NDP Leadership- 44 threads before the first debate

Boom Boom I'd say Mulcair and Saganash 

While language is important it's not the only thing that makes a good leader, or even a main factor. 

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

bazie wrote:

I am really digging how everyone is being so much more respectful and courteous than they are in the US GOP debates which I have been suffering through recently. It really is a nice refresher to see how the Canadian left does things vs the American right. I have written up my initial impressions on the NDP debate here. 

This is only the first debate.

Indeed, perhaps it will be a racaus dog fight by the end:D Interestingly, in the US case I would suggest that the debates started more adversarial and have actually become slightly less so as time went on. 

Huff Post front page:

 

Testy Exchange During NDP Leadership Debate

 

When you click on the link you get:

 

NDP Leadership Hopefuls Get Through 1st Debate

 

I hate the Huff Post.

 

I will say one thing, I am impressed all to hell with the diversity of this leadership field. It is very impressive and makes me feel optimistic. I guess I forgot just how much across so many different social, political, economic, and cultural lines the party drew for both vote and candidates.

I feel pretty much irrelevant now. I am 54 and know I am at a point where no one cares what I think, if they ever did. Of course some of this was my own doing as most of you who read what I post know I am pretty argumentative and confrontational. But, to see this kind of reall energy and diverstiy just plain makes me feel good.

I saw good on em all!

Well they eventually running for the top job; being prime minister of Canada. Its not just some cabinet post, but the position of being Canada's official spokesman in the world. Furthermore, we have to hold Quebec, and expand there and in other francophone communities.

Longtime lurker, and longtime NDP voter here... and I have to say I really enjoyed the debate. There were several substantial surprises for me in terms of the candidates performances.

On the positive side, the most impressive person to me was Cullen. But I was really very strongly impressed by Nash as well, and found Mulcair far more appealing than I expected I would. 

On the negative side, I thought Topp looked ill - his colour was yellow, and his overall demeanor was weak. Saganash shocked me that his English performance was so poor - constant stuttering, throat clearing, and meek delivery. Ashton came across as too strident, too on-point (and not engaging in actual discussion) - I get it, you have talking points. Dewar needs help with his posture - he looked like a stuffed shirt on television. I don't consider Singh to be in the running, so no comment. And Chisholm should withdraw immediately - he has no business trying to run a national party (especially the Official Opposition, and potential future government) if he can't speak both official languages.

So after debate 1, my list is:

1. Cullen

2. Nash

3. Mulcair

... steep drop down to Teir 2:

4. Dewar

5. Ashton

... another steep drop down to Teir 3:

6. Saganash

7. Topp

8. Singh

9. Chisholm

Looking very much forward to debate #2!

 

I was watching the debate at a pub with radiorahim, Kim (rabble publisher), oldgoat and kids (get it?), plus a few others.

I'm completely allergic to Mulcair - I am holding a permagrudge against him until he apologizes for the atrocious way he joined in viciously attacking Libby Davies at the time the other parties and the media were doing it, and afterwards too.  She's the best MP in the House and he's - well - definitely not.  So I couldn't care less what he had to say during the debate, despite his "I'm just a loveable teddy bear" routine.  I just might join the party in order to be one more vote against him.

I really like Nash, Ashton, and Saganash for the leadership, although I thought Saganash's performance was probably the weakest of the three during the debate.  But I'm actually not overly hung up on public speaking as the be-all end-all qualification for leadership (although it's important).  For me, substance and progressive policy are far more important.

I don't know Dewar much beyond his support for war, so I'm not inclined to support him.  And nothing I heard in this economics debate made me change my mind - I didn't think he stood out in any way, at least not enough to overcome that.

Chisholm - cringe.  French is a pre-requisite, not something to learn on the job.

Cullen - I didn't know much about him before the debate, and nothing he said during the debate really stood out for me. 

Brian Topp?  I thought he did relatively well, although he did come across as slightly aggressive in places.  (I'm not so sure that's a terrible thing.)  I'll give him a few points on these things:

1. He's not afraid to actually have real conversations publicly with people. He does it on babble, and I mean having a real conversation, not just talking points and platitudes, and that's more than most politicians will do in any forum.  I appreciate it when politicians act like real people on social media rather than press releases.  And it's probably his communications background that gives him that confidence. 

2. Libby Davies has endorsed him.  That doesn't mean I'm all, okay, if she says so then I say so.  But I do think it means that he is someone that the most progressive person in caucus thinks she can work well with, and that's saying something.  I want it to be easy for progressive people in caucus to get their message out and to do their work within the party.  I don't want them to be stifled. I'm assuming that Libby thinks that will be the case if he becomes the leader.

3. He's a good communicator and that's important.  It's not the be-all end-all, as I said above.  But it's a good thing.

However, he took a REALLY cheap shot in the debate, and that was invoking Buzz Hargrove with Peggy Nash.  That was really crappy dog-whistle politics.  Nash was a staffer and you can't blame her for the whole Buzz/NDP debacle.  And yes, I know that wasn't the context of his question, but we all know that by actually naming Buzz Hargrove (as opposed to just leaving it at "CAW"), that was exactly the thing he was hoping NDP activists would snap-associate. 

And his mention of Ed Broadbent at the end of the debate was eyeroll-inducing too.

Other than that, I thought he did quite well in the debate.  And honestly, I didn't mind him trying to get a real debate going.  I mean, the whole thing was so deadly church-sunday-school-picnic dull, and the questions they were giving them from YouTube were so mom-and-apple-pie softball questions that I thought I was going to fall asleep.  He was the only one who actually made any attempt to discuss where his platform was different than those of the other front-runners.

Singh - well, we know he's a small business owner - he mentioned it enough times.  Although I also felt he was an excellent speaker and from what I heard and saw, I liked him well enough.  But being a small business owner doesn't necessarily mean you know how to create jobs across the whole country and deal with the economy on a macro level.  And another thing about this fixation the NDP has on small and medium-sized businesses: I've worked for small businesses.  They were the worst jobs I've ever had.  Usually minimum wage, and usually lots of violations of employment standards.  That's not saying all small businesses are like that, but I think a whole lot of them are, so let's not pretend that small businesses are automatically Jesus Christ.  And I don't think any of the candidates said anything about the erosion of public services being one of the reasons the economy is not recovering and good jobs are getting more and more scarce.

Michelle wrote:

And another thing about this fixation the NDP has on small and medium-sized businesses: I've worked for small businesses.  They were the worst jobs I've ever had.  Usually minimum wage, and usually lots of violations of employment standards.  That's not saying all small businesses are like that, but I think a whole lot of them are, so let's not pretend that small businesses are automatically Jesus Christ.

Yes, that needed to be said. It would have been nice to hear something about small business employees.

And Barry Weisleder or no Barry Weisleder, I'm sorry there wasn't a single candidate who wanted to speak to the systemic crisis of capitalism during an economic debate. That does suggest to me that our distinctiveness maybe ain't so distinct anymore.

R.E.Wood wrote:

Saganash shocked me that his English performance was so poor - constant stuttering, throat clearing, and meek delivery.

 

As numerous press gallery reporters pointed out on Twitter, Mr. Saganash has bronchitis, which would account for the throat clearing and delivery issues. It's hard to do a debate in front of a huge crowd when you're having trouble breathing, right?

After the English language segment I thought Cullen and Ashton improved their positions, while Dewar, Topp, and Saganash did not.

Sagansh came back nicely in the French language segment, while Aston, Cullen and Singh all showed they could operate in French. Ashton has serious language skills, and it shows when she speaks French. She and Nathan Cullen brought real energy to the event. I want to know more about what each has to say. Saganash will no doubt be better in English by the last debate.

Overall, Mulcair deserves to be rated highly; he handled himself very well in both segments.

The first debate did not help Paul Dewar or Brian Topp. Dewar has lots of supporters, he may recover ground in subsequent debates. His French improved as the segment went on, but he stumbled badly early, and it is always hard to earn a positive performance mark, after a bad first impression. I did not understand what Topp was trying to accomplish in the debate. Why was he taking on Paul directly, suggesting he was neglecting the national debt of all subjects? One explanation is that it was a mark of respect for the strong campaign Paul is running, and he was trying to take Paul down a notch. Similarily tieing Buzz to Peggy was that a transparent attempt at a birds of a feather stick together strike at her? Brian should be worried about Peggy, she is running strong in the GTA, where the number of New Democrats is significant. Did Brian leave himself open to an interpretation that he meant to diminish two other candidates because they are doing well? 

 

Boom Boom wrote:

northwestern_lad wrote:

As numerous press gallery reporters pointed out on Twitter, Mr. Saganash has bronchitis, which would account for the throat clearing and delivery issues. It's hard to do a debate in front of a huge crowd when you're having trouble breathing, right?

 

But he ran away with the French debate.

He did, I agree - but that was in spite of the bronchitis too.

I still think Dewar is the best!

Boom Boom wrote:

northwestern_lad wrote:

As numerous press gallery reporters pointed out on Twitter, Mr. Saganash has bronchitis, which would account for the throat clearing and delivery issues. It's hard to do a debate in front of a huge crowd when you're having trouble breathing, right?

 

But he ran away with the French debate.

Did he have bronchitis in the summer too? His delivery issues in English were exactly the same at the June Vancouver convention. And yes, he was absolutely effortless in French. I'm not quite sure why but speaking in English actually seems to make Saganash physically uncomfortable.

Well as a Jew, I am personally fed up with the Israeli lobby, and the arrogance of a large portion of North American Jewry. Isreal is like South Africe, and destined to disappear as a Jewish state. That is just how it is. History and demographics. You can't fight it. I don't celebrate it, but I am not going to deny it either.

I also had the pleasure to tell Ms Davies personally of my support for her on this isseu at Rebecca Blakie's nomination meeting during the last election. She was attacked viciously for telling the truth. I think Mulcair should come clean as well, but don't look for it to happen.

I agree 100% with your Michelle!

I watched the English debate and I've had a hard time finding the French debate, I'd love to watch it to.  I have read what people have said so far about the French debate.

Here are my rankings, if the vote were held today:

1. Ashton (unchanged)

I expect my first ballot vote to be parked with Ashton.  I see her youth as an advantage, and I think her political skills (speaking, connecting, knowledge of the issues) are more than acceptable.  I see her as a credible, top-tier candidate.  Also I love her enthusiasm, and I think that in that way she is most like Jack.

I think she's going to need to step up with some more innovative ideas.  For many people her youth will be a negative and so she needs to demonstrate that it is an advantage by introducing actually new ideas.  "Green Economy" is going to be a popular buzzword throughout the debates, Ashton has to give us more than that.  Additionally, her campaign is going to have to excel at social media (which they're not currently doing) for her to win.

2. Mulcair (unchanged)

Good speaker, warm, obviously has a handle on the issues and can talk about them.  He seems the most electable to me of all the candidates.  Seems like he could consolidate and increase the Quebec seats as well as win a majority in the ROC.  Mulcair talked about engaging youth and while it came across to me as a platitude, I think he probably was able to do this in Quebec.

I'm considering the arguments Mulcair's detractors are making (not a Leftist, not looking to define a mandate, willing to be vague), but I didn't find him deficient in these areas in the debate.  Mulcair will have to outline very clear mandate goals to keep my support but it's still early.  I will be contrasting Mulcair's vision with other candidates in terms of boldness over the campaign.  The shadow side of Mulcair's current strong position is that he has nowhere to go but down.  I'm open to Mulcair  despite the Libby incident but I'm also open tot he arguments of his detractors.

3. Topp (up)

I think I'd like to vote Topp second but he's not quite there yet.  I like that he is explicitly seeking a mandate and talking boldly.  He shows that he's very intelligentm has a great knowledge of both the issues and the political landscape.  I like that he challenged Dewar and I hope he continues to challenge the rest of the candidates on just what kinds of leftist commitments they'll make.  I like that he asked Nash about Hargrove, because I don't see it as hitting below the belt (Nash should be expected to speak to her union experience), and I think Topp realizes that boring debates will not serve us.  I like that Topp posts on babble and I like that he is trying to give his fellow political geeks a fun debate.

His speaking, confidence, and comfort levels are not quite up to the level needed yet.  He needs to come across as warmer if he wants to win.

4. Nash (up)

Nash was far more engaging in the debate than I had expected.  Also has a high knowledge of the issues.  And very competent.

I still find her a bit flat compared to the other candidates but I'm definitely more interested than before.  I hope that she can connect in French--I'm confident that she can compete intellectually in French but I'm also paying attention to what people are saying about her overly-formal dialect.  Maybe she just comes across as flat.  I think she can probably more than compete with Harper in French, and I would hope that policy-wise a Nash-led NDP would be able to compete with the Bloc even if Nash is flat.

5. Saganash (down)

I'm inclined to support Saganash based on his message his values.  I liked some of what he said in the English debate, and I hear that he did really well in the French debate.  If he was sick, then maybe he just had an off day.  Hearing that he may have been the best in the French debate keeps him in my top tier.

His comfort level in the English debate was not adequate.  If that's how he comes across in the last debate of the campaign then I will not be putting him on my ballot.  He needs to demonstrate a much better comfort level in this kind of environment to be a credible candidate in my eyes.

...drop to 2nd tier...I will not be ranking any of these candidates on my ballot

6. Cullen (up)

I think he came across well in the English debate.  From what I hear he did well enough in the French debate to remain credible.  I like that he's from BC.  I think he is well-suited to both appeal to centrists while keeping leftists happy policy-wise, and I think he is well positioned to speak to our resource economy and the environment.  Also I liked that he was making jokes.  I would be happy with Cullen as leader.

Of course the knock against Cullen is what he's said about electoral agreements with the Liberals.  I don't actually know what he's actually said though, and if all he's willing to do is empower riding associations, then in my eyes it is a negative but not a deal breaker, especially when I know the membership is not on board.  For me it is more a strike against Cullen in that it shows he does not have his thumb on the pulse of the membership.  I am not concerned that a Cullen NDP would lead to a merge.  And, at #6 on my list and way lower on many others, I don't see him as having much chance to win.

7. Singh (up)

I thought he did well in the English debate, happy to hear his French is passable.  I see that there are some benefits to having a leader who is new to politics, provided the person is highly competent, and Singh seems quite competent.  Articulate speaker, some good ideas, seems intelligent enough.

But where's the beef?  He's running for leader of government in waiting.  Holding his own in the debate is not good enough, he needs to excel and electrify.  Or he needs to have a killer social media strategy and follow through.  He needs to connect asap, and absent any notion of "Singhmania" I don't really see a reason for him to be around.

8. Dewar (down)

All I really have to say that's nice about Dewar is he seems to have a well organized campaign, with endorsements, a sharp social media strategy, and a network of supporters.  I guess he connects well with people in person.  I accept that there are a good number of people who view him as a credible candidate.  I suppose he is a nice guy, good looking, and has a can-do attitude.  None of that really seems enough to me.

Beyond that I did not find him engaging in the English debate (as others mentioned, a bit wooden) and I hear that the take on the French debate is that his French is not good enough.  Additionally, Dewar was the foreign affairs critic and so I have this preconceived idea that he is wrong on policy.  I don't know if NDP messaging on foreign affairs should be blamed on Dewar or not but I'm just used to disagreeing with what I'm used to hearing from him.

...drop to 3rd tier...these candidates should pull out of the race now

9. Chisolm

Does not meet the minimum requirements.  Seems like he is trying to argue that he does meet the minimum requirements which makes him even less credible.

The only reason I could see for a unilingual candidate to be in the race is if they were running because they had a compelling enough message.  That is, "I accept that I don't meet the requirements as a candidate and I will pull out after the first ballot, but this message absolutely needs to be heard and no one else is providing it."  But that's not the Chisolm.  Frankly I don't see anything unique in his messaging.  I don't personally know him, and personal knowing him seems to be the only reason people would have to support him.  He is arguing that he's got the best leadership skills and experience but he just doesn't meet the bare minimum requirements.  Sorry Chisolm, I'm sure you're a great ally, it's not personal, but in this campaign you're just taking up space.

I don't really understand why people attack Dewar on foreign policy stuff, while he was the critic for Foreign Affairs he wasn't responsible for making up the NDPs policies was he?

If someone disagrees with Dewar on foreign policy wouldn't you disagree with Jack, Nash, Mulcair, and basically anyone in the NDP caucus?

Michelle wrote:

Quote:

I'll ask again if anyone can post Mulcair's "vicious" attack on Libby? I can't locate them but since they've been brought up by anti-Mulcair people, I'd like to see them. Have a feeling those who aren't inclined to support Mulcair to begin with will find exaggerated reasons to justify it.

Here are a bunch of threads on the issue back when it happened:

Libby Davies forced to apologize

Read all about how Mulcair stood shoulder to shoulder with Bob Rae against Libby Davies here

Stand up together for Libby Davies

Stand up for Libby Davies - Part 2

Stand up for Libby Davies - Part 3

Stand up for Libby Davies - Part 4

Stand up for Libby Davies - Part 5

Stand up for Libby Davies - Part 6

Here's what happened: Libby Davies was ambushed by some video blogger who tried to trip her up about the Israel/Palestine issue. He asked her whether Palestine has been occupied since 1948 or 1967, and she (correctly) said 1948. 

Mulcair led a political and media storm against Davies, denouncing her, claiming her comments were anti-Israel, and demanding her apology, standing shoulder to shoulder with Bob Rae and other politicians from the other parties attacking her.

The media attacked her over and over again for a week about it.  Politicians in the House attacked her every day for a week as well, even though she apologized immediately (which she shouldn't have had to do anyhow).  She had right-wing creeps on social media attacking her with terrible misogynist and homophobic comments for weeks on end afterwards.

Imagine an NDP where the person running it has no problem leading such an attack on, and marginalizing, a principled MP like Davies.  Unthinkable.

Not to step into a discussion that is old and where the point should be clear, but I have something else to add. Even if Davies had been wrong in her assessment, it is never acceptable to undermine one of your own caucus colleagues the way Mulcair did.

Watched the debate for the whole two hours and I have to say it became quite boring. 9 candidates are just too much, for obvious reasons.

At this point I would divide the group up into three categories:

DROP OUT IMMEDIATELY

Chisolm--can`t speak French

Dewar- can't speak French

Ashton- can`t win (too inexperienced)

Singh--can't win (obvious)

Saganash- stutters in English (Stephane Dion)

MIGHT STICK AROUND

Cullen (excellent in English but barely passable in French)

Nash (would be an ideal leader of the NDP in third place; not convinced she could become PM)

POTENTIAL PRIME MINISTERS?

Topp (thought he did well esp. in English, but all the commentators seemed to think he was ineffective on TV. Yet, I remember Stephen Harper in 2002. Topp was much better. On the other hand, Harper's main rival was Peter McKay... Topp's may be Bob Rae. Gives reason to pause  )

Mulcair (flawless. So far, I see no reason that he can't take over as leader tomorrow.  I know it`s good to have a race, so that he can be tested under pressure e.t.c.., but, based on today's performance, I am tempted to say that if the NDP knows what's good for it, it will elect Mulcair)

 

 

doofy wrote:

Watched the debate for the whole two hours and I have to say it became quite boring. 9 candidates are just too much, for obvious reasons.

At this point I would divide the group up into three categories:

DROP OUT IMMEDIATELY

Chisolm--can`t speak French

Dewar- can't speak French

Ashton- can`t win (too inexperienced)

Singh--can't win (obvious)

Saganash- stutters in English (Stephane Dion)

MIGHT STICK AROUND

Cullen (excellent in English but barely passable in French)

Nash (would be an ideal leader of the NDP in third place; not convinced she could become PM)

POTENTIAL PRIME MINISTERS?

Topp (thought he did well esp. in English, but all the commentators seemed to think he was ineffective on TV. Yet, I remember Stephen Harper in 2002. Topp was much better. On the other hand, Harper's main rival was Peter McKay... Topp's may be Bob Rae. Gives reason to pause  )

Mulcair (flawless. So far, I see no reason that he can't take over as leader tomorrow.  I know it`s good to have a race, so that he can be tested under pressure e.t.c.., but, based on today's performance, I am tempted to say that if the NDP knows what's good for it, it will elect Mulcair)

Topp looked to uncomfortable to be Prime Minister is waiting so I suggest he should drop out too then. 

Michelle: "And I don't think any of the candidates said anything about the erosion of public services being one of the reasons the economy is not recovering and good jobs are getting more and more scarce."

Public services - the welfare state itself - are dependent on a growing economy to sustain those services. When public spending is endangered by a collapsing economy, the budget has to be balanced. It was one thing that always impressed the hell out of prairie farmers - small business people - when Tommy Douglas brought about that balance and was able to put forward hospitalization and then medicare for everyone.

Listen very carefully in the next debate to economic analysis and measures put forward by the candidates to resolve this problem...the one that those on Mainstreet are waiting with bated breath to see New Democrats solve. Or not.

Mulcair spoke to this, early on, of the nature of an economy distorted by growth in commodity production to the detriment of manufacturing. Nash spoke to the problem - unionists always have, Canadians as "haulers of wood, drawers of water," etc. - but not the solution. If you can take a deep breath yourself before Tom Mulcair speaks, next time, you might find the answer to your complaint about the disappearance of public service work.

Mainstreet will not be going to the polls in 2015 - will not be measuring the candidates - with your measuring stick. They'll be voting for someone with the ability to turn the economy around by winning the ear of all sectors of the economy. We here are ideologically in favour of a public service, but we need a vibrant economy to counter Conservatives' hatred for a "nanny state." Libby, I'm sure, would agree.

And having said all that, I'm finally concerned about the absence of any real mention of the environmental elephant lurking in the room, waiting to make talk of economy and jobs and a state with social welfare programs completely irrelevant.The contradiction of economic growth and environmental health got passing mention. It must become central, someday. Maybe when Alberta's rivers are no longer supplied by glacial runoff in summer, eh? Then the environment will be allowed as a subject for public discussion again, no longer the embarassing, politically untouchable subject of today that the forces of Steve count on?

@hunky_monkey:

I forgot about Jack's call. I was very dissapointed at the time when he made. I thought politics dictated it. I guess I got excited but I think you shouldn't dismiss Michelle's point.

My grandmother, blessed be her memory, was a radical left winger and moved to Palestine in the 20s as part of the Zionist movement, for lack of putting it a better way. If she were alive today, her Pioneer Women sisters and she would be all very distressed that the message of Zionism, as a worker based, sociialsit movement had become so corrupted. Really, this part of this discussion continues to go unaddressed. I said above I am a Jew; I believe Isreal's days are numbered as were South Africa's and Ian Smith's Rhodesia. I wish Mulcair would do something about this, not that I know what. I am being truthful in saying my giving of verbal support to Libby Davies when she was her in Winnipeg.

This is truly a thorn on the side of the world, as so many others. I can tell you as I Jew, I feel particualry ashamed, given the history of persuction of Jewery from one side of the planet to the other. It is really an ultimate irony. Please don't be so quick to dismiss Michelle. Hers is an imporant voice. She is just like all of us, we get excited, and let our good intentions affect how we communicate our message. I am not explaining away anything she has said, nor am I dismissing any of it in any way. All I am saying is that I know absolutely that we need to listen to each other. Jack failed on this, I think. But clearly, we should be able to remember his strength was his ability to get us to hear each other.

Best to you both!

Michelle wrote:

Nice meaty summary, wage zombie!  I enjoyed that.  Can't see much I disagree with.

Thanks, Michelle!  Nice to see you posting.