NDP Leadership- 44 threads before the first debate

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

Howard wrote:

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.

 

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.

Newfoundlander_...

I just started re-watching the debate and the mini debate between Dewar, Topp and Mukcair just finished and I have to say that seeing it I again I definitely think Dewar was quite strong during this segment. He seemed to come alive, he didn't look wooden and he clearly laid out his policy and how he would pay for it.  I really don't understand what Topp was trying to get on with when he mentioned the gst and then when he spoke about Dewar's plan just adding debt. 

I'm guessing Topp has/had some reason to worry about Dewar. He might be worried about the support Dewar has received in Manitoba and may know something others don't about Dewar's chances. It might have also been his way to avoid getting into a debate with Mulcair, who seemed supportive of Dewar's plan. 

Wilf Day

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

Quote:
Hormis M. Chisholm, le député d'Ottawa, Paul Dewar, a été parfois confus dans ses réponses en français, et dans une moindre mesure, Nathan Cullen, pour qui la langue de Molière présente encore des défis. Les autres candidats peuvent être déclarés à quelques nuances près bilingues.

http://www.985fm.ca/national/nouvelles/les-candidats-a-la-direction-du-npd-s-affrontent-p-110616.html 

KenS

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

 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.

You had made your point before you said this. Should have quit then.

I'm inclined to think calling it a 'vicious attack' is a bit excessive. But less excessive than your sanitizing.

Libby made a mistake responding to a trap. She wasnt freelancing on party policy. Mulcair turned it into a really big deal. And he 'explained' nothing- he tore a strip off of her. What was his business bringing it up at all? And if he was going to, all he had to do was say that in her brief comment she appears to have made a mistake. .... that what she appears to be saying is not in keeping with party policy.

If he was concerned with appearances and damage control, etc.... why not say something like "its not clear what she is saying.... I dont think she meant to say.... that would not be in keeping with party policy. Etc."

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

And quite frankly, I wonder if Jack Layton asked him to do so.

Oh sure, just Jack Layton's style.

 

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

ottawaobserver wrote:

I don't recall the other bits of minutiae, sorry.

 

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.

kinch

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

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. 

Then keep in mind that Mulcair is only 3 years younger than Nash. That's a marginal age difference, so your concerns about Nash's age should apply equally to Mulcair.  (Factor in the fact that males have shorter life expectancies, then even the marginal difference disappears.)

vaudree

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.

Hunky_Monkey

Malcolm wrote:

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.

Depth of venom? I don't see that. I like Ashton but still thinks she comes across as a university student body president. Does that apply to all 29 year old MPs? No.

You mentioned royal jelly before... I don't think she has it. Everyone has different criteria for that and I guess that's my personal opinion. I don't think it sexist or ageist though. Some people have it... some don't.

BTW... you keep bringing up the Sask race to use it as an example of what this race should do. Yeah, Lingenfelter didn't work out but who is to say Meili would have done any better?

Hunky_Monkey

KenS wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

 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.

You had made your point before you said this. Should have quit then.

I'm inclined to think calling it a 'vicious attack' is a bit excessive. But less excessive than your sanitizing.

Libby made a mistake responding to a trap. She wasnt freelancing on party policy. Mulcair turned it into a really big deal. And he 'explained' nothing- he tore a strip off of her. What was his business bringing it up at all? And if he was going to, all he had to do was say that in her brief comment she appears to have made a mistake. .... that what she appears to be saying is not in keeping with party policy.

If he was concerned with appearances and damage control, etc.... why not say something like "its not clear what she is saying.... I dont think she meant to say.... that would not be in keeping with party policy. Etc."

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

And quite frankly, I wonder if Jack Layton asked him to do so.

Oh sure, just Jack Layton's style.

 

But it was his style to call the ambassador to apologize and make that public...

Did she not say she supported sanctions, etc.? We can have that debate. But as deputy leader, she didn't show a lot of tact in dealing with the issue. I say again, if you dislike Mulcair over it, then take issue with how Jack handled it as well. I noticed at the time a lot of people did...

vaudree

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.

vaudree

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?

Wilf Day

vaudree wrote:

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

Niki Ashton is older than Christine Moore, Alexandrine Latendresse, Jonathan Tremblay, Mylène Freeman, Laurin Liu, Matthew Dube, Charmaine Borg , Pierre-Luc Dusseault, Élaine Michaud, Ruth Ellen Brosseau, Rosane Dore Lefebvre, Ève Péclet, Isabelle Morin, Dany Morin, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, and Marie-Claude Morin.

Comments on the Huff Post story:

Quote:
Comparing any candidate to Jack is not only inappropri­ate but shows a lack of understand­ing about human developmen­t. It is like comparing a kindergart­en student to one in grade eight. Jack had a number of years to sharpen his presentati­on. Many of these candidates are stepping out for the first time. Moreover, using Jack as a measure is like expecting every pastor to be Jesus. Intelligen­ce suggest that the candidates be evaluated in their own context and not in the context of others else we would do a disfavour to them and to ourselves.

We can nit pick the debate but in so doing we are acknowledg­ing the strength of the selection before us. All pass the intelligen­ce test. The main question is who is going to be electable and who will have the longest and strongest coat tails.

The NDP, by fluke or plan, has the strongest team of elected members in the House and makes the Conservati­ve look like a bunch of good old boys at a bachelor party.

Quote:
Niki Ashton has the better agenda. Her speaking of a new politics is right on, not the idea it is time for a female PM, that is really sexist. She has the idea but she has no cronyism support. You could have reported more about her, and I am surprised you didn't.

KenS

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

And quite frankly, I wonder if Jack Layton asked him to do so.

Oh sure, just Jack Layton's style.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:
But it was his style to call the ambassador to apologize and make that public... Did she not say she supported sanctions, etc.? We can have that debate. But as deputy leader, she didn't show a lot of tact in dealing with the issue. I say again, if you dislike Mulcair over it, then take issue with how Jack handled it as well. I noticed at the time a lot of people did...

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.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

vaudree wrote:

The apology was a smart move because it put to rest the notion that the NDP were anti-Jew,

 

Uh..."anti-Jew"?

Newfoundlander_...

kinch wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

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. 

Then keep in mind that Mulcair is only 3 years younger than Nash. That's a marginal age difference, so your concerns about Nash's age should apply equally to Mulcair.  (Factor in the fact that males have shorter life expectancies, then even the marginal difference disappears.)

I would consider that too.

vaudree wrote:

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.

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.

vaudree

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.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Depth of venom? I don't see that. I like Ashton but still thinks she comes across as a university student body president. Does that apply to all 29 year old MPs? No. You mentioned royal jelly before... I don't think she has it. Everyone has different criteria for that and I guess that's my personal opinion. I don't think it sexist or ageist though. Some people have it... some don't. BTW... you keep bringing up the Sask race to use it as an example of what this race should do. Yeah, Lingenfelter didn't work out but who is to say Meili would have done any better?

 

I don't think some of those comments would be made about a 35 year old woman or about a 29 year old man.  Make of that what you will.

I've never used the Meili experience as an argument about how this race "should" go, but merely about how it could go.  You lot have written off Ashton for the same reason that boomers wrote off Meili (and Pedersen).  Yet somehow both Meili and Pedersen managed to come in ahead of the only serving caucus member in the race.  Some of you have written off the significance of social networking yet that was the ticket to moving Meili from being an unknown to being a contender.  Much of what's been offered here as conventional wisdom certainly didn't pan out in that leadership race.

Of course, we'll never know if Meili (or Pedersen) would have done better, but it's close to a dead cert they couldn't have done much worse.  The lowest vote for your party in 73 years is a singular achievement.  It would have been a different NDP and a different election.  What I identify as the principle failings of the NDP campaign are mostly tied to either those Dwain brought with him or the C-Team already there that drank the Lingenfelter KoolAid.

Finally, yes, venom.  There are only three of the nine candidates here who have been dissed for who they are (ie, not for specific identified failings like Dewar's French or Cullen's cooperation proposal).  Those three are Topp, Mulcair and Ashton.  The first two have longe been identified as the presumptive frontrunners, so would naturally attract such commentary.  Yet Ashton, who you assure me is an irrelevance, seems t generate a lot of sound and fury from people who I can only presume fear that Aston may be a threat to their preferred candidate.

Wilf Day

ottawaobserver wrote:

You don't seriously expect us to believe Nash and Dewar don't have endorsements in their back pocket for momentum purposes, do you.

Actually I am, yes, sceptical of that idea. Why wait for the second debate? or the fifth? I'd get the endorsements out now.

Gaian

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.

KenS

vaudree wrote:

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.

Endless topic. But suffice to say that Quebec demands a huge chunk of future profit- not just transmission tolls- for being a transmission corridor. Try the word extortionist.

nicky

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.

KenS

I saw a fair bit of discussion here George about what people saw in the debates and what it means about electability. As to substsnce of what they said, what is really to say from the debates?

Nash, Dewar and Topp all referred to existing policy they have put out and that has been discussed here in more depth than what came up in the debates. [Where there was little debating anyway.] Does not sound like Mulcair still has not proposed anything- as several people including yourself said they were looking to see some of in the debates.

KenS

Suppose this thread will make it to 200?

MegB

Continued here.

Pages

Topic locked