I don't celebrate it, but I am not going to deny it either.

I also had the pleasure to tell Ms Davies personally of my support for her on this isseu at Rebecca Blakie's nomination meeting during the last election. She was attacked viciously for telling the truth. I think Mulcair should come clean as well, but don't look for it to happen.

I agree 100% with your Michelle!

I watched the English debate and I've had a hard time finding the French debate, I'd love to watch it to.  I have read what people have said so far about the French debate.

Here are my rankings, if the vote were held today:

1. Ashton (unchanged)

I expect my first ballot vote to be parked with Ashton.  I see her youth as an advantage, and I think her political skills (speaking, connecting, knowledge of the issues) are more than acceptable.  I see her as a credible, top-tier candidate.  Also I love her enthusiasm, and I think that in that way she is most like Jack.

I think she's going to need to step up with some more innovative ideas.  For many people her youth will be a negative and so she needs to demonstrate that it is an advantage by introducing actually new ideas.  "Green Economy" is going to be a popular buzzword throughout the debates, Ashton has to give us more than that.  Additionally, her campaign is going to have to excel at social media (which they're not currently doing) for her to win.

2. Mulcair (unchanged)

Good speaker, warm, obviously has a handle on the issues and can talk about them.  He seems the most electable to me of all the candidates.  Seems like he could consolidate and increase the Quebec seats as well as win a majority in the ROC.  Mulcair talked about engaging youth and while it came across to me as a platitude, I think he probably was able to do this in Quebec.

I'm considering the arguments Mulcair's detractors are making (not a Leftist, not looking to define a mandate, willing to be vague), but I didn't find him deficient in these areas in the debate.  Mulcair will have to outline very clear mandate goals to keep my support but it's still early.  I will be contrasting Mulcair's vision with other candidates in terms of boldness over the campaign.  The shadow side of Mulcair's current strong position is that he has nowhere to go but down.  I'm open to Mulcair  despite the Libby incident but I'm also open tot he arguments of his detractors.

3. Topp (up)

I think I'd like to vote Topp second but he's not quite there yet.  I like that he is explicitly seeking a mandate and talking boldly.  He shows that he's very intelligentm has a great knowledge of both the issues and the political landscape.  I like that he challenged Dewar and I hope he continues to challenge the rest of the candidates on just what kinds of leftist commitments they'll make.  I like that he asked Nash about Hargrove, because I don't see it as hitting below the belt (Nash should be expected to speak to her union experience), and I think Topp realizes that boring debates will not serve us.  I like that Topp posts on babble and I like that he is trying to give his fellow political geeks a fun debate.

His speaking, confidence, and comfort levels are not quite up to the level needed yet.  He needs to come across as warmer if he wants to win.

4. Nash (up)

Nash was far more engaging in the debate than I had expected.  Also has a high knowledge of the issues.  And very competent.

I still find her a bit flat compared to the other candidates but I'm definitely more interested than before.  I hope that she can connect in French--I'm confident that she can compete intellectually in French but I'm also paying attention to what people are saying about her overly-formal dialect.  Maybe she just comes across as flat.  I think she can probably more than compete with Harper in French, and I would hope that policy-wise a Nash-led NDP would be able to compete with the Bloc even if Nash is flat.

5. Saganash (down)

I'm inclined to support Saganash based on his message his values.  I liked some of what he said in the English debate, and I hear that he did really well in the French debate.  If he was sick, then maybe he just had an off day.  Hearing that he may have been the best in the French debate keeps him in my top tier.

His comfort level in the English debate was not adequate.  If that's how he comes across in the last debate of the campaign then I will not be putting him on my ballot.  He needs to demonstrate a much better comfort level in this kind of environment to be a credible candidate in my eyes.

...drop to 2nd tier...I will not be ranking any of these candidates on my ballot

6. Cullen (up)

I think he came across well in the English debate.  From what I hear he did well enough in the French debate to remain credible.  I like that he's from BC.  I think he is well-suited to both appeal to centrists while keeping leftists happy policy-wise, and I think he is well positioned to speak to our resource economy and the environment.  Also I liked that he was making jokes.  I would be happy with Cullen as leader.

Of course the knock against Cullen is what he's said about electoral agreements with the Liberals.  I don't actually know what he's actually said though, and if all he's willing to do is empower riding associations, then in my eyes it is a negative but not a deal breaker, especially when I know the membership is not on board.  For me it is more a strike against Cullen in that it shows he does not have his thumb on the pulse of the membership.  I am not concerned that a Cullen NDP would lead to a merge.  And, at #6 on my list and way lower on many others, I don't see him as having much chance to win.

7. Singh (up)

I thought he did well in the English debate, happy to hear his French is passable.  I see that there are some benefits to having a leader who is new to politics, provided the person is highly competent, and Singh seems quite competent.  Articulate speaker, some good ideas, seems intelligent enough.

But where's the beef?  He's running for leader of government in waiting.  Holding his own in the debate is not good enough, he needs to excel and electrify.  Or he needs to have a killer social media strategy and follow through.  He needs to connect asap, and absent any notion of "Singhmania" I don't really see a reason for him to be around.

8. Dewar (down)

All I really have to say that's nice about Dewar is he seems to have a well organized campaign, with endorsements, a sharp social media strategy, and a network of supporters.  I guess he connects well with people in person.  I accept that there are a good number of people who view him as a credible candidate.  I suppose he is a nice guy, good looking, and has a can-do attitude.  None of that really seems enough to me.

Beyond that I did not find him engaging in the English debate (as others mentioned, a bit wooden) and I hear that the take on the French debate is that his French is not good enough.  Additionally, Dewar was the foreign affairs critic and so I have this preconceived idea that he is wrong on policy.  I don't know if NDP messaging on foreign affairs should be blamed on Dewar or not but I'm just used to disagreeing with what I'm used to hearing from him.

...drop to 3rd tier...these candidates should pull out of the race now

9. Chisolm

Does not meet the minimum requirements.  Seems like he is trying to argue that he does meet the minimum requirements which makes him even less credible.

The only reason I could see for a unilingual candidate to be in the race is if they were running because they had a compelling enough message.  That is, "I accept that I don't meet the requirements as a candidate and I will pull out after the first ballot, but this message absolutely needs to be heard and no one else is providing it."  But that's not the Chisolm.  Frankly I don't see anything unique in his messaging.  I don't personally know him, and personal knowing him seems to be the only reason people would have to support him.  He is arguing that he's got the best leadership skills and experience but he just doesn't meet the bare minimum requirements.  Sorry Chisolm, I'm sure you're a great ally, it's not personal, but in this campaign you're just taking up space.

I don't really understand why people attack Dewar on foreign policy stuff, while he was the critic for Foreign Affairs he wasn't responsible for making up the NDPs policies was he?

If someone disagrees with Dewar on foreign policy wouldn't you disagree with Jack, Nash, Mulcair, and basically anyone in the NDP caucus?

Was it a benefit to Canadians to have Paul Dewar as NDP Foreign Affairs critic?  Yes/no?  If so, what was that benefit?

Did Paul Dewar do a good job or a bad job as NDP Foreign Affairs critic?

If someone wants me to support Paul Dewar as NDP Leader, and his job in the caucus was Foreign Affairs Critic, I would hope that Dewar's supporter would be able to tell me that Paul Dewar did a good job as Foreign Affairs critic, and HOW he did that good job.

If your message as a Dewar supporter is that Dewar's stint as Foreign Affairs critic is irrelevant, you should know that you're not winning me over to your candidate.

If Paul Dewar disagreed in substance with the NDP policy that he was promoting as Foreign Affairs critic, he would be very well advised to let us know what his actual views are wrt foreign policy.

If one of the debates is going to focus on foreign policy (I should hope so), then I guess that's when it is that we'll find out what Paul Dewar really thinks.

ETA: When Mulcair was Minister of the Environment in the Charest government, he resigned due to a policy disagreement.  How would Paul Dewar compare and contrast his own leadership style as NDP Foreign Affairs Critic?

I'm not attacking Paul Dewar--I'm giving his supporters an opportunity to address one of his perceived negatives.  I feel that as our Foreign Affairs Critic, Paul Dewar let me down.  And many others feel this too.  If Dewar doesn't understand this then he won't get my support.

I'm not decided yet on a candidate.  If Dewar could speak frankly about imperialism and the NDP I would listen to what he has to say.  Certainly I think there's an opportunity for a candidate to gain support by making a strong anti-imperialist commitment.

I wasnt able to watch the debate. Based on what I hear, some observations/questions.

Mulcair performed about exactly as I expected. The tone he would pick, etc.

Topp didnt greatly impress. And a lot of people didnt like his style. I'm guessing he accomplished something anyway. As the one with the least experience in public give and take, and having a very low key personal style.... even getting out there and mixing it up was not to be assumed. He doesnt seem to be doing well enough yet, but he may be getting there.

Puzzled why he would use Dewar as a foil. Maybe because unlike the other candidates, there is a need for him to show the combative side, and start working on that. If so, he wouldnt do that on Mulcair [nor vice versa]. Maybe pressing Dewar and Nash was simply because they were 'safe'... not going to spiral out of control, etc.

I'm glad to hear Peggy performed above expectations/fears.

And it sounds like Cullen injected some needed colour and humour into the thing. With his proposal Nathan burnt even a small chance of winning this. But it sure looks like he is going to come out of this looking great. We've already been getting quite a bit of Megan Leslie, that and more Nathan Cullen: sounds like a plan to me.

Watched the debate for the whole two hours and I have to say it became quite boring. 9 candidates are just too much, for obvious reasons.

At this point I would divide the group up into three categories:

DROP OUT IMMEDIATELY

Chisolm--can`t speak French

Dewar- can't speak French

Ashton- can`t win (too inexperienced)

Singh--can't win (obvious)

Saganash- stutters in English (Stephane Dion)

MIGHT STICK AROUND

Cullen (excellent in English but barely passable in French)

Nash (would be an ideal leader of the NDP in third place; not convinced she could become PM)

POTENTIAL PRIME MINISTERS?

Topp (thought he did well esp. in English, but all the commentators seemed to think he was ineffective on TV. Yet, I remember Stephen Harper in 2002. Topp was much better. On the other hand, Harper's main rival was Peter McKay... Topp's may be Bob Rae. Gives reason to pause  )

Mulcair (flawless. So far, I see no reason that he can't take over as leader tomorrow.  I know it`s good to have a race, so that he can be tested under pressure e.t.c.., but, based on today's performance, I am tempted to say that if the NDP knows what's good for it, it will elect Mulcair)

Michelle: "And I don't think any of the candidates said anything about the erosion of public services being one of the reasons the economy is not recovering and good jobs are getting more and more scarce."

Public services - the welfare state itself - are dependent on a growing economy to sustain those services. When public spending is endangered by a collapsing economy, the budget has to be balanced. It was one thing that always impressed the hell out of prairie farmers - small business people - when Tommy Douglas brought about that balance and was able to put forward hospitalization and then medicare for everyone.

Listen very carefully in the next debate to economic analysis and measures put forward by the candidates to resolve this problem...the one that those on Mainstreet are waiting with bated breath to see New Democrats solve. Or not.

Mulcair spoke to this, early on, of the nature of an economy distorted by growth in commodity production to the detriment of manufacturing. Nash spoke to the problem - unionists always have, Canadians as "haulers of wood, drawers of water," etc. - but not the solution. If you can take a deep breath yourself before Tom Mulcair speaks, next time, you might find the answer to your complaint about the disappearance of public service work.

Mainstreet will not be going to the polls in 2015 - will not be measuring the candidates - with your measuring stick. They'll be voting for someone with the ability to turn the economy around by winning the ear of all sectors of the economy. We here are ideologically in favour of a public service, but we need a vibrant economy to counter Conservatives' hatred for a "nanny state." Libby, I'm sure, would agree.

And having said all that, I'm finally concerned about the absence of any real mention of the environmental elephant lurking in the room, waiting to make talk of economy and jobs and a state with social welfare programs completely irrelevant.The contradiction of economic growth and environmental health got passing mention. It must become central, someday. Maybe when Alberta's rivers are no longer supplied by glacial runoff in summer, eh? Then the environment will be allowed as a subject for public discussion again, no longer the embarassing, politically untouchable subject of today that the forces of Steve count on?

I'd just add that Nash, Mulcair, and Ashton looked the most comfortable to me in the English debate. Saganash looked awesome in the French debate - what a transformation! Cullen looked good, too - and he has a sense of humour.

@hunky_monkey:

I forgot about Jack's call. I was very dissapointed at the time when he made. I thought politics dictated it. I guess I got excited but I think you shouldn't dismiss Michelle's point.

My grandmother, blessed be her memory, was a radical left winger and moved to Palestine in the 20s as part of the Zionist movement, for lack of putting it a better way. If she were alive today, her Pioneer Women sisters and she would be all very distressed that the message of Zionism, as a worker based, sociialsit movement had become so corrupted. Really, this part of this discussion continues to go unaddressed. I said above I am a Jew; I believe Isreal's days are numbered as were South Africa's and Ian Smith's Rhodesia. I wish Mulcair would do something about this, not that I know what. I am being truthful in saying my giving of verbal support to Libby Davies when she was her in Winnipeg.

This is truly a thorn on the side of the world, as so many others. I can tell you as I Jew, I feel particualry ashamed, given the history of persuction of Jewery from one side of the planet to the other. It is really an ultimate irony. Please don't be so quick to dismiss Michelle. Hers is an imporant voice. She is just like all of us, we get excited, and let our good intentions affect how we communicate our message. I am not explaining away anything she has said, nor am I dismissing any of it in any way. All I am saying is that I know absolutely that we need to listen to each other. Jack failed on this, I think. But clearly, we should be able to remember his strength was his ability to get us to hear each other.

Best to you both!

Thanks, Michelle!  Nice to see you posting.

I think the best performers in the English debate were Cullen, Mulcair and Nash. Mulcair met expectations and seemed very comfortable in his responses. He does seem one of the most polished in his formulation of responses and delivery. Cullen seemed the most natural and seemed to express his ideas the best. Nash exceeded expectations as she was more engaging than she sometimes comes across in interviews.

Chisholm is pretty much a non-starter. Saganash was weak and unsteady in the English debate and he seemed a bit repetitive, but he is likeable. Singh seemed very "one note" and did little more than suggest that he might be a good candidate. Ashton wasn't bad but just didn't come across as "national leader" material quite yet. She needs to find better ways to push buttons beyond the "new politics" theme.

I don't think Dewar came across that well, but maybe he had a bad day. Topp was decidedly underwhelming for someone who has garnered so much "establishment support". 

As much as I felt that the large number of candidates does somewhat detract from the debate, I don't necessarily think the "bottom tier" should necessarily drop out - although I really can't see Chisholm as a viable candidate. He might have survived last campaign, but some level of competancy in French should be a requirement. And Singh really doesn't have a chance in hell with no elected experience and no record "serving on the inside" a la Topp.

I'm with these two and the 3 chosen to go drinking with - I'm in agreement with that.

So are you saying it's okay for caucus colleagues to attack each other in public?

Bookish Agarian in the previous debate thread asked "Is Saganash sick? He seems to be having trouble talking or something."

Apparently Saganash was getting over a bit of bronchitis. I think that should have been mentioned to give some context and get some empathy from the audience, "I must apologize my voice is a bit weak today, but I hope you will agree that my ideas are strong"

There have been reviews that his debate performance today was about the level of when he spoke at Convention, which is worrying because you would have think he would have at least improved since then. I think he can recover, as he does well on one-on-one interviews, but he definitely needs to show noticeable improvement in the next few debates.

Building a sustainable economy has to be central, not just an inclusive economy. There was a point in the debate where Topp impressed me slightly when he talked about climate change, but it was a passing moment.

He's the deputy leader. He explained her comments weren't party policy and as the other deputy leader, she should know better than to "freelance". Not sure that raises to the level of attack.

Dewar was talking about an east-west electrical grid. I don't think that that makes sense across all of Canada, although some provinces could make use of hydro-elecricity from neighbouring provinces to replace coal and nuclear. I agree that Topps question about how that was going to be paid for was over the Topp; obviously it's a question of spending priorities, not just how the money would be raised. I think Dewar would have done well to come back with asking Topp who is going to pay for the social and economic costs of climate change.

I am not saying it's right but the fact is many people will not feal comfortable having such a young person as Prime Minister. Maybe her brains and strong speaking skills would be able to combat that. 

As for Nash's age I personally think she's to old. I think the NDP needs someone who can stick around for a number of years and I don't know if Nash would be able to do that.

Some provinces have spoke about a national energy plan, including an east west power grid. Newfoundland and Labrador would like a grid to transport power to Ontario, Alison Redford in Alberta has recently spoken about a national energy plan. I believe other provinces have also advocated for it but I'm not sure which ones at this time, I know the McGuinty government wants power from NL.

I thought he probably did.

You are obviously referring to William Pitt the Younger, not his father. The Prime Ministership evolved over centuries, and while Pitt the Younger was a major part of that evolution, others, such as Walpole and Grey, also played a role.

Does anyone have a link to where I can review the debate from tonight - I would particularly like to watch the French half of the debate in French and not with the Scottish accented translator

I wasn't going to say this, but I'll rise to your dare: to my surprise, she was showing her age in today's debate, physically. She didn't look the picture of good health, she didn't show anything like Jack's energy, and she looked older than her age. I have to be careful about such comments, so I asked my wife, who said she looked 66.

Those who speak both French and English would probably know how bronchitis would affect each differently - whether one uses the back of the mouth or the frount of the mouth to form certain words. I say the word "duracel" in French it is the front of the mouth and in English at the back of my mouth for the third syllable - and that is just me immitating a tv commercial while my dad watched hockey in French.

Saganash's voice was definitely different than usual - something I noticed because I heard him speak before - but my mom who didn't thought it was raspy.  I would not count him out.

My mom figured that Topp looked like a bobble head.  If he is going to go for the jugular with Dewar, it would have been better if he could have done it in a way that Dewar could not both brush it off and make him look foolish.  I think he went down.

Dewer impressed me because I am not usually impressed with his speaking.  He may have looked a bit wooden but I think that was to counter his usual silly way of looking and found it an improvement.

Many people were impressed by Ashton I think, in part, because she was not even on the radar.  She will be judged harder next time because now, because of this performance, she is being considered.  Ashton reminded me of May during the debate before the last election where she seemed to be trying to get as many words and facts out of her mouth in a very short time.

I was pleasantly surprised about how gentle and kindly Mulcair was - which means he did better than expected.

About Chisholm and Singh - officially they are running for the leadership but they each have unofficial agendas.  Singh's is to be a lobby for certain interests in a Orchard type way - and to make it easier to run for office because now he will have name recognition.

Chisholm seemed to be very well versed concerning points that he figured the others left out but he hasn't got a chance in Halifax!

Nash has a good resume but I hope she can gain a bit of energy.

Sorry for short comments - comment on rest in next thread.

I have to disagree - I thought Nash looked fine and looked very much her age - no older and no younger....maybe it was the quality of the TV I was watching but I thought Topp had a bit of a Nixonesque 5 o'clock shadow on his upper lip that was a bit distracting.

Here is the link to the CPAC page for the Leadership campaign. No link up for the debate yet. They must have a french equivalent, which would have the opposite translation, but I don't know where to find a link to the french version anywhere either.

http://cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&template_id=1446&hl=e

ETA: the french version of their page:

http://cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&template_id=1446&hl=f

Nash will be 64 at the next election. Jack Layton would have been 65. Would have Jack been too old to run again? 

People are fully capable of being productive well past the age of 65. Look in your community. People don't automaticly withdraw from life at age 65 anymore. Additionally, life expectancy for females in Canada is 83. 

CBC.ca has the English video up of the first hour:

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/ID=2173533185

I'm going to assume RadCan has the french, and will go and look for it now.

ETA: RadCan doesn't seem to post long-form videos. Here's Emmanuelle Latraverse's story about the debate, which has some french clips in it:

http://www.radio-canada.ca/audio-video/#urlMedia=http://www.radio-canada...

While I'm about it, I don't recall the same kind of ranting about Pierre Ducasse in 2003.  He was just 30 at the time of the leadership convention and had never even sought public office.  He would have been expected to be no more than 32 by the time he'd've led the party into an election.  Sure, he was never close to being the front runner, but I don't really recall a whole campaign of "he's too young to be taken seriously."  Instead, he became the darling of the race.

Of course, he wasn't a woman.

JUDES on the Libby Davies - Mulcair incident and, for the record, Davies did not betray policy - she was punked:

http://transformingpower.ca/en/blog/no-one-can-terrorize-whole-nation-un...

I saw the video in question and Libby Davies said before being pressured into the date that she did not know. Mulcair was in the wrong there.

I don't recall the other bits of minutiae, sorry. Anyways, your candidate had a good day today. I stand by my assessment that she won't make it to the last ballot, and isn't ready to anyway - and I'm not alone in that - but she didn't hurt herself at all today - to the contrary, in fact - and so my major worry has been alleviated.

PS, there's a bit of video of her at the scrum afterward at the HuffPo, here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/04/ndp-leadership-debate-candidates...

My take overall.

• Ashton - Probably gained the most, though in large part that's because expectations were low.  Frankly, the sexist / ageist hatchet job some commentators have been engaged in has worked to her benefit.  She came across as poised, professional and passionate.  While some have claimed she lacked substance, I honestly don't see that anyone had much substance - the format making that difficult if not impossible.  The "endorsements" from Nash and Topp are interesting - though they may suggest she's seen as no threat to them and a potential source of subsequent ballot support, it's still a positive mention.  I liked the way she inserted her language skills into her question to Mulcair.  (When she worked in the Outremont byelection, she "campaigned in five languages.")

• Chisholm - I'd really like to be writing something positive about Chishlm here.  I think he's actually quite brilliant in several ways.  But his failure to speak anything more than the odd phrase in French has essentially killed his chances.  I'm not convinced he'll make it to the convention.

• Cullen - Also gained significantly.  Certainly the most affable.  While I'm not competent to judge it myself, the consensus of the commentary I've read is that his French is simply not good enough.

• Dewar - Performed well, though he seemed stiff.  And the exchange with Topp seemed to throw him off his game for a while.  Again, based on commentary, his French proved insufficient to the day.  One serious question - does Dewar have some sort of back injury (like Regina city councillor and ex-federal candidate Fred Clipsham)?  If not, why does he stand that way?  (If so, he could probably use it positively in his narrative - much like the dyslexia story last week.)

• Mulcair - Needed to seem "not prickly."  Succeeded.  Probably "won" the debate by most conventional standards.

• Nash - Seemed tired, frankly.  Her French was deemed stiff but sufficient by the commentariat.

• Saganash - Had difficulty in the English portion, but the bronchitis narrative seems to have neutralized most of that.  Seemed to be transformed when the debate moved into French.  While many First Nations in northern Quebec use English over French, I assume his uses French over English.  Even in English, his passion came through despite the bronchitis.

• Singh - Certainly exceeded expectations - though he seemed almost a one track candidate on the small business file.  Commentariat seems to have judged his French better than expected but still not good enough.

• Topp - He needs to learn to stop bobbing his head.  He often came across to me as arrogant.  (Kady O'Malley tweeted that Topp needed to work on his smugness.  Someone tweeted back that he seemed to have it down pat.)  Even as someone who despises the class traitor Basil Hargrove, I found his dog whistle use of the name in a question to Nash to be more than a bit cheap.  Not quite sure what to make of the way he went after Dewar in the one exchange.  I think going after Dewar vice Mulcair made it seem he was afraid to go after Mulcair.

Gained ground: Ashton, Cullen, Mulcair, Saganash, Singh

Lost ground: Chisholm, Dewar, Nash, Topp

French adequate: Ashton, Mulcair, Nash, Saganash, Topp.

French not adequate: Chisholm, Cullen, Dewar, Singh

(Again, noting that I am dependent on commentary to make this judgement.)

My ballot as of today:

1. Ashton
2. Saganash
3. Mulcair
4. Nash
5. Topp
6. Remaining candidats disqualified for lack of (sufficient) facility in French

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Rapid+fire+debate+focuses+economy/5810565/story.html

Actually, it wasn't his "good ideas" we loved.  We fell in love with Ducasse over two lines:

• "In order to achive what you have never achieved, you must d what you have never done."
• His self-description as a "pragmatic radical." (Or was it "radical pragmatist? - I'm getting old.)

We didn't start to hear much substance from Ducasse until well into the campaign.

But then, I suppose a young female candidate faces a different standard than a young male candidate.

CP's French reporter says Cullen is challenged in French:

As I said, it's all been smoke and mirrors up until today.  But just to remind you, one poster remarked that Ashton's campaign seemed to be invisible and I simply linked a story that said she was quite visible in one particular context.  I don't think that simple observation and link justifies quite the level of dyspepsia it's generated.  I'm certainly not the only person who has ever linked to an article on Babble and referred to a snippet of it.  Not even in this thread.

Newfoundlander - that is because Quebec would also want to sell hydro to Ontario so they would prefer a Quebec-Ontario grid to a Manitoba-Ontario grid.  Think that parts of Ontario get their hydro from the States at present.

If Dewar has a Sir John A moment and thinks that he can build a grid from the Maritimes to BC then both Quebec and Manitoba have a chance to benefit.

When Libby was being attacked, Jack did stick up for her in Parliament and said that Libby believed in the two State solution.  He figured that Libby should have been smarter and avoided the set up but did not question her values.  Jack's appology would also be an excuse to talk to (not looking up the spelling) to reiterate that he still believes in the two State solution and get some sense as to what was being talking about between Canada and Israel.

The apology was a smart move because it put to rest the notion that the NDP were anti-Jew, showed up the Tories as being for a one State solution, and allowed Jack a chance to get an idea up close as to who Canada was dealing with.  That is an old union trick to know how to size a person up so one gets a read on how they think, not just by their words but their body language in a less guarded moment.

Jack is the leader and it is his job to nip things in the bud and make the story go off the media radar.  Also, the sooner it gets off the radar, the sooner Libby would stop getting hate mail.

Libby seems too fond of Jack to hold a grudge for his handling of the incident - so I would look below the surface of what he did.


Question: after the Libby incident, did Mulcair ever launch a similar attack against another of his fellow MPs?

Pierre-Luc Dusseault had his picture taken with a bunch of university students and looks younger than everyone else in the picture.  But he is a very smart person and, by all accounts, is doing a good job.  Check his links on politwitter - he has a picture where ever he goes.

Also, with the new bunch, Ashton feels like an old lady already.

Oh sure, just Jack Layton's style.

Here is what happened in sequence.

Libby makes her flub.

Mulcair tears a strip of her rather than call it what it looked like- not to mention the option to let the Leader or critic deal with it. He chose the most inflammatory option. Or bring it up with the Leader, or Libby herself, and she makes her apology without Mulcair helping fan the flames first.

After Mulcair's 'contribution' its definitely a big deal. Jack calls the ambassador to apologize, and Libby apologizes. Both of them did what they respectively had to do to make the issue go away ASAP. You simply cannot say that about Mulcair's actions. In fact, he did the opposite.

I'm willing to forgive it. [I did long ago.] I'm just not going to let it be sanitized.

I would consider that too.

Quebec still won't likely go for it. Newfoundland and Labrador has tried to work out agreements with Quebec to ship power through their province and they won't allow it.

Agree with KenS about the apology being to make it go away and Mulcair not helping.  Has Mulcair gone after another NDP MP the way he did Libby?  I don't think he did.  However, the incident will make some worry about how he would be as leader - and that is something Mulcair seems to know he has to overcome - which is reflected in how he acted today - even appearing to stick up for Dewar after Topp's attack by coming up with a way that Dewar's plan could be paid for.

Ken Burch - I don't believe that criticizing Israel is being anti-jew - but Libby Davies was being accused falsely for wanting to wipe Israel off the map - which can be painted a certain way by those who wish to take an innocent gaffe and turn it into talk of ovens.

Newfoundlander - would like to know more about the Quebec - NL issue and what Quebec's problem was with it.  I don't see how it would hurt Quebec which means there is something I don't know but should.

Hopefully, in the next debate, the Johnny One-Notes will put their hobby horses out to pasture and try to winkle some substance out of what the candidates are saying...with electability by Mainstreet - against all the media and Steve's machine - in mind.

Now that the dust has started to settle, a few comments on the debate. I may say that I often doubt my perspective on debates where I am committed in advance to one candidate. Also, having heard all of the candidates speak with the same Scottish accent the French portion of the debate was of limited value to me in assessing performances.

1. 2 hours divided by nine is hardly ideal. That is about 6 minutes for each candidate in each language. It hampers anyone getting a good fix on the candidates. As I have said before, the format tends to handicap the strong performers and protect the weak.

(2. This is why incidentally all of you who can should turn out tonight to hear Tom Mulcair speak at length on the Omnibus Crime Bill. His fundraiser is at James Lockyer's law office, 30 St Clair West, Toronto, main floor. It starts at 6  and Tom will likely speak about 7.)

3. Pretty much everyone, either here on Babel or in the commetariat, say Tom finshed first or near-first. The disagreements are largely about how the others did. If there is a winner to be declared I think it is obvious.

4. It is significant that Tom's detractors on Babble use this occasion to resurrect the Libby Davies matter. It is a transparent ploy to deflect our attention from his strong performance yesterday afternoon.

5. Topp sees himself in competition with Dewar and Nash for second place. He needs to pass them in order to get on the last ballot. That is why he ovetly tried to undermine each of them. To some extent their respective constituencies in the party overlap. Party establishment / apparatchik / labour / Ontario. To me this reflects what I see elsewhere - that Topp, despite his endorsements, is not doing very well with the rank and file. I watched the debate in a bar where Dewar partisans predominated (at least before the debate). A number expressed hostility to Topp's tactics. Topp should not count on their votes on the last ballot.

6. (Apart from Chisholm) Dewar took the hardest hit yesterday. Deer in headlights, wooden, painful French, unsure of himself, nervous. You've heard it all eslewhere.

7. My ranking of the debate: Mulcair, Cullen, Ashton, Topp, Nash, Saganash, Singh, Dewar, Chisholm.

Suppose this thread will make it to 200?