This guy is going to be great.
Wow, I didn't know his english was so good. Perhaps after we win our first goverment, he'd make an excellent leader with his gained experience. The transition from a revolutionary guy to an evolutionary guy won't be as controversial to the media once we've shown our fiscal capabilities are top notch.
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?
I get the same sense at this point. If those we expect will enter... I think it will come down to Mulcair and Julian in the end. Even on here you can see that support coming to the surface.
...Then dont do it. Worse, dont start it.
You are just flat out wrong about plenty/most Hill reporters will do.
There have been multiple posts in previous threads making the same observations that I did. I posted the above simply because in the last thread there was rather suddenly a number posts doubting that there really was any effort to annoint Topp as leader. Suffice it to say that I disagree with your view that I'm "flat out wrong" about how such stories come about.
I think it's fair to point out this dynamic in the campaign as it has an obvious impact on how things will play out. I did so, however, while emphasizing that while we need to be vigilant to ensure this dynamic does not continue, I don't blame anyone for it given the natural and understandable impulses that lead to this sort of thing.
Brian Topp admits he's got things to prove. I've been looking for more info about his bio. I'd still like to know more about his union/co-op experiences and how its shaped him. Same goes with Saganash and other potential candidates.
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
I'm glad to see poll numbers, but remember that these are essentially the baseline at the beginning of the campaign - not a definitive take on what public opinion will turn out to be after lots more media coverage, debates, candidate speeches, and the other realities of a leadership campaign.
How do you think Layton would have fared in a national publc opinion poll at this point in the 2003 leadership contest? Early polls reflect name identification much more than deeply held public opinion.
Even with his recent burst of publicity, I'm surprised that Topp's numbers are as strong as they show in this poll (and I say that as someone who is unlikely to make either Topp or Mulcair my first or second leadership choice). For a party strategist without an electoral history to already be at 18% (and 21% among NDP supporters) is actually a fairly remarkable move. And Muicair's showing is similarly strong for someone who isn't yet in the race and who has a somewhat limited national profile.
I'm looking forward to several more candidates entering (Mulcair, Julian, Ashton, Dewar, Cullen, Chisholm, Nash, and others) joining Topp and Saganash in the race - and hopefully a vigourous campaign will both highlight the strength of the NDP bench AND put an end to any discussion of a "juggernaut" by either Topp (or Mulcair). If either of them ends up winning after that kind of a campaign, it will be because they have earned it and convinced the party members they are the best choice, not because of an sense of inevitability.
Is there a deadline for entering the NDP leadership race?
...and I say that as someone who is unlikely to make either Topp or Mulcair my first or second leadership choice...
Curious, what's your thinking there? Why neither Topp or Mulcair better than third? Different reasons or a similar reason for both?
Is there a deadline for entering the NDP leadership race?
"In order to ensure that a Candidate's name will appear on the ballot contained in the Ballot Package Mailing, registration must be completed by January 24, 2012."
Maybe Mulcair is just waiting to enter so he can keep his post as Government House Leader as long as possible.
Mon Oct 3 PEI provincial electionIn other words, there's plenty of time. And alot of provincial elections that need to be fought out.
NWT territorial election
Tue Oct 4 Manitoba provincial election
Thu Oct 6 Ontario provincial election
Mon Oct 10 House of Commons adjourns for a constituency week (Thanksgiving - Mon Oct 10)
Tue Oct 11 Nfld/Lab provincial election
Yukon territorial election
Mon Oct 17 First date on which a by-election could be held in Toronto - Danforth
Mon Nov 7 Saskatchewan provincial election
Mon Nov 7 House of Commons adjourns for a constituency week (Remembrance Day - Fri Nov 11)
Sat Dec 11 Winner of the Bloc Québécois leadership mail-in ballot announced
Fri Dec 16 House of Commons adjourns for Christmas break
Thu Jan 12 Interim Financial Statement due to NDP Chief Electoral Officer
Tue Jan 24 Last day to register as an NDP Leadership Contestant (60 days before voting day)
Mon Jan 30 House of Commons provisionally set to reconvene
Sat Feb 18 Last day to take out an NDP membership with leadership voting rights (35 days before voting day)
Sun Feb 26 Last day a by-election can be called in Toronto - Danforth
Sat Mar 3 1st/4 Weekly Contributions Reports to Elections Canada due
Sat Mar 10 2nd/4 Weekly Contributions Reports to Elections Canada due
Sat Mar 17 3rd/4 Weekly Contributions Reports to Elections Canada due
Sat Mar 24 Voting Day; NDP Leadership Contest officially ends
Is there a deadline for entering the NDP leadership race?
"In order to ensure that a Candidate's name will appear on the ballot contained in the Ballot Package Mailing, registration must be completed by January 24, 2012."
Thanks! January 24??? Wow, that's amazing.
Is there a deadline for entering the NDP leadership race?
"In order to ensure that a Candidate's name will appear on the ballot contained in the Ballot Package Mailing, registration must be completed by January 24, 2012."
Thanks! January 24??? Wow, that's amazing.
I don't think there's any rush for candidates to get in the race early, but, yeah, January 24th does seem like it's a little late, don'it?
So what do folks think about Romeo's chance for growth?
FWIW, I'm in Toronto, with very poor French and no FN background, and yet despite conventional wisdom I'm strongly supporting him. What's more, I know a number of others like me who are. So I'm not putting much stock in pundits neglect of his candidacy.
After he launched, L'actualite reported he'd been convinced in part because 15-20 Quebec MPs encouraged him to enter. Some, he said, would endorse him, and others because they didn't want the race to be a Topp/Mulcair showdown. He has one public endorsement that I know of ([url=http://christinemoore.ndp.ca/post/christine-moore-give-her-full-support-... Moore[/url]). If several more announce soon, perhaps he'll actually begin receiving some attention.
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...
I think every gay man in the NDP has a huge crush on Dany by now. :)
He strikes me as a very genuine guy, and it's great to see the young MPs playing roles in building the party's future.
I think every gay man in the NDP has a huge crush on Dany by now. :)
He strikes me as a very genuine guy, and it's great to see the young MPs playing roles in building the party's future.
Haha... reminds me though... how about that Robin Maclachlan on CBC's Power Panel :P
Like I said earlier, I hope Romeo wins. I think we'll see a slightly different NDP with Saganash as leader, although I couldn't speculate on what it would be like. As others have said, though, it's a 6 month campaign,, and anything can happen.
...and I say that as someone who is unlikely to make either Topp or Mulcair my first or second leadership choice...
Curious, what's your thinking there? Why neither Topp or Mulcair better than third? Different reasons or a similar reason for both?
Different reasons for both, and neither are insurmountable in my book. Part of the deal may be that I have (limited) personal history with both, and familiarity breeds not contempt, but a little bit of caution.
In stating my reasons, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to frame it in terms of attacking either one, because I can see still potentially see supporting either one and certainly would support them if they were elected as party leader - but I do want to answer your question honestly.
Mulcair was my MP (until I moved a couple of months ago) and I've done volunteer work on his campaigns. I think he is an extremely capable campaigner and smart politician, and I find the rap that he somehow alienates people around him to be largely inaccurate (at least no more accurate than any about other politician with a strong personality). I like his combative style when it comes to fighting political battles (although it is less clear to me how good he is at developing a strong team, listening to diverse voices, or building consensus among allies...)
My qualms about Mulcair relate to my uncertainty about his core political beliefs. I doubt that he considers himself a socialist, he's probably more of a generic "progressive" with social democratic leanings. The fact that he made his National Assembly career as part of Jean Charest's party and cabinet, and never was part of any identification left faction in the PLQ until his public fall-out with Charest over Mont Orford. The fact that he actually engaged in discussions with the federal Conservatives about running as a candidate before he opted for the NPD - no matter how serious or frivilous the discussion was - makes me wonder. I was also frustrated by his position on Palestine/Israel issues, where I think he should strike a better balance - and wonder how much of it is political calculation to appeal to his riding.
My familiarity with Topp is much longer ago, going back to McGill and Montreal in the late 70s and early 80s. While I was never close to Brian, we definitely ran in the same circles and interacted quite a bit, both socially and in student politics and journalism, and the last I inteacted with him was doing a bit of volunteer work for Phil Edmonston. (I left to work overseas after that, and have only returned to Quebec recently). Maybe part of my reaction to the idea of him as leader is simply the difficulty of imagining someone I knew as a callow youth potentially being PM -- but I'm sure he (and I) have both matured significantly since then.
I think Brian is smart and earnest, and he has very good political sense. I have no qualms about his core political beliefs - he aligned with the NDP in Quebec at a time when there was no careerist reason for doing so - and while he is probably a bit more of a social democrat than a socialist, I can live with that in a leader (because that probably reflects where the party is overall rather than where I am).
I think my qualms about what I see in Brian in the media are whether he is ready to be the kind of national leader who can connect with and inspire people - and the fact that he has never run for office before makes me worry about how prepared he is for the reality of being a candidate on the national level. (And this goes back to the whole smart and earnest thing - even in the McGill days he was the kind of low key wonky guy who didn't necessarily inspire people or connect with them on a gut emotional level.) I want the next leader to be able to build on the progress Jack (and Brian and Tom) made to help the NDP breakthrough electorally in May and I'm not sure that Brian has the political skill set to actually do that as a party leader.
-
At the moment, I'm going to be looking hard at all the candidates, but am more inclined to support a candidate like Julian, Saganash, or Nash. I'd love to see Guy Caron run (he won't), and I'm open to other candidates (including Topp and Mulcair). In the end, I'll be looking for a combination of feeling comfortable with a candidate's core political values, their ability to be an effective party leader and national campaigner, comfortable fluency in both English and French, and ideally looking for a candidate with strong connections with social movements and key constituency groups.
I'd love to see Guy Caron run (he won't), and I'm open to other candidates (including Topp and Mulcair).
I'll be happy to work for an NDP government under any of the likely candidates, but I too would love to see Guy Caron run: a very charming younger version of Jack Layton, the voice of non-Metropolitan Quebec (although he's really as urban as Mulcair), and a guy who is equally Quebec and labour. It would be healthy for the party not to have Mulcair as the only visible voice of francophone Quebec, and it would position Guy as the next leader if he loses. I can see why he would not run; he has a very young son, and look what happened when Joe Clark ran "for next time:" he wound up winning unexpectedly before, I think, he was really as ready as he should have been. But Guy could handle the job if he unexpectedly won it. There's lots of time to enter. Maybe he could be persuaded?
I just found a video of Brian Topp on youtubez. I'll watch it later.
Pic of Romeo Saganash in solidarity with CUPE To help saganash's campaign- email his campaign at [email protected]
Maybe Mulcair is just waiting to enter so he can keep his post as Government House Leader as long as possible.
I doubt it. Just about the only consideration is the best time to formally enter. If anything, being House Leader is mostly a drag on the total focus he needs to put into running.
There is very little margin of running around the country he can do while still keeping the post. The only amount of running around he can do before announcing is to get the ducks lined up in Quebec, and there is even a limit to how much of that he can do before announcing.
If it comes down to Mulcair vs Topp, I really hope Mulcair gets it. Personally, I'd continue to support the NDP either way, but many people I've talked to seem to have a personal dislike for Topp, that or they have no idea who he is. I really wish Angus would re-consider, or Dewar enters the race.
I think Mulcair is the strongest debater - by far - in the House, but I'm a bit nervous about his position on Israel/Palestine. I have no idea how strong a debater Topp is as I've never seen him in that role.
Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't we wait until we know who is in and who's out, and then wait and see them debate. You know, before we start saying we wish that one of them doesn't win.
You're no fun. 
Considering Broadbent is convinced who the best possible leader for the NDP is regardless of who runs against him, I think it's entirely fair for babblers to speculate and comment on the competition.
Alright, alright. As you were ... ;-)
(And Topp, much more than Mulcair, seems the likelier to go Hazen Argue on us once he's diminished us.)
That makes no sense at all. Not even a bit. Do you actually know about what happened with Hazen Argue?
Topp (like Mulcair) chose to become New Democrats at a point when being a New Democrat made exactly no sense at all if they were motivated primarily by ambition. While I have no illusion that either of them are angels, there is clearly some core of principle involved in their choice.
Argue, of course, is the object lesson for how winning leadership campaigns should behave when the contest is over.
Argue, the incumbent leader of the CCF, was an inevitale candidat for the leadership of the New Party. Tommy Douglas had indicated that he would support him. David Lewis did not want Argue as leader for a couple of reasons. First, he thought Argue was a hard sell outside of agrarian circles and second, given his age and the usual longevity of party leaders in those days, by the time Argue would step down, Lewis's age would make it difficult for him to become leader. Lewis persuaded Douglas to go back on his commitment to support Argue. At the founding convention, Argue performed very poorly among non-Prairie delegates and lost the leadership to Douglas. (Some think he may actually have defeated Douglas among Sasakatchewan delegates, but that can't really be proven either way.)
Th real probem came after the convention, when Argue was completely frozen out of any senior discussions and decision making.
So, to say that Topp is likely t "go Hazen Argue," you must mean that whoever eventually wins (or the staff of the eventual winner) will inevitably freeze Topp out of any leading role in the front or back rooms of the party.
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?
Topp so far has not shown any ability to work a crowd and he has no actual base of support. He has support and networks across the country so he is a player but in the end I don't believe the members will pick a back room strategist after they kick his tires. The back room boys are accepted in the NDP as a electoral necessity but are not exactly beloved the same way as MP's or community leaders.
The membership will decide and lets face it long time NDP members are not sheep and have strong opinions on many issues. I do note that Topp appears to be trying Jack's playbook by trying to position himself on the left which IMO is still the mainstream of the NDP. Our members are more left wing than voters generally but that is to be expected since it is the rationale for the party having existed for over 50 years. One of the reasons Topp is a viable candidate is because he understands the membership and is messaging to the majority. My problem with him is I expect he will do the same thing as leader (message to the majority) and the majority of Canadians are more left liberal than socialist. After 40 years in the wilderness preaching that our society can be so much more it would be a shame to end up with a liberal, ala Bob Rae, version of progressive policy.
I am thinking that we should't be rushing to elect a leader. There is a funny dynamic going on. I even agree with Rex Murphy, impossible?!!! The NDP needs to build up membership in the province first. I don't think there should be a leadership convention before the spring or fall of 2012.
I never heard of this Topp guy, and frankly, he looks boring. I am worried.
The NDP needs to build up membership in the province first. I don't think there should be a leadership convention before the spring or fall of 2012.
Umm, spring 2012 starts March 20. The convention is March 24. Lots of time to build up membership.
Well you are right. I still thik it is too soon. Maybe next Fall. I don't like the idea of the establishment dictating who or what should be in charge. This has got a bad feeling to it.
Its been my experience that the "bosses" of the party want your legs, and your money. They pay lip service but don't really care what you think. To be honest, I am almost at the point that I don't care anymore after 40 years of working for the party. This has just got the same kind of feel to it. Granted that I may be reacting to some of what is being put out by the MSM, but I have some doubts about this process.
We simply can't afford to get this wrong. We need to ensure we have good membership numbers across the entire country before we hold a leadership convention is CURICAL to future success. We really need to slow this down a bit.
Granted that I may be reacting to some of what is being put out by the MSM, but I have some doubts about this process.
Patience, Arthur. You are indeed reacting to the MSM. Wait until all the candidates are in, and they start touring and debating.
Topp is a smart fellow. Get to know him before you write him off. Same goes with the others.
I find that the process is extremely well structured and fair to all. Obviously the disparity between membership numbers in Quebec and elsewhere was going to be an issue by the next convention anyway, but the leadership race gives us a golden opportunity to fix it quicker than we would have been able to otherwise.
Also, endorsements will not always have positive consequences as some endorsements may push members away from certain candidates, no?
Also, endorsements will not always have positive consequences as some endorsements may push members away from certain candidates, no?
This is true. I won't name names, but I can think of several people whose endorsements would help settle my mind to not support a candidate.
And I hope we see another entry or two this week, if only to break up the monotony of MSM coverage. Julian at least must be getting close.
I can think of several people whose endorsements would help settle my mind to not support a candidate.
Really? From my perspective, even if I disagree with someone a great deal, I assume they may support the same leadership candidate I support even if it's for different reasons.
Granted that I may be reacting to some of what is being put out by the MSM, but I have some doubts about this process.
Patience, Arthur. You are indeed reacting to the MSM. Wait until all the candidates are in, and they start touring and debating.
Topp is a smart fellow. Get to know him before you write him off. Same goes with the others.
I find that the process is extremely well structured and fair to all.
I agree with this completely. While I think there's clearly an effort by some to annoint Topp as leader, I also think that the rules laid down by Federal Council and the Executive are exceedingly fair (yay, Rebecca Blaikie!). I think we also need a membership drive in Quebec to match what the provincial parties already do for us, but either way I think the membership will ultimately make up their own minds. The problem with the MSM coverage is not that they're wrong about who's supporting Brian Topp, it's that they dramatically over estimate the degree to which anyone in the membership actually cares who's supporting Topp or any other candidate. Obviously endorsements matter, but the NDP is not like other parties where if the "establishment" annoints a candidate that means they're almost certainly going to win.
BUt let's face it, even with all the speeches and promises, coverage and debate we still only learn so much about what the person actually stands for, compared to what their spouse for example might know about what they stand for. Endorsements clue us in on the interpersonal relationships and larger movements within the party itself.
Really? From my perspective, even if I disagree with someone a great deal, I assume they may support the same leadership candidate I support even if it's for different reasons.
Well, I'm chiefly thinking of Pat Martin. His criteria for endorsement appears to be accommodation with the Liberals. I'm dead set against that direction for the party, so if Pat Martin chooses to support a candidate, rather than enter the race himself, then there's every likelihood I won't be in the same camp.
Yep you gotta thank Pat for making his endorsement so clear and intelligible. Wish we could say that about the others.
It's also being pointed out that a number of the candidates won't be announcing until after the provincial elections are over. As soon as you think of it that way, it makes enormous sense.
Pat Martin supported Bill Blaikie in 2003. Does that mean there was something wrong with Bill?
Some look to endorsements to support a candidate or to oppose a candidate. Both are rather sad ways to make decision.
. . . Ed Broadbent's way over the top "no one else is qualified."
Now, now. He never said that. He said "While there will be a number of good candidates, I believe there is one who stands clearly above all the others in the qualities that now matter most. . . No other candidate has his breadth of political experience."
http://briantopp.ca/news/letter-ed-broadbent-fellow-new-democrats
Thanks, Wilf. I have heard the quote lots but never saw it. I think what you quoted is fair for an endorsement.
Really? From my perspective, even if I disagree with someone a great deal, I assume they may support the same leadership candidate I support even if it's for different reasons.
Well, I'm chiefly thinking of Pat Martin. His criteria for endorsement appears to be accommodation with the Liberals. I'm dead set against that direction for the party, so if Pat Martin chooses to support a candidate, rather than enter the race himself, then there's every likelihood I won't be in the same camp.
That's who I assumed you were talking about, but I don't think there are gonna be any candidates in the race who support accommodation with the Liberals, nor do I think Martin will get in the race himself because it would be totally unrealistic. Rather I think Martin will probably just wind up supporting whichever candidate he thinks can win the next election (since that's what the whole idea of a merger is ultimately about anyway) and/or he'll support whichever candidate he has the best personal relationship with.
. . . Ed Broadbent's way over the top "no one else is qualified."
Now, now. He never said that. He said "While there will be a number of good candidates, I believe there is one who stands clearly above all the others in the qualities that now matter most. . . No other candidate has his breadth of political experience."
http://briantopp.ca/news/letter-ed-broadbent-fellow-new-democrats[/quote]
I don't think that was his remarks at the announcement, Wilf. And he made that comment I believe during the Q&A.
CBC September 12: Broadbent, whose influential endorsement was considered integral to Layton's selection as NDP leader in 2003, said no one can match Topp's breadth of political experience and judgment and that he has the "special mix of character and intelligence" that he looks for in a leader.
ETA: He was quite explicit in the Q & A comment period that followed, although I don't recall the exact words Broadbent used.
Granted that I may be reacting to some of what is being put out by the MSM, but I have some doubts about this process.
Patience, Arthur. You are indeed reacting to the MSM. Wait until all the candidates are in, and they start touring and debating.
Topp is a smart fellow. Get to know him before you write him off. Same goes with the others.
I find that the process is extremely well structured and fair to all. Obviously the disparity between membership numbers in Quebec and elsewhere was going to be an issue by the next convention anyway, but the leadership race gives us a golden opportunity to fix it quicker than we would have been able to otherwise.
Thanks for the party-centered, balanced observation, OO . Much appreciated.
I don't think that was his remarks at the announcement, Wilf. And he made that comment I believe during the Q&A.[/quote]. . . Ed Broadbent's way over the top "no one else is qualified."
Now, now. He never said that. He said "While there will be a number of good candidates, I believe there is one who stands clearly above all the others in the qualities that now matter most. . . No other candidate has his breadth of political experience."
http://briantopp.ca/news/letter-ed-broadbent-fellow-new-democrats
Regardless of the exact words used, the part I found unusual was that Broadbent endorsed Topp without having had any opportunity to see how he'd fair as a candidate (as unlike the potentials being mentioned, Topp has never run for office). That made me feel that the endorsement was based more on a personal relationship than an objective assessment of who would make the best candidate for prime minister.
Regardless of the exact words used, the part I found unusual was that Broadbent endorsed Topp without having had any opportunity to see how he'd fair as a candidate (as unlike the potentials being mentioned, Topp has never run for office). That made me feel that the endorsement was based more on a personal relationship than an objective assessment of who would make the best candidate for prime minister.
Especially this: "...no one can match Topp's breadth of political experience and judgment".
