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 39
November 21, 2011 - 4:22pm
The leadership debate schedule has been released:
Dec. 4, Ottawa - Building an inclusive economy
January, Halifax - Giving families a break
February, Quebec City - Providing leadership on the world stage
February, Winnipeg - Building bridges between urban and rural Canada
March, Montreal - Building a strong united Canada
March, Vancouver - Creating opportunities for youth and new Canadians
I'm a native French speaker, and have been in a couple of small meetings in the past with Peggy where she operated entirely in French, including extensive interaction and off the cuff discussion with meeting participants.
I would definitely characterize her command of French to be fluent, or very close to fluent. She didn't have the struggles that you often hear when someone is having difficulty speaking a language - she had no problems with verb tenses, her vocabulary appeared to be quite strong, she clearly completely understood what others were saying and was able to respond to detailed inquiries with equally detailed and nuanced responses.
But, as others have observed, she can still sound stilted or uncomfortable. Her accent definitely is continental rather than Quebec, she speaks with a formality that can seem stand-offish to some, and she doesn't bring a lot of down to earthiness to her conversations. As a result, I suspect that when doing things like interview shows, she might not come off as comfortable (the way Jack did so successfully on his TLMOP appearances).
Trying to compare her to other public figures - she speaks French better than Dion speaks English, she's more fluent than Harper, more linguistically competent than when Jack became Leader but not the same kind of linguistic/cultural congruity that Layton had by the time of the last election. From what I've seen of Ashton (limited), I think that Nash's technical command of French is probably slightly better, but Niki has an advantage on an intangible communication/connection level that would probably make most listeners feel she is as good or better than Nash in French. Obviously Topp, Mulcair, and Saganash are stronger in French than Nash is.
Looking back at past leaders and the pre-May 2011 NPD, Nash's French would have been envied by Broadbent, Lewis, McDonough, McLaughlin, and Douglas. It is real comment on how much the landscape has been changed that we are even having this conversation.
I agree with others who suggest that any perception that Nash's French is sub-par is caused by a combination of her accent and, most importantly, her less than ideal speaking style in any language, rather than true deficiences in her command of French.
(For the record, I'm not aligned with any candidate at this point and can see myself supporting just about any of them, so I think it is a fairly objecvtive assessment. I don't know if other Francophones share my assessment - until she starts getting covered more extensively in the French media, most people won't have enough exposure to her to have an opinion.)
If she becomes leader maybe she should do an immersion program in Trois-Rivieres to make accent sound more "joual".
Nathan Cullen's vision
That colouring book again...
"Rosen is an artist who stands on his own, his rapier wit laying waste to those of us in politics," writes Topp.
Niki Ashton picks up the support of a rural Quebec MP
A Saganash Article
BC New Democrats support Dewar
Mulcair gets support from a ministry team and another Mulcair article
Martin Singh has some new photos up
At this still relatively early stage in the campaign with four months to go, I’m curious about all of your opinions on what order the candidates will finish. Not your opinion on who’s best or how you’ll rank your ballot (I’m curious about that too.) This is a different question.
Regardless of your preference, which candidates do you think will drop off first? Followed by whom else? Who will be on the final ballots? Who will ultimately be our Fearless Leader?
Our opinions on the subject are bound to change by March. But for now, before the debates, what’s your best guess?
Here’s mine:
Singh, Cullen and Chisholm will be the first three eliminated, followed by Saganash, Ashton (sorry Malcolm) and Dewar. Paul’s supporters will split relatively equally among the remaining three candidates. Second to last ballot will have Nash drop off, whose supporters will split disproportionally to Topp. Brian will win over Mulcair on the last ballot.
Any other guesses?
That's very helpful, Vermonster.
So that leaves only Singh as a mystery.
Based on the information I have, that makes it:
I'm more than prepared to revise as I have more information.
I think he starts off with a heck of a lot of BC support. Based on the number of endorsements (especially Libby Davies) and comments I've read here about how he helped the BC wing of the party, it seems he has lots of support there. Obviously, I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that that is a big enough base to get through the first few ballots.
However, his support (including mine) will be dependent on him debating and campaigning well. These are skills he hasn't yet proven. If he falters in what people have called "retail politics" my future ranking will be very different.
I did have a chance to meet Brian briefly at a Montreal campaign event a couple of weeks ago. I hung around close enough to hear him talk to other people in small groups. He was clearly intelligent and articulate on many subjects. I thought he did well.
Regarding second choice, I think he will rank higher than Mulcair in second choice among Peggy Nash's supporters. And in the unlikely event that my predictions are accurate, that's the place he'll need his second rank support.
Malcolm, you care to rank the campaigns of each candidate as to how satisfactorily competent they have been, as well? I think you would come up with a completely different set of rankings.
As to Singh's french, again I repeat, Radio-Canada said he was the surprise of the Alma meeting. I listened to the video and it was perfectly serviceable french.
Also, it is unfair to the point of being self-serving to put Cullen and Dewar in the same category as Chisholm who speaks no french.
Meanwhile, Niki's campaign can't even put up a properly bilingualized website (hint: an url for a french version of a bilingual website like this http://66.147.244.66/~nikiasht/ would not be good enough to meet the Government of Canada's web standards).
I hope Niki is going to start to run on more than I can speak french and new politics soon.
You speak to more people than me. My guess is based on what I read here and elsewhere. While I agree that endorsements don't necessarily lead to more than 1 vote each, I'd just guess that some, like Libby's, pulls some weight.
So, HM? What's your guess on how they'll all finish?
I agree with OO. Its is really not fair to put Dewar, Cullen and Chisholm in the same category in terms of French capability.
Robert Chisholm speaks NO FRENCH - NADA. He is a unilingual anglophone. Dewar and Cullen both speak and understand French quite well but have strong English accents and imperfect grammar. If we give a native francophone at 100%, Topp and Mulcair are probably at about 95%, Nash at 90%, Dewar last time I heard him in French I might give him a mark of 60% on his French, Chisholm would be less than 10% - I think the only think he knows how to to say is "parlez vous anglais?"
My test is alway whether or not I can understand someone in french. If I can understand them easily, their french isn't good enough in today's situation. I do like though how capacity in french is now an issue - it says we have grown into a national, maturing party. Good for us and thank you Jack!
I think it is a least theoretically possible to go from 60% French proficiency to 90% over the course of a year or so. If you are starting from ZERO - there is no hope whatsoever of that.
I think most of the candidates can get to where they need to be quickly given where they are starting from, except Chisholm. I expect we won't see him make it to the finish line as this will disqualify him in the minds of many and it will be hard to raise the necesarry funds to stay in the race in a meaningful way.
I agree that Chisholm's campaign is unlikely to succeed due to his entire lack of French. I also agree with Stockholm's grade of 60% for Dewar's French, which really is a shame. Had he been as bilingual as Topp or Mulcair, he likely would have had my vote. I just don't think it's enough French for a leader in the post-May 2011 world.
Dewar's only hope is to show a marked improvement in his French during the campaign, let's say to around 75%. This would demonstrate that he can get up to 85-95% before the next election.
Regarding Nash's French, it seems very good. Her problem is the Parisian accent which is a real turn-off for Quebecers.
Most of the reports I've heard on Cullen's French suggests it's inadequate. Again, I think we need to hear from someone who can speak to it first hand.
As to Singh, all I've heard of is a video of him speaking French which may be from prepared remarks. Wel, I'm less than functionally bilingual and I can sound pretty good in French if I have a text and a chance to practice. (My accent is better than my grasp of the language. On one course in the Navy I read a piece in French and all the francophones were convinced I was bilingual.)
Now, now.
Clearly I'd forgotten about the Radio-Canada comment (so thoroughly that I don't recal reading it, but I'll blame that on the cold), so quite happy to alter the list.
As to lumping Cullen and Dewar with Chisholm, I did consider separating them into "inadequate" and some even lesser category, but for me "adequate" French is an absolute. If Cullen's and Dewar's French (according to most reports I've seen or heard of each) is not up to the task, they still fall short of the standard. Failing with a 48 is still failing, even if it's a beter mark than 25. I wasn't claiming to make gradations of the candidates' capacity in French. It was a simple division of those who meet the standard and those who do not.
Now, I'm hearing some mixed reports about Cullen - even though the majority I've heard would still say his French is inadequate. I'd be prepared to mark him with an asterix. But I haven't even heard Dewar apologists suggesting that Dewar's French is up to the task right now.
So, that leaves me with:
That's when we'll know for sure.
But rest assured, LaPresse won't be making distinctions among those candidates whose French they judge inadequate. A fail is a fail.
Idealistic Pragmatist said in the last thread
The article was so exaggerated I doubt most of what it says. But does anyone know if this little nugget is accurate?
I cannot speak to whether it is accurate. I would say both that it is very plausible, and that it is not an indication of Mulcair's depth or lack thereof. The organizational advantage it would give Topp is substantial, but that is it.
That said, here's the rub about the Mulcair campaign and campaign capability. Some politicians are activists first, some just plop in 'at the top'. The latter still might acquire organizational saavy, but not usually. A leader [small 'l' there] does not do organizational work, but having done it heavily influences the quality of people they pull around them, and their capacity to lead and drive the effort. This was one of Jack's really big strengths before he became leader [and it carried over as Leader].
Mulcair is typical of the politician who has all that done for them. He'll be paying the price for that in the next couple months.
If this campaign was all 'air war' Mulcair would be leaving Topp behind in the dust. [And 'air war' is all we are seeing so far.] To the degree the campaign is going to be about signing up new members and contact with members, Topp will be way ahead of everyone on that, and Mulcair will be doing well to keep up with Dewar.... even if continuing questions about the adequacy of his French suppress his potential.
That said, I cannot imagine Mulcair not being on the last ballot.... barring some really stupid self inflicted wounds, which I do not think he is prone to. [That he pisses off and alienates only those he chooses to.]
I dont think there are great odds for Nash pulling past Topp to be there. But if her campaign gells, and she being able to eat into a good chunk of Topp's support base, it is more than conceivable.
Dewar has the big set of question marks, but if he can get past those, I can easily see him in the last round.
The rest will require some big rolling wave to get to the last round. And if one of those does not start just about the minute after the first debate, forget it.
As to who might win the last round, or even who most likely of each plausible pairing.... I see no basis for even a guess at this point.
I talk to people in NS and BC. I actually cannot think of a single person who says they are supporting any one candidate right now. I hear people just as interested in Topp- especially in BC, but NS as well. They dont know what to make of him. At this point, duh. They do not know more about the rest really- except that they hear about Mulcair. But most people I know are naturally skeptical about that sort of thing.... and that is without me dissing Mulcair [yet :)], since most of my conversations tend to be about the race and very generally about candidates.
HM excluding Topp from the likely finishing field is coloured by tw things [1] if you are actively supporting a candidate, that self selects who you are talking to and colours what they say to you; and [2] Mulcair proponents have a natural interest in applying the overwhelming premium to appearances at this point: Mulcair being the only with a ready to go profile, and the presumptive favourite of Quebecers [and who has heard of Topp].
I was at both the Ontario Provincial Council meeting and the Leader's Levee on Saturday and did my best to get a sense of the leadership by talking widely to people and counting buttons.
I would say Nash had the most supporters, followed by Mulcair with Dewar and Topp next. These four were all fairly bunched and had significant support. Saganash attended in the evening and seemed to be very well received. I did not detect any support for the others.
I heard both Mulcair and Dewar speak in the afternoon to similar sized crowds in their hospitality suites. To my mind Mulcair was simply in a different league and made a much better impression.
As a Mulcair supporter I am gratified that he seems in contention in Toronto notwithstanding it is home base to Topp and Nash.
Toronto is home base for Nash. I dont think it is for Topp. He lives there, he has no particular organizational past or 'footprint' there.
BC is Topp's base.
Given comparative starting block profiles, the surprise would be if Mulcair was not at least in contention everywhere.
Mr. Saganash was there not just in the evening, but the morning of provincial council on both Saturday and Sunday - actually spent the most time out of any of the candidates there and turned many, many heads. I had many delegates, party executive and staffers tell me after that he impressed so much that they really had to re-think how they were going to support others. He push many who were on the fence in his direction and others who were considering him came on board after what they saw.
I'll be waiting for the January debate in Halifax to make up my mind, but after hearing all the comments for and against the candidates in these various Leadership threads over the past weeks, it still comes down to the heart or the mind.
Do I go with a local candidate whom I supported in the past provincially (Chisholm), or with the candidate that I think the Conservatives are the most scared of (Mulcair/Topp)?
Decisions, decisions!!