Libby Davies answers questions on NDP leadership race
October 17, 2011 - 12:20pm
NDP Deputy Leader and veteran MP for East Vancouver Libby Davies will be on babble from 5pm PST/8pm EST to answer your questions on the NDP leadership race, her endorsement of Brian Topp and the future of the left in the NDP. Roughly six questions will be chosen from your proposals in this thread. Libby will answer each question and babblers will have the opportunity to respond as time permits. Unlike other threads on babble, abusive posts will be deleted immediately. In the interest of tidyness and readability, superfluous or digressive posts may be removed as well.
There is still time to submit questions, so please head to this thread and make a suggestion.
Come back just before 5pm PST/8pm EST and find out what Libby has to say!
Alright! I'm told Libby Davies is online with us on babble for the first time. She should be around shortly to say hello. Let me be the first to welcome the MP for Vancouver East. Welcome to babble Libby!
Hello babblers! This seems pretty cool. My first "official" visit to babble (though like everyone else - I watch what is going on). Thanks for the invite. Look forward to your questions!
Welcome Libby, and thanks so much for joining us!
Thanks Libby. Here is our first question, from babbler Tommy_Paine:
Thanks! Glad to be here!
Just one of the many lurkers.
Thanks for the question Tommy_Paine. I know it may have come as a surprise - I did think about it a lot, both in terms of running myself, what role I could play, and who I might support. I feel good about my decision to support Brian; I believe he has good leadership and a lot experience across the country, including in govt. I've been following him carefully - such as his blogs on rabble. He's willing to speak out on key questions, like Keystone XL, Palestine, the economy, the occupy movement and the gap between wealth and poverty. I see him up against Harper and think he'll be a sharp contender. I like the guy and know how closely he worked with Jack.
Hey Moderators, I know this is probably far too late, and I understand if this post gets deleted from this thread.
But, I'd love to know if Libby feels that if the NDP wins government in 2015, would they immediately pass an amendment to the Canada Elections Act, replacing first past the post with proportional representation (MMP), and, would an NDP government seek to legalize, regulate and tax cannabis?
Thanks.
For what it is worth, I was surprised too.
But by that time, I expect to be surprised.
Hey OnTheLeft, thanks for your question, but we've already had several submissions. Right now, we're discussing Libby's last response before moving on to the next question. We'll try to address your question at the end if we have time!
It's great to see you on babble, Libby. We missed you at the healthcare discussion in Edmonton last Wednesday; I hope you're feeling better.
Hi Libby, great to see you posting here!
Hi OnTheLeft. Umm. Sounds like a good direction to go in to me, though please note, we're not there yet. Obviously the priorities will be up to the new leader, based on consultation.
Lucky you, OnTheLeft, you squeezed in an extra question!
Here is the next question from the previous thread. In the interests of full disclosure, it's mine. But if you can't get in your own question in the discussion board you moderate, what hope do you have?
Thanks so much Idealist Pragmatist! I'm really sorry to have missed being there. Hope it went well.
Hey Libby, great to see you posting. You're great btw.
Thanks for the question Tommy_Paine. .... I believe he has good leadership and a lot experience across the country, including in govt. ...I see him up against Harper and think he'll be a sharp contender.
I find that this is what worries me about Topp. Not that he has a bad position on the issues, or isn't an appealing guy, or that he isn't smart - it's just that he has no elected experience. Now that the NDP has a realistic shot at forming government in 2015, it just seems a bit risky to pick someone who hasn't been elected before not only to lead the party, but to lead the country. I think the last Prime Minister like that was Mulroney.
Thanks for the question Catchfire. I hope you don't feel left without a home. I will really do my best to be active in the leadership campaign and represent the views I hold and encourage strong debate that's open and honest about where the NDP goes.
Hi Boom Boom! (great name!)
To qualify but affirm what VK said:
Many of us are not worried about the lack of elected experience per se. But what other evidence is there that Brian can do what you think he can? Personaly, I already assumed you figured he had the chops. And that matters to me. But explanation would be better. [Demonstration the best, but how do we get that?]
Hi OnTheLeft. Umm. Sounds like a good direction to go in to me, though please note, we're not there yet. Obviously the priorities will be up to the new leader, based on consultation.
Hey Libby! Amazing, it is a pretty good direction to go in! Thank you for answering my question, and for agreeing too. :D
Lucky you, OnTheLeft, you squeezed in an extra question!
Hey VK and KenS...some good comments, but I think Libby will speak to those a bit later on...
From TheLeftBank: "how can we expand our support base without sacrificing our values?"
and
"what are key NDP values that you hope a future leader wouldn't compromise on?"
and
"Are there any red lines for you - policy shifts to the centre that you couldn't support, or that you worry the NDP might cross in a bid to get more centrist support?
Good questions
I am not sure if it is too late for new questions, but:
Why do you think the leadership race is shaping up to be a contest of white males only?
related: What was the determining factor in your decision not to run?
Hi Rebecca West, and thanks for the question TheLeftBank. I saw the way Jack worked so hard to build support for important issues. I want to make sure that we don't abandon things that are seen as challenging. For example, exposing Harper's phony and ridiculous crime agenda. The NDP must be willing to tell people the facts and bring about good analysis so that people can come to their own conclusions. I'm not interested that we become better Liberals (although I have supported cooperation and a coalition approach where circumstances warrant). I'd rather we be clear where we stand - for example trade issues and human rights, or military operations, than move to the lowest common denominator that leaves where we stand unclear.
To qualify but affirm what VK said:
Many of us are not worried about the lack of elected experience per se. But what other evidence is there that Brian can do what you think he can? Personaly, I already assumed you figured he had the chops. And that matters to me. But explanation would be better. [Demonstration the best, but how do we get that?]
Actually I do think some elected experience is important. Not that anyone who runs should've been in office for twenty years or something, or that I simply won't support someone who wasn't elected before (because I could be persuaded to do so), but if they don't have any elected experience they really need to impress me with other forms of leadership experience that shows how they can manage a large and diverse organization, while still being able to operate effectively in the competitive field that is electoral politics.
Hi Ghislaine. A good question (although Romeo Saganash is running as well), but there's a bit of a queue! Hopefully Libby will have time at the end to get to your question.
The next question is a bit of a combo from the previous thread. Sam Boskey, who remembers Brian Topp from his Montreal days, wanted to know if your reasons for endorsing Topp are the same as his other supporters. And babbler dacckon also asked:
Thanks for the questions Sam Boskey and dacckon.
I can't speak as to why others are supporting Brian, but for myself, I think he is thoughtful, substantive, and willing to speak out.
The mainstream media may focus on his "inside" connections....what is that really? It means he is a key player in the NDP and has been critically invloved in getting us to where we are. That's good. His connections to the arts, labour, and community work in credit unions are being overlooked - but to me they say a lot about him.
I've had many good conversations with Brian and really like his quiet sense of humour, his firm grasp of current issues. He's not full of false bravado, and hype. If you run into him, you can quickly get into a big conversation as I've found he likes to talk politics, not spin.
From Envirodipper: "I would like to know what Ms. Davies thinks about Brian Topps' ability to appeal to non NDPers. Does he have the public speaking ability to inspire people in an election campaign? He seems to have a rather low key persona. "
Vansterdam Kid, I understand the concern you raise in your first comment. Brian's experience in government is not to be overlooked, and he is very familiar with the political environment and Parliament (as evidenced in his book "we almost gave the tories the boot"). I think he will make a terrific MP who will work hard for his constituency, as his experience from the labour movement, in working for his members, has taught him.
Let me answer your question by answering Ken S' as well. The next leader needs to be someone who can keep the party and caucus together. It needs to be someone who can stand true to their values in what we know will be an onslaught from all sides, including the media. I believe Brian has the depth and experience to do this. He's someone who can see the big picture and connect to people one on one.
Hi Envirodipper. In regards to his appeal to non NDPers - I think people will see a real guy with opinions and ideas for Canada that they can actually think about and relate to. Brian's focus on the economy/environment and inequality and that we need to change course is refreshing. He may comes across as a more "low key persona" but I think that is okay. Once he's out there more, being heard, the substance will come through. I'd really like to hear him up against Harper. He'd be steady, clear, and sharp.
Hi Ghislaine. Thank you for the question. Romeo is First Nations, as catchfire pointed out. And there are still possibly more candidates to announce. The NDP has a great record of women in politics and in leadership positions, including two leaders, and the House Leader. I have no doubt this record will continue. That said, I hear what you are saying about women and politics - lots more to talk about there.
Re: my decision, you can read more here.
Thanks, Libby. Here's our last planned question for you:
To Gonzaga: Moving to the left.... the NDP members will shape that themselves in this leadership race. Some folks might want us to be Chretien Libs. Not me. I want to see our party and Leader shine a path in this global crisis. We have an incredible opportunity to give an important analysis to what's going on and show that an electorally based party can be in solidarity with a new kinds of politics that's not based on corporate greed and elites.
Thanks for that answer, Libby, and thanks for staying a bit longer to address babblers' responses. On behalf of us babblers, thanks for taking the time to drop in and give us your thoughts. It's much appreciated, and come back any time!
Wow. That went fast! Thanks so much. It's a good way to connect. Who knows? Maybe I'll be back!
Let's hope so!
Well, that was certainly an enlightening exercise!
Though I must admit that while reading this thread, I did get repeatedly distracted by the paint drying on the wall beside me.
Geez. As someone who awaits the revival of revolutinary socialism, I would have thought you would have LOTS of practice in that.
Ken: good one!!!
Too bad you weren't around to ask some questions of your own, M. Spector. Then we would have had an interviewer up to your high standards.
Of course, constructive feedback is welcome in case we are able to do this again.
I was concerned that it might move too fast to make sense of it all.
It was fine, but I think it could have moved a little quicker. If you read the number of hits as it was unfolding- much more real time than usual for a thread in this forum, even with the very much shortened time frame. Now this was bound to attract more than its share of interested people who just will not say anything. But I still think there were considerably more potential discussants than those who spoke.
After thinking about it, I do not think rapid discussion would be a problem for invited candidates. They are already not under any obligation to answer or even acknowledge everyone [and if it gets too fast, the mods can point out they just cannot do it... which they probably cannot even at the modest speed we were at].
Its good we tried it out first on Libby rather than a candidate. While Libby is virtually a spokesperson, it is still not the same kind of demands.
Tough crowd or what? Why anyone would voluntarily subject themselves again to this type of onslaught is beyond me.
Is it time to close this thread or will Ms. Davies be doing this again in the near future?
More people might have some thoughts on how best to do this.
We're leaving the thread open for babblers to discuss Libby's answers, and to give some feedback on the process.
Okay. I appreciated Ms. Davies taking part in this process. As someone still trying to make up my mind who to vote for in the leadership race, I don't yet feel like I completely understand why she is supporting Brian Topp.
We're leaving the thread open for babblers to discuss Libby's answers, and to give some feedback on the process.
How about shipping a lot of questions - the whole caboodle - to the candidates and let them reply in holistic, coherent fashion. Perhaps they could even reply with some questions of their own...i.e. do we think such and such an approach might be useful..or why it might not work. We have seen how T.Mulcair responded to E.Solomon's requirement of brief (useless) answers to his loaded questions.
Just a thought, from someone who was only reminded that Libby is one awfully nice human being.
As someone still trying to make up my mind who to vote for in the leadership race, I don't yet feel like I completely understand why she is supporting Brian Topp.
We ask tough questions. Libby answers them, and I think she did great.
But we have to realize even more so when it comes to the candidates themselves- but your concern is an example of one for which it was difficult for Libby to say everything- they are only going to go so far in answering tough questions. It is up to us to make what we can and what we will of what the candidates do say.
ETA: One thing that is tough to answer is questions that to answer with complete forthrightness requires bumping up against the strategy choices of your campaign. In the end, if not immediately, you can NEVER look anything but a crass opportunist doing that. Its a hopeless minfield. Small wonder politicaly experienced people do not venture there.
Well, the hope was that babblers would challenge Libby on her answers to these questions (which happened to some extent). I realize you were unable to attend the live event, Caissa, but some timely specific questions might have helped elucidate the reasons for her support.
This just sounds like an article or column--we were hoping for something more interactive.
I understand that KenS and she gave what I expected in the early days of the campaign. I'm also going through waht many NDPers no doubt are: I wasn't expecting to have to cast a vote for a fedral NDP leader in 2012.
It would be great if Libby could answer at least some the unanswered questions from the other thread (at her leisure).
Well, that was certainly an enlightening exercise!
Though I must admit that while reading this thread, I did get repeatedly distracted by the paint drying on the wall beside me.
Thanks Libby for doing that. However, she gave the same answers she had already given before.
OnTheleft, there is just no way I can believe that M Spector, as much as I love and admire him, is anywhere near that cute.
I was pleasantly surprised. Very productive tone to the whole event. This is definitely something that babble needs to do more. I am not sure a simple thread is the best method. I kind of imagine each question spawning its own thread with special treatment (perhaps even just a colour or font that sticks out) for the guest of honour. I felt it was hard to immediately connect her answers to a specific question and I was going back and forth looking for the stream of thought going into each statement.
We're leaving the thread open for babblers to discuss Libby's answers, and to give some feedback on the process.
I like this idea. There are certain limitations inherent in how much information can be put into a chat-like format. At the same time I don't necessarily want to read an essay when having my questions answered - so a questionnaire (if that's what you're proposing) has it's limitations too.
I got booted off my computer because skype is on it, and I couldn't use the Mac that the person who booted me off my computer uses.
Your fault, Catchfire.
But before that, as it started, I found myself finally writting a follow up question, but being kind of confused about just how we were going to do this-- whether to wait until all the prepared questions were read and answered first, then open it up for a free for all, or just let the free for all happen.
I don't have a preference as to either format or how it's to be done, but I think it will work better if we choose and stick with a style.
Coherence would be good, whatever the "style."
But could we see what the candidates consider important as well...when they have answered a good number of those other questions? And could they then pose questions for babble to ruminate on, tear at in typical fashion, and then respond to in reasonable time?
Catchfire's editing missed that part:"How about shipping a lot of questions - the whole caboodle - to the candidates and let them reply in holistic, coherent fashion. Perhaps they could even reply with some questions of their own...i.e. do we think such and such an approach might be useful..or why it might not work. We have seen how T.Mulcair responded to E.Solomon's requirement of brief (useless) answers to his loaded questions."
Tommy, hasn't rabble sprung for a new iPhone and laptop yet? Maybe Rebecca hawked 'em and is keeping the profits while you're lending out your computer like a dang fool.
I take your point that we could have been clearer about the format--of course, you try keeping an MP on plan. I'm tempted to make the cat-herding analogy, but I think herding MPs is a more accurate one.
@Gaian, I hear your point about coherence, but I think a candidate asking questions of us would be a question of personal style and taste, no? At any rate, we want to keep this basic format for the time being. Any ideas on how to improve it as such?
A belt of whiskey?
It would bring relevance - what the candidate would be speaking to Canadians about generally, beyond the intense intellectual renderings here - along with coherence. Personal style and taste mean diddly squat. Speaking ability, dexterity (knowledge) of the primary needs facing the citizenry, perhaps not so much concern about the middle east, in keeping with Canadians' tendency toward a more narrow and selfish focus on economic matters, jobs, food for the family, etc. etc.
You know, broader than babble ?
Yeah, more like the Globe and Mail, you know?
Perhaps with troubling concepts from political economy and the real world, the concern of some earlier socialists you profess to know. :)
Or should I say the New York Times? Isn't that still your favourite paper?
I take your point that we could have been clearer about the format--of course, you try keeping an MP on plan. I'm tempted to make the cat-herding analogy, but I think herding MPs is a more accurate one.
It was the first time for something so there were no "mistakes" or "we could haves". It was an experiment, and there are only things we learned.
And thinking about that, Libby should be commended for going first, knowing this was uncharted waters.
Thank you Libby for participating (and mods for organising this). Beyond the fact that you can thank the poster in real time (which is nice), I find this chat format a little odd for a format like a bulletin board. It also has the disadvatange that all chats have in that if you are not present/able/informed of the chat start time, you miss the opportunity to participate. Given that most of the questions were prescreened and the discussion moderated, I would be happy/fine if in the future the moderators put the questions to politician directly and then posted the interview transcript on the rabble homepage. Of course, then babblers don't get to react or ask for clarifications, but it seems like a more natural format to me.
Given that you joined the NDP caucus in supporting the Libya mission, what do you see as the role for the Canadian military, particularly in Canada's foreign affairs?