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 like Peggy Nash and I don't get why people are going after her over her French. As far as things go, her French skills are much more of a strength than a weakness.
If the candidates were offering more contrasts there would be twice as many concern trolls in the MSM clucking their tongues about the NDP tearing itself apart. Not that I wouldn't mind a few more elbows being thrown in this race but not for the edification of some bored reporters.
Look, I'm not going to apologize for anything I said. I also qualified it by saying it applies to everyone else where you might want to vote for them because of some specific characteristic. All I know for sure is I am not seeing anything that makes me look at a leadership candidate and say there's the one. On top of that, we have an issue that has been handed to us on a platter, pensions, and no peep out of Turmel, or the candidates. What the hell is going on? If this isn'a golden opportunity to lead and go after the Tories, and the Libs for that matter, I don't know what the hell is!
I've yet to hear anyone hear say they're supporting Peggy Nash JUST because she is a woman. I agree that choosing a leader is a difficult decision of great consequence, more so than ever, and I understand that nobody stands out as "the one" for you. Fair enough. I just don't get this Nash/McLaughlin comparison.
The Nash/McLaughlin comparison was started with the false premise that the disastrous results of the NDP in the 1993 election were simply because of Audrey. I think it's been well established that that was not the case - there was a perfect storm involving (amongst other factors) the unpopular Rae NDP government, and the rise of the Reform Party. There were other factors that made it difficult for her as well. I, for one, happen to think that Audrey did a very good job - the best she could have done. And I admire her for it. I think she would have done a lot better if Bob Rae hadn't mucked things up in Ontario, and if the Reform Party didn't come about when it did... history could have been a lot different!
But there should be no more comparison between Peggy and Audrey, as between Peggy and Alexa, or Peggy and Ed Broadbent. They're all different people.
I think Peggy is one of the strongest candidates in the running right now, and could make a great leader. And I look forward to seeing all our candidates in action again on the debate this Sunday.
Yeah, the NDP was killed across Canada in 1993 by the Bloc in Quebec (for what little support was growing there), the Reform in the West, and Bob Rae in Ontario. The trifecta.
That being said, I still don't understand the comparison to Audrey.
Let's move on. Please.
Unlike Audrey, Jack was lucky not to be leader during a time when the federal NDP's popularity was devastated by very unpopular NDP governments in Ontario and BC.
In order to change the subject,
Let's look at the slightly unimportant article about who donated what to the NDP (doesn't take into account the time they put into the party, etc.)
Writer your comment puzzles me, since words are what make writers writers. Native fluency is a technical term referring to highest capacity to speak a language that is not the first language. When I wrote than Saganash had native fluency in French, I added (sorry) because of the (unintended) pun.
How can giving someone the highest grade possible for their ability to speak a language be disrespectful?
On Peggy speaking French, Le Devoir article following her visit withe editorial board said it was impeccible. What more can be said?
Well I recollec Mulcair holding a press conference within the past couple of weeks on this very issue with Don Davies at his side.
The news reports on today's Abacus poll have focused on name recognition. Mulcair has a small lead in this category.
The more significant results are in the cross-tabs:
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01367/Abacus_Data_Poll_1367631a.pdf
When the public as a whole is asked which leader will make them most likely to vote NDP the results are:
M 21
T 10
D 9
N 6
Sag 2
C 2
A 2
Singh i
Amongst NDP supporters the numbers are
M 30
T 16
D 11
N 11
Sag 1
C 4
A 2
Singh 1
Lest there be any doubt who is best to hold Quebec, the numbers are unequivocable:
M 62
T 8
D 2
N 0
Sag 1
C 0
A 0
Singh 1
I am not surprised at Mulcair's strength. The biggest suprise for me is Peggy Nash's poor showing.
Unfortunately Abacus did not ask simply "which leadership candidate do you favour?" But the other questions make it pretty clear how that question would have been answered.
Also, it only partly counts donations to local associations and campaigns, which is confusing. However, it seems to be taken from a "review of political contributions to the party, its riding associations and election campaigns" so I'd like to have seen the whole picture.
Peggy Nash $7,241, amounts to riding not listed.
Paul Dewar $6,628, amounts to riding not listed.
Nathan Cullen $5,245, amounts to riding not listed.
Martin Singh $3,295, amounts to riding not listed.
Niki Ashton $2,655 plus unstated amounts to riding making total over $10,000.
Brian Topp $2,114 plus $500 to riding.
Thomas Mulcair $0 plus $1,106 to riding and $unstated in non-monetary contributions
Romeo Saganash $0, amounts to riding not listed.
That would be "native-like fluency."
Well for starters the article tries to pretend that the amount Mulcair gave to his riding association doesn't "count" but it's in the exact amount that was legally allowable for the maximum yearly donation. I'm not an expert in campaign finance law but I assume you can't get around it just by giving to riding associations instead of the Party proper. Kudos to the candidates that gave more but Mulcair has only been in the NDP since 2007 and a 1106 (plus a possible other extra $400) is probably in line with the lower tier of givers there.
Eh...that's interesting to see, but what's that got to do with boredom?
Duceppe's French was far better than Layton's yet the NDP took 59 seats in Quebec and the BQ just 4.
How would you compare Peggy Nash's French to Jack Layton's?
Wilf is right on this. Having "native fluency" means that you are literally a native speaker of the language (i.e. it was your first language, or in the case of childhood bilingualism, one of your first languages). "Native-like fluency" means that you're not actually a native speaker, but you are proficient enough that you are able to fool people into thinking you are.
In practice, of course, it's a distinction that only matters to linguists and psychologists. But technically, Wilf is right.
I'm trying to tell Duncan, in particular, that he's using a term of art from my field incorrectly. That's all.
Although I think if Saganash were "French", we'd have heard about it by now, given the hay that was made about Mulcair's dual citizenship.
Cullen's French may require some assistance but what he definitely has is confidence. He may well brutalize la langue française on his journey towards trying to say what he wants, but he smashes his way through it nonetheless and manages to sound endearing doing so. Perhaps sort of like Chrétien's English. Don't tell me there wasn't some part of you that grinned every time he addressed the "pipples of Canada" ;)
I'm very familiar with elections financing law, what actually gets reported, errors in recording/reporting, and how clueless 95% of reporters are in interpreting the data.
Following from that, I did not read the article on who donated what. But even from the comments here, its obvious how unsystematic it was. Which means it can't even be considered 'a little bit accurate'.
----
On second thought, having read the article... it is written by someone who definitely does know the law and reporting conventions and is very careful.
FWIW, he notes that difference between the quareterly and annual reports. It is common to have the correct amount on the [non-definitive] quarterly report, but something wrong about the name and/or date contribution made... especially mixing up people in the same family. So that donation was probably erroneously initially attributed to Thomas rather than Catherine Mulcair.
You've got this all wrong.
You can give the annual max [$1,100 now] to the party, AND to riding association(s), AND to a leadership campaign. In fact, The Conservatives systematically organize the max givers to the party, also giving another $1100 to a riding association that then distributes the funds to other campaigns [in lieu of the central campaign doing that].
And the amounts given by Mulcair even to his own campaign not only were not the maximum- they were pretty paltry in their own right: a few hundred bucks per campaign. There are people on this board who probably gave more to his campaigns than that- and literally dozens of other people.
Another thing about that article which is implied but not spelled out.
All the MP's except for Mulcair and Saganash are giving regularly give the maximum amounts. As did Layton, and leaders, ex-leaders and wannabes of the other parties. There is obviously a 'sub-cultural expectation' of doing that. For good reason. And everyone knows that it can be looked up on the EC website in minutes even by people unfamiliar with the system.
None of the leadership candidates have given the maximum amount possible for the range they are counting, especially if you're right and they can give at least 2200 a year (and obviously more before 2006).
Comparing the records of leaders and ex-leaders to prominent MPs is no more comparing apples to apples than comparing Brian Topp's record since 2004 to Mulcair's record since 2007. There are obviously different expectations for a Party leader, what was Jack's record in the four years before he became leader?
Nobody was using the party leaders as a yardstick. They were inculded in the arcticle to illustrate the expectations of donating within the parties. The focus was on the MP's...
To wit, if you want apples to apples yardsticks, here it is in black and white:
In the 4 years that Mulcair has been an MP, the other MP's have given the maximum, and he has given zero.
[And he has given a paltry amount even to his own campaigns.]