Regarding donations, let's also step back and take the longer view. Less than one year ago, Ashton, Dewar, Mulcair and Cullen were sitting MPs anticipating that an election might be called any day. Nash was a candidate ready to take back her seat from Kennedy, Saganash was a hopeful and promising (but, all things considered, long-shot) candidate, Topp was an advisor, and who knows what Singh was doing. The MPs and candidates were doing their jobs and had made varying levels of financial contributions, but mainly they were focused on Parliament and the upcoming election, and they certainly made substantial contributions in terms of getting the vote out and bringing a campaign to fruition. None of them could have imagined that they'd be getting scrutinized so deeply as contestants in a leadership race so soon.
Recall, too, that the per-vote subsidy still existed too (and the 2011 election votes will at least partially deliver some amount of subsidy), so getting people to the polls represented a major contribution in itself. And if you consider Mulcair to have been one of the necessary elements to deliver "la vague orange" in May, then his efforts in Quebec brought far more money to the NDP (not just per-vote subsidies, but also subsequent donations from new Quebec members) than the personal annual limit the media is going on about.
I think the media is just trying to throw dirt at every possible viable candidate as a preventative measure. Let's not get drawn in.
It was one article by Glen MacGregor who I can assure you does not have an interest in tarring the NDP. And I rather doubt he has a horse in this race. Like I said, he is the reporter most knowledgabale of Elections Financing Act, and like me knows how to go to the database and quickly pull out what you want. He doggedly pursued the Conservatives over Adscam... to the point of live Tweeting the proceeds of days of the first trial.
Numbers geek sees story idea. Very simple. [And no, Glen would not have written or suggested that headline.]
To my knowledge- and we would probably have seen here if otherwise- the only other story is the clarification obviously at the initiative of the Mulcair campaign.
Secondary to this, your argument in this thread regarding the donations story is so mind-twisting I can't even begin to comprehend it.
If you care, there is a three line version in post 37 that covers the material in the original story and Mulcair's clarification story. And there are only has 8 lines total in the post.
I understand that the majority here stick to positive things about candidates or say nothing, and want to see that from others.
Admittedly, I just plain dont buy into that. I take the pragmatists approach- there seems to be about zero chance of serious mudslinging [a la BC NDP 2000... but thats BC]. On the other hand, intellectual debate in the NDP is historically shallow, and the [must] be nice I believe fosters that.
But on top of that general proclivity- I am among a LOT of us here who do not have anything remotely like a clear favourite. And the ranking we have is loose and shifting.
I'm not the only one around here who does a lot of our in progress 'sorting' by comparisons of the substantial negatives we see in every candidate.
Mulcair is by no means the one for me that has the most negatives. But the ones that have more do not have a cheerleader section here hyping every positive and trenchantly arguing every single negative. There is not a single other candidate who has anything remotely like that here.
And FWIW, the longer I watch Peggy's campaign, the more I think I may end up ranking her lower than Mulcair... which is the answer to the persecution narrative that it's all about Tom Mulcair 'not being one of us'.
Ok folks, these threads are really exciting. But I think they can be even more so. Has anyone thought of a way to link up native fluency with donations? I think it's there, but I can't quite put my finger on it...
"9. I understand that all New Democrat Members of Parliament are required to contribute $1,00.00 annually to the Federal Office of the New Democratic Party." (emphasis mine)
Given that political donations have to be voluntary (under federal law), I doubt this line has much legal force. I have also never heard of an NDP MP being dumped from caucus over these things. Anyways, I just find it all a little curious, not saying who is right or wrong.
All candidates seek nomination in 2008, had to sign a document called: F. DECLARATION OF CANDIDATE RESPONSIBILITIES
It states:
"9. I understand that all New Democrat Members of Parliament are required to contribute $1,000.00 annually to the Federal Office of the New Democratic Party." (emphasis mine)
And if Tom Mulcair had asked someone (such as Jack) "in view of our situation in Quebec, is that satisfied by giving within Quebec?" they would have said "of course," wouldn't they?
All candidates seek nomination in 2008, had to sign a document called: F. DECLARATION OF CANDIDATE RESPONSIBILITIES
It states:
"9. I understand that all New Democrat Members of Parliament are required to contribute $1,000.00 annually to the Federal Office of the New Democratic Party." (emphasis mine)
For the 2011 election, the document was updated to reflect the new dontation limits:
"9. I understand that all New Democrat Members of Parliament are required to contribute $1,100.00 annually to the Federal Office of the New Democratic Party."
The 2008 document that I have is dated as "last modified" on November-01-06. 7:25:45 AM. So Mulcair should have signed this document when he seeked the nomination for the byelection at the very least. He may have even signed subsequent documents for subsequent elections
This is why I was surprised when I heard this story. I thought all MPs maxed out their donations. I know my old MP did, and many others who do as well.
(Remember you can donate $1100 to a riding association and $1100 to the federal party for a total of $2200. You can only get tax credits for the first $1100 though)
What if a candidate weren't wearing their glasses when they signed the "Declaration of Candidate Responsibilities" form - could that legally excuse them from their contribution obligations?
Yeah, I'm equally dismissive of the "Mulcair is the only way we can win" and "I'm not saying Mulcair is (right-wing position), but..." camps. Mulcair isn't that special. Most of these candidates are basically the same when it comes to policy, which is mostly a good thing.
There is obviously a systemic campaign to either minimize NDP coverage or attempt to discredit the NDP in the mainstream press.
Of course! I think about 80% of coverage on the NDP is pundents talking about how no one is interested in them any more.
socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
Before the "Orange Wave" I was checking for NDP coverage every single day. There were virtually no stories, except (perhaps ironically) a few stories about Jack Layton's health, and (sadly unironically) the media asking why Jack Layton was having such a hard time getting the media to stop focusing on his health.
Same strategy - picking something insignificant while ignoring the rest amd then focusing on why "everybody" is talking about the insignificant thing - noting that "everybody" is them. Hoping that any of you on facebook, twitter etc have annoyed people at least a little bit by telling them when the debates are on.
My quick initial impressions are those with good stage presence include Ashton, Saganash, and Mulcair, and this is essential in our media driven world as it is quite often not just what you say, but how you say it.
i literally skip over anything that kens writes, knowing that it will be ill-considered, unreasonably biased against thomas mulcair, and completely unimformative. alas, i sometimes reluctantly learn what he's written through the responses of others. i with there were some sort of filter.
ndp behind the lpc nationally, barely ahead in quebec - all in the midst of a leadership campaign that ought to be generating unprecendented excitement. if we're really honest with ourselves, do we think we'll elbow our way back into contention with any but a thundering assault from the left? and in case anyone is under any illusions, the reason for the liberal rise is rebounds in cities and quebec, steered near entirely by bob rae. hm, now i wonder which of the leadership candidates best lines up against him...
if someone was undecided going into this debate, i can't imagine how this one would help clear up that indecision.
i can't wait for the quebec debate, which should serve to re-order the media's focus coming into the final stretch, the ensuing clips and media discussion of that should bring dewar to an early ballot exit. nash's french is so weird that i'm very much looking forward to hearing her speak it for an extended period. and no matter how much i want mulcair to win, i do have to confess that i like all of these candidates a lot.
as a further aside, with the polls going south for the ndp, particularly in quebec, i wonder how the great mass of dippers will be re-assessing the candidates, i wish we had better polls.
I've been out using the snowblower for two hours moving a mountain of snow here, but caught the last 20 minutes.
Based on the final question, and on their final statements, I'm now unclear on who I'll vote for - none of them impressed me much. I'll watch the whole debate when CPAC runs it again at 9 pm tonight, maybe someone will make a good impression on me.
This was the best ebate so far IMO. Cullen did well in the debate as always but I can not support him because of his nonsense co-operation policy. Ashton is too young and I find Nash and Topp less than inspiring. Dewar's French is not very strong although much better than mine. Sagansh seems to be quite a hesitant speaker. I met Mulcair and I found him quite warm and engaging. I will probably support him somewhat through the process of elimination.
He's going to need a little seasoning before he'll be able to truly challenge Harper, for sure, but I think Nathan Cullen pulled away from the pack today in Halifax.
I think he is presenting his message well by focussing on his strengths and tying that to policy.
He is saying that a lot of money can be saved by creating a pharmacare plan and rejigging health care costs. He is saying that because of his experience as a pharmacist (which certainly involves talking to people about their health care), he is uniquely positioned to not only craft the implementation of the policy but to sell it.
He is also highlighting his experience as a small business owner. I think this is a fair thing for him to promote and I think the NDP ought to have a bold plan for small businesses. And I think his experience + the way he seems to approach issues would allow him to connect well with small business owners.
Is pharmacare and small business enough of a platform for potential leaders to run on? Probably not, but he can "me too" along with the rest of the candidates on things like proportional representation and bulk water exports.
The real issue IMO is his lack of parliamentary experience. But yeah, I thought he really came across well today.
Aw, Boom Boom, you who reliably appreciate my humour missed the pun in my question... Where will I go for fans now???
My bad! I'm really tired, was out moving snow for two hours, and I'm old and have arthritis. I hope I can stay awake for CPAC's replay of the debate at 9 pm.
Please don't apologise to Malcolm. He was always saying everyone's arguments were bullshit and implying everyone he didn't agree with were idiots. I don't miss his vainglory.
Sweet zombie jesus, there's actual debate going on!
You sound surprised! It is like boxing, you feel out your oponents and then you get a bit more fiesty. The first debate and the unofficials were basically feeling each other out - getting the measure of one's opponents.
NorthReport wrote:
CBC were just waiting for an opportunity to take the debate off the air and now they have found one. What absolute jerks!
Worth repeating while nodding in violent agreement. Never heard "give it a rest" during a leadership debate before.
They all seemed to do real well. Singh did impress me during the Question Period exercise - that he was able to hone in on the other's points enough to ask difficult questions that the others (ie Dewar) was not expecting - though the "family reunification" question makes it sound either like love at first sight or an arranged marriage. I get the feeling that he will drop out soon because he has impressed the home crowd that he has what it takes to go to Parliament and that he would make a good MP.
I don't think that Dewar expected the question and got tripped up on it. I think that Charlie Angus is a good fellow and an amazing MP, but "wait and see" did not get him out of the walk the walk aspect of gender issues. It was more about catching Dewar flat-footed than something that has legs (ie who wants to give Harper ammo) but, Dewar did not look as good at this portion as some of the others. Everyone seemed to improve from last time, but some stood out a bit more than others.
Saganash did much better but still seemed to be having problems with his throat - my mom asked if he had throat cancer. Mulcair lived up to expectations. Nash had more energy than usual and did real well.
Nathan Cullen seems to be a bit of a devil's advocate. It is hard not to like his bad hair day analogy for Harper's interst in preserving Health Care!
Want to rewatch it because I never get to watch a debate without being interrupted and it took a few minutes before I got it up on CPAC after the CBC - which are the big losers in this debate - engage in tabloid TV.
Want to rewatch it because I never get to watch a debate without being interrupted and it took a few minutes before I got it up on CPAC after the CBC - which are the big losers in this debate - engage in tabloid TV.
Luckily I was on CPAC from the start, but I still missed a bit and will re-watch. And don't forget to have your remote set to CPAC French so you can switch instantly if you don't want to listen to a translator.
It's odd that no one has noticed how Cullen's proposal is being exaggerated: only a very few NDP ridings would take him up on his option. It would send a message to the Liberals and Greens but then the rug would usually be pulled out by the local ridings. Cullen must be tempted to say so, but then he'd be downplaying his own plan. Difficult for him. Still, the fact that he is second only to Nash on Facebook likes suggests he is doing better than many think.
At least Cullen got a big clap from the Halifax audience for Bill 1 being MMP. A bit of a surprise since the Nova Scotia NDP has shown zero interest in PR provincially.
At least Cullen got a big clap from the Halifax audience for Bill 1 being MMP. A bit of a surprise since the Nova Scotia NDP has shown zero interest in PR provincially.
That definitely shot him up to the top tier for my ballot.
I did not see the debate, so I'll have to watch it later on CPAC when I go to the library (likely tomorrow). CBC Radio actually did report on it in their news, however. They introduced the coverage by stating "the gloves come off in the most recent NDP Leadership debate". They reported that Dewar asked Mulcair about his position on bulk water exports and Mulcair angrily stated that he has never supported such a thing (the news also had Dewar later commenting that he simply wanted Mulcair to clarify what his position on it was and was not issuing an attack). They also reported some friction between the candidates on Cullen's open nomination for ridings proposal, and featured Mulcair, Nash, and Singh making statements against the proposal in the coverage.
I was in attendance at the debate today and found a couple things. The first was Peggy Nash. I will probably go and watch the debate online on CPAC to see how it looked on tv, but live it looked like she kept trying to go big and get a reaction from the audience only to have silence. It felt awkward. Cullen was great. He certainly has moved up on my list. As someone who has not made up my mind this debate did little to help. Best line of the debate though was Dewar poking fun at Peter McKay in the opening remarks. Got probably the best reaction. There was one other line that got a great reaction but I can't remember what it was
But don't think for a minute it doesn't matter that the CBC purposely pulled the plug on the debate.
Being in the media gives you points in the polls. Isn't it interesting that all the polls came out this past week, were just before, and not after, the NDP debate that was supposed to be carried live on CBC.
The CBC is on a mission to crush the NDP and need to have their newsroom and all political commentary abolished. The CBC shortly into the debate switched to the results of that sick trial which is only going to give the racists in Canada ammunition to continue their disgusting comments.
Well I watched the debate and the three candidates you mentioned above did quite well. Dewar had the best intro, Topp had plenty of humourous comments as well. Perhaps I should write a longer review of things...
And don't think for a second that a lot of the negative attacks on the NDP Leadership canadidates are not put out there by the Rae Liberals spoon-feeding the lazy mainstream press.
- Looking for evidence that Stephen Harper supports public health care is like me saying I'm having a bad hair day. It could well be true, but we have no actual evidence.
- The next time Harper wants to take on seniors while in a foreign country, he should have to stay there.
Three candidates - Thomas Mulcair, Nathan Cullen and Paul Dewar - raised their game Sunday, although this is clearly not a ranking of their overall strength.
The sense that Mulcair was leading the pack was fortified by attacks sent his way.
Cullen deftly reminded the audience of Mulcair's past by saying that when he first met the former Quebec minister, he didn't meet "a Liberal,'' but a progressive Canadian.
Dewar went after Mulcair on his one-time openness to bulk water exports.
Mulcair parried both with something this race has been lacking - a little passion.
He explained again he was a provincial Liberal because it was the only federalist party in the province, but started with a "Give it up, Nathan.''
On the water question, he accused Dewar of using rehashed Liberal arguments that failed in the 2007 and 2008 campaigns he won in Outremont.
But he started it with an angry, "C'mon Paul.''
He accused Cullen of striving for the "bronze medal" in his plan to have Liberals and New Democrats join forces in select ridings.
It will be another eight weeks before this race sorts itself out, eight more weeks for Rae to build his party, eight more weeks for Harper to forge ahead on his "transformative" agenda.
That's a long time for a number of twists and turns in the NDP leadership race.
There is a strong anybody-but-Mulcair faction in this party.
But for all his warts and enemies inside and outside the party, he is the only one of the eight, right now, who looks like he could crank up the requisite fire from the seat of the leader of the official opposition.
Having watched the debate on CPAC here are some of my thoughts:
Cullen and Nash did better than in Toronto. Cullen avoided obviously copying Obama (there was nothing about "building a more perfect union") and held his own debating w/ Mulcair. Still his lack of French puts him way down on my list. Nash had more substance than in Toronto, but still was more platitudinous than either Topp or Mulcair.
Sganash is still a very poor public speaker and Ashton had the most empty rhetoric pf any of the candidates.
Dewar had more passion than in the Ottawa debate, but Mulcair swallowed him whole in the exchange over water. Wouldn't a more effective strategy, from Dewar's point of view, have been to catch Mulcair by surpise rather than telegraphing that he was going to raise the issue several days earlier? In any case, Dewar only succeeded in letting Mulcair demonstrate how effective he would be against Harper.
Topp was strongest when he was discussing his tax plan, but the more I watch him, the more "phony" he seems. Maybe it's because of the videos that he put up on his site, where he talks about his family and how his son didn't want him to run. With Mulcair ,(and many of the other candidates) "what you see is what you get". With Topp, it seems he is always trying to be someone he is not. It's very off-putting.
Mulcair was very effective throughout. At least on TV, he never came across as "angry" or "annoyed". (I don't know what Daniel Leblanc is talking about, but he seems to be on a mission to undermine Mulcair from the get go) The only negative aspect of Mulcair's performance was that I didn't get the reference to Newt. It must have been some kind of joke....
All in all, I agree w/ Tim Harper; this debate confirmed for me that Mulcair is the only one who I can see taking on Harper & Rae--and actually beating them.
For his part, Cullen took Dewar to task for unveiling a plan to bring more women into politics only to then name Angus his deputy leader.
“Is it not a bit contradictory to say on one hand this is important and then on other not act upon it,” Cullen said, adding Dewar’s choice seemed like a “strange message to Canadians, to Quebecers, to the West and to women.”
The party votes for its new leader March 24 in Toronto. So far the two most impressive debaters have been B.C.’s Nathan Cullen, with a relaxed manner and affable, articulate speaking style, and Quebec’s Thomas Mulcair, increasingly perceived as the contest front-runner.
that's a really good line on cullen's part. really, it's a shame that this leadership race is being so scandalously under-reported. during the liberal and cpc leadership races, we always end up with regionally and nationally significant personalities - belinda, potatohead, gerard kennedy, findlay, hedy (who probably saved her seat with her absurd bid). but the near-canadian media blackout of the ndp leadership race is ludicious. even in quebec, the pq troubles have massively outweighed the ndp leadership race, with the exception of lsd's nutso jump to the rae liberals. cullen and topp are running neck-to-neck for third place on my ballot, but i have to say that these one line remarks are great fodder for newsreels, and even if mulcair and the fading nash get the serious attention, i love that we have these guys out there delivering this sort of message.
Regarding donations, let's also step back and take the longer view. Less than one year ago, Ashton, Dewar, Mulcair and Cullen were sitting MPs anticipating that an election might be called any day. Nash was a candidate ready to take back her seat from Kennedy, Saganash was a hopeful and promising (but, all things considered, long-shot) candidate, Topp was an advisor, and who knows what Singh was doing. The MPs and candidates were doing their jobs and had made varying levels of financial contributions, but mainly they were focused on Parliament and the upcoming election, and they certainly made substantial contributions in terms of getting the vote out and bringing a campaign to fruition. None of them could have imagined that they'd be getting scrutinized so deeply as contestants in a leadership race so soon.
Recall, too, that the per-vote subsidy still existed too (and the 2011 election votes will at least partially deliver some amount of subsidy), so getting people to the polls represented a major contribution in itself. And if you consider Mulcair to have been one of the necessary elements to deliver "la vague orange" in May, then his efforts in Quebec brought far more money to the NDP (not just per-vote subsidies, but also subsequent donations from new Quebec members) than the personal annual limit the media is going on about.
I think the media is just trying to throw dirt at every possible viable candidate as a preventative measure. Let's not get drawn in.
Dont blame the media.
It was one article by Glen MacGregor who I can assure you does not have an interest in tarring the NDP. And I rather doubt he has a horse in this race. Like I said, he is the reporter most knowledgabale of Elections Financing Act, and like me knows how to go to the database and quickly pull out what you want. He doggedly pursued the Conservatives over Adscam... to the point of live Tweeting the proceeds of days of the first trial.
Numbers geek sees story idea. Very simple. [And no, Glen would not have written or suggested that headline.]
To my knowledge- and we would probably have seen here if otherwise- the only other story is the clarification obviously at the initiative of the Mulcair campaign.
The tempest in the teapot is within the NDP.
If you care, there is a three line version in post 37 that covers the material in the original story and Mulcair's clarification story. And there are only has 8 lines total in the post.
I understand that the majority here stick to positive things about candidates or say nothing, and want to see that from others.
Admittedly, I just plain dont buy into that. I take the pragmatists approach- there seems to be about zero chance of serious mudslinging [a la BC NDP 2000... but thats BC]. On the other hand, intellectual debate in the NDP is historically shallow, and the [must] be nice I believe fosters that.
But on top of that general proclivity- I am among a LOT of us here who do not have anything remotely like a clear favourite. And the ranking we have is loose and shifting.
I'm not the only one around here who does a lot of our in progress 'sorting' by comparisons of the substantial negatives we see in every candidate.
Mulcair is by no means the one for me that has the most negatives. But the ones that have more do not have a cheerleader section here hyping every positive and trenchantly arguing every single negative. There is not a single other candidate who has anything remotely like that here.
And FWIW, the longer I watch Peggy's campaign, the more I think I may end up ranking her lower than Mulcair... which is the answer to the persecution narrative that it's all about Tom Mulcair 'not being one of us'.
Ok folks, these threads are really exciting. But I think they can be even more so. Has anyone thought of a way to link up native fluency with donations? I think it's there, but I can't quite put my finger on it...
Given that political donations have to be voluntary (under federal law), I doubt this line has much legal force. I have also never heard of an NDP MP being dumped from caucus over these things. Anyways, I just find it all a little curious, not saying who is right or wrong.
A dollar a year doesn't seem too much to ask. What's the big deal?
ETA: Whoops, I see that's been raised to $1.10. Now we're talking money. I'm not running.
And if Tom Mulcair had asked someone (such as Jack) "in view of our situation in Quebec, is that satisfied by giving within Quebec?" they would have said "of course," wouldn't they?
All candidates seek nomination in 2008, had to sign a document called: F. DECLARATION OF CANDIDATE RESPONSIBILITIES
It states:
"9. I understand that all New Democrat Members of Parliament are required to contribute $1,000.00 annually to the Federal Office of the New Democratic Party." (emphasis mine)
For the 2011 election, the document was updated to reflect the new dontation limits:
"9. I understand that all New Democrat Members of Parliament are required to contribute $1,100.00 annually to the Federal Office of the New Democratic Party."
The 2008 document that I have is dated as "last modified" on November-01-06. 7:25:45 AM. So Mulcair should have signed this document when he seeked the nomination for the byelection at the very least. He may have even signed subsequent documents for subsequent elections
This is why I was surprised when I heard this story. I thought all MPs maxed out their donations. I know my old MP did, and many others who do as well.
(Remember you can donate $1100 to a riding association and $1100 to the federal party for a total of $2200. You can only get tax credits for the first $1100 though)
What if a candidate weren't wearing their glasses when they signed the "Declaration of Candidate Responsibilities" form - could that legally excuse them from their contribution obligations?
This is a complex subject. For more background information, please consult [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/babble-banter/ndp-leadership-real-thread]this thread[/url].
Yeah, I'm equally dismissive of the "Mulcair is the only way we can win" and "I'm not saying Mulcair is (right-wing position), but..." camps. Mulcair isn't that special. Most of these candidates are basically the same when it comes to policy, which is mostly a good thing.
Good Saganash article!
Of course! I think about 80% of coverage on the NDP is pundents talking about how no one is interested in them any more.
Same strategy - picking something insignificant while ignoring the rest amd then focusing on why "everybody" is talking about the insignificant thing - noting that "everybody" is them.
Hoping that any of you on facebook, twitter etc have annoyed people at least a little bit by telling them when the debates are on.
Really? I've been watching cpac on the internetz.
CBC were just waiting for an opportunity to take the debate off the air and now they have found one. What absolute jerks!
First debate I have watched
My quick initial impressions are those with good stage presence include Ashton, Saganash, and Mulcair, and this is essential in our media driven world as it is quite often not just what you say, but how you say it.
i literally skip over anything that kens writes, knowing that it will be ill-considered, unreasonably biased against thomas mulcair, and completely unimformative. alas, i sometimes reluctantly learn what he's written through the responses of others. i with there were some sort of filter.
anyway, just to give people a taste of what we could face with continued ineffective leadership: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120128/nanos-poll-liberals-tories...
ndp behind the lpc nationally, barely ahead in quebec - all in the midst of a leadership campaign that ought to be generating unprecendented excitement. if we're really honest with ourselves, do we think we'll elbow our way back into contention with any but a thundering assault from the left? and in case anyone is under any illusions, the reason for the liberal rise is rebounds in cities and quebec, steered near entirely by bob rae. hm, now i wonder which of the leadership candidates best lines up against him...
Sweet zombie jesus, there's actual debate going on!
if someone was undecided going into this debate, i can't imagine how this one would help clear up that indecision.
i can't wait for the quebec debate, which should serve to re-order the media's focus coming into the final stretch, the ensuing clips and media discussion of that should bring dewar to an early ballot exit. nash's french is so weird that i'm very much looking forward to hearing her speak it for an extended period. and no matter how much i want mulcair to win, i do have to confess that i like all of these candidates a lot.
as a further aside, with the polls going south for the ndp, particularly in quebec, i wonder how the great mass of dippers will be re-assessing the candidates, i wish we had better polls.
I've been out using the snowblower for two hours moving a mountain of snow here, but caught the last 20 minutes.
Based on the final question, and on their final statements, I'm now unclear on who I'll vote for - none of them impressed me much. I'll watch the whole debate when CPAC runs it again at 9 pm tonight, maybe someone will make a good impression on me.
This was the best ebate so far IMO. Cullen did well in the debate as always but I can not support him because of his nonsense co-operation policy. Ashton is too young and I find Nash and Topp less than inspiring. Dewar's French is not very strong although much better than mine. Sagansh seems to be quite a hesitant speaker. I met Mulcair and I found him quite warm and engaging. I will probably support him somewhat through the process of elimination.
The last 20 minutes almost had me sold on Martin Singh, actually.
Yeah I agree, Martin Singh came across really well.
I just don't think he is electable.
He's going to need a little seasoning before he'll be able to truly challenge Harper, for sure, but I think Nathan Cullen pulled away from the pack today in Halifax.
I missed that. What is he prescribing for Canada?
Pharmacare, for one. He mentioned his 15 years in the NDP. There was another thing I caught but can't remember. I only saw the last 20 minutes.
I think he is presenting his message well by focussing on his strengths and tying that to policy.
He is saying that a lot of money can be saved by creating a pharmacare plan and rejigging health care costs. He is saying that because of his experience as a pharmacist (which certainly involves talking to people about their health care), he is uniquely positioned to not only craft the implementation of the policy but to sell it.
He is also highlighting his experience as a small business owner. I think this is a fair thing for him to promote and I think the NDP ought to have a bold plan for small businesses. And I think his experience + the way he seems to approach issues would allow him to connect well with small business owners.
Is pharmacare and small business enough of a platform for potential leaders to run on? Probably not, but he can "me too" along with the rest of the candidates on things like proportional representation and bulk water exports.
The real issue IMO is his lack of parliamentary experience. But yeah, I thought he really came across well today.
Aw, Boom Boom, you who reliably appreciate my humour missed the pun in my question... Where will I go for fans now???
My bad! I'm really tired, was out moving snow for two hours, and I'm old and have arthritis. I hope I can stay awake for CPAC's replay of the debate at 9 pm.
I thought today's debate was really excellent.
And hardly anyone is here discussing it.
Moderators, are you listening?
Apologize to Malcolm before everyone leaves.
Please don't apologise to Malcolm. He was always saying everyone's arguments were bullshit and implying everyone he didn't agree with were idiots. I don't miss his vainglory.
ETA: I haven't watched the debate yet.
NDP leadership hopefuls target Mulcair in second debate
You sound surprised! It is like boxing, you feel out your oponents and then you get a bit more fiesty. The first debate and the unofficials were basically feeling each other out - getting the measure of one's opponents.
Worth repeating while nodding in violent agreement. Never heard "give it a rest" during a leadership debate before.
They all seemed to do real well. Singh did impress me during the Question Period exercise - that he was able to hone in on the other's points enough to ask difficult questions that the others (ie Dewar) was not expecting - though the "family reunification" question makes it sound either like love at first sight or an arranged marriage. I get the feeling that he will drop out soon because he has impressed the home crowd that he has what it takes to go to Parliament and that he would make a good MP.
I don't think that Dewar expected the question and got tripped up on it. I think that Charlie Angus is a good fellow and an amazing MP, but "wait and see" did not get him out of the walk the walk aspect of gender issues. It was more about catching Dewar flat-footed than something that has legs (ie who wants to give Harper ammo) but, Dewar did not look as good at this portion as some of the others.
Everyone seemed to improve from last time, but some stood out a bit more than others.
Saganash did much better but still seemed to be having problems with his throat - my mom asked if he had throat cancer. Mulcair lived up to expectations. Nash had more energy than usual and did real well.
Nathan Cullen seems to be a bit of a devil's advocate. It is hard not to like his bad hair day analogy for Harper's interst in preserving Health Care!
Want to rewatch it because I never get to watch a debate without being interrupted and it took a few minutes before I got it up on CPAC after the CBC - which are the big losers in this debate - engage in tabloid TV.
Luckily I was on CPAC from the start, but I still missed a bit and will re-watch. And don't forget to have your remote set to CPAC French so you can switch instantly if you don't want to listen to a translator.
It's odd that no one has noticed how Cullen's proposal is being exaggerated: only a very few NDP ridings would take him up on his option. It would send a message to the Liberals and Greens but then the rug would usually be pulled out by the local ridings. Cullen must be tempted to say so, but then he'd be downplaying his own plan. Difficult for him. Still, the fact that he is second only to Nash on Facebook likes suggests he is doing better than many think.
At least Cullen got a big clap from the Halifax audience for Bill 1 being MMP. A bit of a surprise since the Nova Scotia NDP has shown zero interest in PR provincially.
Wilf, why don't you put it on "floor" if you wish to avoid the translators!
Nathan Cullen is a likable and funny guy. Why wouldn't he get likes!
I did not see the debate, so I'll have to watch it later on CPAC when I go to the library (likely tomorrow). CBC Radio actually did report on it in their news, however. They introduced the coverage by stating "the gloves come off in the most recent NDP Leadership debate". They reported that Dewar asked Mulcair about his position on bulk water exports and Mulcair angrily stated that he has never supported such a thing (the news also had Dewar later commenting that he simply wanted Mulcair to clarify what his position on it was and was not issuing an attack). They also reported some friction between the candidates on Cullen's open nomination for ridings proposal, and featured Mulcair, Nash, and Singh making statements against the proposal in the coverage.
A blog about the debate
The whole Mulcair and the donating thing, blah blah blah.
I was in attendance at the debate today and found a couple things. The first was Peggy Nash. I will probably go and watch the debate online on CPAC to see how it looked on tv, but live it looked like she kept trying to go big and get a reaction from the audience only to have silence. It felt awkward. Cullen was great. He certainly has moved up on my list. As someone who has not made up my mind this debate did little to help. Best line of the debate though was Dewar poking fun at Peter McKay in the opening remarks. Got probably the best reaction. There was one other line that got a great reaction but I can't remember what it was
Actually Cullen did quite well today as well.
But don't think for a minute it doesn't matter that the CBC purposely pulled the plug on the debate.
Being in the media gives you points in the polls. Isn't it interesting that all the polls came out this past week, were just before, and not after, the NDP debate that was supposed to be carried live on CBC.
The CBC is on a mission to crush the NDP and need to have their newsroom and all political commentary abolished. The CBC shortly into the debate switched to the results of that sick trial which is only going to give the racists in Canada ammunition to continue their disgusting comments.
Fuck the CBC News Department!
Well I watched the debate and the three candidates you mentioned above did quite well. Dewar had the best intro, Topp had plenty of humourous comments as well. Perhaps I should write a longer review of things...
And don't think for a second that a lot of the negative attacks on the NDP Leadership canadidates are not put out there by the Rae Liberals spoon-feeding the lazy mainstream press.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1123300--ndp-leaders...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-leadership-hopefuls-tar...
I recall two Cullen zingers:
- Looking for evidence that Stephen Harper supports public health care is like me saying I'm having a bad hair day. It could well be true, but we have no actual evidence.
- The next time Harper wants to take on seniors while in a foreign country, he should have to stay there.
Tim Harper: An urgent need for an alternative voice
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1123285
Three candidates - Thomas Mulcair, Nathan Cullen and Paul Dewar - raised their game Sunday, although this is clearly not a ranking of their overall strength.
The sense that Mulcair was leading the pack was fortified by attacks sent his way.
Cullen deftly reminded the audience of Mulcair's past by saying that when he first met the former Quebec minister, he didn't meet "a Liberal,'' but a progressive Canadian.
Dewar went after Mulcair on his one-time openness to bulk water exports.
Mulcair parried both with something this race has been lacking - a little passion.
He explained again he was a provincial Liberal because it was the only federalist party in the province, but started with a "Give it up, Nathan.''
On the water question, he accused Dewar of using rehashed Liberal arguments that failed in the 2007 and 2008 campaigns he won in Outremont.
But he started it with an angry, "C'mon Paul.''
He accused Cullen of striving for the "bronze medal" in his plan to have Liberals and New Democrats join forces in select ridings.
It will be another eight weeks before this race sorts itself out, eight more weeks for Rae to build his party, eight more weeks for Harper to forge ahead on his "transformative" agenda.
That's a long time for a number of twists and turns in the NDP leadership race.
There is a strong anybody-but-Mulcair faction in this party.
But for all his warts and enemies inside and outside the party, he is the only one of the eight, right now, who looks like he could crank up the requisite fire from the seat of the leader of the official opposition.
Tks for that article nicky.
I don't entirely agree with the following but nevertheless here is one person's point of view:.
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2012/01/leadership-2012-cand...
Having watched the debate on CPAC here are some of my thoughts:
Cullen and Nash did better than in Toronto. Cullen avoided obviously copying Obama (there was nothing about "building a more perfect union") and held his own debating w/ Mulcair. Still his lack of French puts him way down on my list. Nash had more substance than in Toronto, but still was more platitudinous than either Topp or Mulcair.
Sganash is still a very poor public speaker and Ashton had the most empty rhetoric pf any of the candidates.
Dewar had more passion than in the Ottawa debate, but Mulcair swallowed him whole in the exchange over water. Wouldn't a more effective strategy, from Dewar's point of view, have been to catch Mulcair by surpise rather than telegraphing that he was going to raise the issue several days earlier? In any case, Dewar only succeeded in letting Mulcair demonstrate how effective he would be against Harper.
Topp was strongest when he was discussing his tax plan, but the more I watch him, the more "phony" he seems. Maybe it's because of the videos that he put up on his site, where he talks about his family and how his son didn't want him to run. With Mulcair ,(and many of the other candidates) "what you see is what you get". With Topp, it seems he is always trying to be someone he is not. It's very off-putting.
Mulcair was very effective throughout. At least on TV, he never came across as "angry" or "annoyed". (I don't know what Daniel Leblanc is talking about, but he seems to be on a mission to undermine Mulcair from the get go) The only negative aspect of Mulcair's performance was that I didn't get the reference to Newt. It must have been some kind of joke....
All in all, I agree w/ Tim Harper; this debate confirmed for me that Mulcair is the only one who I can see taking on Harper & Rae--and actually beating them.
Cullen was effective here:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Mulcair+Cullen+Dewar+main+targets+at...
For his part, Cullen took Dewar to task for unveiling a plan to bring more women into politics only to then name Angus his deputy leader.
“Is it not a bit contradictory to say on one hand this is important and then on other not act upon it,” Cullen said, adding Dewar’s choice seemed like a “strange message to Canadians, to Quebecers, to the West and to women.”
Debating skills are important but not necessarily everything.
http://www.canada.com/business/Yaffe+rally+voters+fight+against+pension+...
The party votes for its new leader March 24 in Toronto. So far the two most impressive debaters have been B.C.’s Nathan Cullen, with a relaxed manner and affable, articulate speaking style, and Quebec’s Thomas Mulcair, increasingly perceived as the contest front-runner.
that's a really good line on cullen's part. really, it's a shame that this leadership race is being so scandalously under-reported. during the liberal and cpc leadership races, we always end up with regionally and nationally significant personalities - belinda, potatohead, gerard kennedy, findlay, hedy (who probably saved her seat with her absurd bid). but the near-canadian media blackout of the ndp leadership race is ludicious. even in quebec, the pq troubles have massively outweighed the ndp leadership race, with the exception of lsd's nutso jump to the rae liberals. cullen and topp are running neck-to-neck for third place on my ballot, but i have to say that these one line remarks are great fodder for newsreels, and even if mulcair and the fading nash get the serious attention, i love that we have these guys out there delivering this sort of message.
Pages