NDP Leadership 12

Saw him at the convention and he was not the best communicator in English. But good in French from what I have seen.

Jonas wrote:

Stockholm wrote: This is a really good profile of Paul Dewar. If only his French was better - I would back him in a flash!! http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/education%2BPaul%2BDewar/5415319/story... So, bearing in mind that there are 4 years before the next election (in which to improve his French) and also understanding that NONE of the potential candidates have ALL the attributes we would like in a new leader - where do we compromise?

Dewar needs to do more than learn French to win my support. How about back off the military interventionism and pro-Nato stance!

He is good in English. And one cool customer!

Go Romeo!

Here is Roméo's speech at convention. Mulcair begins at the beginning of the clip saying he supported removing the "new" from NDP, extension of the Libya mission, and is against a merger with the Liberals. He doesn't say, but seem to lean towards support of "moderning" the language of the constitution

JeffWells wrote:

IMO, it seems like the Saganash candidacy has delighted and excited a lot of New Democrats, and has largely been ignored by the media. That's okay by me, since it's only New Democrats who select the leader, and the media has a long history of getting it wrong about the party.

The media generally gets it wrong about any party. Paul Martin and Andre Boisclair were both "star" candidates for leadership, according to the media pundits. How well did they actually end up doing?

Boom Boom wrote:

JeffWells wrote:

 And if we have a Dion in the race - that is, a potential compromise second-tier candidate who could easily be defined by our enemies as not ready for prime time and depress the enthusiasm of the rank and file - I think it's Dewar.

So, what makes a candidate "second tier"?

 

ETA: how about we avoid using "second tier candidates" in our terminology and treat all candidates as equals?

I meant by second tier only that the candidate is not perceived as a front runner. I'd call Romeo second tier in that sense, too, though IMO with respect to quality he's first rate.

JeffWells wrote:

I meant by second tier only that the candidate is not perceived as a front runner. I'd call Romeo second tier in that sense, too, though IMO with respect to quality he's first rate.

Stll problematic. Who and what defines a 'front runner'? I think it's MSM manipulation, which we should avoid.

In the Canadian parlimentary culture, loyalty is everything. Unlike in Europe where the UK labour party fights itself to the death. There are pros and cons to this.

I don't consider Saganash to be second tier. The problem is that he isn't receiving mass nomination backing at the moment. People like Peter Julian have more nominations at the moment, and he hasn't even declared his candidacy. All of this can of course change as the campaigns truely begin. He definately needs to up his profile and get his name out. He also has to (in the long run) show that he is more than able to connect with urban voters. He will definately dominate in issues regarding resources, aboriginals, and sustainable development; but he also has to be able to articulate his views on other issues such as crime, trade, social issues, etc. Only time will tell, the race is still in a very early stage.

Boom Boom wrote:

JeffWells wrote:

I meant by second tier only that the candidate is not perceived as a front runner. I'd call Romeo second tier in that sense, too, though IMO with respect to quality he's first rate.

Stll problematic. Who and what defines a 'front runner'? I think it's MSM manipulation, which we should avoid.

I think I'll agree with you, especially for this early stage. It's premature.

One "reporter" who said Topp is the frontrunner and has it wrapped up said it was based on, among other things, him spending money and that a black SUV picked him up after his announcement.

Seriously... Topp is the frontrunner and has it wrapped up because a black SUV picked him up after his announcement.

That's the quality reporting we have in the media today, folks. Please try not to pee yourself laughing over it :)

Stockholm wrote:

If you don't like "military interventionism" and a "pro-NATO" stance then why are you singling out Paul Dewar. The NDP caucus has unanimously taken positions about intervening in Libya - so Libby Davies is every bit as pro-military as Paul Dewar is. It happens that Paul Dewar was assigned the role of Foreign Affairs critic - so he is the one who has to deliver the policy position that was forged by the caucus as a whole. If Libby Davies were the Foreign affairs critic - se would be reciting exactly the same lines.

Good people can disagree about the substance of some of the NDP foreign policy positions - but I don't see why people are targetting Paul Dewar personally when he is essentially the messenger.

Dewar is not merely the messenger, he played a key role in crafting that policy. Individual Parliamentarians do not have the time or human capability to be experts on every single file that Parliament deals with, so that's why critics are assigned to each portfolio. It's the critic's job to be informed about a particular issue on behalf of the party, and the members of said party will often defer to that individuals judgement for that reason. True, the Caucus isn't entirely free from blame, I think it was shameful of Libby Davies to go along with that position, and it is disappointing that more caucus members did not speak up at the time. Your portrayal of Dewar as being one of equals, however, is not the case.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

 But there hadn't even been any candidates declared when Broadbent endorsed Topp, so to say at that point that Topp has what it takes for sure, with six months ahead for the leadership race even before anyone else declares, seems quite presumptuous.

Well put. I think Broadbent was over the topp.

While Broadbent may have been "over the Topp," he did what he had to do to get Topp in the race, and that was to issue him with a very high powered endorsement coming right out of the gate. It is hard to think of anyone more respected than Broadbent, but this is also why the endorsement chafes so much (i.e. because other people haven't had a chance yet to make up their minds or see some of the candidates that they would like to run).

Strange, I watched Saganash give exactly that speech at the convention, and somehow it looks better on video than I thought it did in person. Maybe I was just exhausted from volunteering?

It could also be that the convention was so high-energy, and then Saganash got up and gave a speech in his slow, carefully considered English. Which is not to fault him at all, but how will he fare in a debate context that requires quick and snappy remarks?

Are there any videos of local debates he participated in during the election?

JeffWells wrote:

I dunno. At least according to the media, Topp was already in the race and even leading it since the day after Jack's death. Broadbent's early endorsement and presumptious declaration that Topp was the "only" one seems intended to effectively end the race. That's what chafes me.

It's sound political strategy to make yourself look inevitable if you can.

Doug wrote:

It's sound political strategy to make yourself look inevitable if you can.

Maybe from someone with a more reasonable claim on inevitability. Coming from some one who, until a month ago, showed no personal interest in public office, it seems presumptuous and got my back up.

JeffWells wrote:

...if we have a Dion in the race - that is, a potential compromise second-tier candidate who could easily be defined by our enemies as not ready for prime time and depress the enthusiasm of the rank and file - I think it's Dewar. 

John Baglow (aka Dr. Dawg) didn't think so, and he posts a very good clip of Dewar taking apart John Baird very effectively at the end of the last election, without being at all nasty about it (even Baird was laughing by the end).

http://drdawgsblawg.ca/2011/09/ndp-leader-paul-dewar-has-the-chops.shtml

Lefties in Ottawa love him,  and know the family reputation - not only of Marion who was formidable, but also Ken and Paul's siblings. The babbler who posted a photo of Paul next to Justin Trudeau and sneered about his growing up in "privilege" doesn't know anything about what the Dewar family did for this city - whether it was affordable housing, promoting cycling long before any other jurisdiction in Canada, the arts, supporting new immigrants, advocating peace, and just making everyone feel a part of decision-making. You could not imagine a family that had cared less for the material trappings of middle class life, and more about making sure everyone felt welcome.

And if you ever went canvassing with Marion through chinatown or little vietnam in Ottawa, you would see people pouring out of their houses to greet her and express their affection for her, after the time when she challenged the Clark government to take in more vietnamese boat people than the 4,000 Clark agreed to. Ottawa families wound up accepting over 4,000 just in this city, and it was all instigated out of city hall under her mayorship.

If Paul pours himself into getting his government french up to snuff over the next month, he would be as good as the PM in the other official language - and that really is his only shortcoming as leader.

ottawaobserver wrote:

JeffWells wrote:

...if we have a Dion in the race - that is, a potential compromise second-tier candidate who could easily be defined by our enemies as not ready for prime time and depress the enthusiasm of the rank and file - I think it's Dewar. 

John Baglow (aka Dr. Dawg) didn't think so, and he posts a very good clip of Dewar taking apart John Baird very effectively at the end of the last election, without being at all nasty about it (even Baird was laughing by the end).

http://drdawgsblawg.ca/2011/09/ndp-leader-paul-dewar-has-the-chops.shtml

Lefties in Ottawa love him,  and know the family reputation - not only of Marion who was formidable, but also Ken and Paul's siblings. The babbler who posted a photo of Paul next to Justin Trudeau and sneered about his growing up in "privilege" doesn't know anything about what the Dewar family did for this city - whether it was affordable housing, promoting cycling long before any other jurisdiction in Canada, the arts, supporting new immigrants, advocating peace, and just making everyone feel a part of decision-making. You could not imagine a family that had cared less for the material trappings of middle class life, and more about making sure everyone felt welcome.

And if you ever went canvassing with Marion through chinatown or little vietnam in Ottawa, you would see people pouring out of their houses to greet her and express their affection for her, after the time when she challenged the Clark government to take in more vietnamese boat people than the 4,000 Clark agreed to. Ottawa families wound up accepting over 4,000 just in this city, and it was all instigated out of city hall under her mayorship.

If Paul pours himself into getting his government french up to snuff over the next month, he would be as good as the PM in the other official language - and that really is his only shortcoming as leader.

I remember this clip of Paul Dewar but when you go to the blog that is not the clip that comes up. I seem to remember that Dewar threw away Baird's talking points, literally!

I didn't know this until now: Since February 5, 2009, Dewar has served as the Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Prevention of Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Had James Carville decided to run, he'd have been a perfectly credible candidate. Do you actually have a point?

Are you serious, Malcolm? Honestly? lol Because he ran a successful presidential campaign, James Carville would have been a perfectly credible candidate for President of the United States?

I don't know why you have trouble grasping this subtlety. Being a credible candidate does not mean he would necessarily be the best candidate. His lack of electoral track record would be a negative - as it is with Topp. He would have brought other positives - including, presumably, the capacity to bring in support Iincluding financial support) from the FOB - much as Topp appears to be doing from the various party establishments in Ontario, Saskatchewan and BC.

You hate Topp and everything you assume he stands for. I get that. Your hatred does not make him a non-viable candidate.

Wilf Day wrote:

I love the three launch styles: Topp with the big launch (essential to raise his profile, not being an MP); Mulcair with the slow launch in gentle stages (so as not to mount a Quebec juggernaut before lining up endorsements from across Canada); and Saganash with the local launch (he wanted to let his "own people" be the first to know, before even telling any caucus members let alone asking any of them for support.)  None of the three styles are better or worse than the others. What I find very appealing is the diversity.

Yeah, I'm liking it, too!

Malcolm wrote:

knownothing - wrt you ill-informed diatribes about the Saskatchewan NDP government circa 1991-97, I gather you believe the NDP should have defaulted on the debt. I'm thankful that your user name is sufficient to extablish your intelligence and your credibility.

http://archive.greenpartysask.ca/GPS_Principles_Platform/Backgrounder_Ar...

It is really astonishing that Janice MacKinnon has no discussion of taxation and tax decisions taken by her government. All MacKinnon does is flatly dismiss the critics of the left. The right wing Fraser Institute ranked the Romanow government the second best government in North America. Why would they do that?

Convincing the Wall Street bankers MacKinnon became finance minister in 1993, set forth a four year plan to eliminate the budget deficit, and made further cuts to programs. The cuts were necessary, the NDP insisted, because of the inability to sell bonds in the New York City capital markets. An attempt to raise $500 million in March "failed to sell easily and quickly. It was a warning," MacKinnon argues.

MacKinnon insists that the NDP government "could not borrow money in Canada" in 1993. But in 1992 they began to tap the $8 billion in savings held by Saskatchewan residents. However, they only sought $150 million in the new Saskatchewan Savings Bonds. In 1994 they raised $800 million.

There were other options. They might have gone to the trade unions and negotiated some loans from their pension plans.There was no minimum tax placed on the 30 percent of profitable Saskatchewan corporations who pay no income taxes. In 1992 the NDP government promised to create a new Saskatchewan Economic Development Bank to mobilize local capital for investment, but they never carried through on this.

The Romanow government never addressed the cause of the debt and deficit: the radical drop in revenues from the resource sector. Under the NDP government from 1991 to 2001, the share of resource extraction sales that went to the treasury varied from 11 percent to 17 percent. This was a much smaller share than under the Blakeney or Devine governments.

Throughout the memoirs, MacKinnon insists that the federal government can no longer afford to finance our traditional social programs. She argues that the federal debt and deficit grew because of the expansion of our universal social programs. This is not true. As Statistics Canada demonstrated in a famous report in June 1991 (Mimoto and Cross), the accumulated budget deficit was not caused by increases in program spending but to the introduction of a number of personal and corporate tax breaks which greatly reduced
revenues.

How have the people of Saskatchewan reacted to the new version of the CCF-NDP? In the election in 1991 the party received 275,780 votes. This fell to 192,320 in 1995 and then 156,243 in 1999. When the NDP was routed in the 1982 election they received 201,190 votes. The percentage of eligible voters going to the polls fell from the usual 80 percent in 1991 to 64 percent in 1995 and 56 percent in 1999. There has been no apparent rush to the Saskatchewan Party or the Liberal Party. All three share the same basic neoliberal
policies.

Margaret Thatcher once said that her greatest success as prime minister was transforming the Labour Party into another conservative party. She insisted that there was no alternative to the neoliberal agenda of the free market and free trade. Janice MacKinnon and the new NDP leadership agree.

Sounds like you are trying to dismiss claims that there were no other options just like she was. This is why the NDP has declined in SK> Because they were no longer a socialist party. This clearly shows that other options were available for financing. Maybe you can lay off the personal insults now Malcolm

Malcolm wrote:

I don't know why you have trouble grasping this subtlety. Being a credible candidate does not mean he would necessarily be the best candidate. His lack of electoral track record would be a negative - as it is with Topp. He would have brought other positives - including, presumably, the capacity to bring in support Iincluding financial support) from the FOB - much as Topp appears to be doing from the various party establishments in Ontario, Saskatchewan and BC.

You hate Topp and everything you assume he stands for. I get that. Your hatred does not make him a non-viable candidate.

I spent some years in the backrooms... in the youth wing, president of provincial and federal constituency associations... helped draft an election platform... and the list goes on.

I guess I'm qualifed to run for leader too?

Does he have a right to run? Yes. Is he qualified? I don't think so. And I think it quite arrogant of someone to assume they can go right to the top job without ever having held public office before.

Do I hate him? No. I think he's a great strategist for the party. And I've enjoyed him on Power Play when he's been on from time to time as a panelist. But as leader and Prime Minister in waiting?

dacckon wrote:

That was then, the golden age of neoliberalism. Before that it was a time where our ideas reigned, the post-war consensus.

 

Third way had its day, it taught us the importance of utilizing global markets, but it lead progressives down a path of destruction in the long run due to the dogmatic approach taken. It would be silly for someone to run on a third way platform when the idea itself has been rejected. I don't expect any candidate to run on such as thing, except maybe Pat Martin.

Exactly, and when I brought up Brian Topp working for the Romanow govt it was because he could be a third way candidate.