NDP Leadership 58

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
oldgoat
NDP Leadership 58

Carry on...

Issues Pages: 
mark_alfred

Normally I don't repost, but I did do some effort on this post from thread 57, wherein thread 57 closed almost as soon as I posted it. So, a repost:

Since discovering the article on Mulcair's site that seemed to indicate he fully supported more public-private investment in health-care (aka P3s), I did do some more research.  Someone here pointed out that he was stellar in representing people's interests regarding opposing proposed tolls on the Champlain Bridge, so I checked that out and verified the poster's claim: 

41st PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION, 2011/10/05 wrote:
Mr. Speaker, it is funny. Every time I hear the Conservatives talking about a public-private partnership, I get the impression that they really mean a partnership that will line the pockets of the private sector or one that will make the public pay.

 

    Hundreds of thousands of people will pay out of their own pockets for a toll bridge when it costs nothing to cross the existing bridge. The government needs to tell the public why.

 
So, stellar stuff here.  However, when I further researched what his attitudes were toward P3s within our health-care, to either confirm or refute the claims made in the Le Journal de Montreal article, I found an article from the Chomedey News (Laval) with an interview of Mulcair when he was running for the QLP:
interview with Mulcair from Chomedey News wrote:
 

TCN: Your party has also stressed that you are
for universal public health care. Your platform
also suggests that the public and private sector
work together by authorizing the public sector to
purchase services from the private sector and by
working in partnership in all aspects of health
care. How exactly will this help the public system
and how will you go about implementing this
partnership?

Mulcair: Our fundamental believe and willingness
is to defend the public health care system. All
were saying is that if you need to have cataracts
surgery, why wouldn’t it be possible to set up a
system where you could go to a clinic, that happens
to belongs to the doctor and have your surgery
there. The government would still pay for the
surgery. So why wouldn’t the government be able
to contract, for a thousand cataract surgeries, with
some doctor that has their own clinic. Why should
[procedures] always have to go through something
that belongs to the government? If somebody
owns an MRI machine that could produce MRIs at
300$ a copy as opposed to a hospital that does it
for $400, why can’t the government buy 10 thousand
MRIs from this clinic over the next five years
and contract that out. What were saying is that
you could always get efficiencies from the private
sector because it is always more efficient than the
public sector. So you could make partnerships
between the public sector and the private sector
for provision of services. But, the service that the
public receives should always be free to the public.
We pay the high taxes because it includes free
health care. You can’t have both you can’t keep high taxes and then all of a sudden say that you
must pay for your own health care.
(Editor’s note: Mulcair went on to explain his parties
stance on a universal health care system by
pointing out that that is where the confusion lies
when we mention the private sector. As suggested
by Mulcair, if the public knows that they will
have free and efficient services, they won’t care
whether or not it is from a hospital or private clinic.
He went into greater detail by explaining how
if the government can save money by contracting
services from clinics, they would then be able to
impose conditions on these clinics, such as staying
open seven days a week, 24 hours a day and
being located near hospitals. Mulcair feels that
this is a creative approach to improving the public
health care system.
When TCN asked if this mean that there’s a place
for the private system in our society. Mulcair
revealed that there is, but only in terms of delivery.
He stressed how actual services must always
remain 100% free.)

Stockholm

Here is David Akin's latest handicapping of the race! He seems to think that Topp is not in the top tier at all - but what does he or anybody know?

 

http://blogs.canoe.ca/davidakin/politicsndp/handicapping-the-ndp-leaders...

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

Time for an update on MP endorsements:

Ashton (4):
Herself
Choquette
Larose
Raynault

Cullen (1):
Himself

Dewar (1):
Himself

Mulcair (36):
Himself
Aubin, Robert
Ayala
Brahmi
Chicoine
Day
Dube
Dusseault
Genest
Genest-Jourdain
Groguhe
Harris, Dan
Hassainia
Jacob
Kellway
Lapointe
Latendresse
LeBlanc
Marston, Wayne
Morin, Marc-Andre
Morin, Marie-Claude
Nantel
Nicholls
Nunez-Melo
Papillon
Patry
Peclet, Eve
Perreault
Pilon
Rafferty, John
Ravignat, Matthew
Rousseau, Jean
Sellah
St-Denis
Toone
Tremblay

Nash (6):
Herself
Boutin-Sweet
Garrison, Randall
Minh-Thu Quach
Sullivan, Mike
Savioe, Danielle

Saganash (3):
Himself
Labelle
Moore

Topp (11):

Boivin
Borg, Charmane
Boulerice, Alexandre
Crowder, Jean
Davies, Libby
Giguere, Alain
Godin, Yvon
Morin, Isabelle
Sandhu, Jasbir
Sims, Jenny
Stewart, Kennedy

Undeclared MPs (40):
Allen, Malcolm
Angus, Charlie
Atamenko, Alex
Benskin, Tyrone
Bevington, Dennis
Blanchette
Blanchette-Lamothe
Brosseau, Ruth Ellen
Caron
Cash
Chisholm, Robert
Christopherson, David
Chow, Oliva
Cleary, Ryan
Comartin, Joe
Cote
Davies, Don
Donnelly, Fin
Dore Lefebvre
Duncan, Linda
Freeman
Gravelle, Claude
Harris,  Jack
Hughes, Carol
Hyer
Julian, Peter
Laverdiere
Leslie, Megan
Liu
Mai
Martin
Masse
Mathyssen, Irene
Michaud
Morin, Dany
Sitsabaiesan
Stoffer, Peter
Thibeault
Tremblay
Turmel, Nicole

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

Stockholm wrote:

Here is David Akin's latest handicapping of the race! He seems to think that Topp is not in the top tier at all - but what does he or anybody know?

 

http://blogs.canoe.ca/davidakin/politicsndp/handicapping-the-ndp-leaders...

Well I sure as heck don't have a clue what Topp's level of support is, so I guess I can't expect some reporter to be in any better position to guess.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I know less about the leadership race than anyone on this board, but my top three are Mulcair, Nash, and Topp, in that order. Ashton is next - I'd love to put in her in my top three, maybe after the next round of debates, because she really impresses me. I guess the only thing that concerns me is putting her up against Harper - I just think others would do better.

Bookish Agrarian

Stockholm wrote:

Here is David Akin's latest handicapping of the race! He seems to think that Topp is not in the top tier at all - but what does he or anybody know?

 

http://blogs.canoe.ca/davidakin/politicsndp/handicapping-the-ndp-leaders...

At least two of the candidates seem to be organizing outside the traditional media glare spaces.  This I think tends to under-estimate support for Romeo Saganash especially, but also Niki Ashton and over-estimate the support for folks like Paul Dewar and maybe Peggy Nash.  (I have no read on Topp.  I can only think of one person right off that I know who is supporting him).

I don't think the media, and maybe a campaign or two has quite got their mind around the fact that in a one member/one vote system a vote from north of Wiarton has the same ballot strength as someone from Vancouver.  This makes predicting strength almost unknowable, until- well- we know.

So I say to all of us, support the candidate or two whom you think is best for the job, but lets also celebrate the incrediable divirsity and talent we have to choose from.  They all bring different strengths, but they are all great and will be the nucleus of an incrediable cabinet.

Stockholm

I also think that at this stage, the vast majority of NDP members are still very undecided and are waiting to see and hear a lot more from the candidates.

Bookish Agrarian

That too.

Hunky_Monkey

Stockholm wrote:

I also think that at this stage, the vast majority of NDP members are still very undecided and are waiting to see and hear a lot more from the candidates.

Agreed. Many are still looking to the upcoming debates to further make up their mind.

That said... from what I'm hearing so far, Topp's campaign isn't taking off with regard to the rank and file. He has some organization in BC though. It will be interesting to see come March.

Personally, from contacts I have across the country, I'm hearing a lot of support for Mulcair, Ashton, and Nash. Dewar seems to have stalled. I can only speculate it's due to his French. Cullen seems to be coming off people's "hell no list".

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Bookish Agrarian has the rights of it.  Anyone claiming to know how the race is really shaping up is just blowing smoke.  No one has any reliable primary data, just secondary data (endorsements, anecdotes, pundit comments), all of which is open to wildly variant interpretation and weighting.  Even polls - like actual polls of actual members - will mostly speak to name recognition at this point.

But, since caucus endorsements are one data point we do know, I note that those standings are:

  • Undeclared 40
  • Mulcair 36
  • Topp 11
  • Nash 6
  • Ashton 4
  • Saganash 3
  • Cullen 1
  • Dewar 1
  • Singh 0

FWIW.

ottawaobserver

People in the campaigns do have data from their phone canvassing, however.

That "Undeclared" candidate is doing awfully well in caucus endorsements, too, wouldn't you say!

Bookish Agrarian

Well only speaking from my own little narrow experiences some of those campaigns data might not be all that reliable.  I have had really good calls, and some particularly painfull calls.  I`ve been awfully gosh darn nice to those callers, because they are just well meaning volunteers, but boyo.  Still haven`t heard from a number of campaigns either.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Yes, the campaigns have voter contact data.  So far that data is pretty limited, likely has a high "I don't know" factor and will be driven by name recognition as much as anything else at this stage.  And when it's quietly passed to David kin, it'll've been spun 46 ways from Sunday.

jerrym

Just wanted to congratulate everyone in #58 for avoiding all the nasty attacks on other posters and candidates that was present in #56 and #57. Keep it up and happy holidays!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I am waiting for one to actually grab me and excite me with a vision that really resonates with Canadians. I don't want a leader with the excitement of unopened book. We just can't afford another leader like that. We have been there, done that, and it was a disaster. I don't want a technocrat, someone who I have to worry will offend peopel (much like I do, that would be a disaster), someone not afraid to take on the MSM and the so-called "pundits", and someone who I know is dedicated to the ideas of Socia Democratic politics and beliefs. They don't have to be another "Jack" (blessed be his memory), but we simply have to find someone who can speak to people in a way convinces people he or she, cares.

KenS

I guess I am generally puzzled that anyone outside the campaigns that are polling has any kind of read on who is ahead, who has momentum, etc. And if you happen to know someone in a campaign in a position to know, chances are they are only telling you part of the truth [which may be all they know themselves].

I dont care how many people as individuals we know, and how broad a range they cover... its a pitifully unrepresentative slice they represent.

You'd probably be better off trusting the 'sample' of people who post on Babble. And this may be as representative a discussion as you will find anywhere- but representaive only of the range and general nature of opinions out there. It aint no metric. Even an approximation of one. 

I am only willing to guess that Mulcair is in the lead. And even that one thing I'm reasonably confident of, I dont really think it is an assessment based on any hard evidence. I may just think that because it is what I expected.

Brian Glennie

KenS wrote:

I guess I am generally puzzled that anyone outside the campaigns that are polling has any kind of read on who is ahead, who has momentum, etc. And if you happen to know someone in a campaign in a position to know, chances are they are only telling you part of the truth [which may be all they know themselves].

I dont care how many people as individuals we know, and how broad a range they cover... its a pitifully unrepresentative slice they represent.

You'd probably be better off trusting the 'sample' of people who post on Babble. And this may be as representative a discussion as you will find anywhere- but representaive only of the range and general nature of opinions out there. It aint no metric. Even an approximation of one. 

I am only willing to guess that Mulcair is in the lead. And even that one thing I'm reasonably confident of, I dont really think it is an assessment based on any hard evidence. I may just think that because it is what I expected.

BC is the battleground. The NDP membership there is going to come out in force and vote on this thing. The ROC, I'm not so sure.

Wilf Day

mtm wrote:
duncan cameron wrote:

Some welcome support.
http://peggynash.ca/2012/open-letter-to-women-across-canada/

Martha Findlay, as in recently defeated Willowdale Liberal Martha (Hall) Findlay, as most know her?

That would be huge news. Is it the same person, or not?

ottawaobserver

I highly doubt it. Highly highly doubt it.

TheArchitect

Note that Martha Hall Findlay has publically opposed a merger, arguing that it would actually benefit the Tories: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/martha-hall-findlay/ndp-liberal-merger_b_10...

kinch

Spoke to someone on the Nash team. Not the same Martha according to my source :P 

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Unlike the early days of an election campaign, where NDP inclined voters can be identified as (in my old fashioned parlance) check marks or question mark plusses simply because they know they'll be voting or are inclined to vote New Democrat, here we are dealing with New Democrats choosing among eight New Democrats.  Some loyalties will follow endorsements no doubt - but not that many.

Frankly, I think the majority of the "marks" campaigns may have will be more a reflection of name recognition than anything else.

mabrouss

I'm really having a tough time with this race. I'm seeing a lot of candidates that bring different things to the table but nobody that I feel would be amazing. I see someone like Peggy Nash and the way she thinks and her ideology I feel are very close to my own. I really don't know how she would hold up in a debate though with Harper and Rae. I also don't know if she would be able to reach out past the base. She really represents the heart of the party but not the brain. Mulcair on the other hand really seems to be much more of the centrist (as far as the NDP goes) but he would be a much better debater and could reach beyond what we have now. Does that mean however that I'm voting in the hope of power and not on what I believe? We've seen enough of that. Those are just the first two that I have been thinking of, the rest all do have great qualities about them:

 

Niki Ashton is young and exciting, she's new and passionate. I have some of the same hesitations with her however as I do with Nash. I also think that she might be prone to some errors simply out of lack of her experience and youth. I really do feel though that she is the future of the party.

 

Paul Dewer will probably be pretty high on my list. I do like a lot of the things that I've heard from him over the years. I've just had a really good impression of him. He did seem to freeze during the first debate though. I'll hopefully be able to see the rest of the debates and see how he handles himself. If he can't get comfortable in a room of party faithful then he'll be torn apart.

 

Romeo Saganash is someone that I've heard a lot of positive things about and his resume is quite impressive. He's fluent in both languages which is always a plus but there is something that I can't put my finger on. His performance in the debate was lackluster. I heard that he wasn't feeling great and that's why there are more debates. I don't know how far he could take the party though.

 

Brian Topp is someone I had high expectations for. Libby Davies came out in support and he is the one a lot of people have gotten behind. I just don't see it though (I know sometimes Mr. Topp is on here and if you are then please prove me wrong)

 

I really wish there was a candidate like Megan Leslie out there (and by "like" Megan Leslie I mean that I wish she was running). I've been on here for weeks reading thread after thread of people championing their own candidates but I'm still nowhere. I do think it's a shame about Chisholm though, he couldn't be leader with no French, there's no way. But if he had of been able to spreak the language I know he would have been a great Opposition Leader and PM. No doubt about that. I think he'll spend the next few years getting the language down and we'll see him next time around

vaudree

Monia Mazigh, wife of Maher Arar is supporting Dewar.

1. I think we should all expect that people from the various camps are posting on babble and trying to spin things for their candidate - especially after we went past thread 5.

2. I think that we should all assume that each leadership hopeful is reading the other candidate's webpages looking for weaknesses. With themed debates, I don't expect much specifics until after at least the next two debates has taken place. The more specific you are, the more ammo for your opponents.

3. Any speculation concerning the following exchange (considering that we have discussed some less substantial things so far)?

Romeo SaganashMy travels across Canada have been so inspiring. Now, time with family. After all, @MSaganash needs some macaroons "à la Roméo." #ndpldr

[email protected] i love you so much. Call me, i have something to tell you

 

mark_alfred

mabrouss wrote:
I'm really having a tough time with this race.  I see someone like Peggy Nash and the way she thinks and her ideology I feel are very close to my own. I really don't know how she would hold up in a debate though with Harper and Rae.  Mulcair on the other hand really seems to be much more of the centrist (as far as the NDP goes) but he would be a much better debater and could reach beyond what we have now.

Brian Topp is someone I had high expectations for. Libby Davies came out in support and he is the one a lot of people have gotten behind. I just don't see it though

I think Topp is fine.  I like the fact that he's challenging the current ethos surrounding taxation (IE, that politicians can only speak of taxes if they propose to cut them).  We have a structural deficit and need more revenue, as far as I'm concerned.  Nash likewise seems good. 

 

Initially Mulcair had my interest, given his reputed debating skills, but I think he's just too unpredictable.  For instance, in the past he's spoken very highly of P3s (he stated, "What we're saying is that you could always get efficiencies from the private sector because it is always more efficient than the public sector. So you could make partnerships between the public sector and the private sector for provision of [healthcare] services.")  Also, as Quebec's Minister for the Environment, he seriously lobbied the feds for the right to undertake bulk export of water (he did drop this when environmentalists protested).  On the other hand, he stood firm against developers in trying to protect parkland, so certainly he's got some good in him.  But he just seems too unpredictable to me.

mtm

I don't know much about this, but the fact that he's relented and has listened to environmentalists on that issue, if true, is surely a positive in his corner.  His subsequent work on environmental issues is unparalleled by anyone in this race.

I'd much rather someone who is able to come around on issues, rather than hold resolutely to them when they see contrary information.  I don't see it as a "wild card" at all. 

Also, since he has the longest record in public life, including in government (which no other candidate can boast), means that there is obviously going to be more of these things to "dig up".  Let's look at some positions of NDP provincial governments in BC, Manitoba, Sask, NS etc, that have been out of lock step with the Federal Party throughout history, for some perspective.  Not to minimize specifics, but there are provincial interests at play that will often be out of step with Federal interests, and opposition interests.

I feel that his experiences being saddled with the burden of power and the responsibility it brings, and the number of positives he was able to bring to the table in that role, even as a QC Liberal is a massive net positive for his candidacy.  Couple that with his record as  New Democrat since 2007, and well, there you have it.  

I strongly believe that with a skilled and united NDP caucus behind him, and a strong membership driving policy forward, Mulcair is the only one who can be counted on to bring forward our progressive values in a way that will resonate with, and attract the Canadian electorate.

writer writer's picture

Quote:
3. Any speculation concerning the following exchange (considering that we have discussed some less substantial things so far)?

RomeoSaganash My travels across Canada have been so inspiring. Now, time with family. After all, @MSaganash needs some macaroons "à la Roméo." #ndpldr

MSaganash @RomeoSaganash i love you so much. Call me, i have something to tell you

No speculation required.

RomeoSaganash: Father who has been traveling a lot, and who is now looking forward to spending time with MSaganash: Daughter, who loves her father, and his macaroons.

 

Hunky_Monkey

mark_alfred wrote:

mabrouss wrote:
I'm really having a tough time with this race.  I see someone like Peggy Nash and the way she thinks and her ideology I feel are very close to my own. I really don't know how she would hold up in a debate though with Harper and Rae.  Mulcair on the other hand really seems to be much more of the centrist (as far as the NDP goes) but he would be a much better debater and could reach beyond what we have now.

Brian Topp is someone I had high expectations for. Libby Davies came out in support and he is the one a lot of people have gotten behind. I just don't see it though

I think Topp is fine.  I like the fact that he's challenging the current ethos surrounding taxation (IE, that politicians can only speak of taxes if they propose to cut them).  We have a structural deficit and need more revenue, as far as I'm concerned.  Nash likewise seems good. 

 

Initially Mulcair had my interest, given his reputed debating skills, but I think he's just too unpredictable.  For instance, in the past he's spoken very highly of P3s (he stated, "What we're saying is that you could always get efficiencies from the private sector because it is always more efficient than the public sector. So you could make partnerships between the public sector and the private sector for provision of [healthcare] services.")  Also, as Quebec's Minister for the Environment, he seriously lobbied the feds for the right to undertake bulk export of water (he did drop this when environmentalists protested).  On the other hand, he stood firm against developers in trying to protect parkland, so certainly he's got some good in him.  But he just seems too unpredictable to me.

Hey, Topp campaign... thanks :) lol

KenS

Two things I have picked up from talking to people in Cullen's campaign.

One is that is a very strong belief among activists in his riding that there and in a neighbouring riding still held by Conservatives, and by extension at least everywhere in BC, that everyone who does not vote for the Conservatives sees them as dangerous idealogues. They are certain that those are virtually all anti-Harper votes.

That is why pooling them is such a 'no brainer'. Of course it will work.

Which goes to show that being close to 'the facts of the ground' does not insulate you from inside the bubble thinking. Counter-intuitively, it makes inside the bubble thinking and behaviour more likely.

[Mind you, you run just as much into the notion it is a no brainer on blogs where people dont know each other, and are not [explictly] rooting their analysis in their perceptions of local reality.]

 

The other thing I pick up is the strategic value of this perceived for the leadership race.

And that essentially sees it primarily as gesture. Doing politics differently to attract more young people and others less engaged with the process now. The question there being what the initial interest /attraction stirred up translates into. Like where does it go with the proposal itself, that Cullen campaign people freely admit will not be easy to make happen localy, and they do not see being promoted from the centre. Where does that initial interest /attraction 'go' in any way?

Think of the 2004 US HHoward Dean Campaign. That was accused of being gimmicky. But people were not just attracted to an idea, with nowhere to go with it. There were many ways that people could and did get involved.

KenS

Pundits Guide goes controversial:

Pros and Cons of the Cullen Plan: a Sceptic's Guide to Electoral Coalitions in Canada

I'm calling it controversial without having a word yet.

But the topic seems guaranteed to stir more response than her previous overall surveys of the race and candidates. Though possibly more on her site than here.

Bookish Agrarian

vaudree wrote:

3. Any speculation concerning the following exchange (considering that we have discussed some less substantial things so far)?

Romeo SaganashMy travels across Canada have been so inspiring. Now, time with family. After all, @MSaganash needs some macaroons "à la Roméo." #ndpldr

[email protected] i love you so much. Call me, i have something to tell you

 

Kind of a weird thing to want to speculate about - especially giving it the stamp of more substantial than other things discussed in these threads.  Imagine someone running for leader that also likes his family.  And apparently makes good macaroons.  Mine never turn out just right, so there must be a scandal in the making here.

Newfoundlander_...

As for the Martha Findlay endorsement I highly doubt it is from Martha Hall Findlay. Not only does she seem to be gearing up for a run at the Liberal leadership, but she seems like someone who would join the Conservatives before the NDP. She gave Jack Layton a little bashing only days after he died. 

NorthReport

Whoever is running this campaign seems to have some street-smarts.

 

I'm beginning to wonder now if Mulcair could win the race on the first count.

 

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/46077-mulcair-eyes-atlantic-support

mark_alfred

KenS wrote:

Two things I have picked up from talking to people in Cullen's campaign.

One is that is a very strong belief among activists in his riding that there and in a neighbouring riding still held by Conservatives, and by extension at least everywhere in BC, that everyone who does not vote for the Conservatives sees them as dangerous idealogues. They are certain that those are virtually all anti-Harper votes.

The other belief that underlies a lot of strategic voting type proposals is that voters are set in their ways, and thus the only way to defeat the Cons is to either encourage a change within the anti-Con vote (vote for the 2nd place party most likely to win) or to change the circumstance in their riding to ensure that only the 2nd place option is available.  Most people don't follow politics too closely, and so many will just go with the flow (people aren't that diehard in their loyalties, I think).  So, the assumption that Conservative support is rock solid, and thus defeating elected Conservatives requires others to vote differently, is wrong, I think.

KenS wrote:

Think of the 2004 US HHoward Dean Campaign. That was accused of being gimmicky. But people were not just attracted to an idea, with nowhere to go with it. There were many ways that people could and did get involved.

That's interesting.  A gimmick to get people (IE, volunteers) involved?  Maybe.  It has got him some attention, certainly.

KenS

mark_alfred wrote:

That's interesting.  A [Cullen campaign] gimmick to get people (IE, volunteers) involved?  Maybe.  It has got him some attention, certainly.

We all know it got attention.

The strategy theory suggested is that is not just a short term gimmick... that it is part of a sustained effort to engage people not usually engaged. Finding something to do that is a no brainer. The question is whether you can tap into that something. But just because it is not intended as only a short term gimmick, does not mean that it is or has the real potential to be more than a gimmick.

Dropping out a definite attention getter, and saying it is part of something bigger, does not make it that way.

If Cullen and his campaign show us even a bit of this 'larger game'- it will get noticed. Here an now, the good intention means nothing.

KenS

Street smarts isnt going to be what wins this- or it would be You Know Who [who goes unamed].

But yes, it was a very timely and well executed move.

If 'air war' impression management was everything... Mulcair probably would have this sewn up.

 

Anyway, Mulcair popping in did make me wonder if he had some advance warning from Chisholm, with his endoresement the next shoe. But I dont see the evidence that is more than a [obvious] possibility.

Probably some cobination of lucky timing of coming now anyway, or an open schedule and seizing the opportunity. The latter seems the most likely- how many events are on the schedule for 2 days before Christmas?

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:

Whoever is running this campaign seems to have some street-smarts.

 

I'm beginning to wonder now if Mulcair could win the race on the first count.

 

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/46077-mulcair-eyes-atlantic-support

Regardless of my own preferences, I do believe he'll win on the first or second ballot.  There's only two past NDP leadership races that I'm familiar with where all the members had a vote, and in each one, the determining factor was "is this person attractive enough to win us more votes" rather than policy or past experience or endorsements.  For instance, Layton had no experience with federal politics, and had less endorsements than Blaikie (though Layton did have Broadbent's endorsement).  But, as I believe, ultimately people thought that Layton seemed more attractive and dynamic, which made the fact of Blaikie having more experience and endorsements or Comartin being supported by labour irrelevant.  Likewise for the Ontario leadership campaign.  Tabuns had some very significant endorsements (including Broadbent) and had experience and an environmental reputation with Greenpeace*, but Horwath just seemed more dynamic and attractive (*mind you, the fact that likely almost half the Ontario NDP membership had at one point or another been fired from Greenpeace's Toronto canvassing team may also have diminished his chances).  Another example of one member one vote choosing a leader that seems more dynamic, rather than choosing one with more experience and endorsements, is Harper beating Preston Manning for leadership.

If the leadership race is decided by delegates, rather than by one member one vote, then you'll be more likely to get choices on the basis of factors other than perceived dynamism and attractiveness.  IE, McGuinty beating Kennedy, or Dion winning.  As parties move away from delegate selection of leaders and toward one member one vote, we'll see less and less of the Tommy Douglas/Bob Stanfield/Lester Pearson type leader being selected, I think.

NorthReport

Who are the people involved with Mulcair's campaign in BC?

Stockholm

mark_alfred wrote:

Another example of one member one vote choosing a leader that seems more dynamic, rather than choosing one with more experience and endorsements, is Harper beating Preston Manning for leadership.

Harper didn't beat Manning. Stockwell Day beat Manning and then Harper beat Stockwell Day.

mark_alfred

Stockholm wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Another example of one member one vote choosing a leader that seems more dynamic, rather than choosing one with more experience and endorsements, is Harper beating Preston Manning for leadership.

Harper didn't beat Manning. Stockwell Day beat Manning and then Harper beat Stockwell Day.

Thanks for the correction.  Well, I still think the example supports my premise of perceived dynamism and attractiveness ultimately being the deciding factor over experience/policies/endorsements in OMOV.  Interesting too that sometimes the more dynamic choice is one that works well for the party (IE, Layton), and sometimes not (IE, Day).  Conversely, sometimes the less dynamic choice works (IE, McGuinty rather than Kennedy) and sometimes not (Dion).

KenS

Harper won the Conservative leadership, and became Prime Minister, all with not a soul thinking he was the least bit dynamic, let alone the most dynamic.

He won first the leadership, AND then being PM, because he articulated a vision and how to get his party there. 

In both cases the retail politics end of it fit the bill- after the 'bill' was defined.... rather than retail politics with its 'dynamism gradient' being the driver.

KenS

Paul Wells wrote:

Layton's final letter would have touched fewer Canadians if it had been written by a leader who left the NDP with the same dozen or so seats he inherited.

Last words matter most when they come from people who thought hard, every day, about next moves. So the question for each of us in 2012 should be: What's your next move?

Hunky_Monkey

mark_alfred wrote:

If the leadership race is decided by delegates, rather than by one member one vote, then you'll be more likely to get choices on the basis of factors other than perceived dynamism and attractiveness.  IE, McGuinty beating Kennedy, or Dion winning.  As parties move away from delegate selection of leaders and toward one member one vote, we'll see less and less of the Tommy Douglas/Bob Stanfield/Lester Pearson type leader being selected, I think.

Political parties should be focused on winning. It's not a dirty word.

I'm not sure it's "dynamic" or "attractive". Think it has more to do with gravitas. Some dynamic and attractive candidates don't have it.

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Whoever is running this campaign seems to have some street-smarts.

I'm beginning to wonder now if Mulcair could win the race on the first count.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/46077-mulcair-eyes-atlantic-support

I don't know about winning on the first ballot, but this is really good to see!

Hunky_Monkey

NorthReport wrote:

Who are the people involved with Mulcair's campaign in BC?

I know Heather Harrison is working on the Mulcair campaign. She was a VP on the BC NDP executive. Think she may have been recently elected Treasurer.

Few others as well.

Hunky_Monkey

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Whoever is running this campaign seems to have some street-smarts.

I'm beginning to wonder now if Mulcair could win the race on the first count.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/46077-mulcair-eyes-atlantic-support

I don't know about winning on the first ballot, but this is really good to see!

One thing I really like about Mulcair is his focus on Atlantic Canada. It's not all about "the West" with him. He wants to put resources here to win seats... even in places we've ignored before like PEI... 4 seats with only 140,000 people.

There are 32 seats in Atlantic Canada... we hold 6 of them.

Wilf Day

A Christmas Eve Trivia Question.

On CBC we have the contest between the "At Issue" panel and the "Insiders" panel. One question was, before this year, what was the most seats the NDP ever held? Of course the answer was, correctly, 44.

I bet most of us would assume that was under Ed Broadbent in 1988? Wrong. We got 43 that year.

It was under Audrey McLaughlin that we set that record, when we won the Chambly byelection in 1990. Also under Audrey, we got 33.50% in the York North byelection, up from 13.19% in 1988.

What happened to Audrey? The Reform Party, the GST, the Charlottetown Accord, the implosion of the PC Party, Rae Days, and polarisation between Reform and the Liberals which, especially in Ontario, squeezed the NDP out.

A worthwhile history lesson. The leader is not the most important factor. Unless the federal leader would have been able to intervene in the Ontario NDP -- maybe David Lewis could have, but no one else -- no one could have prevented the NDP collapse in the 1993 election.

mark_alfred

KenS wrote:

Paul Wells wrote:

Layton's final letter would have touched fewer Canadians if it had been written by a leader who left the NDP with the same dozen or so seats he inherited.

Last words matter most when they come from people who thought hard, every day, about next moves. So the question for each of us in 2012 should be: What's your next move?

But it's not just the additional seats.  It was the fact that he so significantly had turned a number of Canadians onto the idea of social democracy, in that Canada could be a better more egalitarian place.  Him being gone right in the middle of this journey -- gone before his vision of a social democratic Canada could be achieved, was especially tragic.  This is what touched people.  Had he simply turned the NDP into a clone of either the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party, then people would have been less affected by his death.  He was someone who cared about people, and as a politician wanted government that cared for the people of Canada.  The amount of seats won is irrelevant if the vision is gone.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Another example of one member one vote choosing a leader that seems more dynamic, rather than choosing one with more experience and endorsements, is Harper beating Preston Manning for leadership.

You mean Stockwell Day defeating Preston Manning.

1) It was actually Stockwell Day, and

2) Stephen Harper is less dynamic than Preston Maning's bedroom slippers.

Brian Glennie

Wilf Day wrote:

A Christmas Eve Trivia Question.

On CBC we have the contest between the "At Issue" panel and the "Insiders" panel. One question was, before this year, what was the most seats the NDP ever held? Of course the answer was, correctly, 44.

I bet most of us would assume that was under Ed Broadbent in 1988? Wrong. We got 43 that year.

It was under Audrey McLaughlin that we set that record, when we won the Chambly byelection in 1990. Also under Audrey, we got 33.50% in the York North byelection, up from 13.19% in 1988.

What happened to Audrey? The Reform Party, the GST, the Charlottetown Accord, the implosion of the PC Party, Rae Days, and polarisation between Reform and the Liberals which, especially in Ontario, squeezed the NDP out.

A worthwhile history lesson. The leader is not the most important factor. Unless the federal leader would have been able to intervene in the Ontario NDP -- maybe David Lewis could have, but no one else -- no one could have prevented the NDP collapse in the 1993 election.

And here I was thnking Jack was the game-changer for the NDP in 2011. Smile

You certainly raise some valid points, Wilf, but I can't for the life of me see our membership electing someone who is lacking when it comes to charisma. Jack consistantly polled higher than the party all across the country and, while of course we'll probably never see someone like him again, I don't see us getting to the next level unless we have a Leader who is going to bring some sizzle. 

 

 

Pages

Topic locked