NDP Leadership 53

I will let others speculate on why Broadbent and co. have thrown so much weight behind Topp. I will say that you can also be 100% certain that the media will spin anything in the NDP as negatively as possible. Right now they say the leadership race is "boring" because the candidates keep agreeing with each other and are respectful of each other...but you know damn well that if there started to be fireworks in the debates the new media line would be "NDP divided". If Mulcair becomes leader the spin in English Canada will be that the NDP is now totally dedicated to kow-towing to Quebec and is just the BQ with a new name. They will also go back to the old stories about Mulcair's volatile temper and how divisive he is there will be a drum beat of speculation about whether as leader he will go after people he has tangled with in the past like Libby davies and whether some of them will quit politics etc...

Precisely.

[except that was the response to the post before- #62. We most definitely have to attend to the media. But to be driven by them is foolish. It would be like not going outdoors in the summer because of mosquitoes.]

So, apart from the Quebec media, how do you think the Quebec voter will feel if he perceives that Quebec's leading candidate was only beaten because of an unfair process? Especially having voted NDP for the first time in his life? You might remember it was Phil Edmonston, not the media, who said that the message that would be heard in Quebec is "shut up and look pretty." Your "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" attitude may be brave and defiant but it still ignores the torpedoes.

I have to disagree with those who think the media is not ideologically biased against the NDP. If they wanted to emphasize the "Horse Race",  the headline on Harris Decima could have been "Tories Back in Minority territory".  Furthermore, recall the "Globe and Maill" editorial during the last Ontario election. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/behind-andrea-ho... With reference to "a command economy" I thought we were back in the 1950s... Besides, the editorial was calling for a "majority liberal or PC" government. An "horse race -obsessed" media would have made a plea for a minority....

I would also caution people against reading much into media support for a partiuclar NDP candidate or MP. The  NDPers  are fine as long as they are "gadflies" ,to borrow John Ivsion's condescending phrase. Get the NDP close to power, even in a minority scenario, and the knives come out. Remember Tommy Douglas's phrase "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you".

No, the NDP needs a leader who can stand up to the media steamroller. If you doubt Mulcair can do that, you should watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF4EhSVCHHQ

 I am sure the media will bring up ridiculous lines about Mulcair being a closet separatist, e.t.c... (Rex Murphy was hinting at that in yesterday's At issue panel). Those allegations are so stupid they can't possibly stick ("an Anglo separatist, who fought the PQ so hard they still can't forgive him"!!???). Mulcair, will be able to deal with that kind of sutff, no problem.  As for him having a temper, not being a team player e.tc.., that too won't stick, as long as the caucus keeps a united front in public.  Despite all the media rumours, he never undermined  Layton in any way. There was no evidence of any public disgareement. Chantal Hebert noted as much. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1056195--hebert-mulc...

Based on his behaviour since 2007, Mulcair understands the virtues of a united party and will act accordingly.

 

Nicky, everyone shares your concerns.  

I was addressing specifically and ONLY the following that you said, so stop trying the false equation of general concerns to specific statement.

And on that in particular you will not find a consensus of agreement that this is a shared statement of fact- that this perception is likey to be the dominant one under those circumstances.

Have to run.

Hurdles to catch.

I mean clear.

For now: the further hurdles are how you do politics. The Leaders central role, to say the least, in that.

More later. 

Well, Mulcair's foray into the Labour movement seems to be bearing fruit.  Interesting indeed to see the strong support he's getting in these circles.

According to twitter, he has gained the endorsement of Michael Fraser, former Nat'l director of UFCW and VP of the CLC.  Another big name in the Labour movement to go along with Samuelson (OFL) and Kube (BCFL).

1. Likeability and strong retail political skills. 2. A clear understanding of the requirements for, and a commitment to, building the party as an organization on the ground. 3. Strong consensus building skills (including a willingness to set past differences aside). For an example of the polar opposite of this, see the Paul Martin approach to leadership (and its consequences). 4. An ability to set ego aside and build a team to which she/he actually listens, particularly on files where she/he is relatively weak. 5. A strong grasp of policy and a clear agenda. I place a particular emphasis on number 2, primarily because I believe that it is something that is being done poorly by us and very well done by the Harperites. Others will have their own priorities. Edited for spelling and grammar

You mean like Brian Topp?

 

Sorry couldn't resist the cheeky response.

So people complain when his endorsements are mostly rookie MPs from Quebec, they complain when gets endorsements from those with greater experience. Is it just me or do the goal posts for Mulcair keep getting moved? If Mulcair got endorsements from all the Greek Gods somebody would complain why didn't the Norse Pantheon support as well and what message that sent. Here is the bottom line the only endorsement that matters is my own and the masses as a whole, aka popularity with the people. So here is what I see each candiadates assets. Mulcair: Smart, knowldgable, Charismatic, Experienced, Popular in Quebec, showed great intergity as minister, he's shown great courage standing up to Charest, he's shown he's progressive while in office, he can make liberal Oppenants foam at the mouth, calm under pressure. Niki Ashton: Confedant, Good Speaker Energetic, a real fighter, interested me making a long term brand Fluent, superlingual (four fluent languages and like five works in progress) Lt. Urura of the NDP. Now if she can speak Kligion and Romulan she jumps to me top spot. Topp: Accessible, Good writer, Tactician, intelligent, cunning. The rest I'll do later.

Fair point. No more than a handful for any one other candidate, but more than that combined. But, then again, that's compared to a majority of the Quebec caucus for Mulcair and an overwhelming majority of those Quebec MPs who have endorsed so far. Also a fair point. Boulerice and Giguere at a minimum have said their endorsement was based on the fact they thought Topp could win outside Quebec. I think it was silly of them to say that before they had ever seen him campaign and has proven not to be the case based on watching him campaign, but you're right that doesn't necessarily mean they think Mulcair would be best inside Quebec--it is somewhat implied, but surely not a certainty. Of course, the context was that I was disagreeing with the assertion that because some Quebec MPs have endorsed other candidates that means they think someone else has a better chance of winning in Quebec. My point, which I made more clearly in previous comments, was that the mere fact that there are Quebec MPs who have in some cases endorsed other candidates does NOT mean that those MPs disagree with the idea that Mulcair has the best chance of winning in Quebec. Regardless, I think Mulcair has the best chance of winning both inside and outside Quebec. No, I inferred that most or all of them could think Mulcair has the best chance of winning in Quebec even if they've endorsed other candidates because they may have endorsed other candidates based on other reasons. That still true. Not a single MP that I'm aware of who has endorsed any candidate other than Mulcair has even suggested that they are doing so because they think their candidate has the best chance of winning in Quebec.

If we agree that the the #1 hurdle for next leader consists of  being able to speak to Canadians (and particularly to Quebecois), no other candidate, apart from Mulcair has, up till now, demonstrated an ability to clear that hurdle. Dewar and Chisolm will, short of divine intervention, not be able to even come close to speaking French well enough to appeal to the Quebec electorate. They, (and I would argue others, but hopefully we can at least agree on those two) should withdraw before the resumption of the House of Commons. They would be much more useful providing bench-strength in Parliament and it would make the debates slightly more manageable.

As to why certain hihg-profile Quebc MPs are endorsing Topp.... I obviously have no idea, not being an NDP insider. But it may be that Boivin and Boulerice are themselves thinking of the NDP leadership at some point in the future. Having two "pur-laine" QCers (and I am counting Mulcair as a pur-laine since he spent almost his entire career in QC) in a row might seem unlikely and so they would rather endorse the candidate from outside QC. I recall Martin Cauchon being in a similar position at the 2006 Liberal convention. He was one of the few Rae supporters who crossed over to Ignatieff on the final ballot. Of course, it may have been for other reaons, but there was much speculation along the lines of what I just said.

For further evidence about Boulerice and Boivin's ambitions, I look to Robin Sears's article in "Policy Options" published last June/july. It was quite nasty towards Mulcair, minimzing his role in the new NDP shadow cabinet & speculating that "some of the new QC recruits", and not Mulcair, would ultimately run to succed Layton.

The Conservatives will try to smear anybody we pick. We can't let that drive our decision.

I think that makes sense. Here's another way of looking at it. It starts with nicky's question: "If we don't pick the candidate seen as 'most likely to hold Quebec', the Quebec media will paint it as a slap in the face and--even without that factor--Quebec voters may genuinely be insulted by the fact we did not respond to the huge opportunity they gave us on May 2nd." "Since most people seem to share that concern, how does that not lead to the inevitable conclusion that we must either change the voting formula or elect Mulcair as our next leader?" Then people disagree with nicky's "inevitable conclusion", but don't provide any alternative resolution to the question he raises--even though we all seem to agree it's a problem. And, oddly, I agree with those who reject nicky's conclusion as well. Assuming unrelated constitutional obstacles to changing the voting formula, I think the problem with nicky's proposed solutions are that they do amount to--as one commenter put it--"blackmail". That, or at the very least a dark warning that "you have no choice, you must vote for Mulcair". But here's the other way of looking at it. Quebecers gave us a huge opportunity on May 2nd--an olive branch to the rest of Canada in fact. Regardless of any political considerations, as good New Democrats I think we all feel a responsibility to grasp hold of that olive branch--and we understand that we don't get to do it on our terms, that's not how "reaching out" works. Our party has never had a leader from Quebec before. Even in this race we don't have a single francophone candidate*. But we've just been given the greatest incentive to choose a leader from Quebec that we could ever, possibly, have. And we also happen to have an MP in our midst who is already our deputy leader, who has the kind of government experience that is so rare in our caucus, who has a record of prinicipled politics that has made him incredibly popular in his home province and who has the credibility and communications skills to make him most electable candidate we've got--Quebec aisde. That person also took a huge risk in running for us in the first place, he has never showed anything but loyalty to the party despite repeated media claims he was going to stab our previous leader in back and he would not only be our first leader from Quebec, but was also one of only two public faces of the same history making victory that we're now looking to embrace. It would be wrong to say that because of all that "We Have to Pick Mulcair". We're not Liberals and--as New Democrats--we instinctively make up our own minds. But, for me personally, if we're serious about including Quebec, it means we do at least have to ask ourselves "If not now, when?" In that context, one of the other candidates would have well ahead of Mulcair on other qualities to get my vote. And since Mulcair is such a good politician, that was unlikely to happen from the beginning. Short of that, someone would have to provide me with a far more compelling reason not to support Mulcair than anything I've seen so far--the worst of which has been nothing more than vaguery or innuendo; there've been well established and subatantive critiques as well but not nothing I find remotely compelling. We shouldn't feel blackmailed, that's for sure, but part of me feels like we're approaching this as if it's any other leadership race--in which case I still think Mulcair would be a front-runner based on his intelligence and political skills alone. But it's not just the political consequences of choosing another candidate that should alter our perspective either. If we're serious about including Quebec in our party, it's also the political and subtantive opportunity that has been created by the facts on the ground. I say again: If not now, when? (As an aisde, some will inevitably say "What about Topp and Saganash?" My response to that is that it isn't just about being "from Quebec". Mulcair is wildly popular in Quebec. He is widely seen inside Quebec as "their candidate". This is no doubt largely because Topp has spent most of his career outside Quebec in pre-Quebec NDP party politics and Saganash has spent most of his career in aboriginal politics rather than Quebec provincial politics. None of that means they aren't Quebecers. It's just the combination of Mulcair's name recognition and popularity make people view him differently. Picking Topp might be seen as choosing an "old guard" candidate with a nod to Quebec. And you could probably come with a similar description of how picking Saganash would seen. But with Mulcair, people in Quebec are watching to see if we embrace him--and them along with him. That doesn't mean we have to pick him, it's just one factor, but one that is not at play for Topp and Saganash despite their being from Quebec.) (*Saganash's first language is Cree, Topp and Mulcair are both from mixed families, but clearly better in English)

 

If your argument in support of Thomas Mulcair is based on an idiotic fairy tale like the uniform swing, then you have no argument at all.  The very data you present proves that the uniform swing analysis was wrong in five cases.

One might as well argue that the 2007 Saskatchewan election proves that first past the post elections routinely produce legislative bodies that approximate the popular vote.  It would be both as accurate and as addlepated.