Overdue.
NDP Leadership thread # 138
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:00
#1
NDP Leadership thread # 138
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:04
#2
Ok, I'll kick off with what I just posted in the other thread.
For my information, what does a deputy leader do?
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:07
#3
It was great listening to Francine Raynault nominate Niki Ashton, because she is our only really rural Quebec MP. And very much the real deal.
She ran in 2008 as well. A founding member of the Syndicat des agricultrices de Lanaudière, a founding member of the local section of the Union des producteurs agricoles. The federal riding of Joliette is 36% the City of Joliette, another 12% small towns, and 52% rural.
Our Quebec caucus is youthful, but Raynault was born in 1945, is president of a regional seniors' group, and has eight grand-children.
She was regional president and provincial vice-president of the feminist group AFEAS (Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale). ("Afeas practices a "social egalitarian feminism." This type of feminism aims for women to obtain their own identity, equal status, freedom of choice, and autonomy in relation to the persistent inequalities in our society. Afeas, by its work, aims to modify all laws and codes that maintain gender inequality.")
If it matters, she owns a hobby farm, and her partner (retired teacher Jacques Trudeau) was the NDP candidate in Joliette in 1979 (when still a student), 1980, 1981 (byelection), 1984 in a different riding, 1997 in Joliette, 2004 and 2006.
Far from an accidental MP.
Raynault got 47.3% against the 34% of Pierre Paquette, so she was a giant-killer. Paquette was House Leader and Duceppe's heir-apparent.
Her support for Niki Ashton tells us something.
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:08
#4
Arthur Cramer
Well, I hope people are monitoring this.
So I am asking,because I don't know, but am trying to avoid pessimissim. Chatal Hebert was her usual self. She said that all of the candidates looked like people running for the leadership of the third party and no one looked like a Prime Minister. Bruce Anderson said the same thing and that the NDP didn't provide any kind of vision. Coyne tried to balance things a bit but didn't do much better in terms of how they rated the candidates.
I am of the opinon that it is more likely that whomever becomes leader will grow into it. So, I am not so concerned about their comments. But I wonder what you think of that.
Regarding the general quality of today's show, if the audio-visual guys are party staffers, they should be fired. They were total amateurs. And whomever is "floor managing", doesn't seem to have a clue. I have a feeling if I had been there I would have not been able to commuicate anything to them to convince to get their acts together. Havind worked in PR in the service, there are plenty of things they could have done right of the floor. The worst thing was how they handled playing the music. That was really big time amteur.
In some ways, it kind of reminds of what happened in Winnipeg North last May. I talked about our ground game but no one was interested in listening. I still feel we should have won, and would have had our e-day ground game been better, and we had been more serious about getting out the absentee voters. My point is I don't think a lot of the mucky-mucks in the party are listeners. I am thinking this may be a big problem going forward.
Thoughts folks? I would sure like to know if anyone saw today as I did. Thanks.
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:13
#5
The comments are ridiculous in terms of looking Prime Ministerial. I've watched a lot of political conventions, which makes me wonder about my mental health sometimes, and I've only seen one candidate who looked 'prime ministeral' for any party. That was in 2003 and Paul Matin. I forget how did that turn out. The comments are frankly stupid.
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:14
#6
Boom Boom
The only one who really scored today was Olivia Chow, so, yeah, in a sense I agree with the CBC Insiders. And Broadbent continues to shoot Topp (and the NDP) in the foot. Everyone's been hinting at the ads the Cons will put out because of Broadbent.
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:16
#7
Keep in mind the mainstream media is just used to two corporate parties. Their idea of leadership always connotes a lawyer or a businessperson. And until now, it's always been a Liberal or a Conservative. I don't take their criticisms seriously. The problem with pundits is they're so used to the way things are, they're often unable to recognize when genuine change is underway.
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:17
#8
I haven't seen a single comment from Broadbent that would make for a good Conservative ad.
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:20
#9
Arthur Cramer
The only one who really scored today was Olivia Chow, so, yeah, in a sense I agree with the CBC Insiders. And Broadbent continues to shoot Topp (and the NDP) in the foot. Everyone's been hinting at the ads the Cons will put out because of Broadbent.
Boom Boom, I thought Olivia "channeled Jack" (blessed be his memory). Notwithstanding your commentary, do you think that whomever is the winner can do what Jack did and grow into the job. Do you think the NDP was damaged badly today?
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:21
#10
I just heard Ashton's speech rerun on CPAC online. Great closing line in French - Maîtres chez nous - taking the nationalist slogan of Québec and honoring it by extending it to Canada.
Go Niki!
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:24
#11
In the previous thread, [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-race-137#commen... Day said[/url]:
If Mulcair wins, can you picture the two deputy leaders as Niki Ashton and Olivia Chow, plus Françoise Boivin as Quebec lieutenant?
Wilf, what do deputy leaders do?
Jack named Tom Mulcair and Libby Davies as deputy leaders. What did they do?
I'm trying to understand your question about whether we could picture certain deputy leaders if Mulcair wins. I'm assuming that if [b]anyone[/b] knows what a deputy leader does, then you do. But if anyone else wants to weigh in, I'll be happy to be enlightened.
Or is it just a phony window-dressing ornamental kind of appellation?
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:25
#12
For my information, what does a deputy leader do?
Interesting question.
Orders-in-council are usually passed under which the deputy prime minister, and then the balance of the cabinet in order of precedence, are authorized to act for the prime minister in his or her absence ("when the prime minister is unable to perform the functions of his office".)
Unlike Caucus Chair, a Deputy Leader is not elected by Caucus, but appointed by the Leader. Similarly, the job description is not in the party constitution. Nor does anything say there must even be one, or whether two is enough. So the short answer is, "whatever the leader asks him or her to do."
Stephen Harper has no Deputy Prime Minister. What a surprise.
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:27
#13
Boom Boom
I don't think the NDP suffered any lasting damage today, but they could have put on a hell of a better show. Mulcair and Nash were a disgrace, they should have had their performances down pat. Martin Singh - of all people - had by far the best video presentation. Olivia Chow showed them how it's done. Maybe they are just so tired from seven months of campaigning and just want to get it over with.
ETA: I can't recall exactly when, but either yesterday or today Mulcair said he's tired.
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:28
#14
Good question Unionist.
I think to a certain extent it could be a good will ambasaador job representing the leader in a particular geographical region as Canada is so large physically it is impossible for the party leader to be with us as frequently as we would like. I think back how often it would have been helpful to have had Jack and Olivia present in BC but they just couldn't be here as often as that.
Maybe the new NDP could turn it into a powerful regional position constanting in contact with their respective regions, the local msp, unions, environmental groups, seniors, students, boards of trade, etc.
It's the 21st century - it's time for some new ideas.
Whoever wins the leadership should try to persuade her to become one of the deputy leaders. Not for the nostalgia. Because we need that power!
I asked this before, and my apologies if I've forgotten or missed it, but I don't recall anyone offering an answer:
What does a deputy leader actually do?
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:30
#15
Arthur Cramer
Regarding Nash, I have posted elsewhere that I really had wanted to be "wowed" by her when she was in Winnipeg. I wasn't and for me it was a really big dissapointment. In some ways, frankly, it might have been the biggest dissapointment I have felt this whole process.
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:31
#16
Arthur Cramer
Boom Boom, I think you pretty much summed up how I felt. I am really at a loss to understand how the party could not be better prepared. I mean, are we to understand that the mucky-micks didn't know how important this was today, and didn't have it in them to make sure things went better. I am not kidding, the audio-visual screw ups were unblieveable, and whomever was doing the music today should really be shown the door and told not to come back. Especially after that nonsense with Peggy Nash. That was just so amateurish. I have worked PR, and run big events, and I never let anything like that happen, and supposedly I am an amateur. I just couldn't get it at all.
I thought Singh was great. I didn't vote for him, but now I am wondering if I made a big mistake. One thing I saw from both Nash and Mulcair was their actions to their situations in real time caused me worry. Mulcair should have figure out he'd have to improvise. I can't belive he didn't know what he was going to say. If that speech was last minute it worries the hell out of me. As for Nash, I saw again today what worries me. She can't think on her feet. She reminds me of people I saw during officer basic who when the plan needed to be changed, couldn't lead their squad out of a wet paper bag with a flash light, and a big sign pointing to the exit.
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:33
#17
Arthur Cramer
By the way, I admire all of them for their stamina, and I appreciate how tired they must be. It hasn't been 3 months at sea and monotony, but surely, it must have been something that rang the hell out of them. They all need to go on a vacation when this done. Man, have they earned it!
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:34
#18
Seriously do you really think very many people who aren't political junkies were watching the candidates showcases. Seriously- in the middle of the afternoon. Seriously? If you really do then you need to get out more. A lot more normal people will have been watching the tribute to Jack. For that the NDP looked modern, together and with it. Still the numbers will have been very small. Relax. Take a walk.
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:36
#19
I heard Ashton's speech, replayed on CPAC, on line, a little while ago.
It seems to me that she has improved her delivery.
And her closing line in French, "Maîtres chez nous", was pretty brilliant - honouring the Québec nationalist slogan by extending it to all of Canada precisely at a time when we need a strong nationalist slogan to counter the sellouts.
Go Niki!
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:38
#20
Boom Boom
Arthur, Mulcair only had 4 minutes left after the parade and drumming long intro, and raced through his prepared speech. He didn't make it up at the last minute - he just ran through it before the end of his time. He just looked completedly flustered afterwards, and didn't want to be interviewed - but he took questions anyway.
No doubt about it - Tom had a bad day today.
ETA: Probably Topp did too, after Broadbent said aloud that Mulcair 'bombed'. As the elder statesman of the part (ha!) he should have kept his big yap shut. Broadbent has zero credibility with me now. He reminds me of a bitter and grumpy Diefenbaker.
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:40
#21
Arthur Cramer
Tom's problem with those drummers is that no one told the drummers it wasn't about them. I have worked with musical amateurs before as a semi-professional trombonist. Very often you have to set the ground rules for them, and ride them hard so they get it right. He got talked into doing too much.
Really, I ask it again, who the hell is managing the floor? It was a g-d damn disgarace today, and they should fire whomever it was. Bloody amateur!
Fri, 2012-03-23 22:45
#22
Arthur Cramer
Sorry folks, I'll get off my high horse. I guess I just needed to vent. I wanted it to go better today. BA, just put on my shoes and heading out the door, 
Fri, 2012-03-23 23:04
#23
Really, I ask it again, who the hell is managing the floor? It was a g-d damn disgarace today, and they should fire whomever it was. Bloody amateur!
As far as I know it is usually done by the campaign teams themselves. I'm sort of a biggish person. I've been asked to be the crowd "spreader" at a few events. One thing I noticed is that part of the hold up was the media not moving along. So for other members of the media to then draw tut-tuting conclusions is a bit unreasonable, but oh so typical.
Fri, 2012-03-23 23:29
#24
"DUCT" TAPE
The first thing the new leader is going to have to do is hire someone to follow Broadbent around from now on, and every time Broadbent decides to mouth off with his shit, and it is absolute unmitigated shit coming from his mouth, duct tape it firmly closed. Enough is enough.
NDP leadership race sees sharp divisions, calls for unity
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/23/pol-ndp-convention-main...
Fri, 2012-03-23 23:30
#25
Peggy and her endorsements wear purple, i notice it. Do u think if peggy is elect and she will change NDP colour to Purple as Grape Crush?
Fri, 2012-03-23 23:39
#26
Sounds good Ipp
-------------------------------------------------------
My hunch is a lot of NDP voters feel the same way. What a shame as I had such hige expectations for Topp initially.
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.ca/2012/03/leadership-2012-first...
The NDP's leadership campaign has presented such a wide variety of opportunities and questions for party members that it's been difficult to decide who to endorse - and I've reached my own first-ballot decision only after taking time to see how those have been balanced out in this afternoon's leadership showcase. But for what it's worth, here's my endorsement for the many members who have chosen to wait to decide for themselves.
To start with, I'll be shifting my first choice from my preliminary endorsement - not because Brian Topp's positive message is any less important than it's always been, but because his late-campaign strategy has been so closely identified with personality politics directed toward Thomas Mulcair.
Fri, 2012-03-23 23:50
#27
We get a better and more accurate review of what the candidates said in their speeches from the National Post than the nonsense from CBC's The National. Sad indeed.
Sizing up the speeches at the NDP convention
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/23/daniel-goldbloom-sizing-u...
Sat, 2012-03-24 00:07
#28
Arthur Cramer
I hope I was clear that I thought the nonsense from CBC was just thought. I mean you know that is what they are going to say, especially Chantal Hebert. I know there are many who think she sometimes hits it right, but I've never been one of them.
Sat, 2012-03-24 00:08
#29
So you have about 5 hospitality suites which can hold about 80 people each, all on the same stretch of narrow hallway, and you invite over 4000 people offering free booze. Hey, what could go wrong?
Sat, 2012-03-24 00:10
#30
Anyway, I ended up at a great party elsewhere in the hotel, and am feeling pleasantly mellow.
Sat, 2012-03-24 00:13
#31
Arthur Cramer
Way to go, ya old goat!
Sat, 2012-03-24 00:21
#32
My own personal ranking of how the candidate showcases were...
1. Nathan Cullen- I thought he gave a great speech, but best of all, it was just a speech. He didn't feel the need to fill the time with his endorsements or any videos. It seemed very, "what you see is what you get".
2. Niki Ashton her speech was also great, which goes to what I've said before. She's a great speaker, but not a great debater. Yet, anyway. ;)
3. Brian Topp- I though his speech was pretty good, and I like the appearance of Shirley Douglas. I think his video was probably the second best.
4. Thomas Mulcair- He did a good job of shwoing his strength during his entrance, but it went on for too long. I would have much prefered to hear him speak for twenty minutes. As Pat Martin said, "Thomas Mulcair is a great orator, and that was not great oratory."
5. Martin Singh- Gave a pretty good speech, and I liked how he had his son out playing the fiddle. But I like the fiddle, so I'm biased. I thought his video was probably the best, it reminded me a bit of one I saw the NDP put out for the last federal election. I think like Niki Ashton, he's better outside of debates.
6. Peggy Nash- Her introduction just went on for too long. All she really needed were Pierre and Alexa I thought. her speech was okay, but she really hurt herself when she went over the time limit. nice choice of music though. = P
7. Paul Dewar- I'm sorry, I like Charlie Angus, but I never want to see him on stage with a rapper again. Rap and Charlie Angus do not mix! I thought Dewar's speech was pretty good but I couldn't help but notice him looking down on his notes during the french parts.
Sat, 2012-03-24 00:27
#33
I hope I was clear that I thought the nonsense from CBC was just thought. I mean you know that is what they are going to say, especially Chantal Hebert. I know there are many who think she sometimes hits it right, but I've never been one of them.
Watching it was a bit of a downer to me. But then, Haven't most in the media come out saying that Mulcair is the only one who looks like he could be Prime Minister? I'm not sure what the At Issue has said about it, but to now hear them saying that even he doesn't look like Prime Minister...well, it seems kinda weird to me.
The again, I'm not what a Prime Minister is suppossed to look like. Think about it, if you saw Stephen Harper and had no idea who he was, would you say to yourself, "wow, that guy looks like a Prime Minister"?
Sat, 2012-03-24 00:36
#34
Or is it just a phony window-dressing ornamental kind of appellation?
Bingo
Sat, 2012-03-24 00:47
#35
Also, for whatever it's worth, my sister watched Niki Ashton's speech and really liked her.
Sat, 2012-03-24 00:49
#36
Yup i really like her speech too!
Sat, 2012-03-24 00:50
#37
At present
-------------
NDP steadies itself for possible win by Thomas Mulcair 
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1151345--walkom-ndp-...
Sat, 2012-03-24 00:52
#38
Watching it was a bit of a downer to me. But then, Haven't most in the media come out saying that Mulcair is the only one who looks like he could be Prime Minister? I'm not sure what the At Issue has said about it, but to now hear them saying that even he doesn't look like Prime Minister...well, it seems kinda weird to me.
The again, I'm not what a Prime Minister is suppossed to look like. Think about it, if you saw Stephen Harper and had no idea who he was, would you say to yourself, "wow, that guy looks like a Prime Minister"?
Sat, 2012-03-24 00:57
#39
I am very impressed with Juliette Powell's hosting of the convention. She has a lot of Jack's qualities. Her videos also show a savvy understanding of social issues and technology. Is there any chance we could recruit her as a candidate in the future?
Juliette Powell: How Social Media Can Help
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w7GkHWsYVU
Mandela and Juliette Powell at Skydome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdPt9hSq1KE&feature=related
Juliette Powell on Barack Obama
Sat, 2012-03-24 01:33
#40
I thought Nathan Cullen was very, very good. A truly heart-felt, grounded, and real speech. I loved that he needed no flashy videos or horrible rap songs - and no prepared speech. He just needed to directly communicate his ideas and words directly to all of us... absolutely excellent job.
Paul Dewar was horrendous. Stumbling over a prepared speech, mispronouncing words, and looking as stiff as ever.
Brian Topp was utterly reliant on his teleprompter, and still remained totally fake to me - I don't want to go into attacks on him, but I think he would be an absolute disaster as leader. Nice seeing Alexa on Power & Politics state clearly that not having a seat is a major problem for a leader - and she knows all about it! Topp has no charisma, no seat, and no chance.
Niki Ashton probably gave her best speech of the leadership campaign - good for her. Her memorization skills helped in this format, and her presentation was well-organized.
Mulcair completely disappointed me with his complete and total reliance on his prepared speech, and even then it was poorly rehearsed, he stumbled on his words, and because of the horrible planning of the LOOOOONG intro for his speech, he had to race through his words at light speed. Did he or no-one else in his campaign consider rehearsing this?? After today's performance, I regret having him as high as #3 on my ballot.
Peggy Nash also had too many intros, and should have known to curb the end of her speech to fit the time... not great, but what she did say came across quite well. Again - where was the rehearsal?
Singh could make a good MP - I hope he runs. But his campaign has been a one-note bore, and he has no qualitifications to be leader. And again he has no seat, and no chance.
Overall, I'm shocked that so many of the presentations were as bad as they were. Glad Cullen stuck with a simple approach, unlike the others.
Sat, 2012-03-24 02:02
#41
So you have about 5 hospitality suites which can hold about 80 people each, all on the same stretch of narrow hallway, and you invite over 4000 people offering free booze. Hey, what could go wrong?
+1
Sat, 2012-03-24 02:12
#42
the writing is on the wall, judging by one man's assessment of the hospitality suites buzz: http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/news/story.cfm?content=185879
Sat, 2012-03-24 02:59
#43
The convention floor is just one element. They're the ones closest to the action. Only 3-4 thousands members.
But the odds are definitely in Mulcair's favor. Don't need to be close to the ground to know that.
Sat, 2012-03-24 03:14
#44
If the media was holding people up as they were getting through the crowd, that explains things.
I would not blame the drummers etc - I think it was that when they had the run through, they had not taken account the crowd slowing them down. I liked the drummers. They seemed to play all they were planning to but were no where near the front so kept playing.
Point taken (previous thread) that Broadbents comments are not as bad as the media made them out to be.
Also, two different people on record warning Broadbent to shut up because the Tories would use their clips in ads sort of makes it sound as if the NDP knows how the Tories think. They would prefer an attack that catches the NDP off guard.
A few of the candidates looked very tired at the last debate.
Another possibility was the few hours of delay at the airport - if people were late coming in, they they would not be their best giving endorsement speeches.
Sat, 2012-03-24 08:13
#45
the writing is on the wall, judging by one man's assessment of the hospitality suites buzz: http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/news/story.cfm?content=185879
+1
Good article share!
Sat, 2012-03-24 08:18
#46
Boom Boom
Also, two different people on record warning Broadbent to shut up because the Tories would use their clips in ads sort of makes it sound as if the NDP knows how the Tories think. They would prefer an attack that catches the NDP off guard.
MP Joe Comartin was interviewed by the CBC last night and he said the NDP had a meeting to talk to Broadbent about stopping his attacks on Mulcair especially through the media because the NDP wants to display a show of unity.
Sat, 2012-03-24 08:27
#47
Wanting to display unity, and not wanting to lose that is very different from "supplying the Conservatives with attack material."
There is none of the latter. You can argue showing positive party unity has been put at risk by Broadbent, but that is the most that can be argued.
Notable that the fantasy of Broadbent providing the Conservatives with attack ad material gets lots of air time here; but when I have multiple times pointed out Mulcair providing material, that passes without any notice.
Sat, 2012-03-24 08:31
#48
I'm not big on predictions.
But here's one. If Mulcair's first ballot vote somes in under 30%- speculation about where this goes will be rampant.
I would hazard to guess that at 35% he has it sewn up. Interesting that such extremes are only seperated by 5%.
Sat, 2012-03-24 08:42
#49
Broadbent's comments may have been counter productive, at least in terms of his own goals. I really don't see them as harmful to the party in the long run. Lost in all this of course is the fact that he didn't say a thing that wasn't completely true, certainly something that can get you in trouble in politics. He's a passionate guy who speaks his mind, and he has serious concerns.
Re: various comments above about ABM movements. Those things were hard enough to pull off even in the old style brokered conventions of my youth, and I would imagine pretty near impossible now. That's guiding my own voting, as well as some I've spoken to, and I will bring it up given the chance, but I'm really not out there lobbying people. I'm figuring Mulcair will likely win, and we'll see where we go from there.
Anyway, I'm off to breakfast, then once more into the breach!
Sat, 2012-03-24 08:47
#50
Boom Boom
As I said in the 'predictions' thread, I think Cullen might pull off an upset. 
Sat, 2012-03-24 09:01
#51
Ok, I'll kick off with what I just posted in the other thread.
For my information, what does a deputy leader do?
I am assuming that the Deputy Leader's role is symbolic AND substantial, if that makes sense.
Regarding substantial responsibilities, I'm assuming they help the leader handle their roles. What does the leader do? The leader is the person the media goes to in order to get their opinions on this or that matter of the day. Well, the Deputy Leaders would also, I assume, be responsible for handling a lot of media, and certainly Davies and Mulcair did a lot of that, even when Jack was actively leading the party. The leader also is responsible for managing and mentoring others in the caucus, and certainly Mulcair would have done a lot of that with the new Quebec MPs, and I'm betting Davies does a lot of that with new and returning MPs as well.
They're probably also responsible for helping with the decision-making, probably close advisors of the leader, and the ones who step in to do day-to-day things (maybe chairing caucus meetings, etc.) when the leader either isn't available briefly, or has to be out of town, or is down with a cold or something).
Symbolically, I think they're chosen as a way of showcasing the values the leader wants to highlight. I'm thinking that maybe Jack's choice of Davies and Mulcair as co-Deputies was to promote party unity between the left of the party (represented by Davies) and the centrist wing of the party (represented by Mulcair).
Davies as Deputy is a nod to people in the party who have solid left-wing principles, are deeply tied to social justice and activist movements, care about the plight of Palestinians and other colonized peoples, etc. Mulcair as Deputy is a nod to those in the party who lean to the centre (I'd say "right" but I don't think anyone in the party, even Mulcair, is actually on the "right"), "support Israel in all situations and in all circumstances" (and there are, unfortunately, a number of those, not just Mulcair), and also because he was the only Quebec MP, as a way of showing that the party values its voters in Quebec.