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
except that mulcair has come out of the meat-grinder that is quebec provincial politics. nash and topp (and dewar haha) have nothing to do with quebec, as a fanatical new democrat, i'm glad they (aside from dewar, obv) can speak french, but i think it's hard for ndpers to realize how different quebec is. these seats could have gone to a radical right-wing party, they could have gone to the bq again - our majority depends on holding ~60 seats in quebec, and there's no way that happens without the perfect quebec federal leader. as i said before, i wish i could do a vulcan mind-meld with every member here so that i could transfer the politics of quebec to everyone on this board. as much as we all follow politics in canada, that's how i follow politics in quebec, i'm a stalker. and i'll tell you, mulcair fits. i hate to say this but we won't become government without what he brings (quebec, where he's the most popular politician in the province).
all of this completely aside from the fact that he's our best parliamentary performer, our best spokesperson, our best face, and that he's perfectly at home everywhere in canada.
I take the view that a successful leader is 30% public performance and charisma and 70% all the things that are invisible to the naked eye like caucus management, organization, being able to hire the right people, being able to unite and build consensus within the party, having god strategic antennae...Its easy for us all to evaluate candidates in terms of the first 30% - but who is best at the other 70%?
1. Mulcair
2. Topp
3. Dewar
4. Cullen / Nash
If the Libs get another charismatic leader, he'll wee wee his pants if Harper's vision of Canada comes true:
http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/rexmurphy/story/2012/02/16...
:)
I wouldn't worry about a charismatic Liberal. They're done. The press doesn't pay attention to them much any more, except Bob Rae, who seems to get a lot of face time on CBC.
I still maintain that voting on the first ballot for the person who happens to be in the lead (right now, Mulcair, by several noses, it seems) can send the wrong message, granting him or her the right to rule the party rather than lead in consultation and cooperation; to exclude rather than include differing party veterans. Especially, I say, if that person who is in the lead is the most likely to play footsy with the establishment and try to pull, push or prod the NDP into any "Third Way".
Times of economic crisis (global, since Canada isn't quite there yet) and of political turning points (like the one the Cons are screwing us with), it is helpful to read the Communist critiques of Social Democracy in Europe before WW I and refresh one's knowledge of the duplicitous and destructive role the social democrats have played at various points in different countries (from Germany in the 30s to Chile in the 60s and more recently) and decide how far to the centre you're willing to go, and how much of an attack or marginalization of the Left within the NDP you're willing to countenance.
So, back to the topic of the thread, which seems to have devolved into a general policy discussion. Right now, for the bookies who are keeping tabs, my ranking is (no surprise after the 2-paragraph rant above):
1. Ashton
2. Nash
3. Mulcair
My rankings so far:
Dewar, Nash, Cullen, Ashton, Topp, Singh, Mulcair.
If the Mulcair campaign can send me a short (or long) decent email reply, then I will place Mulcair first or second.
So, I take it that being able to communicate in French is a low priority for you?
Anyone received their voting package yet?
Leadership hopefuls flood NDP mailboxes with flashy pamphletshttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/leadership-...
Nothing here, yet.
After the last debate, for me, Ashton and Cullen moved up while Nash and Topp moved down:
1- Mulcair
2- Ashton
3- Cullen
4- Nash
5- Topp
6- Singh
7- Dewar
1. Cullen
2. Mulcair
3-7. Undecided
His co-operation plan is no big deal. At the very most, very few ridings associations, NDP or Liberal, will even consider it. On the other hand his co-operation plan opens up the possibility of attracting centre-left voters to the NDP. Most people who consider voting for the NDP are not wed to any party, they just want to see politicians put the people first and cooperate with each other for the common good. Cullen is that kind of politician, as Layton was. Like Layton, Cullen's up-beat positive pesonality is a vote winner that can transcend partisan politics.
I like Topp and Mulcair, my second and third choices, but I think that to the average voter they come off as being stuffy partisan career politicians.
And polls told us that Selinger in Manitoba and McGuinty in Ontario were on their way to losing power last year.
In 2011, polls told us the BQ was going to maintain their grip on Quebec.
In 2009, polls told us that Ignatieff was ahead of Harper and Layton.
In 1993 polls told us that Kim Campbell would beat Chretien.
In 1988 polls told us that Broadbent would beat both Mulroney and Turner.
In 1984, polls said that Turner would beat Mulroney.
In 1792, polls said that Louis XVI would beat Napoleon.
If I am interpreting your subtle argument correctly, JKR (and Stockholm), the poll lthat has Mulcair at 58% in Quebec, and no one else more than 3%, can be safely ignored.?????
Or are you saying that it is proof positive that Mulcair will crash and burn and that Dewar will convert his 1% into a Quebec landslide????
I don't think the poll should be ignored, but I also don't think it should be treated as the gospel. I don't need a poll to tell me that with Paul Dewarnas leader the NDP would essentially be driving off a cliff in Quebec. But in the case of other candidates who are bilingual and have shown some understanding of Quebec, they may potentially do well in Quebec once they become better known
It's just as foolish to dismiss all polling as to accept them blindly.
Without polling the Orange wave probably wouldn't have happened and certainly wouldn't have been so big. It was the polls coming out of Quebec that alerted people the orange wave was happening. Until those polls out of Quebec could no longer be ignored by the MSM the ROC wasn't really giving the NDP a second look.
Mulcair, Ashton, Cullen. Biggest dissapointment, Nash.
Saw Mulcair last night and am convinced he is the best choice. He spoke about PR, but didn't say much. I think he is open to consideration on it, but really, the party will decide this. It isn't up to the leader to dictate this. I think that with more seasoning, Ashton and Cullen assure us a bright future.
I was particulalriy impressed by Mulcair's handling of an individual with obvious mental health issues who showed up at the end of the town hall and asked a question. Mulcair handled it with humility, humanity, dignity and seriousness. I was impressed by his immediate read, and how kind he was. I thought to myself that is a guy who can talk to people. He isn't necessarily as warm as was Jack (blessed be his memory), but I think he is genuine, and "has it". I am prepared to trust him to lead us going forward, and to take him at his word.
My thoughts folks. I gave Tom some cash for his campaign. My mind is made up, and thanks to everyone for all of your help and input in helping me sort through this. I can say my biggest dissapointment was Peggy Nash. I really, truly wanted to be "wowed" by her. But both during the Winipeg debate, and at her after debate party, I just felt unimpressed. She is warm and sincere, but "wishy-washy". At least that is my take. Still, she will make a wonderful cabinet member in a Mulcair government. If there is any surprise for me at all in all of this, it is that I would seriously consider Niki for leader if Tom wasn't running. She is dynamite, dynamic, capable, and truly a very bright spot for us! I have no doubt at all she is going to grow, and is very able to speak to and resonate with Quebec voters. She is remarkable.
that's a nice anecdote.
Thanks for that report, Arthur.
Would you consider voting for Niki Ashton on the first ballot before moving over to Mulcair on the 2nd? That is, if you will be voting in real time.
That is a fair question wage zombie, but I am confident in my choice, I trust Tom is a man of his word, and will stick with him as my first chocice on every ballot possible.
One thing for which I have to give Mulcair a great deal of credit is the amount of outreach he has done in Western Canada, and his realization of how important it is to avoid being pigeonholed as "Quebec's candidate," although his answer on the gun registry on Sunday's debate won't help him that much.
I do think Paul Dewar's French will improve over the next two or three years.
As for Thomas Mulcair's campaign not replying to any of my emails, I worry that by not replying to my emails, Thomas Mulcair won't give a damn about what social democrats want for Canada. Yes, Mr. Mulcair would make a very strong opponent of Stephen Harper. However, I don't know if he will make the NDP a social democratic party in name only. I have asked for his view on proportional representation. I have received no response. I would have to wonder if he would be committed in bringing proportional representation if he gets an NDP majority government.
Different leaders have different priorities. If we ever form government, we aren't going to be able to implement everything in the Policy Book in the first year, or even the first term. Maybe ever.
So that's why people are looking for a clear committment from the candidates on electoral reform. "Not saying much" or merely signalling tepid agreement with party policy on the biggest fundamental problem with politics in Canada just doesn't cut it.
It is a huge squandered opportunity, especially for Thomas Mulcair: if he really does want to reach out to other progressives to bring them in the tent, committing to fixing the voting system in the NDP's first government so their first parties aren't shut out will bring many Greens, Liberals, and others on board. Besides which, proportional representation is just the fair thing to do.
I would actually have him at or near the top of my ranking if he just came out to lead on this issue a bit, that's all I would need. Take a stand like the other candidates. But as it is, he is near the bottom of my list.
I'm not alone in that concern. Mulcair is really not doing so good in the latest rankings for candidate positions on electoral reform.
Philwalkerp, who is behing this fair voting site?
Perhaps Mulcair has not responded to their survey but it is completely inaccurate and unfair to rate him below any of the other candidates on proportional representation.
I have heard him say at least three times:
1. He favours MMP.
2. He will campaign on it in the next election so he can get a mandate.
3. It will be a priority of his government, not just in its first term but in its first year.
Well we all know now who Chisholm is voting for but who are you voting for?
And will you be voting in the advance polls which state today, or will you wait until Decision day which is Saturday, March 24?
Anyone received their voting package yet?
NDP leadership vote begins Thursday with advance polls Two-thirds of voters expected to cast ballots ahead of conventionhttp://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/leadership+vote+begins+Thursday+with...
. . . .
Don't fret, SD. Mulcair is also apparently too busy to appear on rabble to answer questions, so you're in good company.