NDP Leadership 53

I don't doubt that Mulcair is in the strongest position to consolidate Quebec.  That is a significant talking point in Mulcair's favour.

But the way Nicky and others use it as a one instument ensemble misses two significant points.

• That Mulcair is in the strongest position to consolidate Quebec (a logical theory, but still just a theory), there is no reason to suppose that no other candidate could possibly consolidate Quebec.  Clearly it would be nigh on impossible for, say, Chisholm.  But it is presumtuous to write off all of the other candidates - especially the two born in Quebec (unlike Mulcair).

• That the capacity to consolidate Quebec, though vitally important, is not the only consideration.

So let's play a little "let's pretend."  A double-blind crystal ball, as it were.

• Crystal Ball 1 - Thomas Mulcair wins on an early ballot.  Not only does he consolidate Quebec, he actually builds on the gains from last May.  In English Canada her is hampered by the "Quebec blackmail" narrative - with some reporters even quoting unhelpful comments from Mulcair supporters like some of those here claiming that the NDP had "no choice" but to elect Mulcair.  In the 2015 election, the NDP makes incremental gains in Quebec, more than offset by erosion in Ontario and Western Canada.
• Crystal Ball 2 - To the surprise of almost everyone (except me) Niki Ashton narrowly defeats Thomas Mulcair on the final ballot. In her acceptance speech, she immediately emphasizes the important role Mulcair played in the 2011 breakthrough and highlights the importance of consolidating and building on those gains.  She manages to keep Mulcair inside the tent by treating him with consistent respect (and maybe occasional deference), eventually building a very good working relationship.  Quebecois warm to the young allophone who speaks their language so well. She has some problems with older soft nationalists, but her youth allow her to engage more people of the "post national question" generation.  Come 2015, the NDP has a net loss of five Quebec seats, more than offset by incremental gains in Ontario and Atlantic Canada and significant gains in the West.

Pure fantasy, of course, but either one at least as credible as the "Mulcair or Chaos" meme being touted.

(And yes, I picked my candidate because, well, it was my fantasy)

Can you provide any links to QC journalists who can't stand Mulcair?  Everything I have been reading about him has been very positive.  I think he is only politicain to be simultaneously praised by Don Macpherson ( the Gazette), Vicent Marissal (La Presse), Michel David (Le Devoir) and even Josee Legault ( Voir). Admitedly, Legault did not cover Mulcair; she was actually working for the PQ in the early 2000s. The fact that even she says that he is "un redoutable communicateur" and has "des forces évidentes face à Stephen Harper" should give you an idea of how widely respected Mulcair is in Quebec. 

This is not what I've read AT ALL. What I've seen are references to a couple of specific reporters--namely Andrew Coyne and Brian Lilley--that Mulcair has taken on in a way that was unflattering to them and unlikely to make them his pals. Never that there's a general dislike for the man amongst the press. I suspect a lot of MPs have specific reporters they don't get along with.

My support is not based on swing theory or what ever that is, my support for Mulcair is based on: A) My repect for his record as a whole. B) His roll in May 2. C) His debating skills and the versitility he has shown in this area. D) His smarts and expertise in whatever file he's been given. E) He's really popular in Quebec and given his enviromental record will be in BC in time and other enviromentalist friendly regions, like many metropolitian areas. Also he has lived in Winnipeg for two years so he probably has some understanding of the praire's. His popularity in Quebec will help with Ontario as well and the fact he plans to invest alot of attention to the Maritimes will help with that region well. F) His strong reputation and record will help protect him from liberal and conservative attacks. G) His charm, its more then an accident of birth that makes him so popular in Quebec, and it being a personality trait means with time it is transferable to other regions. H) His government and house leader experience as well as his ability to master his files will aid him in using the talent in Cacus and outside it to maxium advantage. I) When the NDP decides to change the constitution his previous experience in changing one will be an asset. Legal and Constitutional experise is something he shares with Saganash. J) He supported many of the same position as his fellow hopefuls, so that signals to me that he's not really a centralist, but rather has an air of being a centralism aka selling his positions as being centralist which will help sell it to those deluted fools that believe in the mush absolute middle. K) His talk about about moving the centre to us hints at updating the industrial era lingo of the Socialist/Social Democrats to something fits the information age and how real people talk. (side note I've felt for a long time that the idealogies of the left, Socialism/Social Democracts need to be updated to reflect the information age we are in and the one that will emerge in time, but that is for another thread) L) His couragous choice in running for the NDP instead of an easier route to power shows his guts, his willingness to fight for what he believes. M) As does his fight with the Premier of Quebec on behalf of both the enviroment and the fair application of the law. N) He was fighting the federal liberals even as a minister in Quebec, see his comments on Stephen Dion's performance as enviroment minister, which was very sad in comparsion,to Mulcair. O) Quebec politics is a cunning, dangerous and wily challenge honning Mulcair's street smarts. P) Having been in a Quebec government he has greater familarity with how a pharmacare plan, Childcare plan, and other progressive Quebec inniatives work, even if he was not the minister responsible he has greater exposer to it. Q) He has run a departmental budget, giving him experience in dealing with budgets. R) He has union experience which he can draw on, but he's not blind to the flaws unions can possess as well. Also his union experience was with a Quebec union which will give him an edge on building bridges with the Quebec Unions which currently support the Bloc. S) He can get under an oppentants skin, while staying calm, which I saw him do on QP to Goodale. An enraged and baited opponet is one that makes mistakes. T) Only Nixon could go to China. While Mulcair maybe excessively pro Isreal, if he does spank Isreal over something or push for something for Palestians they will far more likely take iy,seriously then if Topp or Nash said or did it and he has shown a willingness to take Isreal to task in the past. U) He can multitask. Bonus reason) His acknolwagement of the importance boosting knowledge sector jobs and building the industry for the future. V) He has experience in multiple critic roles, between his time federally and at the National assembly, including both industry and finance. W) He has promised to bring back the wheat board. X) In his time as a leader for an Anglo rights group in Quebec shows a willingness to stand up for a minority group while building bridges between it and the majority. Y) His time with Ruth Ellen and his defence of the new Quebec MPs im general shows a willingness and ability to both protect and nurture Talent. Z) He's the deputy leader which shows Jack's faith in his leadership abilities. Reasons A to Zed why I'm going to choose Mulcair to be leader.

I don't have an issue with rationale discussion about Mulcair's obvious and significant strengths.

 

I do have an issue with the frankly counterproductive narrative of a couple of Mulcair supporters who consistently present the matter of Mulcair's strength in Quebec as though the rest of us have some obligation to bow the knee to the Great and Mighty Tom.

 

I'll observe that a couple of idiots tried that in the Saskatchewan leadership race - until senior people on the Link campaign basically told them, "STFU - you aren't helping."

 

Fact of the matter is that Mulcair is already fairly high on my list - and well placed to move higher.  But Nicky and others should perhaps realize that the blackmail language is not helping their preferred candidate.

 

(BTW, the earlier comment - now corrected - was supposed to be "Mulcair or Chaos," referencing the Liberal narrative from an election in the 1930s.)

I'll also note that in 2009 the SNDP steamrollered into choosing the candidate deemed most electable.  You may want to look into how that worked out.

Yes, but unlike what I've heard about "Link", Mulcair is a good performer and comes across very well on TV etc...Everyone has to believe that whoever they support is ipso-facto the most electable. Malcolm, I assume you think that Nikki Ashton is the most electable.

 

I think Niki Ashton is electable, that she has the capacity to consolidate the Quebec gains (though possibly not as well as Mulcair) and to rebuild the party in the West. Historically the route to successive majority governments (until the last 20 years) was by winning Quebec and the West.

That said, electability is one of the most significant criteria, but not the only one.

Frankly, in Saskatchewan in 2009, even though I was supporting Meili, I'd've said that Link was the most electable in the sense that Link would give us the best shot at being competitive in 2011.  I never actually believed that (barring a scandal of epic proportions) that 2011 was winnable.  I also believed that Link was the least likely candidate to deliver real renewal within the party.

By email? Or online. As to the phone suggestion, the Nova Scotia Liberals tried the phone system and made a horrible hash of it, with fraud around the mailing of PIN numbers, though I'd think we'd have less likelihood of those kinds of problems. I think the phone system also crashed, but remember that that was decades ago, and the technology has probably improved significantly since then.

Still, regardless of the methodology, and although I'm always inclined to try and give people more chance to participate than less, I'd still look for a way to at least strongly encourage voting after the convention speeches, or on voting day.

You realize that would devolve into all kinds of tactical voting strategies, of course. Whatev. Nothing's perfect, eh.

I hear Peggy Nash spoke in Edmonton tonight...I will look forward to reports from the Edmontonians who had so much to say about Topp's performance there last week.

By the way, here's a very interesting CP story on the tuition side of the Dewar youth plan announced this morning, pointing out that (a) it's the most expensive policy proposal yet in the race, that (b) the costing is not identified yet, and (c) it is going to raise the issue of putting conditions on transfers to the provinces that mandate certain behaviour within exclusive provincial jurisdiction - given the 59-member Quebec caucus we now have.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20111216/ndp-leadership-hopeful-paul-dewar-youth-plan-111216/

Well, Brian Topp has succesfully gotten people to focus on how Paul Dewar will "pay for his expensive promises". Frankly I think Brian Topp would be better off if people were focused exclusively on Paul Dewar's need for expensive French lessons, but that's just me.

I keep feeling more comfortable with his performance. I was afraid he would keep saying people were attacking him; he quit. I was afraid he would distance himself from the labour movement; now he brags of his labour support (when he first mentioned Art Kube he called him a leader of a senior citizens' group, which was true, but now he calls him a former BC Fed President.) Now if he would state he has no enemies in the party, and will welcome all those who worked for others to play a major role in the party after March 24 -- and say it strongly enough that everyone will say they believe him -- he might be unbeatable.

Most working journalists I know are NDP voters. Those who write on national beats have to be more circumspect, but many of them are too. Of course columnists and Ottawa Bureau Chiefs tend to have positions in line with the stance of their papers, but even then there are some exceptions. All or most NDP MPs and other elected people are quite used to making friends with the press. It's the paranoid streak among gross-roots supporters that makes us generalize. Remember: the reporter does NOT write the headline; the front page is NOT the editorial page; professional journalists don't like having spin applied to their stories (at one time the Toronto Star was famous for losing staff for that reason; I don't know if they have quit that stuff or not.)

So, will he eliminate those who tell such stories? Or will he demonstrate that love is better than anger?

I just fell in love again.

 

 

You can't eliminate that kind of rap. You work to neutralize it.

I think Stock overstates, and at the same time misses some dimensions.

It isnt just the [obviously negative] 'he's an arrogant jerk' narrative.

To the degree that is part of it, the neutralizing strategy is straightforward, and Mulcair is doing it.

'Not being an arrogant jerk' is in most people's books, also not sufficient for being the leader. So there are lots of people who do not think Mulcair is an arrogant erk, but also do not think he has the qualities to lead Caucus and party.

At the risk of putting out an example that is more distracting than focusing, I suggest Libby Davies would be in this group. What I know of Libby, she would bury the hatchet over the 'Libby Davis and Tom Mulcair incident.' Outbursts happen. Even Jack was not immune to that. Libby would be one of many who cannot see Mulciar doing the necessary leading.

Fair enough to argue that 'how can you say she is seperating the personal from that?' But people do. Especially among political colleagues. And people with lesser hear than Libby manage it.