NDP Leadership- 44 threads before the first debate

CP's French reporter says Cullen is challenged in French:

Quote:

Hormis M. Chisholm, le député d'Ottawa, Paul Dewar, a été parfois confus dans ses réponses en français, et dans une moindre mesure, Nathan Cullen, pour qui la langue de Molière présente encore des défis. Les autres candidats peuvent être déclarés à quelques nuances près bilingues.

ottawaobserver wrote:

I don't recall the other bits of minutiae, sorry.

As I said, it's all been smoke and mirrors up until today.  But just to remind you, one poster remarked that Ashton's campaign seemed to be invisible and I simply linked a story that said she was quite visible in one particular context.  I don't think that simple observation and link justifies quite the level of dyspepsia it's generated.  I'm certainly not the only person who has ever linked to an article on Babble and referred to a snippet of it.  Not even in this thread.

Newfoundlander - that is because Quebec would also want to sell hydro to Ontario so they would prefer a Quebec-Ontario grid to a Manitoba-Ontario grid.  Think that parts of Ontario get their hydro from the States at present.

If Dewar has a Sir John A moment and thinks that he can build a grid from the Maritimes to BC then both Quebec and Manitoba have a chance to benefit.

KenS wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

 As for the "attack", Davies stepped out of line in her comments with regard to party policy especially since she holds the position of deputy leader. And that's essentially what Mulcair, the other deputy leader, said. That it became some "vicious attack" is laughable.

You had made your point before you said this. Should have quit then.

I'm inclined to think calling it a 'vicious attack' is a bit excessive. But less excessive than your sanitizing.

Libby made a mistake responding to a trap. She wasnt freelancing on party policy. Mulcair turned it into a really big deal. And he 'explained' nothing- he tore a strip off of her. What was his business bringing it up at all? And if he was going to, all he had to do was say that in her brief comment she appears to have made a mistake. .... that what she appears to be saying is not in keeping with party policy.

If he was concerned with appearances and damage control, etc.... why not say something like "its not clear what she is saying.... I dont think she meant to say.... that would not be in keeping with party policy. Etc."

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

And quite frankly, I wonder if Jack Layton asked him to do so.

Oh sure, just Jack Layton's style.

 

But it was his style to call the ambassador to apologize and make that public...

Did she not say she supported sanctions, etc.? We can have that debate. But as deputy leader, she didn't show a lot of tact in dealing with the issue. I say again, if you dislike Mulcair over it, then take issue with how Jack handled it as well. I noticed at the time a lot of people did...

When Libby was being attacked, Jack did stick up for her in Parliament and said that Libby believed in the two State solution.  He figured that Libby should have been smarter and avoided the set up but did not question her values.  Jack's appology would also be an excuse to talk to (not looking up the spelling) to reiterate that he still believes in the two State solution and get some sense as to what was being talking about between Canada and Israel.

The apology was a smart move because it put to rest the notion that the NDP were anti-Jew, showed up the Tories as being for a one State solution, and allowed Jack a chance to get an idea up close as to who Canada was dealing with.  That is an old union trick to know how to size a person up so one gets a read on how they think, not just by their words but their body language in a less guarded moment.

Jack is the leader and it is his job to nip things in the bud and make the story go off the media radar.  Also, the sooner it gets off the radar, the sooner Libby would stop getting hate mail.

Libby seems too fond of Jack to hold a grudge for his handling of the incident - so I would look below the surface of what he did.

Question: after the Libby incident, did Mulcair ever launch a similar attack against another of his fellow MPs?

kinch wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

I actually thought thought Jack should have considered stepping down as leader before 2015.

I'm well aware people are capable of of being productive well past the age of 65 but I like to see people who are a bit more youthful. There is also an added risk of having an older leader then a younger one. The NDP were lucky Jack was able to fight through the campaign, but he was noticeably sick at the beginning and passed away just months later. Imagine the bind the NDP would face if the government wasn't defeated last March. Danny Williams had a problem with his heart while premier, luckily he had surgery and recovered quickly but he's another example. We have had older Prime Ministers though. 

If I were voting in this race Peggy's age would definitely be a consideration for me. 

Then keep in mind that Mulcair is only 3 years younger than Nash. That's a marginal age difference, so your concerns about Nash's age should apply equally to Mulcair.  (Factor in the fact that males have shorter life expectancies, then even the marginal difference disappears.)

I would consider that too.

vaudree wrote:

Newfoundlander - that is because Quebec would also want to sell hydro to Ontario so they would prefer a Quebec-Ontario grid to a Manitoba-Ontario grid.  Think that parts of Ontario get their hydro from the States at present.

If Dewar has a Sir John A moment and thinks that he can build a grid from the Maritimes to BC then both Quebec and Manitoba have a chance to benefit.

Quebec still won't likely go for it. Newfoundland and Labrador has tried to work out agreements with Quebec to ship power through their province and they won't allow it.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Depth of venom? I don't see that. I like Ashton but still thinks she comes across as a university student body president. Does that apply to all 29 year old MPs? No. You mentioned royal jelly before... I don't think she has it. Everyone has different criteria for that and I guess that's my personal opinion. I don't think it sexist or ageist though. Some people have it... some don't. BTW... you keep bringing up the Sask race to use it as an example of what this race should do. Yeah, Lingenfelter didn't work out but who is to say Meili would have done any better?

I don't think some of those comments would be made about a 35 year old woman or about a 29 year old man.  Make of that what you will.

I've never used the Meili experience as an argument about how this race "should" go, but merely about how it could go.  You lot have written off Ashton for the same reason that boomers wrote off Meili (and Pedersen).  Yet somehow both Meili and Pedersen managed to come in ahead of the only serving caucus member in the race.  Some of you have written off the significance of social networking yet that was the ticket to moving Meili from being an unknown to being a contender.  Much of what's been offered here as conventional wisdom certainly didn't pan out in that leadership race.

Of course, we'll never know if Meili (or Pedersen) would have done better, but it's close to a dead cert they couldn't have done much worse.  The lowest vote for your party in 73 years is a singular achievement.  It would have been a different NDP and a different election.  What I identify as the principle failings of the NDP campaign are mostly tied to either those Dwain brought with him or the C-Team already there that drank the Lingenfelter KoolAid.

Finally, yes, venom.  There are only three of the nine candidates here who have been dissed for who they are (ie, not for specific identified failings like Dewar's French or Cullen's cooperation proposal).  Those three are Topp, Mulcair and Ashton.  The first two have longe been identified as the presumptive frontrunners, so would naturally attract such commentary.  Yet Ashton, who you assure me is an irrelevance, seems t generate a lot of sound and fury from people who I can only presume fear that Aston may be a threat to their preferred candidate.

Hopefully, in the next debate, the Johnny One-Notes will put their hobby horses out to pasture and try to winkle some substance out of what the candidates are saying...with electability by Mainstreet - against all the media and Steve's machine - in mind.

Now that the dust has started to settle, a few comments on the debate. I may say that I often doubt my perspective on debates where I am committed in advance to one candidate. Also, having heard all of the candidates speak with the same Scottish accent the French portion of the debate was of limited value to me in assessing performances.

1. 2 hours divided by nine is hardly ideal. That is about 6 minutes for each candidate in each language. It hampers anyone getting a good fix on the candidates. As I have said before, the format tends to handicap the strong performers and protect the weak.

(2. This is why incidentally all of you who can should turn out tonight to hear Tom Mulcair speak at length on the Omnibus Crime Bill. His fundraiser is at James Lockyer's law office, 30 St Clair West, Toronto, main floor. It starts at 6  and Tom will likely speak about 7.)

3. Pretty much everyone, either here on Babel or in the commetariat, say Tom finshed first or near-first. The disagreements are largely about how the others did. If there is a winner to be declared I think it is obvious.

4. It is significant that Tom's detractors on Babble use this occasion to resurrect the Libby Davies matter. It is a transparent ploy to deflect our attention from his strong performance yesterday afternoon.

5. Topp sees himself in competition with Dewar and Nash for second place. He needs to pass them in order to get on the last ballot. That is why he ovetly tried to undermine each of them. To some extent their respective constituencies in the party overlap. Party establishment / apparatchik / labour / Ontario. To me this reflects what I see elsewhere - that Topp, despite his endorsements, is not doing very well with the rank and file. I watched the debate in a bar where Dewar partisans predominated (at least before the debate). A number expressed hostility to Topp's tactics. Topp should not count on their votes on the last ballot.

6. (Apart from Chisholm) Dewar took the hardest hit yesterday. Deer in headlights, wooden, painful French, unsure of himself, nervous. You've heard it all eslewhere.

7. My ranking of the debate: Mulcair, Cullen, Ashton, Topp, Nash, Saganash, Singh, Dewar, Chisholm.