NDP Leadership 40

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
Orangutan
NDP Leadership 40

I just had a look at the "facebook fan" rankings on Pundit's Guide:

http://ndpldr.punditsguide.ca/

 

Nathan Cullen (who seems to be last on many NDPers list) has the most fans at 5,105.

Peggy Nash is second with 4,329.  Dewar third with 3,135.  Chisholm fourth with 2,040.

Fifth, Brian Topp with 1,936.  Sixth, Thomas Mulclair with 1,785.  Seventh, Romeo Saganash with 1,545.

Eight, Martin Singh with 482.  And surprisingly last, Niki Ashton with 382.  

 

I doubt the balloting will look anything like this.  I expect Cullen, Dewar, and Nash had higher levels of support online because they have been MPs longer (though you would expect Mulclair and Ashton to have a higher levels of online support as well).   

Issues Pages: 
Pundits Guide

Just a note on that:

--> Cullen, Nash and Dewar re-purposed their existing politician FB pages into their leadership pages,

--> Topp and Chisholm converted their personal pages, and

--> Mulcair, Saganash, Singh and Ashton all started new pages for their leadership campaigns. Notably Saganash's went from 0 to nearly 1,000 in the two weeks or so before he announced.

I expect their numbers will approach their relative popularity once we get closer to voting day, if in fact they're not there already.

Glad people are finding that resource useful, by the way. I've seen a number of referrals coming from Babble, which is always appreciated.

Lord Palmerston

toronto_radical wrote:
Jack did some good activist work and it was nice to see him pop up at rallies where I didn't think he would show up. His activist cred from Toronto was obviously excellent, but I think his preoccupation with modernizing the party and winning more seats distracted from this to an extent. 

I agree.  I would just add that the NPI leaders decided to disband after Layton became leader, which they saw as a "victory."  A big mistake.  Perhaps if they had stayed on as an organized force, things could have been different (i.e. not supporting "tough on crime" policies, bombing Libya, etc.). 

KenS

I disagree on that.

NPI started deflating as soon as it did not win at Convention. NDP activists were a decided minority of its organizational core. Jack's de facto leadership campaign started to pull away or distract those folks right away. But that does not account for the rest.The disbanding was just an agnowledgement of the accumulated voting of feet leaving the room. I think there is a causal relationship read into the facts that NPI people liked Jack, and he courted them.

toronto_radical wrote:

Peggy Nash coming out of the NPI has always been a strong advocate of an activist party/party-movement. She's been a strong advocate of encouraging young people to vote, more female participation in politics and engaging social movements from Occupy to local community groups. This factor is a big reason why I think Ducasse has endorsed her......this is why I'd argue Peggy is the candidate of the "left".....

Pierre supporting Peggy got my attention.

Peggy is at the top of my list- though as noted elsewhere- I see major negatives in all my top choices, which I am waiting to see if they clear up. My fear with Peggy is that Peggy talks a good talk, but that she doesnt know what she is doing in the how to get there department.

I supported the NPI. It was muddle headed to the core. No wonder it expired after losing the vote at Convention- regardless that was not the plan and expectation of its drivers.

We could chase that one around endlessly. But it isnt really the point. I'm pretty sure that Pierre Ducasse did not support Peggy just because she's the one that wants party/movement stuff. Nor, much if any, because she is the left candidate.

There is more to it than that. And I'm pretty sure Pierre would not have supported Peggy if he had anything like my notions of her organizational capabilities, who is inclined to dither when not on sure ground topiics, or what I see so far as her essentially underwhelming nature. 

So I would like to hear Pierre be more detailed about why he supports Peggy Nash. Rather like Libby did somewhat with her choice of Brian Topp. 

.... wave to Pierre.... are you out there?     want to elaborate?

 

KenS

wage zombie wrote:

KenS, do you see Mulcair as a triangulator? To me, that is what centrist means. Otherwise I'd think he's more of a moderate.

I do not quite get what you are saying about Mulcair. Because of the stands he's taken, and because of his willingness to stand his ground to media, he doesn't come off as the typical centrist. Maybe I read dailykos too much but when I hear of centrist I think of some of the cowardly caving Blue Dog Dems. That's doesn't seem like Mulcair.

To me centrist doesn't signify someone whose policy tendencies are in the political centre. That's a moderate. Centrist means someone who applies the questionable strategy of ceding half the difference between yourself and your political adversaries in the hopes of appearing "most reasonable".

A centrist is someone who looks for opportunities in giving people what they already want. Who advocates the safe, and only the safe. If you get to government this way, you have no mandate, and you cannot do anything.

I had a discussion two years before the NSNDP swept to its majority with a one time leftie, fellow dissident in the section, now a Minister. Person agreed that we are getting to government by flying under the radar and with no mandate [in any meaningful sense of that word]. But that person had a change of mind and strenuously argued that a lot could and will be done after winning- that the mandate was not necessary.

That has worked out well. And is certain to continue that way.

Now Darell Dexter was also a calm and re-assuring guy who did not make waves. Mulcair is not like that at all. But is tough general talk inserted into what you hope will be a growing dislike of the Harper government going to get us a mandate?

It may well win. But with no mandate, what did you win? The right to be the ones to do a somewhat better of rearranging the pieces on the board? What is the point of that?

Being a centrist who eschews any kind of mandate may be the easiest way to win- but it is not the only way.

I think Jack Layton's leadership at least showed some of that. An example was clearly advocating raising the corporate tax. To a lot of people that just sounds like a no brainer. But the same people just refuse to acknowledge that higher taxes and NDP is a very difficult mountain to climb. There ARE big risks- even for "just"" the corporate tax- which is about taxing "them". That was a nifty finesse of Jack's leadership. It moved us forward. And you dont get that from straight up centrists.

I dont think we got nearly enough of that under Jack's leadership. I was dissapointed more was not done with our climate change policy. We just scratched the surface of a very well developed and politically astute policy. I always knew that really selling it would be a long term project. It would be work for a while, with no near term payoffs proportional to the amount of work. Like Jack was willing- insisted against considerable internal skepticism and resistance- to do in Quebec.

One approach in going forward for the NDP is to interpret the earned credibility and strength as the opportunity to do more stretching of the envelope like the corporate taxation policy. A.] We did that and it worked, which gives us a little sfer place to work from. B.] We generally have more credibility and strength. There are indications that Jack thought that what we could do had shifted and grown.

Even if Jack Layton played the limited game more than I thought was necessary, he was no straight-up centrist. There is no guarantee in there. But I think what you will get from a straight up centrist is virtually guaranteed, in the wrong direction.

 

KenS

So what does Mulcair speaking more strongly against the tar sands get us?

Ditto for being more passionate about what is wrong with the Harper government?

Explain where the mandate is in this.

dacckon dacckon's picture

I'm sure Pierre will reveal his reasoning, maybe in a youtube video.  Let's not get too fiesty.

KenS

Do I read as fiesty also about Pierre and Peggy?

I am hopefual, expectant.

 

..wave to Pierre again...

The main reason for expressing all that about Peggy is because in promoting a candiate being supported, people dont generally address the negatives the candidate has. But the negatives are also perceived by friendlies out there. They are obstacles the candidate has to jump. And they do not have to be addressed directly/discursively. Becaue that is not a productive way to deal with them does not mean they should not be addressed period.

Gaian

I am also hopeful, expectant, that as the campaign develops, the reasoning from psychological perspectives will give over to comment on real people.

...waves to KS.

KenS

Lets see now. Who we support has a lot to do with weighing negatives and positives. But talking about those negatives is 'mass psychology.'

Want to point to the 'mass psychology' in discussing Nash.

Gaian

WAnt to read the posting again?

KenS

You edited it. Mass psychology was out there.

But since you say you want comments on real people, tell me how my comments on Nash are not so we can understand your obscurely expressed wishes.

Wilf Day

I see, belatedly, that Mulcair's campaign team are touring Quebec to boost his membership drive, starting last Friday in Lanaudiere region which includes Joliette:

Quote:
la députée de Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, Marie-Claude Morin, et le député de
Montmagny--L'Islet—Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup, François Lapointe, ont fait
halte dans Lanaudière, le vendredi 18 novembre.

À ce premier stop de leur tournée provinciale, les coprésidents de la
campagne québécoise de Thomas Mulcair ont précisé que ceux qui deviendront
membres du parti d'ici février pourront voter, le 24 mars, pour le prochain chef
des néo-démocrates.

«D'ailleurs, il est possible qu'on fasse une tournée dans les régions qui ont
un député conservateur ou bloquiste», a souligné François Lapointe.

Actuellement, le NPD compte 5 600 membres dans la province. Les coprésidents
aimeraient que ce nombre grimpe afin que la voix des Québécois se fasse entendre
lors du vote à la chefferie. «On veut rejoindre un maximum de gens», a fait
valoir Marie-Claude Morin.

Elle a rappelé qu'il est possible de devenir membre du parti en remplissant
un formulaire papier ou en s'inscrivant au www.npd.ca. Les personnes qui
s'inscriront avant février auront droit de vote le 24 mars. «Elles pourront
voter par téléphone, par le web ou par la poste», souligne M. Lapointe.

http://www.laction.com/Actualites/Actualite-regionale/2011-11-21/article-2810482/Course-a-la-chefferie-du-NPD%3A-les-Quebecois-invites-a-voter/1

I don't know if they have made a second stop yet on their "tour." No mention of this tour on Mulcair's website. But its first stop got pretty good publicity. Why hasn't any other candidate started such a public appeal anywhere?

ottawaobserver

I think the other candidates are doing it wherever they go, Wilf.

Meanwhile, this is not good for Mulcair. He should have stayed in Toronto for the Leader's Levee instead of going to the Gallery Dinner:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/11/24/why-mulcairs-press-gallery-dinner-spe...

ottawaobserver

Dewar in Edmonton:

http://howcanadaworks.blogspot.com/2011/11/paul-dewar-politician.html

Very interested to hear IP's perspective on that event.

Wilf Day

ottawaobserver wrote:

I think the other candidates are doing it wherever they go, Wilf.

But where the candidates go, the focus is on the candidate. This Mulcair co-chairs tour was specifically to invite Quebecers to take part in the leadership race. That was the only focus. Sounds boring? The press would never cover it? But they did. "Quebecers invited to vote." The Liberals are talking about a wide-open primary system to choose their next leader. Our process is pretty open, too. Mulcair's team tried headlining that fact, and it worked. Others should try it too. Of course, the Toronto Star wouldn't run the story. But there are, believe it or not, daily papers outside Toronto.

KenS

On the ground, whether or not we hear about it through mainstream or alternate media, when the campaigns move into serious member contact and sign-up, this is always a main line even when you are pitching your own candidate: "this is your chance to participate," etc. The candidate contacts few individuals, and this kind of narrative is essential to the contact folks.

That is a basic part of building people's stake in a particular candidate, as much as it is a pitch for the party and the race in general.

You are just hearing first about the Mulcair campaign using it. Still, good for them. Shows they are getting some of the basic elements right. The more of that across the spectrum, the better.

KenS

FWIW, with a mid February deadline, I dont expect the campaigns to really hit stride on individual contact until after the holidays.

Following from that, any one of them evidently ahead on getting that really going has the jump... though that is not always the campaign that will have the staying power. Conversely, by the time the campaigns have in general have hit stride on contact work,ny laggards among the front runners, or well behind the front runners, is just not in the game.

Not to mention that long before then, aside from organizational strength, any campaign not seen from the beginning as close to the top of the pack, is out of it if they have not shown some sustained momentum. We're nowhere near that point now... but when it comes, that is one of the points of no return.

ottawaobserver

I'm wondering about that tactic, Wilf, and what it says about Mulcair's campaign. Candidate travel costs aren't covered under the ceiling, but what about the travel expenses of proxies. That kind of a campaign is going to eat up a chunk of change, and to the extent it's focused exclusively on Quebec, will tend to come at the expense of what can be done elsewhere.

Hunky_Monkey

KenS wrote:

FWIW, with a mid February deadline, I dont expect the campaigns to really hit stride on individual contact until after the holidays.

I got a robocall from Peggy Nash's campaign. Anyone else? Something about a telephone conference call where she'd take questions.

ottawaobserver

OK, that's two campaigns doing tele-townhalls, then. Dewar has had them in Ontario and BC so far. Anyone else?

KenS

I dont think robo calls and town halls are really contact work. They are good, and on a continuum with direct individual contact [that would include some forms of using social media- like what I call snowball neetworking].

And maybe there is just going to be less direct contact. However much there is, there is a lot of lead time in getting it going on a more than token or start-up level, and then keeping it going. Hence, not expecting that kind of work and organizing to hit stride until after the holidays.

And expanding on OO's point: contact work is expensive enough. If you add to that costs of proxies doing travel- that will bite into funds for more cost effective work. So its either questionable bang for buck flash in pan 'lets look good'... or maybe, the expenses are all on the MPs taxpayer dime, which would be at least a grey area.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

KenS wrote:

So what does Mulcair speaking more strongly against the tar sands get us?

Ditto for being more passionate about what is wrong with the Harper government?

Explain where the mandate is in this.

Are you suggesting that speaking against the oil sands is somehow a motherhood stance?

KenS

I dont really understand why people do not get the distinction.

I am saying that Mulcair only puts out positioning in a manner where he can be highly all things to all people.

Examples:

Tar sands- fulminate about how bad the Harper government is. Sounds good to the base even that does not want a centrist. No demands in the  particular issue about what he would DO. Because the NDP already has all the requisite stands. And he can sound radical without cost or commitment.

Ditto on bad, mean spirited, dictatorial Harper govt in general.

Likely ditto on the Omnibus Crime Bill. What nasty people would do this? Again, no requirement to differentiate on what he would DO. Sounds radical. [Will be different if he takes a stand differentiated from the NDP's stand.]

Agreed or not, is this at least clear?

And so on.

On the other hand:

Every other candidate says yes or no to an NDP government rebuidling a long gun registry. Only Mulcair says no position. Because taking a position would require displeasing either his easiest constituency in the NDP [tends to be a correlation between centrists and the largely rural opposition to the LGR in the NDP], or the consituency he wants thinking he's not just a centrist.

And so on.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

Ken, you need to come up with a better example.

Every time an elected New Democrat from 'the east' talks about the oil sands, it's anything but motherhood out here. Even Layton stepped in it more than once. Even calling them 'tar sands' instead of 'oil sands' gets some people's backs up.

There are ways to talk about it, and Mulcair has learned, (the hard way I might add) how to do that without it being a drag on NDP fortunes in Alberta. 

But even putting that issue aside - I don't cares if Mucair isn't taking hard stands. Honestly, policy isn't that important to me in this race.  Take an issue like the gun registry.  I'm in favour of it. Totally.  But it won't bother me if someone who opposes it becomes leader since we have a caucus that is mostly on my side. They are going to push the leader into a compromise.  The same applies to almost any issue I can think of that is dear to me.  The party has well known policies that I don't see changing too much with one leader or another.  Whomever becomes leader is going to rely upon largely the same base of people to develop our platform.

I've not decided who I will cast my ballot for - but I'm looking for the leader who can build a team, who can deliver the support of voters, and who can get into 24 Sussex - and stay there.

KenS

Lou Arab wrote:

 I'm looking for the leader who can build a team, who can deliver the support of voters, and who can get into 24 Sussex - and stay there.

Me too.

All essential. But so is get there, stay there, and do something... not just hope/trust you'll get that part eventually.

And you?

KenS

I've given multiple examples Lou.

Give me some that prove me wrong- or at least questionable.

And I think I have a fair question for you. Although dont let it distract you from finding contrary examples against my argument.

 

Do you care whether or not someone is a straight up centrist? If so, do you care much?

If it makes it easier, lets use some examples where hopefully nothing at stake. I think it should be agreeable that Peter Stoffer is a straight up centrist. [Granted, the effects are different when you are just a member of a Caucus.] Ditto Darrel Dexter. And I dont think you have to be 'over there' that far to be considered a straight up centrist.

Gaian

KenS: "You edited it. Mass psychology was out there."

Yes it was, Ken. For a whole goddam minute before you got at it.

Look, if you don't understand the import of a Quebecer messin' with the Tar Patch, you missed the East-West ballyhoo of the last three decades...ever since PET set up a National Energy Policy.

Ken: "No demands in the particular issue about what he would DO."

Are you familiar with the old adage about having "the power of the purse"? And is it conceivable that another government would be concerned about economic policy that did not hang eastern manufacturers out to dry? We now have a government in power that will NOT intervene because in that strange, ideological crowd, that would be interfering with the Market Gods. But you mjust understand that social democratic governments are EXPECTED to intervene, and that at this time, the Market Gods are apparently emasculated, need help beyond bailing out international banks, bringing liquidity to Canada's Big Five through CMHC...on government directive.

All of these things one would do in consultation with one's fellow New Democrats, but sure as shit NOT in a campaign for leadership.

As for this "centrist" generalization...it means bugger all here, Ken. Give it a break.

KenS

I asked Lou. Which doesnt mean he has to answer, or that other people cannot.

But I was thinking people with some minimal capacity for responding to what other discussants actually say.

Hunky_Monkey

KenS wrote:

I dont really understand why people do not get the distinction.

I am saying that Mulcair only puts out positioning in a manner where he can be highly all things to all people.

Examples:

Tar sands- fulminate about how bad the Harper government is. Sounds good to the base even that does not want a centrist. No demands in the  particular issue about what he would DO. Because the NDP already has all the requisite stands. And he can sound radical without cost or commitment.

Ditto on bad, mean spirited, dictatorial Harper govt in general.

Likely ditto on the Omnibus Crime Bill. What nasty people would do this? Again, no requirement to differentiate on what he would DO. Sounds radical. [Will be different if he takes a stand differentiated from the NDP's stand.]

Agreed or not, is this at least clear?

And so on.

On the other hand:

Every other candidate says yes or no to an NDP government rebuidling a long gun registry. Only Mulcair says no position. Because taking a position would require displeasing either his easiest constituency in the NDP [tends to be a correlation between centrists and the largely rural opposition to the LGR in the NDP], or the consituency he wants thinking he's not just a centrist.

And so on.

This is getting a little funny... what's Brian Topp's detailed policy on the oil sands or an energy policy?

Mulcair has said he wants to add the true cost to developing the oil sands and he's opposed to the pipeline. He said it will be laid out in his policy inititives that will be released.

As for the gun registry, a spokesperson gave the media an answer. You don't think it will come up again in the campaign or not mentioned in his platform? That he'll say at the debate "no comment" or "I don't have a position on this"?

All I've heard from Topp is "we need a more equitable Canada" and "we need to tax the rich more". Talk about generalties.

I'm seeing a huge double standard here, Ken.

KenS

How many times do I have to say- its not about details or lack of or generalities.

You can heap on the detail and be dodging and dancing to be all things.

That said, you made some other points.

We'll see.

Newfoundlander_...

Robert Chisholm might pick up an endorsement from Ryan Cleary in St. John's tomorrow.

 

Ian Capstick is saying something on Power and Politics about the leadership race, he said he surveyed 10 strategist and that Nash Dewar and Topp are top 3 or something. I'm confused about what he's saying but he will post information on his blog later.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

Lou Arab wrote:

Honestly, policy isn't that important to me in this race.  Take an issue like the gun registry.  I'm in favour of it. Totally.  But it won't bother me if someone who opposes it becomes leader since we have a caucus that is mostly on my side. They are going to push the leader into a compromise.  The same applies to almost any issue I can think of that is dear to me.  The party has well known policies that I don't see changing too much with one leader or another.  Whomever becomes leader is going to rely upon largely the same base of people to develop our platform.

I've not decided who I will cast my ballot for - but I'm looking for the leader who can build a team, who can deliver the support of voters, and who can get into 24 Sussex - and stay there.

I see where you're coming from on this, Lou, and I mostly agree when it comes to particular policies. But ideology is not the same thing as policy. If we don't have a leader who finds it at least somewhat painful when the inevitable concessions need to be made on long-held policies in a potential NDP government, I fear for what the party could become.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

ottawaobserver wrote:

Dewar in Edmonton:

http://howcanadaworks.blogspot.com/2011/11/paul-dewar-politician.html

Very interested to hear IP's perspective on that event.

I was kept pretty busy herding volunteers and making sure we got out of the room on time, so my head was mostly in organizational details, sadly. But it was very well attended, and people were really impressed with Dewar. He has a lot of support out here.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

KenS wrote:

And I think I have a fair question for you. Although dont let it distract you from finding contrary examples against my argument.

Do you care whether or not someone is a straight up centrist? If so, do you care much?

If it makes it easier, lets use some examples where hopefully nothing at stake. I think it should be agreeable that Peter Stoffer is a straight up centrist. [Granted, the effects are different when you are just a member of a Caucus.] Ditto Darrel Dexter. And I dont think you have to be 'over there' that far to be considered a straight up centrist.

Honestly Ken, I can't grasp what your definition of centrist is. So I'm not sure I can answer your question. Do I like NDP leaders who in another context could be a red Tory or a blue blood Liberal? No. Not at all. But I don't see that in this leadership race.  You may, and it may be important to you, and who am I to tell you otherwise? But for me, it's not a factor this time.

I have very different opinions of Stoffer and Dexter. I admire Stoffer's work ethic and retail political skills, but he drives me crazy with his willingness to speak openly against the position of the caucus and/or leader on almost any issue under the sun, almost by default. I might add that the few times Mulcair has spoken out of turn (i.e. Libby) also make me crazy.

Dexter I see as a very cautious politician.  Normally, this is not a trait I like, but in the Nova Scotia example, I think it's warranted.  I think people judge the first NDP government more harshly than they might judge an NDP government in Sask or even BC, where electing the NDP is nothing new.  Taking a 'do nothing' approach until voters realize we don't have horns isn't a bad idea. The NDP only get's one chance to make a first impression, and we only have to look to Ontario to see how long voters hold on to memories of a bad first NDP impression.

I'd also add that earlier you noted that you think Dexter has no flash or charisma.  I agree that there's not a lot of flash, but I think Darrell has lots of charisma, in particular of the sort that would be quite well received in Nova Scotia. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

ottawaobserver

It's looking, from Facebook, as though Dale Kirby (MHA-St. John's North, and party president in Nfld-Lab) is supporting Robert as well.

Stockholm

I guess if you are from Nova Scotia (or to a lesser extent from NL) its convenient to be able to park your vote with a favourite son like Chisholm and that way you don't have to commit to any of the major candidates and upset any of the people you don't endorse!

Hunky_Monkey

Stockholm wrote:

I guess if you are from Nova Scotia (or to a lesser extent from NL) its convenient to be able to park your vote with a favourite son like Chisholm and that way you don't have to commit to any of the major candidates and upset any of the people you don't endorse!

I know a few NS MLAs supporting Chisholm but expect him to drop off the first ballot.

Newfoundlander_...

From Ian Capstick

 

Strategist Index

Strategist Index : crowdsourced opinion from ten neutral NDP observers on the state of the NDP leadership race, the assembled group will grow to about 20 next survey. This is presented as an interesting point to debate - not a fully scientific survey. Let me know what you think!

Who should win the NDP leadership race? 

  1. Nash
  2. Dewar
  3. Topp
  4. Mulcair 
  5. Cullen
  6. Saganash 
  7. Chisholm
  8. Ashton 
  9. Singh 

Who will win the NDP leadership race? 

  1. Topp 
  2. Dewar 
  3. Mulcair 
  4. Nash 
  5. Cullen 
  6. Saganash 
  7. Singh 
  8. Ashton

Hunky_Monkey

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

From Ian Capstick

 

Strategist Index

Strategist Index : crowdsourced opinion from ten neutral NDP observers on the state of the NDP leadership race, the assembled group will grow to about 20 next survey. This is presented as an interesting point to debate - not a fully scientific survey. Let me know what you think!

Who should win the NDP leadership race? 

  1. Nash
  2. Dewar
  3. Topp
  4. Mulcair 
  5. Cullen
  6. Saganash 
  7. Chisholm
  8. Ashton 
  9. Singh 

Who will win the NDP leadership race? 

  1. Topp 
  2. Dewar 
  3. Mulcair 
  4. Nash 
  5. Cullen 
  6. Saganash 
  7. Singh 
  8. Ashton

Interesting... especially seeing Cullen ahead of Saganash on both lists. From my take out there is that Saganash will be a big factor. I think he'll surprise a lot of people with the amount of support he'll garner.

Stockholm

So according to Capstick alot of "insiders" personally support Nash but assume that other people support Topp. That could be a problem for Topp - if everyone thinks that everyone else supports him...but not that many of them actualkly do..

Bill Davis

Cullen released his energy policy.

KenS

Lou Arab wrote:

Dexter I see as a very cautious politician.  Normally, this is not a trait I like, but in the Nova Scotia example, I think it's warranted.  I think people judge the first NDP government more harshly than they might judge an NDP government in Sask or even BC, where electing the NDP is nothing new.  Taking a 'do nothing' approach until voters realize we don't have horns isn't a bad idea. The NDP only get's one chance to make a first impression, and we only have to look to Ontario to see how long voters hold on to memories of a bad first NDP impression.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on just about all of that. At least we both know intimately both Nova Scotia and other places- so, no possibility of one of us 'pulling rank' here.

II dont think Nova Scotia is so different. The joint has changed a lot in a decade or two. And I do not see any reason to compare to the Ontario experience. Winning by no mens dropped on us. We got there arduously and methodicaly. After that, we just were not going to enegage in the same lets shoot our feet now. We also are not driven by people taking their different approaches so seriously.

And that necessity of 'do nothing' is something that somehow always turns up after the fact. Projected forward- there is always a reason for it. Hopefully you noticed me recounting the conversation with the now Minister over a year before the victory and when no one was thinking the luxury of a majority. She said we WILL be able to do something substantive, without an explicit mandate from the voters. Now, the excuses move forward in time. Once you start, they always do.

I'm atypical among the cadre in that I have a foot in both camps. And I work and allies myself mostly with 'moderates' like yourself.

But pragmatism is not just a one way street. Many on this board- probably at least a majority- are not into deferring 'doing something' into later. That isnt me. But I think there is a point where you have to ask- "is there reason to think this is ever going to work?"

I think Jack Layton was cautious. For a basicaly effusive and passionate guy, he rarely got carried away, and it was always momentary. Dexter and the NSNDP brain trust are beyond cautious. It is fly under the radar all the way and all the time. There is no reason to expect anything different in from a second mandate, let alone that it is questionable do absolutely nothing was necessary even for the first mandate we agree is more 'sensitive'.

Jack Layton wasnt fly under the radar most of the the time, let alone that and nothing else. And I think that with shedding 3rd/4th party status we would have seen even less of it.

Wilf Day

ottawaobserver wrote:

Candidate travel costs aren't covered under the ceiling, but what about the travel expenses of proxies. That kind of a campaign is going to eat up a chunk of change . . .

Last Friday François Lapointe stopped in at Joliette, on his way home to Montmagny, and Marie-Claude Morin did too, a slight detour on her drive home to Saint-Hyacinthe, for a quickie media event; one press conference. (Since the MP for Joliette, 66-year-old repeat NDP candidate Francine Raynault, is supporting young Niki Ashton, they didn't hold a meeting with local NDP members, apparently.) For their effort, they not only got a great local story linked above, but now a story in the Montreal Gazette:

Quote:

The blitz is on.

Determined to boost the number of party supporters to increase his chances, New Democratic Party leadership candidate Thomas Mulcair is sending his two campaign chairpersons into Quebec's regions to drum up support.

François Lapointe, the MP for Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, and Marie-Claude Morin, MP for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, kicked off their tour in the Joliette region last week.

They plan to hit the rest of the province sometime before the Feb. 18 deadline to become a member and be eligible to vote. They are making use of local media to reach into people's homes to make them aware they can have a say in the choice.

"There are 1.6 million Quebecers who voted for the NDP (in the May 2 election)," Morin said Wednesday in an interview. "We're on a tour telling Quebecers they have a chance to have a say in the election of the next leader."

The tour comes following news that all the hype about the leadership race has paid off with NDP membership in Quebec tripling since the campaign kicked off.

At the start of September, the total number of Quebec NDP members was just under 1,700 out of a Canadian total of 83,824. According to numbers released by the party, there are now 5,558 members, just under six per cent of the new national total, which is 95,006.

That means Quebec is still under-represented in the race despite the efforts by the party and the nine candidates including Mulcair. The vote for leader is based on one member, one vote.

The Muclair camp is aiming for 20,000 members in Quebec by the sign-up dead-line but it's a struggle in a province which had little NDP organization before the May 2 federal election.

"It's clear we need more," Morin said. "That's our principal goal now. I don't think it's 'mission impossible.'

"It's clear we have work to do."

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Mulcair+campaign+blitzes+province/5758628...

Pretty good results, for a very small chunk of change. I repeat, I'd like to see other candidates copy this.

ottawaobserver

So Wilf, what's the travel cost? The deviation from their route home (the rules say you can't use public resources), or the entire value of the trip. I'm sure the party's CEO has ruled on this, but I don't know. Anyways, not sure I care all that much. It seems Mulcair is using MPs because he doesn't have many other organizers, but it's also a good opportunity for those MPs to get their own ridings organized, so that's one very positive aspect of it, for sure.

ottawaobserver

By the way, Mulcair's camp told the media the week before they leaked the new membership numbers that they'd only sold 500 memberships in Quebec. Now they're claiming credit for the 3,500 difference? Come on. Sounds like the party was doing its own membership drive - exactly as they said they would do.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

This is getting a little funny... what's Brian Topp's detailed policy on the oil sands or an energy policy?

Nobody has said much of substance about anything so far.  It's a bit pointless poking at anyone for a lack of subsyance when the same applies to every single candidate.  (Well, except maybe Dewar, who Capstick claims is the only one with a policy section populated on his website.)

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

Ian Capstick is saying something on Power and Politics about the leadership race, he said he surveyed 10 strategist and that Nash Dewar and Topp are top 3 or something. I'm confused about what he's saying but he will post information on his blog later.

 

Capstick must be confused.  He says Ashton has no support outside of Manitoba, but she has endorsements from three Quebec MPs and her campaign chair is from Saskatchewan.

Stockholm

Capstick was double confused. He said that Mulcair had a huge power base in BC! That's the first I have heard of that. By all accoun ts if anyone has a power base in BC (at least on paper) its Brian Topp who is backed by Libby Davies, Jean Crowder, Kennedy Stewart, Ginny Sims - a whole slew of Indo-Canadian MLAs from membershup rich Surrey as well as most of the major figures in the provincial party. Things may change - but my impression was that Mulcair's campaign was pretty non-existent in BC.

I think Capstick got confused and said the things he meant to say about Topp about Mulcair. Whihc tends to make his credibility becme quite suspect.

I'd still like to know how it is possible for there to be any difference between who "should" win and who "will" win?

Hunky_Monkey

Malcolm wrote:

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

This is getting a little funny... what's Brian Topp's detailed policy on the oil sands or an energy policy?

Nobody has said much of substance about anything so far.  It's a bit pointless poking at anyone for a lack of subsyance when the same applies to every single candidate.  (Well, except maybe Dewar, who Capstick claims is the only one with a policy section populated on his website.)

That was the point I was attempting to make :)

Hunky_Monkey

ottawaobserver wrote:

By the way, Mulcair's camp told the media the week before they leaked the new membership numbers that they'd only sold 500 memberships in Quebec. Now they're claiming credit for the 3,500 difference? Come on. Sounds like the party was doing its own membership drive - exactly as they said they would do.

Where are they claiming the difference?

Pages

Topic locked