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.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I think Topp's French is every bit as fluent as Mulcair's
Mulcair and Topp may have similar French fluency but Mulcair is much more eloquent.
Just as Stephen Harper and Stephen Lewis may be similarly fluent in English but there is no comparison when it comes to eloquence.
I would say, same goes for English too while we're at it...
Couple of unrelated points:
1) I think "Le Devoir" was being generous about Peggy Nash's French. (or maybe she is a whole different person when there are no cameras). It may be "impeccable" for a second language speaker, but it's very much her 2nd language. Her speech is not very fluent and her vocabulary is elementary. She does not come close to matching Mulcair or Saganash's French (or even Topp's). BTW, having a BA in French hardly proves you are fluent. (neither today, nor a generation ago)
2) Why does North Report hate Don Newman? Compared with what we have today (Solomon and Don Martin) he is an excellent journalist.
3) There were reports that Mulcair was in the Laurentians today, having press conferences with 3 MPs, 2 of whom interesstingly hadn't endorsed him. http://lechodunord.canoe.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=22379...
Seemed hardly possible, concsidering his event in St John's later today. Does anybody know if those reports were accurate?
4) Seems like an ideal way for the NDP to get memberships in QC would be for one or more of the candidates to appear on TLMEP. Is this going to happen before the Feb. 18 deadline?
How good does your French have to be to lead the NDP today? Good enough to negotiate difficult issues with your Francophone colleagues one on one, chair a large or small meeting; enjoy yourself speaking nothing but French for days on end; do live tv and radio interviews and participate in public discussions on live tv; handle relations with the Quebec government in French; represent Canada in France and other Francophone countries; speak French in International meetings.
Who makes the cut? The three Quebec candidates: Saganash, Mulcair and Topp. Saganash has native (sorry) fluency. Mulcair really has two first languages, and Topp also had a Francophone mother, so technically it is is mother tongue.
Niki Ashton has great linguistic ability, and considerable ability to be herself in French.
Peggy Nash can do everything outlined above. Her spoken French is more formal than one is used to hearing on the street, but her respect for the language is well appreciated as evidenced by Le Devoir talking about her immpecible French. She has been speaking French for 40 years, but sporadically at times, which can makes language skills seem somewhat rusty. Now that she is back in Ottawa and not just living in Toronto the rust should be off.
Nathan Cullen carries on well in French. He needs continous trainning to be able to do live interviews in France, say, or explain to a furious colleague why they are being passed over for a critic role because they are more valuable on the backbench. I do not think his problems speaking gramatically correct French rule him out of the leadership. He is pretty good example of what a Northern BC language student can achieve with good will, work, and imagination.
Paul Dewar has not shown he is up to the task in French. Given his background and his riding, in my opinion that rules him out of consideration. I say this despite my high regard for his other political talents. People do not have to agree that speaking French well is a job qualification, but I see it as one.
More evidence that Quebec isn't just some sort of self-centered "we will only support Quebeckers" beast... Turmel hasn't necessarily done a good job preserving our gains there. What Quebec wants is the same as the rest of us: a progressive, pro-health care, pro-child care, social democrat who can inspire confidence in their government again. It's just easier to inspire the whole country if you're competently bilingual.
"Saganash has native (sorry) fluency. Mulcair really has two first languages, and Topp also had a Francophone mother, so technically it is is mother tongue."
Saganash is Aboriginal. Saganash is fluent in French. Still, Saganash deserves some respect, don't you think? I mean, if we're going to gush about how others have shown abilities and positive traits by learning languages, it would be nice to acknowledge it all the way around, and not just take it for granted that one category of people is simply obliged.
In fact, Saganash has one first language: Cree. He has three acquired languages: French, English and to a lesser degree Spanish. None of these three are "native" to him. He learned them to get along with those around him.
As he has said himself, Saganash went into residential school for the purpose of having his Cree language taken from him. He completed his western education having mastered three.
From 308's "all numbers, no thinking" analysis:
I see this as good news, for a few reasons.
We're holding our supposedly "fragile" gains, and apparently people actually like the NDP, not just Jack Layton. (That includes Quebec, even if we've fallen a touch.) And we're doing that with our best people out of the Parliamentary game, and with an interim leader.
Also, conservatives are falling off, especially in Ontario. We've fallen off a bit there too, but there are consistent signals that this puts the Conservatives back into minority territory. It also opens up the possibility of an NDP-led coalition.
The best news: whoever we pick as a leader, they won't be inheriting a party in free fall. They'll be inheriting a positive and stable situation. (Assuming nothing huge changes before then.)
Unfortunately, I think the next leader does not have time to "have the rust fall off" his/her Frech. He/She will be in a fight from the get-go to rebuild the party's momentum in QC. Showing cultural sensitivity, which Peggy Nash certainly does, is not sufficent. Remember Joe Clark and Ed Broadbent; they were always well-respected in QC, but were never actually able to win seats.
If we were in a different situation, with solid roots in QC, Peggy Nash's French might be acceptable.
As it is, she would have the worst French of any PM (apart from Stephen Harper) since Joe Clark. Between them, they never won more than 10 seats in QC. Something to consider...
Unlike Broadbent (or Clark), she doesn't have to win Quebec. She has to hold Quebec. Big difference. And most people are not reading or checking up on every candidate at every possible moment. As someone who studied the damn language, her French is MORE than competent enough for the small amount that people are paying attention right now. And as someone who studied the language, she could easily build on it and exceed Jack Layton's competence within a few months.
What she needs to do is connect to people and inspire them, in both languages. Which is what all the candidates still need to do (or show they can potentially do).
I have to disagree there. Let's compare her French to all the post-Joe Clark PM: Trudeau (OK i agree his French is better), John Turner (his French was the pits - Nash's is better), Mulroney (I agree his French is better), Kim Campbell (her French was highly over-rated, Nash's is better), Chretien (I agree his French was better - though he was so incoherent in both languages that it is debatable), Paul Martin (his French was highly over-rated and it is debatable how it compared to Nash's).
Worse than John Turner and Kim Campbell?
And how does Peggy Nash's French compare to Jack Layton's?
^^^^^ the right question
How about a bunch of indepedant journalists/whatever get together to grade their French?
Problem solved.
Yes: the bar is now higher. Which takes more work, a whirlwind romance or a committed relationship? I can think of many conditions under which I would support Peggy for leader, but for myself I'm convinced this isn't the time. IMO, it's not just French fluency that our next leader should demonstrate, but also Quebec cultural immersion. That's why Saganash and Mulcair are my one and two, and unlikely to change.
Does Peggy Nash have the potential to build a relationship with the voter the way Jack did? I am serious. Anyone want to offer their thoughts. It has come up over and over again. And, because this has also come up, will she end up being another Audrey McLaughlin. I am not prepared to go back. I still say this is ours to screw up. Thoughts folks? I wouldn't ask if I didn't know. Thanks.
I forgot about Kim Campbell... sorry!
FWIW, I think Paul Martin and John Turner both spoke better than Nash. (neither of them did well in QC in any case...)
I also agree w/ JWells that holding QC will be at least as difficult as winning it in the first place. Remember it took Layton 4 tries to win QC; the next leader will only have one.
Arthur, besides the fact they're both female, what similarities do you see between Audrey McLaughlin and Peggy Nash? I don't see any.
Could you expand on what you mean about being "another Audrey McLaughlin" Arthur? Right now I'm seeing the names of two women, one who was leader, another who wants to be leader. Could you spell out the point?
Edited to add - thanks, Lord P! I note that they both lose the tie contest of the first debate, the man contest Angus seemed to have been abiding by when choosing his endorsement, and the beard contest some Mulcair supporters are tweeting about lately.
Topp answers some questions
And what I've suspected all along: Canadians don't know much about the NDP race!
Should we extend the deadline to join?
I have to disagree with you there. have you actually heard John Turner speak French??? He's terrible. One of the reasons the Liberals bombed in Quebec in 1984 was that Turner's French turned out to be so over-rated and weak. Ironically, Ed Broadbent gained ground after the French debate that year because people were led to believe that he spoke no French at all and he exceeded expectations and people respected him for making such an effort.
I think its debatable how Nash and Paul martin's French compare...Le Devoir described Nash's French as impeccable...did they ever say that about Martin?
Well Writer. All I know is that McLaughlin almost destroyed the NDP, and I heard Nash wants to go back to presenting the party in a way that didn't work before Jack came in. I don't want to go backwards. I dont' want to see us vote for a woman simply because she is a woman, anymore then I want us to vote for a man because he is a Francophone. This worries me, and I would really like to know what people think. Honestly, I am still no closer to deciding for whom to vote.
That's Jane Taber; I take anything she says with a grain of salt. Wait a minute, I dont' want to waste the salt. As to Canadians knowing about, why should we be surprised. We aren't the Liberals. We all knew this was going to be a problem, and there is no point in relying on the MSM to get out the word. Really, part of the process of picking a leader is finding someone who is going to get our message out. With Jack (blessed be his memroy) gone, I can't think of a more important reason to get this right.
But as to who does or doesn't know about the contest, that isn't really anything to worry about. All this article does is make Jane Taber and our naysayers happy. Don't worry about it! Focus instead on picking the right leader! The rese will take care of itself!
I'm equally worried about members comparing a woman to another woman, with absolutely no context, indicating there is a clear and present threat that the party could be destroyed. That comes off as "because she's a woman" too. Where have you heard that Nash wants to go back to presenting the party the same way as it was positioned under McLaughlin? What does that mean? What, specifically is being compared, and why does Nash stand out as the *person* with the greatest similarity with this particular past leader?
These are genuine questions. Right now I'm seeing cryptic short-hand telegraphing something that may be clear to others, apparently based on hearsay. I'd like a clear sense of what this all means, and what it's based on.
I still don't get this McLaughlin comparison. And what do you mean by "presenting the party in a way that didn't work before Layton came in"? Why is Nash more "Audrey-like" than she is "Ed Broadbent or David Lewis-like"?
Compared to today, the 1989 leadership candidates were much weaker calibre than those today. A lot of people say the party should have went with Dave Barrett. Barrett was a populist and more tied to labor and it was also argued he could have undercut the swing to Reform in BC. But he also had a huge Quebec problem (he was quite indifferent, even hostile) and the Western alienation thing was pretty offputting to many. McLaughlin meanwhile *was* a very weak leader, and I think suggesting Nash compares to her (without giving any reason why) is pretty insulting. But even the 1993 disaster wasn't ENTIRELY her fault - there was a very unpopular NDP premier in Ontario at the time.
The McLaughlin comparison makes zero sense to me too.
If Nash has trouble holding Quebec, it won't be because of her lack of French. It will be because she didn't connect with voters anywhere close to Jack Layton.
That's still the test for me. All of the candidates have good principles. Half the candidates are competently bilingual. But which one can inspire voters, or at least persuade them?
I'm appalled at the comparison between Nash and McLaughlin. Few shouted louder than I at what a disaster McLaughlin would be were we to elect her as leader (and ever afterwards), so I have some skin in that game, as it were. McLaughlin had next to no political skills, was a poor speaker, no natural base/constituency in the party, spoke weird French, and seemed perenially awkward. Peggy Nash is a skilled politician with many great instincts and a keen mind for politics, not to mention being whip-smart. Is she my first choice? No. Do I worry about her ability to be the inspiring figure we need as leader? Kinda, yeah. But the amount of daylight between she and Audrey McLaughlin, whose leadership we only barely survived, is enormous and beyond insulting to Peggy Nash. And yeah, were she not a woman, that comparison would never have been made...
A big part of the problem with media coverage is the large number of candidates that are still in the race. That makes it difficult for them to show their differences and for conflict to develop, something the media really likes to cover. In retrospect, it might have been good to make the barrier to entry a bit higher by having a spending limit of more than $500,000. It would have forced coalition-building earlier in the process.