NDP leadership 56

207 posts / 0 new
Last post
ottawaobserver

doofy wrote:

Just watched Captsick, and I am schocked at what he said. He's been covertly supporting Topp from the beginning http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/ppwarroom_20110823_15231.mp3

Why would he be spreading rumours that Topp might quit the race as part of an "Anybody but Mulcair" mov't?  The scenario he evokes does not  pass the "common-sense" test. From the start of the campaign, Topp has portrayed himself as the only candidate, except Mulcair, who could hold Quebec. That's why he joined the race, with the support of Broadbent & co, instead of rallying behind an experienced English Canhadian MP such as Peggy Nash. The idea that the candidate with the most "high-profile"  endorsements would abadnon the race before the convention seems extremely far-fetched.

So what's Capstick's agenda? Yes, he could just be trying to make noise, but I somehow doubt it. (especially consdering the similarly provocative comments that I have referenced). My idea is that he might be trying to telegraph to Mulcair supporters that their candidate can't win (not enough support past the first ballot), and that they had better rally behind their most logical second choice (Topp), thereby preventing him from getting out of the race. Does that make sense?

No. You're getting paranoid. He has usually been wrong, and is just trying to be sassy. Some people think he's backing Topp, some people think he's backing Cullen, some people think he's backing Mulcair. I think he's just trying to be controversial, which seems to be the mandate of that awful show.

Bookish Agrarian

Debater wrote:

I don't get why Chisholm ran in the first place.  It's obvious that you can't learn a 2nd language in the course of a few months campaign.  It kind of makes him look a little silly to enter and then drop out.  Reminds me of some of the Republican Presidential candidates.

 

I think the example you are looking for is a guy named Gerard Kennedy when you are asking why run when you can't meet basic criteria beyond huge hubris.  

Chisholm has a wealth of experience and smarts.  On every other criteria but language he certainly deserved to be in the race if he wanted to be.  It may simply be the pressure to have an eastern candidate was so strong he felt he had little choice after a few others stepped back and under-estimated how over-ridingly important that single criteria was.  It should have been obvious, but given his clear strengths in other areas he may have thought it would balance out.  Memebers clearly sent him the message it was far more important than he thought and to his enormous credit Chisholm heard the message and did the right thing.  

I think Chisholm showed real leadership today, and if there had been more time on language training for him you can see how he could have been a very crediable leadership contender if we hadn't had to have this race so soon.

Bookish Agrarian

nicky wrote:
I heard Capstick as well. The disturbing aspect for me was that he confirmed there was an Anyone But Tom movement. In fact when he was asked about it he was very dismissive of the notion that there was any doubt about whether it existed. One of the other panelists started to ask about how this would be perceived in Quebec but didn't get an answer. Capstick stressed that because of the preferential ballot any throwing of support would have to happen well before the convention. I hope Capstick is wrong. If not we may be heading into a very destructive process.

 

With respect nicky you can't make the case that there is an Anyone but Tom movement no matter what Capstick says.  Capsticks job is to get noticed, nothing more. He doesn't have deep roots in the party across the country so he has zero way of know much of anything.  (This is true of most pundits to be fair, especially in a OMOV situation where all ballots, regardless of region count as much as any others.)  You get noticed by making such unfounded statements that's all Capstick is doing.  

 

I have to say you also get noticed as a campaign if you try to make this kind of case.  It is not at all helpful for your candidate to whine and cry and pull your hair out. 

I know a lot of people who are supporting various candidates.  Many of them have Thomas Mulcair in their top 5 choices from what I understand (at least at this point).  This thing is going to be won in 4-5 ballots I expect.   Playing the woe is we card for a campaign will not help in those 2nd, 3rd and 4th ballots as it will turn folks off.   I would put this card back in your deck.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

 

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
 

Chisholm has a wealth of experience and smarts.  On every other criteria but language he certainly deserved to be in the race if he wanted to be.  It may simply be the pressure to have an eastern candidate was so strong he felt he had little choice after a few others stepped back and under-estimated how over-ridingly important that single criteria was.  It should have been obvious, but given his clear strengths in other areas he may have thought it would balance out.  Memebers clearly sent him the message it was far more important than he thought and to his enormous credit Chisholm heard the message and did the right thing.  

I think Chisholm showed real leadership today, and if there had been more time on language training for him you can see how he could have been a very crediable leadership contender if we hadn't had to have this race so soon.

I had the pleasure of meeting him recently and he struck me as very sincere with experience and a strong presence, and even charismatic. He emphasized his opposition to a merger, joint party nominations in Conservative ridings, and moving closer to the centre - that social democratic policies, such as public health care and public health insurance, appeal to the majority of Canadians and by emphasizing our policies and values, that's how we can attract more voters to the NDP, by distinguishing ourselves as social democrats, and not as a Liberal-lite.  

Newfoundlander_...

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Debater wrote:

I don't get why Chisholm ran in the first place.  It's obvious that you can't learn a 2nd language in the course of a few months campaign.  It kind of makes him look a little silly to enter and then drop out.  Reminds me of some of the Republican Presidential candidates.

 

I think the example you are looking for is a guy named Gerard Kennedy when you are asking why run when you can't meet basic criteria beyond huge hubris.  

Chisholm has a wealth of experience and smarts.  On every other criteria but language he certainly deserved to be in the race if he wanted to be.  It may simply be the pressure to have an eastern candidate was so strong he felt he had little choice after a few others stepped back and under-estimated how over-ridingly important that single criteria was.  It should have been obvious, but given his clear strengths in other areas he may have thought it would balance out.  Memebers clearly sent him the message it was far more important than he thought and to his enormous credit Chisholm heard the message and did the right thing.  

I think Chisholm showed real leadership today, and if there had been more time on language training for him you can see how he could have been a very crediable leadership contender if we hadn't had to have this race so soon.

Kennedy was bilingual, what other criteria did he not meet?

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

AnonymousMouse wrote:
Some campaigns certainly DON'T seem to have momentum. If it's not too early to say that, then I don't think it's too early to say that some do. Of course things like endorsements and reviews of the candidates' debate performances only mean so much (and it would be great to see a poll of the membership instead), but based on the information we have available to us I think the conclusions I've drawn are quite fair.

Those conclusions are just your opinions, which you're certainly entitled to.  

AnonymousMouse wrote:
The conclusions Capstick has drawn seem wildly off. As for the debates, Cullen, Ashton and Nash were all mentioned by at least a few commentators as having done well in the first debate, but (as I wrote) Mulcair was mentioned by every commentator (or very close to it). Saying that one candidate "won" the debate is too simplistic, but when one particular candidate keeps getting singled out as one of the best performers that's a big, big positive.

That's just how you choose to spin it. No one is really being singled out.

AnonymousMouse wrote:
I would argue Topp has nearly as impressive credentials in these regards as Nash, Dewar has about the same level of experience and--as a former cabinet minister and Quebec Lieutenant during the Orange Wave--I would argue Mulcair has significantly more.

Unfortunately, Topp has no electoral experience and has never held any public office. I wish he would run in a by-election first. If he ran in a riding near me, I would probably volunteer for him.    

AnonymousMouse wrote:
But even if you disagree, those are all qualities we knew about when the race began. What's helping Peggy Nash RIGHT NOW is a very different question. And what is helping her right now seems to be that two of the other candidates she's up against seem to have significant problems with their own campaigns (Dewar's lack of ability in French and Topp's lack of experience/ability as a candidate). Nash's resume is well known. There's no reason to believe that is helping relative to the position she was in when she entered the race. And her campaign simply doesn't seem to be doing much. Few significant endorsements. No huge events that I've heard of. Not a particularly active tour. No attention grabbing policy announcements. No compeling messaging that I've seen. That's not to say we won't see more from her campaign later on. And none of the campaigns have been super active. But that doesn't change the fact that it appears that the perception her campaign is gaining ground is based mostly on the fact that two of her rivals seem to have lost ground.

Quote:

An Active Government for a Fair Economy

by Peggy Nash MP, Parkdale-High Park; NDP leadership candidate.


To foster innovation, productivity, and a green economy, markets need to be pushed and challenged by our government.
I will start with a real plan to create good jobs across the country, which will form the core of how we start rebuilding our economy so more Canadians benefit.
A strategy to create value-added jobs, where we not only harvest our country's vast natural resources, but also focus on keeping the processing sector in Canada, will mean we're not exporting jobs along with our raw materials. The resulting value-added jobs will demand high skills, and will bring Canadian workers high pay. This will also mean that companies will create research and development centres close by in order to support workplace innovation and productivity, thereby reviving local economies and creating opportunities for local suppliers and businesses.
Our manufacturing sector needs to be strengthened. After years of erosion that devastated whole communities, we can use government investment to establish manufacturing revitalization and new energy technologies that will generate quality, innovative jobs.
We also need to reshape government policy to create a greener economy. We can achieve that by ending subsidies to the oil sands and using those savings to help diversify our energy sector and support provinces and municipalities with infrastructure renewal and other investments.
But to realize this dream of a strengthened, green economy with quality jobs, we need real action and real leadership. Our party's challenge between now and the next election will be to connect the fair-mindedness that is found across our country with concrete government action - to connect the passion for a better, greener world, and the need to turn our economy around, with the political will to get us there.

http://www.themarknews.com/articles/7695-an-active-government-for-a-fair-economy

 

Quote:

Peggy Nash nets NDP's 'top endorsement' as Layton's finance critic

Largely overlooked so far, NDP leadership hopeful Peggy Nash goes deep in a wide-ranging VO exclusive interview.

David P. Ball Posted: Dec 11th, 2011

She's been dubbed a "practical radical" - and even the "Iron Lady of the Left."
 
But Toronto's Peggy Nash - an emerging top contender in the quest to succeed Jack Layton as leader of Canada's New Democratic Party (NDP) - is no Thatcher. Her hope: to become Canada's "first-ever female social democratic Prime Minister.

"I believe in this leadership campaign, if we're going to talk about economic justice, we've also got to talk about social justice and human rights," she told the crowd. "We have to fight for human rights -- we have to defend the rights of everyone in society."

And though the media seem to have already called the race as a two-way run between Brian Topp and Thomas Mulcair, many are looking to the party's finance critic as an intriguing third option - someone who might bridge Topp's progressive views and his closeness to Jack Layton, with Mulcair's charismatic (though mercurial) personality and government experience.

In a political sphere where women are still categorized as either too tough (Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel) or too soft to lead, Nash earned her strong image not only from going "toe-to-toe" with finance minister Jim Flaherty and then-industry minister Jim Prentice. In her years before becoming a member of Parliament in 2006, Nash was a chief negotiator with the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) union - the first woman even to negotiate a major deal with the automotive industry - the 2005 Ford Canada pact.
 
If that doesn't take steely resolve, try dealing with irate airport travellers. In a former life, Nash was an airline ticket agent. She speaks French, English and Spanish fluently. In the House of Commons, she's put forward bills for a $10 national minimum wage, honorary citizenship for the Dalai Lama and - making Canadian history - blocked a Canadian company's takeover by a U.S. arms manufacturer.

"I led the charge," she said of the successful effort to stop the sale of MacDonald, Dettwiler & Associates (MDA), maker of the Canadarm, to a U.S. munitions manufacturer. "It was the first time in the history of our Competition Act.

"Once we examined (the deal), it became obvious even to the Minister (of Industry Jim Prentice) that it was not in Canada's interest. I've also shown as finance critic I can go toe-to-toe with (Finance Minister) Jim Flaherty with gusto and effectiveness."

Nash said that bridging her passion for social justice with knowledge of economics is a key to her campaign. And, with economic inequality at an all-time high in Canada, she insisted Canadians need to hear more clearly the NDP's economic vision.
 
"We should never be afraid of talking about economic issues," she said. "We are the party that wants to reduce inequality and create good quality jobs with decent incomes, and you can only do that if you have strong social programs and strong environmental policy - they all go together.
 
"Most people work really hard for their money and they want to make sure that the NDP understands that - which we do - and that we respect the tax dollars they send to Ottawa ... The average person says, 'Wait a minute - that's my money. I want to know that you value how hard I worked for that.' I think that in the next election, that's our challenge - to demonstrate that that's our approach."

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/2011/12/11/peggy-nash-nets-ndps-top-endorsement-laytons-finance-critic?page=0%2c0

Quote:

Nash wants economy to be NDP's strong suit
Toronto MP says she has the qualities to be the next NDP leader
By Meagan Fitzpatrick, CBC News
Posted: Dec 14, 2011 1:03 PM ET
Last Updated: Dec 14, 2011 5:51 PM ET

 

The NDP can do a better job managing the economy than the Conservatives, according to Peggy Nash, who is running for the leadership of her party and is out to prove her claim.

Nash acknowledges the NDP has a reputation for being focused on social issues and weak on economic ones, but the Toronto MP says she can help change public perception by encouraging her party to shine on the finance file.

"In the next federal election, we have to be able to convince Canadians that we are the best party to manage the economy and to provide the kind of good stable jobs that people are looking for," Nash said in a recent interview in her Ottawa office.

"In the past, sometimes the NDP had shied away from addressing economic issues. In my view, it is the central issue and ought to be our strength," she said. Social democratic governments in Canada, and around the world, have solid records on reducing inequality and creating economic stability, she said.

 

She and Layton had talked about the need for the NDP to focus more on the economy, Nash said, and it was a specific strategy they began working on before he died in August.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/12/14/pol-peggy-nash-profile.html

 

Quote:

Seven things we learned from the first NDP leadership debate

  Dec 4, 2011 - 6:34 PM ET | Last Updated: Dec 5, 2011 10:23 AM ET

 

This contest is a sea of troubles for corporate Canada but by far the most worrisome outcome would be a Peggy Nash win. Ms. Nash claims that the countries that have truly succeeded "haven't handed over all decision-making power to corporations." By the sound of her plan, under a Nash government those decisions would be made by the unions, which she considers to be an extension of the party, and the government. Ms. Nash put in a solid performance and nobody should be at all surprised if she ends up winning next March.

Mr. Mulcair has been much maligned as someone who would, as Lloyd George said of Churchill, make a drum out of the skin of his own mother in order to sound his own praises. But during the debate, he was the epitome of collegiality and good humour. He makes a reasonable case that he is the candidate most able to take the party to the next level by reaching out beyond its traditional base. But first he has to persuade the traditional base to vote for him. The number of votes available in his home province suggest this will be tough.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/04/john-ivison-seven-things-we-learned-from-the-first-ndp-leadership-debate/

 

Andrew Coyne thinks Peggy Nash will win:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXLTbUE7pPs

 

Quote:

Opinion: Peggy Nash the candidate to watch in NDP leadership race

 

By Barbara Yaffe, Vancouver Sun December 13, 2011

 

Keep your eye on Peggy Nash. In a crowded field of New Democratic Party leadership candidates, she stands out.

It is partly because she's smart and as she herself says, has "skin like a rhinoceros." But it's also because she exudes a calm moderation that would serve her well in reaching out to voters who aren't NDPers.

 

Fluent in French, Nash uses the noun une rassembleuse to describe her ability to bring people together. Having her political base in Toronto, where she's MP for Parkdale-High Park, won't be a disadvantage in building on the party's Quebec support, she insists. "I haven't heard Quebecers say the next leader has to be from Quebec. I have heard them say they expect the next leader to be bilingual and open to Quebec's culture and institutions."

The 60-year-old former NDP party president, who began her working life as an Air Canada ticket agent, eventually became a Canadian Auto Workers' labour negotiator who has "sat across the table from some of the CEOs of our largest companies," she said.

In a political career that began just five years ago, she has been the party's critic for industry, then finance.

Nash is endorsed by four NDP MPs, two from B.C. (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca MP Randall Garrison and Victoria MP Denise Savoie) and by former NDP leader Alexa McDonough.

 

Asked about her prospects in the current race - might she sneak up the middle as a compromise candidate between Topp and Mulcair at the leadership convention next March? - Nash says: "I have heard people say that it's certainly a possibility, but it's too early to predict."

 

CTV's Craig Oliver praises Nash:

 

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111028/peggy-nash-ndp-leadership-race-111028/

 

(on right hand side under "CTV News Video", click on "CTV News Channel: Nash changes race dynamic"

 

 

Bookish Agrarian

Kennedy was NOT bilingual.  His french is on par with Dewar at best and was often completely cringable.

Newfoundlander_...

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Kennedy was NOT bilingual.  His french is on par with Dewar at best and was often completely cringable.

Well he passed a bilingualism test during the leadership race. He may not be fluent but that doesn't mean he is not bilingual. Chisholm could not communicate in French.  

AnonymousMouse

Gerard Kennedy certainly was not bilingual. I agree with BA, Kennedy was roughly parallel with Paul Dewar.

doofy

OO#51: I don't just think Capstick supports Topp, I am basing it on what he said himself. If you listen to the link, Capstick stated back in August that he is looking to someone from outside the caucus who could "pull the party together"; and that neither Muclair nor Libby Davies should run.

As far as that show being awful, I could not agree with you more. A serious journalist would have  confronted Capstick with his past statements, and asked him how he could claim to be "neutral" in the race. But I know I have too high expectations for Solomon... As a result, viewers are left to devise various theories...

Newfoundlander_...

I guessed the test he passed was rigged then. 

Kennedy was not trying to lead a party that had a majority of its caucus from Quebec. 

Bookish Agrarian

You sure seem to have a lot invested in the poor, poor Liberal Mr. Kennedy.  Just go back and review tapes.  His French is not crediable for someone running for the leadership of a national party.  Upon sorting through my memories I would in fact say it does a disservice to Mr. Dewar as Kennedy's french at the time he ran for the leadership was in fact quite a bit worse.  But of course Liberals like Debater just like to ignore such things when they make their little digs.  It does though have about sweet nothing to do with the NDP leadership campaign.

Newfoundlander_...

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

You sure seem to have a lot invested in the poor, poor Liberal Mr. Kennedy.  Just go back and review tapes.  His French is not crediable for someone running for the leadership of a national party.  Upon sorting through my memories I would in fact say it does a disservice to Mr. Dewar as Kennedy's french at the time he ran for the leadership was in fact quite a bit worse.  But of course Liberals like Debater just like to ignore such things when they make their little digs.  It does though have about sweet nothing to do with the NDP leadership campaign.

Stephen Harper's French a few years ago was considered to be on the level of Dewar's and he now has a majority government.

Bookish Agrarian

So you consider Stephen Harper and Gerard Kennedy to be roughly equal?  Whatev, but even I wouldn't go that far.

Newfoundlander_...

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

So you consider Stephen Harper and Gerard Kennedy to be roughly equal?  Whatev, but even I wouldn't go that far.

My point was that Kennedy passed a test on bilingualism during the 2006 leadership race, so I don't know how you can compare him to Chisholm who couldn't understand questions in French. 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

Stephen Harper's French a few years ago was considered to be on the level of Dewar's and he now has a majority government.

Yeah, but how many of those seats he has are from Quebec?

Stockholm

I'm not sure what "test" Kennedy passed. I remember distinctly that his leadership campaign went into free-fall when it became clear that his abilities were highly over-rated and that his French was actually very sub-standard.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Ottawa Observer wrote:

Still waiting for that Niki Ashton video, of course, to show us how it's really done ;-)

 

Not sure what that gratuitous shot was about, but let me just point out that, so far as I am aware, no Ashton supporter has said squat here about the Dewar video.

FWIW, I thought it was well conceived and well executed.  A little surprised by the length, but it didn't seem long watching it.  I'd've probably included some voiceovers of Dewar endorsers (no need for it to be profile endorsers particularly), but that's just me.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

Yes, Malcolm, you have correctly transcribed the results of the decided 159-N sub-sample of an NDP supporter 300-N sub-sample of a 1,100-N national sample IVR poll. Good job. What odds are you giving on its predictive capability?

Thank you. For god's sake, could someone finally do a real poll so that we can stop talking about this thing that should have never been reported in the first place?

 

As I always say, any poll tells you what it tells you - but that's all it tells you.  It was nice for us that Niki was ahead of most of the field - even if its pure optics because the gap was so narrow and the margin so huge.

Is it predictive?  Probably not.

What I think is more interesting is the way Ivison apparently screwed up (or misrepresented?) the numbers, doubling Dewar's actual standing and implying a lower standing for Niki.  Since his column was practically a plea to support Dewar . . .

ottawaobserver

I thought it was a gentle josh, Malcolm. With all the gushing about the momentum of Niki's campaign in the preceding posts, I was sure we'd be seeing one before long.

ottawaobserver

Malcolm wrote:

What I think is more interesting is the way Ivison apparently screwed up (or misrepresented?) the numbers, doubling Dewar's actual standing and implying a lower standing for Niki.

Yes, that was weird, I agree.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

The sad thing about Bob Chisholm is that, apart from language, one could make a good argument that he would have been the ideal leader of the NDP in the current circumstances.  Not only did he have actual leadership experience from Nova Scotia, the situation of the NSNDP through the latter part of his leadership was startlingly similar to the current situation of the NDP: a former marginal party now on the cusp of power.

I think the departure does add to the pressure on Dewar to demonstrate his improved French.  However you finesse his second language skills, he now has probably the worst French of the candidates who would seem to have any credible shot of winning.

ottawaobserver

Well, Malcolm, I think the pressure was always pretty intense to do so. You're talking about a man who has been underestimated before, and is not naive about the dynamics here.

kinch

CanadaApple wrote:

kinch wrote:

Party won't hand over membership info to pollsters. 

Is that because they just don't want to, or because they can't?

 

Well, I don't think the party can or would hand over the information to a third party who commisions the poll. It's true that the party could commision a poll themselves and publicly post the results, but I highly doubt they'd do that. 

writer writer's picture

These two tweets by Akin, less than an hour apart from each other = hilarious:

Quote:
Wow. Our straw poll results for #NDPLdr at 2230 EDT: Saganash 38%, Nash 21%, Mulcair 14% -- Topp 7% Vote: http://t.co/xqnavgHP #cdnpoli

https://twitter.com/#!/davidakin/status/149695459315810304 

Blog: NDP insider: Saganash, Ashton should pack it up. Topp maybe, too: Ian Capstick is a smart fellow who knows... http://bit.ly/rDkxjW

">https://twitter.com/#!/davidakin/status/149719153635373056

That, my friends, is a neat summary of what mainstream journalism has to offer us.

Newfoundlander_...

Boom Boom wrote:
Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

Stephen Harper's French a few years ago was considered to be on the level of Dewar's and he now has a majority government.

Yeah, but how many of those seats he has are from Quebec?

When his French was considered poor he took 25% of the vote in Quebec. Now that Quebeckers see his ideology they've turned against him. Are the NDP only concerned about Quebec now?

Stockholm wrote:

I'm not sure what "test" Kennedy passed. I remember distinctly that his leadership campaign went into free-fall when it became clear that his abilities were highly over-rated and that his French was actually very sub-standard.

The Liberal Party made each candidate do a test to see if they were bilingual, Dion in English and the rest in French. His campaign probably went into "free-fall", which I don't know if it did or not, probably because he came out against recognizing the Quebecois as a nation, a smart move. Had Kennedy supported the motion he probably would have beaten Dion on the second ballot and went on to win.

ottawaobserver

Niki talks programme in Hamilton. Nice hit on "foreign predators":

http://www.thespec.com/print/article/643070

ottawaobserver

Mulcair profile from CBC.ca.

Hunky_Monkey

Quote:
Mulcair said he would also resurrect a long gun registry, one that corrects the flaws he says exist in the current system that is being dismantled by the Conservatives.

"For the purposes of public protection you would need a form of registration of firearms, yes," he said.

There's your answer, KenS :) Pretty clear one, too.

vaudree

I don't see why we should criticize people for wanting to increase their profile and showcase their abilities. Chisholm did look good for the first half of the last debate and I agree with writer # 22 and Bookish Agrarian #53. Martin Singh is in to showcase what he considers to be the breadth of the party. Besides being a pharmacist and a businessman, he is on this faith panel of the NDP - if the Sikh religion has a counterpart to the social gospel and bund we will find out in the next "family" debate. Also, his business partner is a Protestant by the name of Nathan Hill so he is good at working close with people of other faiths! And, because he is on faith communities, while others are talking about the sandwich generation, he can talk about those who feel like an important slice of bread is missing out of their lives. Saganash can talk about missing both slices of bread.

There is this commercial about learning languages that has been playing a lot. I am surprised that they don't have a politician as a spokesperson.

Re Capstick; I could have told you that there is an anybody but Mulcair movement without talking to anybody and before Mulcair entered the race even. Turmel may be a shitty public speaker, but she does have a quality that other MPs figure is essential in a leader in that she tends to be more collaborative than top down - the kind of person who allows strong personalities to blossom while keeping everyone on message (ok there was the Stoffer thing but it could have been every day) and whom the MPs know has their back. There is no question that Mulcair can make mincemeat of Harper in both official languages but what kind of boss will he be?

Topp - if he doesn't do better in the January debates, he will probably call it quits because he isn't in this to increase his profile or to include things in the conversation that usually get left out. Whether he stays in or drops out, Topp promised to run in the next election, so it is a matter of what move now would make that a better possibility. I also wonder about what kind of boss he would be.

Often those who have dropped out get to be commentators after a debate or before it. Commenting on the race would profile Topp's strategic abilities moreso than staying in the race.

ottawaobserver

I don't know where Ian Capstick came up with that whacky idea, but he's already dialling it back in his blog, citing his "big mouth". At least he's honest about that part.

http://iancapstick.tumblr.com/post/14593177537/ians-big-mouthed-theories

 

Newfoundlander_...

I think what Capstick was trying to say was that he figures a frontrunner will step down so that Mulcair doesn't win. I think Topp was the name that came to mind first becaus he was not strong during the debates, and doesn't appear to be strong among the grassroots. Topp I think is similar to Ignatiff in a way, he has been chosen by the executive but is a bit polarizing and unable to get grassroots supporters. 

Brian Glennie

Nathan Cullen released a position paper on trade yesterday:

 

http://www.nathancullen.ca/en/policies/trade-that-works-for-workers-and-...

KenS

The enduring nature of the belief in an Anythng But Mulcair Movement would be amusing if it wasnt reflective of something with disturbing prospects. 

Let alone Capsticks credibility is zilch because he is mostly interested in self promotion through controversy- there is no evidence that even he thinks such a thing exists... that it is anything more than something he can say and get himself quoted ad infanatum.

Bad enough that such a compelling motivation is ascribed to someone throwing everything he has into the leadership race.

It is downright funny when someone like Howard Hampton gets pulled in as potential evidence of this movement. [And it makes no difference if people backpeddle and call it some kind of tendency without overt propulsion.]

"Now that Chisholm is out, if Howard Hampton endorses someone besides Mulcair, that will be proof that there is a Stop Mulcair campaign."

Laughable.

Take a look at this from another angle. I'm pretty much an anything but Mulcair person. He would not be any lower than fifth on my list, and will rise higher than that as candidates start showing that are not going to resolve the different major flaws I see in them. Someone used that bar of ranking fifth as being open to Topp and Mulcair. But I dont think so. If you rate one of the top tier down there or lower, its pretty clear you really dont want them.

So barring all the other serious candidates I am considering turning out to be failures, I am an anything but Mulcair person.

Is that because of some semi-organized thing or some group think I am part of?

No, it is what it is- I'm very relucatnt to see Mulcair become Leader. Which is an opinion that started forming after he announced and began identifying himself. Why if Howard Hampton did not endorse Mulcair, even if you surmise Mulcair is low on his list [with a Ouija board I guess], would one look at Howards choice as any different then mine? I guess since Howard is a member of the establisment, it makes plausible that being his ipso facto motivator.

Somebody is going to be everyone's least favourite 'serious candidate'. And without knowing a thing about the candidates, you could safely predict the two candidates with the highest profiles would be the two that attracted the most "whatever else i DONT want him."

Topp and Mulcair.

But somehow its 'natural' that people have a visceral reaction to Topp. But having very negative opinions of Mulcair is evidence of some kind of movement to deny him the prize. 

 

It is likely that Chisholm will endorse someone.

Chisholm Endorses Mulcair.  "Isnt that great. A good choice."

Chisholm Endorses Topp.  "See how much they are working to stop Tom."

Gaian

Does this mean you will advance your criticisms of other candidates now that you've admitted that you are "pretty much an anything but Mulcair person?" We will not be subjected to the endless reasoning of one whose mind is made up, and that's an end on it? :)

adma

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

adma wrote:

And just because Chisholm blew the leadership doesn't mean he blew his seat (memo to Debater re a Mike Savage comeback).

Anyway, I'm curious to see where his top endorser Howard Hampton'll go (on geographic grounds, it's easy to auto-assume Niki Ashton--note: "easy to auto-assume")

Savage is the frontrunner to be mayor of Halifax anyways, though this seat is still a potential pickup for the Liberals seeing Chisholm just squeaked out a win. 

Then again, Chisholm also squeaked his way into incumbent-advantage.  And beyond that, the way things are presently positioned (esp. in the absence of a Grit incumbent), his seat could just as well be a three-way prospect, now...

KenS

adma wrote:

And just because Chisholm blew the leadership doesn't mean he blew his seat (memo to Debater re a Mike Savage comeback).

Anyway, I'm curious to see where his top endorser Howard Hampton'll go (on geographic grounds, it's easy to auto-assume Niki Ashton--note: "easy to auto-assume") 

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

Savage is the frontrunner to be mayor of Halifax anyways, though this seat is still a potential pickup for the Liberals seeing Chisholm just squeaked out a win

adma wrote:

Then again, Chisholm also squeaked his way into incumbent-advantage.  And beyond that, the way things are presently positioned (esp. in the absence of a Grit incumbent), his seat could just as well be a three-way prospect, now...

 

Enough of this speculation and counter-speculation.

Dartmouth is very NDP inclined. Mike Savage hung in there not only because he was incumbent, but because he is a very good personally popular one.

Now thta he is out, he would have a hard time coming back- let alone flying a third party label.

I think Mike Savage would have better things to do even if it wasnt the cakewalk of beating Mayor Kelly [which he has not yet definitely indicated he wants to do]. If we're going to be speculative: the NSLiberals will be needing a new Leader in 2013, if they are lucky Mike Savage will want to do that [I wouldnt bet on it- Mayor sounds like a better bet to have something you can do]. But maybe he has his eye on that, he can easily occupy himself until then.

In Dartmouth the only role the Conservatives play is varying degree of spoiler effect. They are not up for a tree way race there.

Robert does not actually have roots in Dartmouth, and has been generally out of circulation for over 10 years. While what he needs to do is straightforwad, there is work he has to do. Without the ditractions, I'm sure he will throw himself into it.

Once he does, he'll be about as easy to pry out of there as Peter Stoffer.

Newfoundlander_...

adma wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

adma wrote:

And just because Chisholm blew the leadership doesn't mean he blew his seat (memo to Debater re a Mike Savage comeback).

Anyway, I'm curious to see where his top endorser Howard Hampton'll go (on geographic grounds, it's easy to auto-assume Niki Ashton--note: "easy to auto-assume")

Savage is the frontrunner to be mayor of Halifax anyways, though this seat is still a potential pickup for the Liberals seeing Chisholm just squeaked out a win. 

Then again, Chisholm also squeaked his way into incumbent-advantage.  And beyond that, the way things are presently positioned (esp. in the absence of a Grit incumbent), his seat could just as well be a three-way prospect, now...

I was thinking about the incumbency factor after I wrote that, that should significantly help Chisholm in the future if he is a good constituency MP.

KenS

You need to read more carefully George.

I've said before that Mulcair is a last resort for me only if everyone else falls down.

And it follows that if I like Mulcair the least there is going to be lots more criticism of him. But I have named my issues with everyone I rank above him.

Do you ever get tired of stalking people George? Cant you find something else to do?

And pragmatics: where is Northern Shoveler so that I can at least share your love?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

What connection did Ian Capstick have with the NDP? I never heard of him until he started as a pundit on P&P. I think the NDP could find a better spokesperson than him.

theleftyinvestor

I tweeted back to Ian that it was interesting he noted an "anyone-but-Mulcair" movement, because at the BCNDP convention I witnessed the reverse. Opinion on Mulcair was neutral but not negative; on the other hand, Topp inspired only a few positive reactions and a lot of negative ones. If anything, I'd say there was plenty of "anyone-but-Topp". And in a province with so many memberships this is very significant. Even with prominent MPs like Davies and MLAs too on the Topp team, their constituents are not following suit because they don't trust this guy.

One friend of mine who is a BCer through and through just got hired by the Mulcair team because he believes that a solid win in Quebec is the most important thing a new leader can bring to the NDP. I respect his reasoning even if Mulcair is not my first choice.

Brian Topp Brian Topp's picture

Boom boom: Ian worked for us as a media officer before setting up a communications consultancy.

As a technical matter, the kind of maneuvering Ian is suggesting that Peggy Nash, Paul Dewar and I might consider isn't really feasible in a single ballot, one-member-one-vote system like ours. The vast majority of our members will vote all their preferences, at home, before the first round ballot is counted.

I'm not contemplating anything like that because I have a reasonable chance to just plain win -- as do an honourable number of my colleagues in the race. This being so, likely the best approach for all of us is to just make our cases and let the members decide. That's my plan.

Gloriously, I'm soon going to turn off this computer and spend some time with my family. Joyeux Noël tous les Rabblers -- winter is going to be interesting! All the best, bt

Gaian

KenS wrote:

You need to read more carefully George.

I've said before that Mulcair is a last resort for me only if everyone else falls down.

And it follows that if I like Mulcair the least there is going to be lots more criticism of him. But I have named my issues with everyone I rank above him.

Do you ever get tired of stalking people George? Cant you find something else to do?

And pragmatics: where is Northern Shoveler so that I can at least share your love?

Ken, I just can not let your prose slide by without comment, particularly when it is so unfairly critical of the fella that I believe to be the ONLY one to keep us in the carbird's seat (read, the only one leaving us with a snowball's chance) in 2015.

Offered in the TRUE spirit of a green, climate-change-driven Christmas, by a guy that is working for his granddaughter's future in a 1984-ish world.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Thanks, Brian. Hope you and yours have a great holiday break!

nicky

Mulcair picks up endorsements from two more Quebec MPs in NDP leadership bid

 

 

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/mulcair-picks-up-en...

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Quote:

Peggy Nash: "Whatdaya think?"

Nash is the first candidate I've seen that made me think that, yeah, the NDP is fully capable of forming a stable government in the next election. It's not just that she is an inspiring speaker, or that she was the first candidate to encourage the audience to take ownership and build the party. Peggy Nash has a downplayed, quiet defiance in her that refreshes a leadership race where semantics seem to separate the candidates.

Yes, Nash hit all the NDP tropes: the gun registry should be saved, Canada's Kyoto abandonment is disgraceful, corporate taxes are skewed, etc. She even trash talked Harper and the Conservatives. But her insistance on building the NDP to be something more than government showed a political maturity. Instead of downplaying social movements such as Occupy, Nash identified them as a force than can keep governments in check and push the NDP to be more.

Other policy included

1. Wealth Redistribution-You fight inequality with good jobs and good wages. Tax havens need to be attacked and more progressive taxation introduced. Conservatives are horrible economic managers and everyone suffers for it. Good environment policy is good economic policy.

2. Quebec-Just because Quebeckers elected the NDP doesn't mean they are abandoning their culture and language. The next NDP leader needs to be bilingual and Quebec-oriented.

3. CBC Funding-Government has been underfunding the CBC. Nash wants to see funding at BBC levels.

Peggy Nash is the first leadership candidate I've seen that can walk into the House of Commons on her first day as leader and competently take on Harper. She has the experience in elected politics and beyond. She's a left-winger with economic literacy. She has the quiet defiance that lets you know you can't push her around. If the NDP truly wants to form government, Nash is not the wrong choice.

http://howcanadaworks.blogspot.com/2011/12/peggy-nash-whatdaya-think.html

 

 

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I have no doubt at all that Nash can be a competent leader - but can the party be elected government in 2015 under her leadership? That for me is the question. Personally, I think the party has a better chance of being elected to government under Mulcair - in my opinion, he's probably the best positioned to keep and even improve seat count in Quebec, and do reasonably well in the rest of Canada. I hope we see some huge polls soon from the general population as to which candidate the electorate thinks is the best leader to lead the NDP to victory in 2015.

wage zombie

Gaian wrote:

Ken, I just can not let your prose slide by without comment, particularly when it is so unfairly critical of the fella that I believe to be the ONLY one to keep us in the carbird's seat (read, the only one leaving us with a snowball's chance) in 2015. Offered in the TRUE spirit of a green, climate-change-driven Christmas, by a guy that is working for his granddaughter's future in a 1984-ish world.

I think you just can't handle someone expressing a negative opinion of the candidate you prefer.  Suck it up, you're a big boy.

I don't think any of KenS's criticisms of Mulcair have been unfair.  These criticisms are things I have considered as well.  I currently have Mulcair 2nd after Ashton.  I see that all the candidates have flaws and I see nothing wrong with talking about it.

So you believe some kind of divine narrative about Mulcair.  Whoopdy do.  Other people have different opinions.  Deal with it.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Boom Boom wrote:
I have no doubt at all that Nash can be a competent leader - but can the party be elected government in 2015 under her leadership? That for me is the question. Personally, I think the party has a better chance of being elected to government under Mulcair - in my opinion, he's probably the best positioned to keep and even improve seat count in Quebec, and do reasonably well in the rest of Canada.

Yes. I too was considering Mulcair and was leaning that way, but there was only so much slack I could cut him. I still like the guy a lot, but I think Nash is more likeable than Mulcair. She's fluent in French, is more in line with and understands the party's culture, and doesn't cite Gary Doer and Lorne Calvert in how she wants to govern. She also has good communcation skills - she always performs very well in the national media spotlight and the mainstream/corporate media pundits take her very seriously. She has already been dubbed the "Iron Lady of the Left", due to her strong and impressive performance as Finance Critic, while at the same time exuding a warm, compassionate, gracious and hopeful image or demeanor.

Hunky_Monkey

OnTheLeft... do you think Peggy Nash is going to abrogate NAFTA?

Pages

Topic locked