babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
NDP Leadership 14
September 22, 2011 - 11:42am
Continued from here.
Niki Ashton has asked on facebook whether or not she should run for the leadership.
Ashton eyes taking run at federal NDP leadership
Quote:
Niki Ashton, who just turned 29, said she won't make a decision until after the provincial election is over. But she said she will in the coming weeks weigh the option of running."People are asking me to," she said Tuesday. "A number of people both here on the Hill and members on the ground."
In particular, Ashton said she was asked repeatedly during a visit to Saskatchewan last week for the Saskatchewan NDP Youth Convention. The province where the NDP got its start no longer has any NDP MPs in the House of Commons and Ashton spends time trying to represent some Saskatchewan issues as a Prairie MP, in addition to representing her own riding of Churchill.
She said her goal in many ways is to grow the party in western Canada where the NDP has the most room to win more seats.
That's nice of Niki to work with her SK neighbours too. I'm sure there are a LOT of unrepresented NDP (or in general just non-Conservative) voters in AB, SK and MB who are looking to Linda, Niki and Pat to speak for them.
This will shape up to a very interesting race!
Megan and Libby officially declining to run on the same day was a real blow, especially to the party's Left. Megan would have been a credible prospective leader and brought great energy. Libby, while lacking French, would have been a terrific standard bearer for those who don't want the party to crowd the centre, but who want the party to draw the centre towards the left. She wouldn't have won, but she could have delivered a sizeable block of support. The race will be a lot less interesting without them. I hope Peggy Nash enters now, as well as other women who have not yet declared interest. (It's a shame about Boivin, and Rathika would have been compelling. And as unlikely as it is I'd still like to see Michaelle Jean.)
I think she's becoming a fine MP, but I don't see Niki Ashton as leader. And I hate to say it, but it's almost as if all the tokenisms are being thrown in one basket re her candidacy: token woman, token prairie, token youth. That would be a mistake.
A question for Wilf or someone else who knows the Quebec caucus, "are any or the new women MP's from La Belle Province even thinking of running." I fear for the party's credibility if it cannot field solid female candidates for leader. As well if Romeo ends up as the only non white male seeking the leadership it will reflect poorly on the party's inclusiveness. The NDP is a diverse party but so far the leadership race is not showcasing that but instead sending the opposite message.
I don't know about that--the field is half visible minority so far!
Brian Topp on Oil and Palestine
Peter Julian gains support (from yesterday)
Brian Topp seems to understand that the membership is still primarily left wing. He has always been great at messaging into specific target groups. He appears to be the consummate pragmatist and I would expect nothing less from him than to have a handle on the membership and what positions they support. He sounds remarkably like Adrian Dix did during BC's recent leadership campaign. I am cynical though and he has not convinced me that he is not going to run from the left of the party and do what every HE thinks is right once elected leader. So far of the two declared candidates he is my second choice and I suspect that on my score sheet he will lose second place to whomever steps into the race next.
I was working in Alberta for much of the BC leadership campaign, but I heard and saw (in print) altogether too much about economic growth from Dix during the campaign. I have been pleasantly surprised since then with his use of alternative economic language (like sustainable economy and resiliance). I also found Libby's remarks about looking for a pragmatist interesting. Before I support someone who describes her/himself or is described as a pragmatist I would want to know how they define the term and in what context.
If I hear any more of the "where no-one is left behind" empty rhetoric I may throw up. Also Canadians will not pay all of the environmental costs of developing the bitumen sands; only the local and regional costs. Global heating and ocean acidification are global costs.
Which is why we need to realize we need to do a bold global geoengineering plan as developing nations(china and india) cannot and will not control their emissions. But no one ever talks about this, it takes too much balls. I wish one candidate would propose this, if Canada lead the world in establishing peacekeeping, we can lead the world through other such innovations that are necessary from keeping permafrost from melting. Ignore that, anyways, we'll need good rhetorical skills in candidates anyways. meh
I'm glad you said that. As a left-wing pragmatist (yes, we do exist, even in Canada!), I have to bristle whenever people automatically assume that 'pragmatist' translates to 'centrist' or 'person with a lack of ideological principles'. The actual meaning of the word amounts more to "choosing policies and strategies that you know will actually work," and of course you can do that as a lefty, or a centrist, or a right-winger.
Knowing Libby, I wouldn't take a statement in support of pragmatism at all as an abandonment of her leftist principles, but as an indication that she will be looking to endorse a leadership candidate who a) supports policies that have been tried in other jurisdictions and which have led to positive outcomes there for the causes she cares about most, and b) supports strategies to getting the NDP into government that will actually work without sacrificing the party's principles.
Well, if that is the case we should definitely elect Brian Topp leader. How come that doesn't feel right to me?
I've never met Niki Ashton, and I've not seen much of her since she's been elected, but I was impressed when she took on a sitting MP in a nomination battle and won, at the age of - what - 23? That's hard to do. Think about all the party members she had to convince to take a chance on her, over an established, elected politician. That can't have been easy, even for the daughter of a long time MLA.
Judging by this, her command of languages, and a resume that makes this 40-year-old feel inadequate, I think this is someone to watch, now and in the future. She's no token - she's pure talent.
Really? I don't think that necessarily follows at all. I would also be very surprised if Libby ended up endorsing Topp--I suspect she'll endorse one of her colleagues.
I think there will be a number of non-centrist pragmatists in the race, in other words.
I guess the problem with the word pragmatist is that it carries with it the notion that someone will settle for less than may be possible if only that person pushed harder. After all, what seems possible can change. Possibilities are fluid, right?
I would guess that if Peter Julian runs, Libby will support him.
That is, unless there are any other particular party politics at play.
Occasionally you get unexpected combinations like Jenny Kwan (on the left of the party) endorsing Mike Farnworth (more towards the centre) for BCNDP leadership. Given that Adrian Dix is ideologically closer to Kwan, it stands to reason that she had more individual reasons for not supporting Dix.
We know there is no love lost between Davies and Mulcair. It could well be that she chooses the non-Mulcair candidate with the best chance of winning regardless of ideology.
It's exactly this interpretation of the term that I'm objecting to, though. I don't mean that when I call myself a pragmatist, and I certainly don't think Libby of all people means that when she says she'll be looking for a pragmatist in choosing a leadership candidate. Pragmatism may in some cases be about settling for something less than ideal because you're pretty sure what you would ideally want wouldn't actually work (if you're ideologically a socialist who favours public ownership of the banks, for example, but can't see a particular path toward that in Canada at the moment, then you might choose not to agitate for it), but it certainly isn't about stopping short of what is actually possible.
I agree. I don't think being a pragmatist prevents you from being idealistic but you have to admit that if you think something can't be done then you are more likely to give up trying before someone who doesn't think it can't be done.
I think anyone who has been around him, which includes Libby of course, knows that Peter Julian has his pragmatist chops.
And when she made that comment, I figured that Peter was the one that she was talking about.... even though only overtly speaking generaally.
For fun, but also to encourage other candidates to get up and throw their hats in, Huffington Post has an online NDP leadership poll asking who you would like to see in the race.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/09/21/ndp-leadership-race_n_974996.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
I wish that age didn't have to be something that people have to bring up with Niki Ashton. If anything, it's a plus. I just think back to Pierre Ducasse's campaign, and how it was a very important part of the 2003/2003 NDP leadership race. His campaign had an effect on nearly all New Democrats. Sure, he didn't win, but he was a fantastic candidate. Wasn't he 30 at the time? There I go getting into age....
That would be a good guess. Her and Peter have spent a lot of time together traveling and going to events on weekends and they always display a mutual respect.
Last leadership campaign it was her and Svend's endorsement that gave Jack a major boost. I think that Libby has the respect of many members and they will weigh her choice carefully when making up their minds.
"Thomas Mulcair 'leaning toward' NDP leadership bid"
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Thomas+Mulcair+leaning+toward+leadership/5442791/story.html
"Thomas Mulcair 'leaning toward' NDP leadership bid"
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Thomas+Mulcair+leaning+toward+leadership/5442791/story.html
You left out ethnic (half Greek), northerner, and champion of gay rights since she took the nomination away from Bev Desjarlais.
Token? I'd say she has a wonderful list of good qualities.
Like I said, I hated to say it. And I didn't mean to diminish her attributes by it.
I loved Ducasse's campaign, and wish very much that he'd run in 2011, it would be terrific to see him in the House. I think a 29-year old could be an effective leader. All due respect, but I don't believe Niki Ashton is that 29-year old.
If he doesn't actually do something soon Brian Topp will have wrapped it up.
ashton: interesting, but way too young and niche, it would probably end up as an election disaster. think audrey with half as much experience in politics, half as much experience in life, half the charisma, a weaker command of the issues, about the same low quality french, and like 20 years younger. not a recipe for success in canadian politics, and a desperately foolish one for us, considering the quality of our candidates.
mulcair: he's in, he's just trying to roll out well, rest assured. can you imagine the work that the guy has to be doing? my guess is that he's on leadership stuff 8-10h a day, phoning across the country, lining up regional and local types in all provinces, working out financing, talking to major quebec people (esp unions and others that he's forged relationships with over the years).
libby: she'd have lost badly if she'd jumped in, so as nice as it is for us to feel like the leadership debate would be nice with her voice, there's are personal, political and financial disincentives to her jumping in. not to mention the fact that a libby candidacy would just add to the depletion of front bench ranks and make effective opposition by the ndp that much more difficult.
finally, topp: a totally underreported fact in all of this, something i expect hebert to come to eventually is that if mulcair wins the leadership, he'll probably clean house. if by some chance julian won, he'd probably leave most people in place. my guess is that topp would leave virtually every member of jack's team in place. it'd be very surprising is a mulcair leadership victory didn't mean enemployment or reassignment for jack's team. it happens, and people would be incensed about poor anne mcgrath going to work for andrea horwath or whatever, but that's what happens. so you have to see what's happening now as an entire coterie of layton insiders pulling favors and making calls for topp. also, the vast majority of ndp electeds across the country haven't come out one way or the other, a clear indication of the lines and limits of topp/layton insiders' suasory powers.
What a lot of unwarranted melodrama in the last few posts.
The notion Topp is close to having it wrapped up is ridiculous. Its still VERY early days. Brian Topp is out there first, because he had to be. Period.
Everyone else has the luxury to roll out when they see fit.
There is ALWAYS a big turnover in staff when leaders change. For one thing, people are ready to move on anyway. And if the leader doesnt leave, the staff does.
[Except in the NS NDP- where people retire in the jobs. Literally.]
People liked working with Jack, but they moved on anyway. Now that he is gone, they will be even more likely to decide its time to leave... even if the new Leader is their personal choice.
F from K says Mulcair will clean house if elected leader. Frankly, if it is true that the party insiders are attempting to derail his campaign he would have every right to clean house.
The most disappointing thing for me in this campaign has been how partisan the insiders have shown themselves to be.