Continued from here.
Issues Pages:
NDP Leadership 15
Fri, 2011-09-23 17:49
#1
NDP Leadership 15
Fri, 2011-09-23 18:42
#2
Malcolm
WZ has the rights of it. We should seek as broad a field of candidates as possible with the understanding that they will (or will not) prove themselves in the course of the campaign.
Some people (with a highly disputable and manipulative discourse about "tokenism") are trying to preempt certain candidates based on subjective (and occasionally fictional) criteria.
Is Ashton's youth a potential disadvantage to her candidacy? Sure.
Is Topp's lack of electoral experience? Of course.
Is Mulcair's alleged abrasiveness? Julian's relatively low profile (outwith the ranks of political junkies)? Chisholm's facility in French? Sure.
But the test for their viability as candidates can only be in the context of a campaign where we get to see their chops. And while whoever is eventualy elected will still have some vulnerabilities, their capacity to address those vulnerabilities (and shore them up) will also have been tested.
At the end of the day, the judgement over whether Niki Ashton or Brian Topp or Peter Julian is or is not charismatic is entirely subjective. Likewise whether or not Mulcair is abrasive. A campaign will show us which candidates are stronger or weaker - and the results will inevitably surprise us.
But the attempt to narrow the field by writing off candidates based on such subjective judgments (particularly when cloaked in manipulative code words like "tokenism") is inherently and irredeemably antidemocratic and antiprogressive.
Fri, 2011-09-23 18:44
#3
Reposting from the end of the last thread:
I'm thinking of this as a leadership campaign, not as a leadership race. I have heard so much on babble in the last year of how much leadership and experience there is in the NDP. And here we're having a leadership campaign, where we can display all kinds of awesome leadership that we have in the ranks. And what's happening? Several people have declined to showcase their leadership who might have had something to offer.
We need to show Canadians that we are ready to form a bold progressive government. Some people I have talked to who voted NDP indeed did so because they were inspired by Jack. One friend told me he was the only politician she ever found inspiring. Her husband asked who else could lead like that. I told them that a year ago he was Smilin Jack the smarmy used car salesman. They agreed that they never felt much sense of connection with him in previous elections. So they are open to being inspired again.
So the NDP collectively needs to step up and IMPRESS Canadians. I'd love to see Niki Ashton run. I'd love to see Nathan Cullen run. Would I give either of them equal odds against Topp and Mulcair? Of course not. But they have loads to offer a leadership campaign and can highlight issues in ways that other candidates can not. We need to show Canadians everything the NDP will be able to do in government.
And if one of these X-Factor candidates manages to inspire the party with a bold and broad vision, and is able to connect and win then that would be great all around. And if she's 30, then even better, the NDP will have a winner for a while.
Jack Layton and Brian Topp (ETA: and Tom Mulcair) and the current NDP team have done a spectacular job getting us to where we're currently at. RIP Jack. I imagine the rest of the team is ready to finish the job.
We now have a chance to elect a new leader. They will have the next 4 years to shape the party via their vision and persona. There will be lots of time and lots of opportunity to offer an alternative plan. And they will inherit a government in waiting, with a skillful team and mass pan-Canadian appeal.
Please let's try to stay positive, and please to any other candidates pondering entry--if you think you have something to offer that other candidates don't, what are you waiting for? We need to show Canadians our strong leaders.
Fri, 2011-09-23 19:18
#4
But the attempt to narrow the field by writing off candidates based on such subjective judgments (particularly when cloaked in manipulative code words like "tokenism") is inherently and irredeemably antidemocratic and antiprogressive.
One last attempt to explain myself, after which you can misrepresent me all you like.
I don't want a narrow field. It's too narrow already. If Ashton wants to run, great. Support her. I won't be, because frankly I think she'd be a disastrous choice. Just my opinion; I could be wrong. Hey, I supported Audrey.
If Nash rules herself out - hopefully she won't - I expect pressure to mount for Ashton to run just so the race has a female candidate. It's this kind of dynamic that raises the concern of tokenism for me. The party should be well past this.
On another related matter: something is wrong if the race is deterring quality candidates. And it is.
Fri, 2011-09-23 19:30
#5
I have to agree that my impression is the race is detering quality candidates.
Partly I think Broadbent should bear some responsibility for jumping in as categorically as he did. But it is more than that and we need to figure it out quickly and reverse it.
Fri, 2011-09-23 20:35
#6
I find this discourse about Niki Ashton's potential candidacy quite baffling.
Understandably there have been quite a few comments about which potential candidates are, or are not, credible. Some seem to believe these comments are an attempt to discourage these people from running in the first place. With the exception of Niki's candidacy, I--for one--see no evidence of that.
For starters, I find it quite difficult to believe that anyone posting on this board thinks their comment will help convince a specific person--the candidate in question--to give up on running. Moreover, this is the sort of conversation that always goes on at the beginning of leadership campaigns. It's simply part of the process of deciding/discussing which candidates--declared or otherwise--have the qualifications to be seriously considered for the job. Like sifting through resumes, some posters believe that certain candidates lack the checklist qualifications to be considered as seriously as others. This is how leadership races always work. There's no reason to wait until the campaign is over to make up your mind to support (or not support) a certain candidate. This is simply the beginning of that process as people whittle down the list of people they may actually support.
The conversation surrounding Niki's candidacy is obviously somewhat different.
First of all, I think it's only fair to point out what those expressing concern about Niki entering the race are actually saying. Quite clearly they are not claiming that being a woman, young or from the Prairies makes her a token candidate, but rather that they do not consider her a credible candidate and fear it will be negative for the party if she presents herself simply a symbolic gesture to ensure we have at least one candidate who fits those bills.
Now, I think Niki Ashton is a good MP with the potential to be a great MP. In fact, I think it's that potential--the fact that she has certain skills and abilities at such a young age--that has led many New Democrats to follow her career thus far.
That being said, it's not at all difficult to see why many people would think her candidacy lacks credibility. Electing a Leader of the Official Opposition who is 29 years old would be remarkable--astounding, in fact. I would expect such a person to have to have Obama-like presence and campaign skills to even have a chance. I think even Niki would admit she doesn't have that. Furthermore, while Niki has remarkable experience for someone her age, she does not have the career and leadership experience one expects of the Leader of the Official Opposition. I think Niki may well be leader of the NDP someday, but not this time around.
I also I think it's fair to consider how it might be detrimental to the party to have a female candidate who is perceived as a "token candidate" (not that I'm saying this applies to Niki, read on).
First, some have asked why white male candidates are never referred to as "token candidates". The answer to that question is simply: there's never a fear that white males won't be represented in leadership races or our political system as a whole. Various white male candidates are often written off as being "not credible", but it is the combination of perceived lack of credibility along with the belief that someone is in the race to satisfy those who want to see a certain group represented that constitutes being a token candidate. By definition, that term would never be applied to a candidate based on them being a member of an overrepresented group.
More importantly, I think encouraging candidates to run for leader simply because it showcases the diversity of the party can be problematic. I know many NDP women who are deeply offended by the Liberal Party running female candidates in ridings they can't possibly win just to up their female candidacy stats. While I want as diverse a race as practicably possible, if we start to encourage candidates who won't likely do very well to run simply to make a show of diversity, we risk becoming as hollow in this regard as the Liberals.
Now, all that being said, somewhat paradoxically--even given my belief that Niki has not yet built up all of the credentials necessary to become leader--I don't think she'd be a token candidate. One of the reasons many people run for leader is to increase their profile and set themselves up for a future run. If Niki's runs, I imagine that's what she'd be doing--and that's a perfectly reasonable way to get in the race.
All in all, these matters are complex, nuanced and very much matters of opinion. I would hope in these discussions we could keep that in mind.
Fri, 2011-09-23 20:37
#7
I'm going to argue the opposite to Sean. The race isn't deterring quality candidates; the timing is. Many people who believe they could put together strong teams, find that those teams are busy trying to win provincial elections somewhere. I think that by the middle of October, we will see more candidates in the race for that reason.
Fri, 2011-09-23 20:44
#8
I lost a lot of respect for Brian Topp today. He stood silently beside Godin and Guigerre today while they trashed Mulcair and didn't say a word.
"Civility paramount in NDP leadership race, Topp camp chided for mild criticism" http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/topp-adds-two-mps-to-roster-of-endorsements-for-ndp-leadership-130424918.htm
"Topp camp takes shot at Mulcair" http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=5448191
"Topp Promises Clean Race As Supporters Attack Mulcair" http://canadianblogs.net/topp-promises-clean-race-as-supporters-attack-m...
If he wants to show some leadership he should repudiate this sentiment forthwith.
The narrative is being propagated that Mulcair has no appeal outside Quebec. G and G said it today, Morin yesterday and Boivin a week ago. As Charles has said where is the evidence of this? I am an English Torontonian and Mulcair sure appeals to me as well as most of my potically inclined friends. I can't judge his French but he is clearly more eloquent and persuasive in English than any other prospective candidate.
I have noted before in these posts what I percieve to be a campaign by party insiders to traduce Mulcair. I have been chided, by Ottawa Observor in particular, not to read too much into this. I have tried to suspend judgement on this largely because of my high regard for her views.
But the coincidences keep mounting. As Lenny Bruce said "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you're not being followed."
Fri, 2011-09-23 20:52
#9
The narrative is being propagated that Mulcair has no appeal outside Quebec. G and G said it today, Morin yesterday and Boivin a week ago. As Charles has said where is the evidence of this? I am an English Torontonian and Mulcair sure appeals to me as well as most of my potically inclined friends. I can't judge his French but he is clearly more eloquent and persuasive in English than any other prospective candidate.
I believe Mulcair has a lot of support among party members across Canada already without having done a thing so far to elicit it. (Well, besides being an extraordinarily effective MP with considerable presence.)
It's been said, and I'll repeat: in 2003 Jack was caricatured as the "Toronto" candidate. Blaikie and Nystrom were expected to duke it out for the party's prairie heartland. But Jack worked the membership he had, not the membership he wanted, and handily won on the first ballot. And despite my supporting Saganash, for the good of the party I hope Mulcair starts popping up in Saskatoon church basements real soon.
Fri, 2011-09-23 21:02
#10
The issue I had with Yvon is writing off any type of membership drive in Quebec by the federal party. It was as if it was crazy to suggest it.
I have not heard Mulcair or anyone else say they won't sign up members. It's being twisted to say that Mulcair expects the federal party to do his campaign work. Without a provincial section, the federal party needs to take responsibilty to sign members up. We have 59 MPs in Quebec and need a membership to support them. We need that membership infrastructure for 2015.
If Jack hadn't died, would the federal party have sat on it's hands and done nothing to build a membership in Quebec?
This should be one of the party's top priorities.
Fri, 2011-09-23 21:13
#11
I lost a lot of respect for Brian Topp today. He stood silently beside Godin and Guigerre today while they trashed Mulcair and didn't say a word.
Not so:
Topp appeared slightly uncomfortable."I don't have anything negative to say about any of the other likely candidates," Topp said. "It is a fact, that the key challenge before us is to keep building the province of Quebec and then to build in the rest of the country."
He later added that he believed Mulcair had a profile in English Canada.
"He is well known across Canada, he will be a very good candidate across Canada," Topp said.
"Topp Promises Clean Race As Supporters Attack Mulcair" http://canadianblogs.net/topp-promises-clean-race-as-supporters-attack-m...
Fri, 2011-09-23 21:49
#12
If Jack hadn't died, would the federal party have sat on it's hands and done nothing to build a membership in Quebec?
When the "Layton NDP" was just starting out its efforts in Quebec, it made more sense to focus on recruiting candidates, volunteers and supporters without the money/commitment barrier of signing up members, but with 59 MPs in Quebec, obviously we have to do it now. We have provincial parties with on going membership operations in all other provinces, but almost nothing in Quebec. That just cannot continue.
So, the only question becomes whether we take advantage of the unique interest provided by a leadership race to kick start that process, or let the opportunity pass? I can't see how anyone would oppose such an effort, except out of their own leadership interest.
In fact, since it was a Topp supporter who came out in opposition to a membership drive in Quebec similar to what we have in other provinces, it begs the question, does Topp actually oppose having a membership drive Quebec?
Fri, 2011-09-23 21:50
#13
I have to agree that my impression is the race is detering quality candidates.
Partly I think Broadbent should bear some responsibility for jumping in as categorically as he did. But it is more than that and we need to figure it out quickly and reverse it.
I agree Sean. I'm surprised that anyone doubts the evidence that there's an attempt by some people in the party backrooms to annoint Brian Topp as our next leader. Frankly, as someone in the previous thread mentioned, it's somewhat natural that people in high level positions would want to put in one of their own in as leader, but that's just not on. I want to be clear that I'm not blaming Topp for this personally. I also know for a fact that this isn't true of all of "Jack's team"--many of whom I'm sure support other candidates and are just keeping it to themselves--but the evidence that this is going on amongst some party officials seems pretty incontrovertable.
There were three national news articles written less than 24 hours after Jack Layton's death that had NDP insiders touting Topp as the "front-runner" for the leadership. I'm telling you right now, three separate Ottawa Press Gallery reporters do not print that a backroom strategist most members have never heard of is the frontrunner for leader unless they're getting it from what they consider "official" party sources--especially when, according to one MP, everyone was "under instructions" not to discuss the leadership until after Layton's funeral. It's also definitely not people on the Executive that we're talking about. The only kind of people with this sort access and credibility with journalists are high-level, paid party staff.
Again, I'm not blaming Topp for this personally. The impulse on the part of whoever is involved is understandable. But we're not Liberals. We're the New Democratic Party. We can't be conducting ourselves this way.
It will destroy our unique reputation as a party if we are preceived as annointing a new leader in the backrooms.
Fri, 2011-09-23 22:01
#14
Not so:
He [Topp] later added that he believed Mulcair had a profile in English Canada. "He is well known across Canada, he will be a very good candidate across Canada," Topp said.
This is interesting. Topp has been repeating the line that we've won in Quebec, now we need someone who can win in the rest of Canada, but when asked about one of his supporters saying the same thing (in perhaps a sharper tone), Topp disavows it. Curious.
Either way, the idea that Mulcair would not be a strong candidate for Prime Minister outside Quebec is a little silly. Mulcair's an Irish Catholic Anglophone who excels at communicating in English in speeches, interviews and debates as well as pretty much any prime minister we've ever had (IMO) and he seems to have the same positions on Quebec-related issues as Topp (as well as, I imagine, the other candidates). If this is the best argument Topp supporters have against Mulcair, then they're gonna have to spend more time focusing on Topp's positives. That's a good thing all around.
Fri, 2011-09-23 22:20
#15
John Ivison:
The knock on Mr. Dewar is that his French is not good enough to qualify him to be head of caucus that is 70% francophone. The two were conversing in French and afterwards, I asked how he did. “Not great, not bad. But with a bit of practise he could be as good as Harper,” he said.
Ouch. But is he tongue-in-cheek?
If I were an NDP member weighing my options . . . As a concerned Canadian who may have to live with the consequences of the NDP’s choice, I’d suggest there are two particularly worthy candidates, besides Mr. Topp. (Nathan Cullen and Paul Dewar.) Mr. Cullen, a bright, young MP from northern B.C. is relatively unknown . . .
But he's no NDP member. He's an able pundit, but doesn't normally suppress his opinions or bite his tongue. I doubt his view of who's worthy will persuade too many NDP members.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/23/john-ivision-can-anyone-s...
Fri, 2011-09-23 22:38
#16
From the Ivison article:
Other potential candidates, notably Thomas Mulcair, cannot be happy about what looks suspiciously like a party establishment carve-up. Mr. Mulcair called for the party to go on a sustained membership drive in Quebec, to even out the imbalance of the province having just 1,700 of the NDP’s 87,000 members. It looks increasingly hard to see how Mr. Mulcair can secure enough votes to win the leadership, far less a general election. That’s certainly the conclusion Mr. Giguere came to: “Mr. Mulcair doesn’t have the capacity to win in the rest of Canada,” he told reporters.
WTF would Giguere know about having the capacity to win in the rest of Canada? What would make him any kind of authority there?
Did he really say that?
Fri, 2011-09-23 23:24
#17
Malcolm
There are two (and only two) candidates here whose candidacies have been attacked as somehow illegitimate on the basis of some subjective criterion or another. Those two candidates (one declared and one putative) are Brian Topp and Niki Ashton. I have posted in defense of both because I believe the subjective "justifications" for the attacks have been unfair and off base.
Bear in mind that these were not suggestions that the candidates were somehow weaker than other declared or potential candidates. (As in "I think Peggy Nash would be a stronger candidate than Niki Ashton" or "I think that Topp never having held public office will be a problem.") Instead, the very candidacies have been effectively declared illegitimate because some self-appointed would be gatekeepers have decided it was so.
Sorry gang, that's bullshit. In fact, it's the same kind of bullshit the Libservatives and their corporate media water carriers launched against the assorted "accidental MPs" elected in Quebec.
Sitting here in Regina, canot help but notice that, had the arbitrary standards being bandied about here been applied in our last provincial leadership race, we'd have only had one candidate. Meili and Pedersen would have been excluded both for their youth and for never having held public office. Higgins would have been disqualified for her lack of charisma (sorry Deb).
It's not as though any half-cut yahoo can wander in off the street and make themselves a candidate on a whim. There are qualifying requirements with quite steep thresholds.
* Candidates must obtain the signatures of 500 members. including at least 50 in each of Quebec, Ontario, Atlantic Canada, the Prairies and BC/North, and at least 250 of the members signing must be female.
* Including the $15,000 non-refundable registratio fee, each candidate will have to raise at least $200,000 in increments of no more than $1100 per donor.
Sorry gang again, but any candidate who can meet these thresholds is completely credible whether you like them or not. Any attempt to impose arbitrary standards of legitimacy beyond this is, if not sexism, racism, agism or regionalism, at the very least elitism.
Fri, 2011-09-23 23:33
#18
"Topp Promises Clean Race As Supporters Attack Mulcair" http://canadianblogs.net/topp-promises-clean-race-as-supporters-attack-mulcair....
I have noted before in these posts what I percieve to be a campaign by party insiders to traduce Mulcair. I have been chided, by Ottawa Observor in particular, not to read too much into this. I have tried to suspend judgement on this largely because of my high regard for her views.
But the coincidences keep mounting.
I havent read these attacks. But presume they are attacks.
Where is your evidence that this is being done by 'party insiders'?
If Topp's supporters called Mulcair unworthy or whatever, that is unfortunate. But where is the evidence, these coincidences, that there is more than what we see: an attack by people in one camp? That there are party insiders involved?
Fri, 2011-09-23 23:37
#19
WTF would Giguere know about having the capacity to win in the rest of Canada? What would make him any kind of authority there?
Did he really say that?
Good question.
CBC:
Giguère expressed doubt that Mulcair can broaden his appeal outside of Quebec. "I don't see the support," he told reporters.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2011/09/23/pol-ndp-leadership...
Joan Bryden, Canadian Press:
Giguere said he believes the Quebec-born Topp would be able to win power by consolidating the party's gains in Quebec from the last election and breaking new ground in the rest of the country. He doubted the ability of Mulcair, a Montreal MP and former Quebec cabinet minister, to do the same.He said the party needs to win an additional 100 ridings in the next election. "These 100 ridings will not come from Quebec," he said.
"Thomas presently has not the capacity to win in the rest of Canada ... I don't see what is the support of Thomas outside of Quebec. I really don't see it."
Topp, who had been looking on uncomfortably as Giguere spoke with reporters, intervened eventually to stress his own view that Mulcair "will be a very good candidate across Canada."
http://www.680news.com/news/national/article/280678--civility-paramount-...
La Presse
Alain Giguère doute quant à lui que M. Mulcair soit en mesure de gagner beaucoup d'appuis dans le reste du Canada. «On doit gagner 100 comtés aux prochaines élections. Ces 100 comtés-là ne proviendront pas du Québec», a-t-il dit.«Brian est beaucoup mieux placé pour le faire».
Mais Brian Topp n'a pas voulu s'avancer de la sorte. «Je n'ai rien de négatif à dire sur aucun des autres candidats», a-t-il dit.
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/...
Fri, 2011-09-23 23:58
#20
I agree Sean. I'm surprised that anyone doubts the evidence that there's an attempt by some people in the party backrooms to annoint Brian Topp as our next leader. Frankly, as someone in the previous thread mentioned, it's somewhat natural that people in high level positions would want to put in one of their own in as leader, but that's just not on. I want to be clear that I'm not blaming Topp for this personally. I also know for a fact that this isn't true of all of "Jack's team"--many of whom I'm sure support other candidates and are just keeping it to themselves--but the evidence that this is going on amongst some party officials seems pretty incontrovertable.
There were three national news articles written less than 24 hours after Jack Layton's death that had NDP insiders touting Topp as the "front-runner" for the leadership. I'm telling you right now, three separate Ottawa Press Gallery reporters do not print that a backroom strategist most members have never heard of is the frontrunner for leader unless they're getting it from what they consider "official" party sources--especially when, according to one MP, everyone was "under instructions" not to discuss the leadership until after Layton's funeral. It's also definitely not people on the Executive that we're talking about. The only kind of people with this sort access and credibility with journalists are high-level, paid party staff.
Again, I'm not blaming Topp for this personally. The impulse on the part of whoever is involved is understandable. But we're not Liberals. We're the New Democratic Party. We can't be conducting ourselves this way.
It will destroy our unique reputation as a party if we are preceived as annointing a new leader in the backrooms.
Fri, 2011-09-23 23:59
#21
Sean did not say, or imply, what you attributed to him: that there is an effort afoot from the backrooms to annoit Topp.
As to the "three national news articles-" they didnt quote the unamed party insider. They wouldnt be able to of course. But it warrants at least reserving judgement. And it being three different reporters- so what, they always drink each others bathwater. And what else do they have to go on, since they are clueless about the internal dynamics of the political parties... most clueless of all when it comes to the NDP. And that they wouldnt print it unless they're getting from what they consider "official party sources"... are you joking. They'll print it as long as they think no one will catch them... and why would they be caught since of course they dont have to name their sources, and there are plenty of gullible people to lap it up. As to who the reporters did talk to- the most likely place is precisely an individual on the Executive... who dont have the same controls on them as MPs or staff. [But more likely is just someone the reporter annoits as knowledgable. If I have an axe to grind, I can find a reporter to whisper to who will consider me in the know. It's in his or her interests you know. And thats good enough to "suggest" things around here.
Sat, 2011-09-24 00:02
#22
dacckon
I do believe (from an article that I read, and I'm shocked that some are not even trying to show both sides of the story) that Topp distanced himself from Alain's comments. I also read that Mulcair was personally attacking Topp( I can't verifiy this now, I need to sleep after running around for work). Both camps need to watch their words correctly. I reject mudslinging and can't support a candidate(s) who perosnally mudsling.
Sat, 2011-09-24 00:03
#23
I trust Joan Bryden's read on it, as she's been around a long time and is a good judge of character. What bothers me, Nicky, is that I didn't get to see the full tape for myself. I hate when they don't beam it live, because I don't trust the judgement of most of the gallery, and always prefer to get my own take on things from primary sources.
Now, Godin has a bit of cheek when he argues against a party membership drive in favour of the candidates needing to do that work, because membership sign-ups and door-to-door canvassing is not exactly a hallmark, shall we say, of campaigning by our party in the Acadian peninsula (and not for lack of trying by outside organizers).
Giguere has run for the party in every campaign since 1993, and so would know Brian. But he obviously hasn't learned yet not to follow the conspiracy-minded narratives of the national press gallery. I suspect, knowing Brian, he has already made a mental note to supply inexperienced endorsers with talking points for next time.
Anyways, if I were advising Mulcair, I would tell him to get off of the process stories now, and spend the Parliamentary break week getting out into the provinces with elections, and doing some campaigning, with a few stopovers to the campuses, stop by a few union halls and enviro centres, and line up a few open line talk shows while he's in town.
Sat, 2011-09-24 00:14
#24
Its hardly mudslinging.
And it may just be a product of early and still minimaly organized campaigns. Topp wont make the mistake again of not vetting the kinds of things a newly announced supporter will say. I havent heard what Mulcair was supposed to have said- and like the thing with what was supposed to be 'an attck by Topp supporters', its more likely that Mulcair hardly said anything. But if he did go over the line, I'll bet you see him not follow that up with more.
Sat, 2011-09-24 00:17
#25
I think Mulcair was doing a contrast type of thing, saying on CJAD that he had been elected 3x in Quebec and 3x in Ottawa, but that Brian Topp had never been elected to anything. Of course Don MacPherson tweeted it in the most sneering way he could. He is toxic.
Sat, 2011-09-24 00:24
#26
And nobody here, in this powerful news-gathering venue, can verify by some contact with any of the "Quebec 58" (59 minus Thomas Mulcair) more of the thinking in that marvelous circle ? The speculation just has to become more acrimonious and ridiculously gossip-based ?
C'mon, Rabble. Justify our exclusive, independent news-gathering existence! I can't wait to hear it from the source. Or are we really just dependent on the MSM like everyone else out there? And if that's the case, shouldn't there be more "reading between the lines" of that media, our enemy? Before knickers become all knotted?
Sat, 2011-09-24 00:44
#27
There are two (and only two) candidates here whose candidacies have been attacked as somehow illegitimate on the basis of some subjective criterion or another... Instead, the very candidacies have been effectively declared illegitimate because some self-appointed would be gatekeepers have decided it was so... Sorry gang again, but any candidate who can meet these thresholds is completely credible whether you like them or not. Any attempt to impose arbitrary standards of legitimacy beyond this is, if not sexism, racism, agism or regionalism, at the very least elitism.
Malcolm, I honestly think you're misinterpreting many of the comments being made here. I don't see anyone claiming that any of the suggested candidates would be "illegitimate". As you alluded to, no one here is a "gatekeeper" with any power to scuttle anyone's candidacy, so--by definition--all people are doing is offering their opinion.
Just as a note, I've seen many comments arguing that candidates other than Topp and Ashton are not "credible". Libby, Chisholm and others based on lack of French; Rathika based on experience; Pat Martin based on support for "cooperation" with the Liberals. In these cases, as with the ones you've discussed, people are offering their opinion that certain candidates aren't credible as contenders for Leader of the Official Opposition in the federal parliament--not that their candidacies are illegitimate.
I think the way most people on this board seem to be using the word "credible" is simply to say "based on this candidate's lack of certain qualities or qualifications, I wouldn't seriously consider supporting them compared to the other potential choices in the race--and I don't think many others will either."
You've noted that the qualities and qualifications people are suggesting as deal breakers for them would have eliminated all but one candidate from the most recent Saskatchewan leadership race. You've also noted that criticism hasn't been of the form "this may be a problem" or "this is why one candidate would be better then another". But I think that's implicit. I think it's implicit that people are saying "given the talent we have available, I won't support Candidate X because of Problem Y." I think it's implicit that people are considering the qualities and qualifications to be Leader of the Official Opposition at the federal level, facing a level of scrutiny on day one that no provincial opposition leader ever has to face.
Do you really believe it's "bullshit" to say "given the available talent we have, I don't think people should seriously consider this candidate because he or she lacks these qualities or these qualifications that I think are very important for our next leader to have"? Do you believe that has to be a product of "sexism, racism, ageism or regionalism, at the very least elitism"?
I'm not talking about legitimacy--that really is about the entrance requirements--I'm talking about dismissing the idea that you'd support a given candidate--and stating your opinion that it's unlikely others will--based on what we know about the candidates so far, rather than waiting until later in the race. That's all that's happening here. That's just how leadership races work.
Of course, those qualities and qualifications mentioned in any given argument may not matter to any given person reading them. In any given case, those people will continue considering the candidates in question and make up their mind about them later. But in other cases, pointing out that someone lacks French, has little over all career experience or has no experience as a candidate or elected official will cause a reader to say "Oh, I didn't think of that. I agree. I'm going to spend my time looking at other candidates." That's part of the process. I think that'sall people are saying when they say that certain candidates lack credibility.
Sat, 2011-09-24 01:15
#28
Speaking of primary sources, Aaron Wherry linked to this full interview of Tom Mulcair by Aaron Rand of CJAD. I haven't listened to it, yet, but it seems to have been the basis of the earlier news and tweets on Friday.
http://www.cjad.com/blog/AaronRandShow/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10292444
ETA: I just listened to it, and there's no way he was sneering like the Don MacPherson tweet suggests. Mulcair also claims to have some prominent supporters in BC, and is making a lot of calls. Good for him.
Sat, 2011-09-24 01:46
#29
KenS, I didn't mean to attribute everything I wrote to Sean. I was only trying to draw a connection from his comments about Broadbent's endorsement and race so far discouraging new candidates to the attempt by some annoint Topp as leader. Apologies if anyone was confused; thank you Ken for prompting me to clarify.
I don't want to get into a big conseravtion about whether the stories in question were planted by high-level party insiders--because I just don't think it's productive to play the blame game--but this was the day after Jack Layton's death and three stories emerged simultaneously to the reported surprise of MPs all calling Topp the front-runner. Press Gallery reporters don't print that sort of thing on the word of someone on the Executive, because it would make them look personally foolish if it turned out the guy had no real support. Again, I don't want to get into public criminations (our party is better than that), but from everything I've heard from informed people, this is the worst kept secret in Ottawa.
Sat, 2011-09-24 01:50
#30
I am pretty sure that Mulcair has good support outside of Quebec. I'd like to see him officially throw his hat in the ring so that he can confront any of these rumours directly.
I hope that Ashton does decide to run. She is young which makes it hard to envision her as a "PM in waiting"...however, I think she will bring a refreshing vibrancy and positivity to the campaign. Before anyone rules her out based on her age, why don't we see how she handles the leadership race? Obviously she would face very skilled politicians who would test her and allow us to see how she would perform under pretty stressful circumstances.
Nathan Cullen should run. He's an articulate and charismatic politician. He'd be a dark horse candidate with a significant growth potential and could act as a unifying candidate (internal party unifying...not NDP/Lib unifying). His french is good although has it has room to improve.
Sat, 2011-09-24 02:21
#31
Malcolm
AnonyMouse - I think if you go back through the threads you'll see that "not credible" hasn't meant "not good enough to get my vote" or "not as strong as my preferred candidate," but rather "has no business running." I really don't think I'm misinterpreting it at all. And I do think an assortment of isms are involved - particularly wrt Ashton. As far as I'm concerned, introducing the "tokenism" meme was just a pretty way of dressing up the assorted isms.
Sat, 2011-09-24 02:40
#32
AnonyMouse - I think if you go back through the threads you'll see that "not credible" hasn't meant "not good enough to get my vote" or "not as strong as my preferred candidate," but rather "has no business running." I really don't think I'm misinterpreting it at all. And I do think an assortment of isms are involved - particularly wrt Ashton. As far as I'm concerned, introducing the "tokenism" meme was just a pretty way of dressing up the assorted isms.
Fair enough. I've read the previous threads pretty thoroughly, and I think we just disagree on what people mean by "not credible" and other associated language--like "Com'on people!?" which I also read somewhere 
. Of course, as I wrote, I'm fine with candidates who I don't consider credible--in the "I wouldn't seriously consider supporting them" sense--running, but sometimes it can be a problem.
As I also wrote earlier, I don't see "introducing the 'tokenism' meme" as a sign that concern about Ashton running is motivated by bigotry. I think it is reasonable for someone to believe that Ashton has little chance of being truly competitive in this race and--on that basis--worry that she will be preceived as being in the race only as a token candidate thus making the party's commitment to diversity look hollow. I don't share that concern--because I believe Niki would be seen as a capable person running to set herself up for next time when she will have the credibility to win--but I understand that worry even if I don't agree with it.
We'll just have to wait and see.
Sat, 2011-09-24 02:42
#33
I think Mulcair was doing a contrast type of thing, saying on CJAD that he had been elected 3x in Quebec and 3x in Ottawa, but that Brian Topp had never been elected to anything. Of course Don MacPherson tweeted it in the most sneering way he could. He is toxic.
Mulcair was asked if it was a "problem" that Topp had entered the race; he responded that even though Topp's never been elected to office, if he wants to run based on his experience as a party strategist he has every right to do so.
Sat, 2011-09-24 02:44
#34
Its hardly mudslinging.
And it may just be a product of early and still minimaly organized campaigns. Topp wont make the mistake again of not vetting the kinds of things a newly announced supporter will say. I havent heard what Mulcair was supposed to have said- and like the thing with what was supposed to be 'an attck by Topp supporters', its more likely that Mulcair hardly said anything. But if he did go over the line, I'll bet you see him not follow that up with more.
I get what you are saying--and I think Topp will be more careful in the future--but as the La Presse story below shows, Topp has been using the line "we need a leader that can win seats outside Quebec" for a while. Another poster claimed that other Topp supporters have used it as well. Giguerre's comments may have been a bit sharper, as they referenced Mulcair directly, but it's pretty obvious that this line would be directed at Mulcair either way. Apart from being too harsh for an NDP leadership race, I simply find it strange. I think there's every reason to believe that Mulcair would be very effective across the whole country. And from what I can tell, a lot of people think he'd be just as effective in "English Canada" as he's been in Quebec.
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/...
Sat, 2011-09-24 02:55
#35
Left Turn
I'm going to weigh in here on Brian Topp.
I have serious concerns about Brian Topp as leader of the federal NDP. While I am concerned about how Topp has conducted himself in the leadership campaign, these concerns are secondary.
My primary concerns with Brian Topp have to do with some of his prior actions and what they indicate about Brian Topp's positions on the issues. Specifically, I am concerned about:
1. Brian Topp's time as an advisor to Saskachewan premier Roy Romanov during the 1990s, during which time the Romanov government implemented brutal austery measures.
2. Brian Topp's support for the Greek government's brutal austerity measures.
3. Brian Topps role in orchestrating the coalition-deal with the Liberals, which I opposed both because it compromised the independence of the working-class forces in parliament, and because it led the NDP to abandon its opposition to the war in Afghanistan.
4. Brian Topp's role at the recent NDP convention in rallying opposition to, and manipulating the timing of votes on:
a) The motion to oppose the extension of the NATO war against Libya
b) The motion to support the Canadian Boat to Gaza
These actions indicate that a Brian Topp-led NDP government could not be counted on not to make attacks upon the working class; that it could not be counted upon not to enter into a coalition government with the Liberals; and that it could not be counted on to take a principled stand on issues of war and occupation.
Sat, 2011-09-24 04:10
#36
Topp supporter dismssing Saganash too? What's up with that?
http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/09/23/topp-supporter-dismisses-saganash-l...
Sat, 2011-09-24 05:03
#37
giguere just comes off like a blowhard, precisely the sort of candidate who lucked into office. low hanging fruit that knocked topp off message less for the content than for how unprofessional it made topp appear in front of the national media. frontrunners in races to become opposition leader don't do press conferences with blowhards and topp knows it and he'll know better next time.
and just thinking here, for those of us who are hoping that more people jump into the race, i think mulcair's approach probably helps that along. sure, there must be some trepidation as topp continues to dominate the news and position himself as a 'final 2'-type. but i bet the distribution of support is all over the place. you have a really strong pro-julian team in edmonton, maybe, but a surprisingly weak one in winnipeg, etc. and so there are questions of who we know in union x who could take a leave to spend 2 months in winnipeg organizing, and how we'd get the money to pay for that, which union might pick up that tab, etc. and the longer mulcair takes to get in, the clearer the way seems to pick up the people and financing. at least, in theory.
Sat, 2011-09-24 05:04
#38
Finally a poll that refutes the dubious narrative that Mulcair has no support outside Quebec:
NDP would do best under Mulcair, poll finds
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1058971--ndp-would-do-best-under-mulcair-poll-finds?bn=1
OTTAWA-The federal New Democrats would get the best election results with Montreal MP Thomas Mulcair at the helm, a new survey suggests.
The Angus Reid Public Opinion poll released Friday shows that 28 per cent of Canadians would cast a ballot for the NDP if Mulcair (Outremont) were leader, with 52 per cent of Quebecers saying the same.
Twenty-five per cent of Canadians would vote for the NDP if it was led by veteran party strategist Brian Topp, with only 31 per cent of Quebecers on board.
Under Mulcir the NDP would gain 10% in Quebec which I think would give them almost every seat. Under Topp they would lose 10% which might cost them half their seats.
Athough the story does not give the breakdown in the ROC it seems obvious that Mulcair and Topp would be just about even.
Put this in your pipe Alain Guigerre and Yvon Godin.
Sat, 2011-09-24 07:24
#39
KenS, I didn't mean to attribute everything I wrote to Sean. I was only trying to draw a connection from his comments about Broadbent's endorsement and race so far discouraging new candidates to the attempt by some annoint Topp as leader. Apologies if anyone was confused; thank you Ken for prompting me to clarify.
I don't want to get into a big conseravtion about whether the stories in question were planted by high-level party insiders--because I just don't think it's productive to play the blame game--but this was the day after Jack Layton's death and three stories emerged simultaneously to the reported surprise of MPs all calling Topp the front-runner. Press Gallery reporters don't print that sort of thing on the word of someone on the Executive, because it would make them look personally foolish if it turned out the guy had no real support. Again, I don't want to get into public criminations (our party is better than that), but from everything I've heard from informed people, this is the worst kept secret in Ottawa.
Sat, 2011-09-24 07:33
#40
You dont want to get into the blame game? Then dont do it. Worse, dont start it.
You are just flat out wrong about plenty/most Hill reporters will do. You are entitled to be skeptical of that- but at a minimum your are playing the blame game, and with "evidence" that is at best very disputable.
And you are helping to stoke public recriminations. You just choose to think of it as "information".
Sat, 2011-09-24 07:44
#41
Finally a poll that refutes the dubious narrative that Mulcair has no support outside Quebec:
"Dubious narratives" are the norm for the media, the stock in trade when talking about political parties. All the more true early on when they havent a clue what is going on and what they do know they dont see as "news". Remember that the standard they have to meet is the "entertainment news".
And a real news flash for you: no one who might enter the leadership race is intimidated in the slightest by Brain Topp.
Sat, 2011-09-24 07:49
#42
And a real news flash for you: no one who might enter the leadership race is intimidated in the slightest by Brain Topp.
That's why he had Broadbent at his side, sending the message You can stop looking now, there's no one else.
Sat, 2011-09-24 07:50
#43
For what its worth, here's my take on the Brian Topp 'phenomena'.
For all the exposure to it, and I know something about Brain and obvioulsy not ill-disposed to him.... but I still dont get it. I'm still puzzled that he thinks he can do it.
On the other hand- even if I dont agree with the reason Yvon Godin has given- let alone that blow-hard... you dont put too much stock in the literal words of support given publicly. Those are the ones the person thinks matter the most. Ditto for Ed Broadbent's way over the top "no one else is qualified."
What I look at is simply the fact that these are not stupid people who I know share my criteria for what is required. And they think Brain Topp is not only qualified, but the best bet. That at least confirms to me that I will reserve judgement and wait to see.
Sat, 2011-09-24 10:03
#44
Northern Shoveler
If there is a last ballot with two candidates I predict Topp will not be one of them.
What I wonder at is why Alain Guigerre thinks he understands anything about BC or other provinces and how voters there will react to Mulcair of any other candidate. So far he sounds like the weak link in the Quebec caucus and if he keeps talking he will cost Topp many potential votes.
Sat, 2011-09-24 10:21
#45
further details of today's Angus Reid poll on Cyberpresse link
Canadians as a whole prefer Mulcair over Topp by 24 to 18
NDP voters prefer him over Topp by 35 to 21
If only we had an electoral system that reflected public opinion there would be no more talk of a Topp juggernaut
Sat, 2011-09-24 10:21
#46
further details of today's Angus Reid poll on Cyberpresse link
Canadians as a whole prefer Mulcair over Topp by 24 to 18
NDP voters prefer him over Topp by 35 to 21
If only we had an electoral system that reflected public opinion there would be no more talk of a Topp juggernaut
Sat, 2011-09-24 10:23
#47
[quote=Northern Shoveler]
If there is a last ballot with two candidates I predict Topp will not be one of them.
Curious to know why you say that?
Sat, 2011-09-24 10:46
#48
knownothing
Alright, they needed somebody to fill in on Power and Politics yesterday so my main man Mathieu Ravignat got his first gig on National Television. He was so nervous he was sweating like crazy and he didn't even answer the first question she asked but he settled down by the end.
This guy is going to be great.
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/Power_&_Politics_with_Evan_Solom...
Sat, 2011-09-24 11:04
#49
What I look at is simply the fact that these are not stupid people who I know share my criteria for what is required. And they think Brain Topp is not only qualified, but the best bet. That at least confirms to me that I will reserve judgement and wait to see.
I'll accept that everyone involved, in every campaign, has the best interests of the party at heart. What I'll reserve is the right to question is their better judgement. Even - and maybe even especially - that of senior officials and party mandarins. More than most their perspective is skewed, perhaps unconsciously by the impression of their own indispensibility. That, I believe, is a dangerous mindset to lead us at this juncture.
Quebec is still a novelty to the party, and it presents a challenge to those who brought us to this point. All electoral sense tells me that a Quebecker has to now assume the leadership. (A true Quebecker; not one for political contrivance only.) But the party brass seem hellbent to deny it. They're smart people; why can I see this is disastrous and they can't? Because they fear losing control. Now, that's not always a bad thing to fear. Like I said, I trust that they mean well. But these good intentions, IMO, are the pathway out of Quebec, a return to third-party status and an enfolding, as junior partners, with the Liberals. (And Topp, much more than Mulcair, seems the likelier to go Hazen Argue on us once he's diminished us.)
Sat, 2011-09-24 11:12
#50
dacckon
I see the rumour mill is still fresh today. Judging Topp based on Alain is silly, but it shows that Topp needs to control his camp better. He should have prepared speeches and statements for them. I also fail to see the Hazen Argue connection. I fail to see the Topp-Juggernaught connection. At the moment he's just gathering support from collegues, other potential candidates are still deciding if they want to run. The next stages are the most important, releasing policies for the future and gathering support from members/ getting new members on board.
I'd still like to see all the serious leadership candidates in the future do a tour together, to dispell the whole there's a new split in the NDP everyday.
Sat, 2011-09-24 11:20
#51
This is heartening to see: MP Dany Morin is soliciting questions from his constituents to pose the contenders, and he's going to interview them in turn on Youtube. (Romeo will be the first up.)
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-quotidien/le-quotidien-du-jour/201109/23/01...