NDP Leadership- 44 threads before the first debate

175 posts / 0 new
Last post
Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

After watching the debates, there's only three candidates I'd like to go the bar with and get stinko - Cullen, Mulcair, and Topp. Cullen would be my first choice by far as a drinking buddy. I'm trying to picture going drinking with Peggy Nash - yeah, I guess that would work. Laughing

algomafalcon

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.

 

 

Hunky_Monkey

Arthur Cramer wrote:

@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!

Arthur, I appreciate your opinion... my issue is that it's placed on Mulcair. Why not the federal NDP?

As for the "attack", Davies stepped out of line in her comments with regard to party policy especially since she holds the position of deputy leader. And that's essentially what Mulcair, the other deputy leader, said. That it became some "vicious attack" is laughable. And tying what Mulcair said to a right-wing, mysoginist and homophobic attack boggles the mind.

And quite frankly, I wonder if Jack Layton asked him to do so. It wouldn't surprise me if that was the case.

clambake



3:45pm Dec 4

Quote:
A very unimpressive debate. More like a love-in, without many objects of affection.

Nicky raised more issues than others, esp in the first debate. But capitalist solutions for the capitalist crisis prevailed.

No one even mentioned the 1%, the Occupy movement, the mass strikes across Europe, the wars of intervention, how business is choking the environment. Very sad.

Should be lots to challenge Topp at OISE on Monday night, eh?

Barry

janfromthebruce

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

 

wage zombie wrote:

Michelle wrote:

Nice meaty summary, wage zombie!  I enjoyed that.  Can't see much I disagree with.

Thanks, Michelle!  Nice to see you posting.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Newfoundlander_...

I thought Dewar was strong at anwsering questions. Singh seemed like he wanted to trip him up by asking how he has helped create jobs and Dewar gave a good anwser by telling him that he helped his sister with her business as well as his own contituents. Topp tried to attack him and change the subject of their debate and I think Dewar was good at switching the debate back to the question that was asked and giving a strong anwser. He was also good at promoting his policies, like the east west power grid and permanent funding for infrastrucuture. I do think he came off looking a bit uncomfortable at times but I'm surprised people think he didn't do well.

Aristotleded24

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Davies stepped out of line in her comments with regard to party policy especially since she holds the position of deputy leader. And that's essentially what Mulcair, the other deputy leader, said. That it became some "vicious attack" is laughable.

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

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

That Buzz Hargrove/CAW thing - does that point to mean-spiritedness in Topp?

Paul Gross

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"

Aristotleded24

Paul Gross wrote:
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.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

ottawaobserver wrote:

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.

-snip-

.... 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.

 

OO, you know as well as I do that nearly everything to this point is smoke and mirors.  The main reason Dewar is spoken of as a contender is that his Ottawa geographic base happens to align so nicely with the people who write such insightful "analysis."  Sure Ashton's people are tweeting and blogging proAshton tweets, blogs and links.  You surely aren't going to try to sell me the dubious spin that the Ashton campaign is alone in this.

I suspect that the explanation for why Ashton is the most talked about online is actually far more simple.  Ashton's support demographically skews younger, and the younger a person is the more likely they are to be engaged in these kinds of social networks.  Getting bitter over it (or pretending that Paul Dewar and his supporters aren't tweting just as assiduously) is . . . unconvincing.

Policywonk

Gaian wrote:
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?

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.

Wilf Day

Having now watched both debates again on CPAC, here's my assessment:

All the candidates would do the party a favour if they gave the viewing audience images of a coast-to-coast-to-coast race. They seldom did. Tom Mulcair mentioned having met with Chiefs in Thunder Bay. Niki Ashton mentioned being in Quebec yesterday talking about supply management, and speaking to a hard-working woman in Regina. We needed a lot more of that.

Overall winner: Tom Mulcair. Perfect performance. Made himself warm and optimistic, as I expected he would.

First runner-up: Brian Topp. He not only stressed equality, he kept making the point that we have to show how we'll pay for our programs. Also, I look forward to reading more from him on his new points: environmental retrofit for homes and industries, and supporting credit unions for rural economic development (how?)

Niki Ashton won and lost. She surprised many with her persuasive and competent presentations. But she kept far too much to platitudes, and totally overused the phrase "New Politics."

Gaian

Wilf Day wrote:

Having now watched both debates again on CPAC, here's my assessment:

All the candidates would do the party a favour if they gave the viewing audience images of a coast-to-coast-to-coast race. They seldom did. Tom Mulcair mentioned having met with Chiefs in Thunder Bay. Niki Ashton mentioned being in Quebec yesterday talking about supply management, and speaking to a hard-working woman in Regina. We needed a lot more of that.

Overall winner: Tom Mulcair. Perfect performance. Made himself warm and optimistic, as I expected he would.

First runner-up: Brian Topp. He kept making the point that we have to show how we'll pay for it. Also, I look forward to reading more from him on his new points: environmental retrofit for homes and industries, and supporting credit unions for rural economic development (how?)

Niki Ashton won and lost. She surprised many with her persuasive and competent presentations. But she kept far too much to platitudes, and totally overused the phrase “New Politics.

I agree with you on the outcome, Wilf. But don't you think that with 9 candidates it winds up being a ridiculous format? You mention absence of specific content. How could there be with such a fast-paced format, seemingly fashioned after the sound bite formula where seconds are vital. The comments in this thread reflect the absence of ideas emanating from the non-debate.

And hopefully there will not be a nose-picking crowd as background next time out.

Hunky_Monkey

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
Davies stepped out of line in her comments with regard to party policy especially since she holds the position of deputy leader. And that's essentially what Mulcair, the other deputy leader, said. That it became some "vicious attack" is laughable.

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

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.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

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. 

-YAWN-

She will be the same age as Ed Schreyer when he formed the first NDP government in Manitoba.

She will be eight full years older that William Pitt when he essentially created the office of Prime Minister.

Frankly, targetting Ashton for her age is rank hypocrisy and nothing more.  Peggy Nash will be 64 at the next election, but no one is prepared to touch that with a ten foot pole.

It stinks of the usual boomer privilege.  The generation that wouldn't trust anyone over 30 now won't trust anyone under 50.  We saw in the 2009 SNDP leadership race.  (I recall one old hypocrite who'd been appointed to Cabinet in his 20s telling me with a straight face that a 34 year old physician with a track record in improving medical care in rural Africa and in Saskatoon's inner city simply couldn't be taken seriously as a leadership candidate.)  Having f****d up the planet, the boomers simply aren't prepared to let go.

Policywonk

wage zombie wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

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?

I don't know.  I don't know if it would make more sense to attack Topp on foreign policy stuff, maybe he had more influence on it than Dewar.

Because all of that is unknown to me I've been trying to just go by what's happening in this campaign.  I feel like I have been open to Dewar, because I recognise that each of the candidates have a significant negative.

But, I just haven't found much really to like yet.  In the debate he talked a lot about "Green Energy", just like everybody else.  So what?  His French doesn't meet the cut (and he's from a bilingual city).  Where's the substance?

All I hear is that he's a nice guy, nice demeanor, warm in person, and he clearly has developed a network of support.  But that's not enough to get my support.

I wasn't trying to attack him on foreign policy, I was being up front about my own preconceived biases.  BUT--if the reality was that other people came up with NDP foreign policy, and Dewar was just the guy that got handed the papers to read in front of the cameras, well, that hardly speaks to the notion of Paul Dewar as much of a leader.

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.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Gaian wrote:
And hopefully there will not be a nose-picking crowd as background next time out.
Laughing

 

I'm still laughing at the young guy yawning, then falling asleep, behind Chisholm. Then he woke up with a start and looked like he was having a "what the hell?" moment!Laughing

Newfoundlander_...

Malcolm wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

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. 

-YAWN-

She will be the same age as Ed Schreyer when he formed the first NDP government in Manitoba.

She will be eight full years older that William Pitt when he essentially created the office of Prime Minister.

Frankly, targetting Ashton for her age is rank hypocrisy and nothing more.  Peggy Nash will be 64 at the next election, but no one is prepared to touch that with a ten foot pole.

It stinks of the usual boomer privilege.  The generation that wouldn't trust anyone over 30 now won't trust anyone under 50.  We saw in the 2009 SNDP leadership race.  (I recall one old hypocrite who'd been appointed to Cabinet in his 20s telling me with a straight face that a 34 year old physician with a track record in improving medical care in rural Africa and in Saskatoon's inner city simply couldn't be taken seriously as a leadership candidate.)  Having f****d up the planet, the boomers simply aren't prepared to let go.

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.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

doofy wrote:

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)

 

Of course, at a comparable stage of the Sask NDP leadership race in 09, this sort of superficial analysis would have had us cut it down to a two-person race between Dwain Lingenfelter (who did win the race - but led the party to its worst electoral drubbing in 73 years) and Deb Higgins (who, despite being the only member of caucus in the race, managed to finish dead last).

Just sayin'.

Newfoundlander_...

Policywonk wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

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?

I don't know.  I don't know if it would make more sense to attack Topp on foreign policy stuff, maybe he had more influence on it than Dewar.

Because all of that is unknown to me I've been trying to just go by what's happening in this campaign.  I feel like I have been open to Dewar, because I recognise that each of the candidates have a significant negative.

But, I just haven't found much really to like yet.  In the debate he talked a lot about "Green Energy", just like everybody else.  So what?  His French doesn't meet the cut (and he's from a bilingual city).  Where's the substance?

All I hear is that he's a nice guy, nice demeanor, warm in person, and he clearly has developed a network of support.  But that's not enough to get my support.

I wasn't trying to attack him on foreign policy, I was being up front about my own preconceived biases.  BUT--if the reality was that other people came up with NDP foreign policy, and Dewar was just the guy that got handed the papers to read in front of the cameras, well, that hardly speaks to the notion of Paul Dewar as much of a leader.

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.

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.

Aristotleded24

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:
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.

Gary Doer also spoke in favour of this as Premier of Manitoba.

Newfoundlander_...

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:
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.

Gary Doer also spoke in favour of this as Premier of Manitoba.

I thought he probably did.

ottawaobserver

Malcolm wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

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.

-snip-

.... 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.

OO, you know as well as I do that nearly everything to this point is smoke and mirors.  The main reason Dewar is spoken of as a contender is that his Ottawa geographic base happens to align so nicely with the people who write such insightful "analysis."  Sure Ashton's people are tweeting and blogging proAshton tweets, blogs and links.  You surely aren't going to try to sell me the dubious spin that the Ashton campaign is alone in this.

I suspect that the explanation for why Ashton is the most talked about online is actually far more simple.  Ashton's support demographically skews younger, and the younger a person is the more likely they are to be engaged in these kinds of social networks.  Getting bitter over it (or pretending that Paul Dewar and his supporters aren't tweting just as assiduously) is . . . unconvincing.

Everyone is tweeting assiduously, I suppose. Not everyone is touting a study about how much they're being tweeted about, as though quantity is the only criterion.

As it happens, I agree with Wilf that she turned in a lively performance today, though the "new politics" stuff is not my thing as you well know.

Policywonk

Malcolm wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

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. 

-YAWN-

She will be the same age as Ed Schreyer when he formed the first NDP government in Manitoba.

She will be eight full years older that William Pitt when he essentially created the office of Prime Minister.

Frankly, targetting Ashton for her age is rank hypocrisy and nothing more.  Peggy Nash will be 64 at the next election, but no one is prepared to touch that with a ten foot pole.

It stinks of the usual boomer privilege.  The generation that wouldn't trust anyone over 30 now won't trust anyone under 50.  We saw in the 2009 SNDP leadership race.  (I recall one old hypocrite who'd been appointed to Cabinet in his 20s telling me with a straight face that a 34 year old physician with a track record in improving medical care in rural Africa and in Saskatoon's inner city simply couldn't be taken seriously as a leadership candidate.)  Having f****d up the planet, the boomers simply aren't prepared to let go.

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.

Policywonk

Policywonk wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

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. 

-YAWN-

She will be the same age as Ed Schreyer when he formed the first NDP government in Manitoba.

She will be eight full years older that William Pitt when he essentially created the office of Prime Minister.

Frankly, targetting Ashton for her age is rank hypocrisy and nothing more.  Peggy Nash will be 64 at the next election, but no one is prepared to touch that with a ten foot pole.

It stinks of the usual boomer privilege.  The generation that wouldn't trust anyone over 30 now won't trust anyone under 50.  We saw in the 2009 SNDP leadership race.  (I recall one old hypocrite who'd been appointed to Cabinet in his 20s telling me with a straight face that a 34 year old physician with a track record in improving medical care in rural Africa and in Saskatoon's inner city simply couldn't be taken seriously as a leadership candidate.)  Having f****d up the planet, the boomers simply aren't prepared to let go.

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.

To say nothing of the fact that Pitt was appointed by the King rather than elected (although it can be said that his appointment was confirmed by the people (at least those able to vote), in the election of 1784).

Stockholm

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

meades meades's picture

I'm supporting Saganash. I agree he started off rocky in the English debate, but this was aggravated by his bronchitis. He definitely appeared very strong in the French portion of the debate, which I think was more than just a result in shifting from English to French. I think he also had time to get comfortable with the stage and format. I think we'll see him improve in future debates. I'll have to look for clips of his perfromance in French, however, because I find the overdubbing on CPAC too distracting to get a real sense of what's being said beyond an overall impression of the delivery. Regardless of his performance, based on what he's put out so far I think he has the strongest background in issues facing rural communities, and undoubtedly has the best perspective of any candidate on the impact of colonialism on Canadian politics, First Nations, and rural communities. 

 

I was a bit blown away by Niki. I have to say I did not expect her to be as strong a communicator as she was, in both English and French. I found her repetition of the "new politics" slogan a bit over the top, of course this was something Jack did all the time in debates which proved to be effective. In any case, I'd say her stock is rising and she could be a major contender by the end of the race. I also think that she is the only candidate other than Saganash that speaks with both passion and a genuine competence on issues facing First Nations, and was particularly strong in addressing the rural/urban divide. 

 

Chisolm's lack of French skills was unfortunate. He came off well in the English portion of the debate, but I don't know if that will take him very far. It's one thing to have poor French skills, it's another to have hardly any skills whatsoever, and to be the only candidate that can't even attempt to conduct themselves in French will give a lot of potential supporters some second thoughts. 

 

Peggy Nash and Tom Mulcair also performed well, which I expected. I'd agree with the assessments others have made that Mulcair is probably trying to appear less aggressive, though the exchange he had with Cullen where Cullen asked him a question and Tom responded in French, I think this move was more deliberate than it appears. It was a bit of a slight, like "Oh I forgot you were learning French! I couldn't tell by the way you were butchering the language just now..." Otherwise, however, I think he came off well. Peggy was strong, assertive, confident, with a good analysis, though I concur with others that if there's anything lacking, it would be her analysis on the rural/urban divide (I'm not referring to the gun registry -  I think her stand on the registry is a good one). Of course there's a full debate on that topic coming up, so I suspect she'll have a better chance to flesh out her thinking on the topic at that point; there wasn't much space to do that in this debate.

 

Topp appeared flat, and a bit scattered. His attack on Dewar was bizarre, though it has gained him press and will probably help his positioning as a pragmatist, it was kind of dirty politics. There was no reason to bring up tax policy right off the bat because Dewar was actually answering the question asked of him. Dewar also answered Topp's question with a reference to cancelling corporate tax cuts, while Topp provided no uptake, basically acting as if he didn't hear the answer, and proceeded with his "Oh, you want to just toss it on the public debt," which is a complete misrepresentation. The rest of his performance was uninspiring. This combined with what I think have been strong-arm tactics by his campaign, I would say Topp is irredeemable in my eyes at this point. His plug for arts & culture was nice to see.

 

Dewar got off to a rough start thanks to Topp's early attack. I wasn't really impressed with his performance, but I do think he demonstrated an emphasis on concern for poverty and income inequality which make him more sympathetic in my eyes (though for what it's worth, I think Peggy, Niki, and Chisolm deserve kudos in this regard as well). 

 

Singh spoke well, delivering a strong performance, but his reference to protecting the pharmaceutical industry and his response to Peggy's question on pensions (stating CPP was one of many options for small business employees, appearing in line with Harper's pension plan) just turn me right off.

 

Cullen also did better than I expected, delivering some of the debate's best one-liners ("violent agreement;" "government that has not just lost touch, but lost its mind" etc.) but none of the questions touched on his more controversial positions, so I think we can expect that his performance in this debate will be better than in some of the ones to come, where the other candidate might take him on a bit more. 

Stockholm

FWIW in the 2002/03 NDP leadership contest - Layton did not do particularly well in the formal debates with the other candidates. In fact, i remember going to the Toronto debate and conceding that even though I was still supporting Layton - Blaikie was actually a better performer that night!

vaudree

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.

Stockholm

Wilf Day wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

Peggy Nash will be 64 at the next election, but no one is prepared to touch that with a ten foot pole.

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 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.

Wilf Day

Malcolm wrote:

Peggy Nash will be 64 at the next election, but no one is prepared to touch that with a ten foot pole.

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.

vaudree

dup

ottawaobserver

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

vaudree

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:
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.

Gary Doer also spoke in favour of this as Premier of Manitoba.

I thought he probably did.

Of course Doer did - repeatedly and often.  Manitoba Hydro has as much to gain from this as the hydro plants in Quebec.  The Grid was something Doer wanted so that he could sell hydro to Ontario, Saskatchewan etc.  Doer almost had a plan for a grid to Ontario with McGuinty but they could not do it on their own and needed a bit of help from the Federal Government and that part fell through and the deal fell apart.  Doer said that he wanted to sell hydro cheaper to the Provinces than to the States.  The Windmills would also help farmers and reserves because they will either own it or get paid for having it on their land. 

Dewar is right that grids for either wind or hydro would pay for themselves but it is the start up costs up front for the grids that are the problem.  Topp looked like he did not know the issue about hydro or wind at all.  Either that or he planned an attack and, instead of waiting for an opportune moment, did not let the facts get in the way of it.

Dewar would definitely have the image of a nice guy with that white ribbon he was wearing.

Can't see the other threads right now but if you put CPAC on "floor" rather than "English" you can avoid the translators.

Howard

I agree with Bookish Agrarian and Wilf Day. Also, it can't be said enough, Robert Chisholm was a disgrace.

kinch

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

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.

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. 

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

ottawaobserver wrote:

Everyone is tweeting assiduously, I suppose. Not everyone is touting a study about how much they're being tweeted about, as though quantity is the only criterion.

 

Who's "touting a study?"  I'm referring to a newspaper article that offered up one interesting snippet of information (among others).  How significant that snippet is would be anyone's guess.

But I suppose if you do that for a 29 year old female candidate then it's "touting" online volume as a "criterion."  How convenient that the various bits of minutiae offered on the other eight are legitimate.

I call bullshit.

Newfoundlander_...

vaudree wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:
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.

Gary Doer also spoke in favour of this as Premier of Manitoba.

I thought he probably did.

Of course Doer did - repeatedly and often.  Manitoba Hydro has as much to gain from this as the hydro plants in Quebec.  The Grid was something Doer wanted so that he could sell hydro to Ontario, Saskatchewan etc.  Doer almost had a plan for a grid to Ontario with McGuinty but they could not do it on their own and needed a bit of help from the Federal Government and that part fell through and the deal fell apart.  Doer said that he wanted to sell hydro cheaper to the Provinces than to the States.  The Windmills would also help farmers and reserves because they will either own it or get paid for having it on their land. 

Dewar is right that grids for either wind or hydro would pay for themselves but it is the start up costs up front for the grids that are the problem.  Topp looked like he did not know the issue about hydro or wind at all.  Either that or he planned an attack and, instead of waiting for an opportune moment, did not let the facts get in the way of it.

Dewar would definitely have the image of a nice guy with that white ribbon he was wearing.

Can't see the other threads right now but if you put CPAC on "floor" rather than "English" you can avoid the translators.

The problem is the current government in Quebec (probably more so Hydro Quebec) seem to be against this plan so it will be interesting to see if the NDP would promote it if Quebec is against it.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

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.

ottawaobserver

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...

ottawaobserver

No-one expected him to win either, Malcolm. They were delighted he was running, because it suggested an opening in Quebec. He also wasn't running to be a potential prime minister, a threshold he clearly would not have met with his life experience to that point.

vaudree

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.

Howard

Pierre Ducasse had good ideas (some of which were subsequently implemented; e.g. the Sherbrooke Declaration) and he was the only fluently bilingual candidate in the race. He articulated a vision of social democracy that was detailed and philosophical. He called on the party to take big risks and invest in areas where it had never done well before (i.e. Québec). Where are Ashton's big ideas? We've all heard her big slogans.

Winston

Just watched the debate on my PVR, and it TOTALLY BLEW MY EXPECTATIONS OUT OF THE WATER.  I went into it expecting Topp and Mulcair to both deliver: Mulcair did, while Topp really didn't.  I expected Peggy to be flat and Dewar to come across well: Peggy was considerably better than I had guessed, while Dewar seemed really wooden and uninspiring.  But the biggest surprise was that two candidates I had previously discounted out of prejudices (Cullen for his flat-footed nomination scheme, and Ashton for her age) really shone.

In terms of being ready for PM, I went in thinking it had to be Topp or Mulcair.  In the end, I still think Mulcair is the most poised and ready for the job, but Nathan Cullen (very shockingly to me) shot up 7 spots - he was energized, likeable, provided good answers, and came across as very intelligent and well-spoken.  His French surprised me - it still needs work, but he has a good a reasonably good accent and pronunciation and has a facility in using it that I had not expected.  If he were to distance himself from the joint-nomination thing, I could even list him #1, although I also understand why he can't/won't at this point.  I also left the debate a lot less worried about Peggy Nash winning than I was before - I still found her delivery kind of flat and McDonough-esque, but the content of her answers made up for a lot for it.

Saganash disappointed: while he spoke a lot of his "three pillars" in both languages, his answers were vague and poorly fleshed-out - much as I have been finding his Huff blog posts to be.  His delivery in both languages seemed hesitant (although less so in French). Paul Dewar seemed exceptionally uncomfortable in both languages which really surprised me, and while his French is greatly improved from the last time I heard it, it still makes my ears bleed.  Topp needs some coaching on body language in a serious way: his constant fidgeting made him seem shifty, and his deliver all too often came across as smarmy.  I did not think he came across well laying into Dewar and providing fodder for Tory attack ads.  Robert Chisholm?  Let's just say I was embarrassed for him.  Martin Singh is clearly very intelligent and well-spoken, but at times seemed like a one-track record: we get it, you're an entrepreneur and the others "aren't".

Before the debate I was thinking: 1. Mulcair, 2. Topp, 3. Saganash 4. Dewar

After the debate: 1. Mulcair 2. Cullen 3. Nash 4. Ashton

ottawaobserver

Malcolm wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

Everyone is tweeting assiduously, I suppose. Not everyone is touting a study about how much they're being tweeted about, as though quantity is the only criterion.

Who's "touting a study?"  I'm referring to a newspaper article that offered up one interesting snippet of information (among others).  How significant that snippet is would be anyone's guess.

But I suppose if you do that for a 29 year old female candidate then it's "touting" online volume as a "criterion."  How convenient that the various bits of minutiae offered on the other eight are legitimate.

I call bullshit.

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...

Newfoundlander_...

kinch wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

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.

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. 

I actually thought thought Jack should have considered stepping down as leader before 2015.

I'm well aware people are capable of of being productive well past the age of 65 but I like to see people who are a bit more youthful. There is also an added risk of having an older leader then a younger one. The NDP were lucky Jack was able to fight through the campaign, but he was noticeably sick at the beginning and passed away just months later. Imagine the bind the NDP would face if the government wasn't defeated last March. Danny Williams had a problem with his heart while premier, luckily he had surgery and recovered quickly but he's another example. We have had older Prime Ministers though. 

If I were voting in this race Peggy's age would definitely be a consideration for me. 

Wilf Day

Quote:
Long time New Democrat Enid Page said she liked the "non-combative format" and enjoyed hearing from the lesser known candidates.

"I knew nothing about Niki Ashton and I thought she was dynamite," she said. "I thought candidates Singh and Saganash, who I never met or heard of before, also proved their competence."

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

 

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

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

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

ottawaobserver wrote:

No-one expected him to win either, Malcolm. They were delighted he was running, because it suggested an opening in Quebec. He also wasn't running to be a potential prime minister, a threshold he clearly would not have met with his life experience to that point.

 

Most of you aren't expecting Ashton t win either, so that doesn't explain the depth of venom.

Pages

Topic locked