In reading this article - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/topps-camp...
I was struck by this: "Prof. McArthur said the Topp tactics were evident in strenuous, private efforts to discourage Quebec MP Romeo Saganash from running."
If you remember, Saganash was going to give a press conference and the rumour was that he was going to support Topp, then all of a sudden he announces he's running. Not sure what went on but I'm glad Saganash is in the race.
Romeo Sasanash does an interview with The Mcgill Daily (A very nice read)
I keep hearing that Carol Hughes is a plausible dark horse candidate and should be encouraged to run, yet this never surfaces in the media or even on babble. The line I keep hearing is that she is very effective in the House when she gets a chance, she is great on the hustings, she was no "rookie" when first elected in 2008 but had long experience as a CLC staff rep, President of the Algoma Manitoulin and District Labour Council, long-time community volunteer and activist, and 14-year probation officer (president of her OPSEU local). I also keep hearing she is fully bilingual, French being actually her mother tongue; her mother is Simone Pitre, and Carol was born in the francophone community of Val Caron near Sudbury along with her six sisters and her brother. Her bio says "Member of the French-language elementary and secondary school councils" meaning her children are being schooled as francophones although her husband is anglophone.
Her electoral record demonstrates that, once her constituents saw her in action, they loved her. She was unknown when she first ran in 2004. Jody Wildman had run there in 1997, getting 23.6%, and in 2004 Carol got 31.7%. In 2006 she got 34.5%. In 2008 she got 45.5%. And in 2011 she got 51.7%.
Has anyone else heard Carol Hughes being talked up?
On another point: In the last thread someone said of Topp and Mulcair "at least we should put the two of them on an even field of prickness." I beg to differ entirely. When Mulcair is not in full flight of attack (which is a joy to watch), I find him warm and charming on air. And Topp I find equally charming. I saw him on the convention floor when he was making serious points, not being either charming or attacking, and found him effective and persuasive. The one thing I haven't seen yet is his bull-dog mode. I'm sure he has one; I don't know when I'm going to see it. His strategists need to set up a major debate with a Tory. Few Tories may be willing to help him out.
I keep hearing that Carol Hughes is a plausible dark horse candidate and should be encouraged to run, yet this never surfaces in the media or even on babble.
O ye of little faith...
and that is only recent stuff. With Leslie out and Nash silent, it would be damning if the NDP was unable to generate a female contender for the leadership.
In reading this article - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/topps-camp...I was struck by this: "Prof. McArthur said the Topp tactics were evident in strenuous, private efforts to discourage Quebec MP Romeo Saganash from running."
If you remember, Saganash was going to give a press conference and the rumour was that he was going to support Topp, then all of a sudden he announces he's running. Not sure what went on but I'm glad Saganash is in the race.
Also of interest...
“They give the sense that this machine is too strong and nobody should get in the way,” he told The Globe and Mail. “MPs and party members talk about it in private. It’s pretty much a known story among a lot of people around the party, but it does create a culture where people don’t want to talk about it in public too much.”
I heard Boivin was arm twisted out of the race as well. This isn't what the NDP is about. And this all by a candidate who often invokes the name of Jack Layton.
Perhaps someone should check into Topp's tenure at ACTRA. They might find similar terror tactics used there...
Terror? really? Do you understand the definition of the word?
Guessing there will be at least two, perhaps three newly announced NDP leadership candidates by this time next week.
Deleting my comment. Taking a vow not to spread hearsay.
Another article suggesting Dewar might be the candidate with the best chance to capitalize on the recent NDP gains -
http://www.oyetimes.com/news/101-canada/13993-brian-topp-a-leading-candidate-to-replace-layton
" Dewar has an authenticity which is rare, he's capable, measured, likeable, intelligent, young,attractive, well versed and has a common touch. Grassroots dippers would be wise to blunt the Topp train, at least enough to allow for a truly open debate, where the outcome is in considerable doubt"
From that piece: "There is a clue here for my NDP friends, as this Topp tornado rips across the land. Oddly, it comes from John Ivison (who's a terrific writer when he isn't carrying Conservative water) in his piece "Can anyone stop Brian Topp?" "
"Topp tornado rips across the land," followed by a quote from that "terrific writer," John Ivison.
Please.
Seen on Twitter: "Thomas Mulcair tells Cornwall Free News VIA SeaWay Radio, that he's 'closer to making an announcement'"
Perhaps someone should check into Topp's tenure at ACTRA. They might find similar terror tactics used there...
laughable.
some people would have to elevate their offerings even to qualify them as 'heresay'.
But I suppose this is one of the ways hearsay starts.
Somewhere else it will be "I hear that Brian Topp has practised strong arm tactics at ACTRA for years."
Then.. "People in the know tell me that Topp bullies members at ACTRA."
And....
Deleting my comment. Taking a vow not to spread hearsay.
*smooooooch*
Mulcair looked very capable as leader opening up QP yesterday. Like he was holding back on purpose to show people how measured he could be. His language is so good in both languages, I don't think anyone can touch him for communication in English or French. I also saw him in a scrum after and he was very comfortable there.
My take on the qualities needed to be the next NDP leader can be found here:
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2011/09/right-ndp-leader-now
Being at ease in both national linguistic communities, as well as being highly bilingual are essentials as I see it. In addition to Saganach, Topp and Mulcair, among names mentioned as candidates, Peter Julian, NIcki Ashton, Peggy Nash, and Guy Caron, qualify on both counts I would say.
Among other caucus members from outside Quebec fully bilingual are Carol Hughes (as mentioned by Wilf Day), Joe Cromartin, Denise Savoie, and Yvon Godin that I know for sure. There may be others (Megan Leslie ?, Nathan Cullen ?).
The question raised by the Topp candidacy seems to me to be: is he electable?
As for Mulcair, he is a star parliamentarian, which is not necessarily a leadership quality as I see it, though it makes him a great asset to the party, and would serve the party very well as opposition leader.
Saganch seems the most exciting candidate of the three in many ways. Electing an aboriginal pm in Canada would be as great a departure as electing an African-American president was in the U.S., maybe greater thinking of my childhood in Alberta. For me he is an unkown quantity at this point, and like others here I look forward to getting to know him better.
I just saw that Alex Atamanenko is endorsing Peter Julian for leader. Atamanenko has stated, “I have worked with Peter for the past five years and feel that he is more than qualified to lead our Party. Although he is from British Columbia, he has lived in Quebec and other parts of Canada and has a distinct vision for our country. He would make an excellent Prime Minister.”
Among other caucus members from outside Quebec fully bilingual are Carol Hughes (as mentioned by Wilf Day), Joe Comartin, Denise Savoie, and Yvon Godin that I know for sure. There may be others (Megan Leslie ?, Nathan Cullen ?).
Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury) et Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt).
Duncan Cameron, I think principles are just as essential as bilingualism. Not that the leader doesn't have to be bilingual, but she also absolutely has to have principles. Topp is happy to wear his experience with the anti-environment austerity government of Saskatchewan, so he should be out. (Unless he recants, but what would that mean?) Likewise Mulcair's record seems a bit spotty on matters Palestinian, though I have a heck of a time figuring out what he actually thinks about the whole thing. He has some environmental cred, but what about one-tier healthcare and fighting poverty? The risk is always that the NDP wins the election and turns into the Chrétien liberals. It can happen.
So far Saganach or Julian would be my top choice but that can change depending on who ends up in the field. Topp is a pragmatic electoral strategist and the party needs people like that but not as leader. The leader has to bring a sense of a vision to the table. Jack brought a well articulated vision to his leadership bid while Topp is only known for media pieces. Mulcair is just a little too liberal for my tastes but he has worked hard at building the party in Quebec and the success there shows he must be a good team player despite the media hype. Given the quality of the Quebec MP's I think who they line up to support over the next few months will be a factor in my decision. I don't think Mulcair has a lock on his 58 fellow MP's from Quebec and I don't think he will have a lock on Quebec members votes either. I suspect that come the spring he will most likely have a plurality of both MP's and votes from his home province but he will need significant support from high membership areas of the country like BC, Manitoba and Ontario.
So when is the first debate?
Somewhere else it will be "I hear that Brian Topp has practised strong arm tactics at ACTRA for years."
Then.. "People in the know tell me that Topp bullies members at ACTRA."
And....
Actually KenS, OttawaObserver referred to unnamed personal contacts to support her argument that the criticism of Topp's campaign is unfounded--despite numerous journalists reporting that it is true, Topp's non-answers to questions about it and the timing and nature of certain leaks supporting it. I have no problem with that. I only wrote that I've heard the opposite from everyone I've spoken with. You also seem to be suggesting some people, such as myself, are basing their comments on circular sources (posting comments on message boards based on what they've read on message boards). For my part at least, I can assure you that is not the case.
It's the same old gossipy media chattering class and pundits, who previously ignored or ridiculed the NDP, suddenly have all of these "sources" and insider knowledge and know the party inside and out, and its dynamics. They essentially make it up as they go along or totally speculate. There's very few, if any I can take seriously.
A few sources are now mentioning that Dewar is about to make an announcement:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/ottawa-mp-dewar-set...
Seems Peter Julians supporters are encouraging him to enter the race - any thoughts?
http://www.bclocalnews.com/greater_vancouver/newwestminsternewsleader/op...
I think Peter Julian would make a great candidate. Bilingual, progressive, a definiate front-bencher. The only problem I see is something minor, but the media would go nuts over it. His father is supposedly a hardcore liberal supporter. Voted for Dion, etc.
I think Peter Julian would make a great candidate. ...... The only problem I see is something minor, but the media would go nuts over it. His father is supposedly a hardcore liberal supporter. Voted for Dion, etc.
I don't see this as any kind of problem.
Who was Jack Layton's dad?
Besides, the reality is that for the NDP to eventually form the government, it will involve winning over longtime Liberal voters (as well as motivating previous non-voters...). The idea that the NDP leader can't have family or friends belonging to another party seems to be a real red herring.
Dewar's making his announcement on Sunday, reports say.
Although I'm hoping Saganish will somehow come up through the middle, I really admire Mulcair's performance in the House of Commons and especially during Question Period. The only equal I ever saw to his performance came from Jack Layton. Mulcair is pure dynamite in the House, and I think he's the one the Cons fear the most. However, I've never seen Brian Topp in a debating scenario, so I'll reserve further judgement until the debates (when are they???). I wish Niki Ashton and Peggy Nash were in this race, although I think Peggy has ruled herself out of contention for the leadership.
Dewar's making his announcement on Sunday, reports say.
I saw that! Why on earth his he doing it on a Sunday? No one from the media will come!
Although I'm hoping Saganish will somehow come up through the middle,
Don't you thnk you're being a bit hasty in supporting Saganash right away. I mean, the guy has some impressive credentials and i have an open mind towards him as a potential leader - but how much do we really know about his capabilities? The leader needs to have an ancyclopedic knowledge of just about every major political issue in Canada, sensitivity to the regional issues in every region, fantastic communication skills, fantastic political instincts and strategic sense etc...now maybe Romeo Saganash has all those things. i don't know. But I will appraise him based on what i actually see of his skills and performance as a candidate. I'm not going to get swept away by the idea of having a leader who is First Nation and who can speak four languages. I remember 1989 when people got so swept up in the idea of the NDP having the first female leader that they made Audrey McLaughlin leader even though she was very inexperienced and didn't have much in the way of political skills.
If Saganash turns out to be every bit as eloquent and knowledgeable and skillful and charismatic as any other candidate and if he clearly is a potential PM of Canada - then i will gladly support him - but i will not jump on his bandwagon sight unseen just because I like the idea of a leader who is Aboriginal.
Although I'm hoping Saganish will somehow come up through the middle,
Don't you thnk you're being a bit hasty in supporting Saganash right away. I mean, the guy has some impressive credentials and i have an open mind towards him as a potential leader - but how much do we really know about his capabilities? The leader needs to have an ancyclopedic knowledge of just about every major political issue in Canada, sensitivity to the regional issues in every region, fantastic communication skills, fantastic political instincts and strategic sense etc...now maybe Romeo Saganash has all those things. i don't know. But I will appraise him based on what i actually see of his skills and performance as a candidate. I'm not going to get swept away by the idea of having a leader who is First Nation and who can speak four languages. I remember 1989 when people got so swept up in the idea of the NDP having the first female leader that they made Audrey McLaughlin leader even though she was very inexperienced and didn't have much in the way of political skills.
If Saganash turns out to be every bit as eloquent and knowledgeable and skillful and charismatic as any other candidate and if he clearly is a potential PM of Canada - then i will gladly support him - but i will not jump on his bandwagon sight unseen just because I like the idea of a leader who is Aboriginal.
The NDP needs to win the West to form the Canadian government.
Where has Brian Topp been living and working during his career, and particularly the past 25 years?
Where does he live now?
Where have the other declared and potential candidates lived and worked during the past 20 or so years?
And how is Brain Topp's health? With the recent demise our much loved former leader it is sure to be a question potential supporters and voters will want to know precise details about.
Just saying.
Don't understand why Paul Dewar and Nathan Cullen who both admit to not being fluent in French are joining the race. There are many positions in Canada where being bilingual is a requirement. Leader of the Official Opposition certainly should be one of them.
If harper and chretien could do it, I assume Dewar and Cullen could manage fine. Althrough now is a good time to hold onto Quebec and grow there (as well as in other francophone communities across canada)
Don't understand why Paul Dewar and Nathan Cullen who both admit to not being fluent in French are joining the race. There are many positions in Canada where being bilingual is a requirement. Leader of the Official Opposition certainly should be one of them.
To me, there is a difference between bilingual and fluently bilingual. No? We'll have to see how their French is during the race.
To me, there is a difference between bilingual and fluently bilingual. No? We'll have to see how their French is during the race.Don't understand why Paul Dewar and Nathan Cullen who both admit to not being fluent in French are joining the race. There are many positions in Canada where being bilingual is a requirement. Leader of the Official Opposition certainly should be one of them.
I agree with Megan Leslie on this one:In Quebec and in the rest of Canada, the NDP has a powerful national unity narrative to tell. I believe that our new leader will need to be able to communicate in French and English, but most importantly, they must speak to the new aspirations of Quebecers and other Canadians.
Don't understand why Paul Dewar and Nathan Cullen who both admit to not being fluent in French are joining the race. There are many positions in Canada where being bilingual is a requirement. Leader of the Official Opposition certainly should be one of them.
It depends on your definition of "fluent".
Was Jean Chretien "fluent" in English? Maybe not, but he spoke it plenty well enough to engage in debate, to give a decent speech, and to reach out to Anglo voters. People may have enjoyed making fun of him for his accent and linguistic contortions, but he spoke enough English to serve as PM. Similarly Stephen Harper's French is perfectly passable, but his speech patterns are not strong - he has a very heavy accent, and is often halting or simplistic in his construction and vocabulary (although, to his credit, he has improved notably since becoming PM). Even Jack Layton's French when he became NDP Leader was only passable, and he worked hard to improve it through intensive study periods in Quebec over the years.
As a native French-speaker, I can assure you that folks in Quebec (as well as New Brunswick, northern & eastern Ontario, and a few other spots around the country) aren't grading a potential leader on whether they could pass an advanced French grammer exam in university. What they are looking for is someone whose French is sufficient to clearly communicate with voters, to convey ideas, and who is culturally capable of relating to French speakers.
Of the Anglophone candidates and potential candidates, Topp and Mulcair bring a level of lingustic and cultural fluency that is unsurpassed, and Peter Julian is extremely close. I'd actually rate any one of the 3 as having better French than Jack Layton did. (Topp and Mulcair have the advantage of growing up in a bilingual family and community environment, while Julian has honed his French later in life - a real accomplishment).
Peggy Nash's French is certainly "fluent", although she has more of an academic/European accent than a Quebecois one - but that would not be a huge drawback. I haven't heard Niki Ashton speaking French, but I am told that she is "fluent." I've only heard Paul Dewar speaking French once, and it was not great, but it seemed he has a reasonable command of the language and enough of a French base to grow on. Similarly, I've twice heard Cullen speaking French and I'd say he has a working command of the langauge, but would need to work on it quite a bit. Robert Chisholm is the only candidate whose French is so poor that he is incapable of discussing public policy issues at a reasonable level (and I understand he is working hard on it....)
If you look at recent PMs and opposition leaders, I'd say that the standard of being completely "fliuent" in both langauges is a high one - probably only Brian Mulroney, Pierre Trudeau and (less so) Paul Martin truly met that standard. Most others (Turner, Campbell, Clark, Chretien, Dion, Duceppe, Ignatieff, Day) fell short on that account, with second language skills ranging from rather strong to embarrassingly bad.
I want the next leader of the NDP to be able to campaign effectively in Quebec and in every other part of Canada. To that degree, French language skills are essential, but it is far from clear to me that some standard of starting off absolutely "fluent" is essential for a candidate to enter the leadership race.
I remember 1989 when people got so swept up in the idea of the NDP having the first female leader that they made Audrey McLaughlin leader even though she was very inexperienced and didn't have much in the way of political skills.
It's been repeatedly demonstrated, Stock, that the 1993 electoral disaster had almost nothing to do with Audrey being leader. Also, the main alternative to Audrey was Dave Barrett, who'd led the BCNDP to defeat in three out of the four campaigns that occurred during his leadership. This last bit of information, by itself, clearly shows that the NDP wouldn't have done any better with Barrett as federal leader.
Two other things to be considered about the "we shoulda gone with Dave" argument
1)There were NO polls taken during the runup to the 1993 campaign, or at ANY point in Audrey's tenure as leader, that indicated the party would have done any better with Dave as leader(in fact, given that he was anglophone and never tried to learn French at any point in his career, we can assume the party would have taken FEWER votes in Quebec and Atlantic Canada, and since the West had gone hard-right with the rise of "Reform", we can also make a strong guess that a Barrett-led NDP would have generated no enthusiasm in Alberta, Manitoba OR Saskatchewan, and might not have even gained the NDP any support in B.C.) If Dave was really intrinsically superior to Audrey as federal leadership material, shouldn't there have been tons of polls that showed him demonstrating much stronger national support?
2)If Dave really was "all that", shouldn't he have been able to count on holding his own riding by a solid margin in '93, rather than seeing his personal vote share in Esquimalt-Juan De Fuca drop from over 50% (in 1988)to just over 27%?
Dave Barrett was a good premier, but he was past his sell-by date in 1988. THAT is why he didn't win the leadersthip. And that is why electing him leader(which would have been taken by Quebec as an eternal "Mendez Merde!") simply wouldn't have been of any value.
Finally, if the NDP once again elects a white guy, it will once again send a message to immigrants and First Nations groups that they will NEVER see an NDP leader who looks like them. Why do that, when the party has nothing to gain by sending that message? A person who can only envision hetero white dudes as leaders isn't going to have any left-of-center views. It's possible to be left-of-center and be right-wing on SOME things, but not race or gender issues. So there's no reason to get into the "we have to stay with the bland, safe straight white guy" thing again. It wouldn't have helped in '93, and it won't help now. The voters want guts and vision, not a promise that you won't NOTICE that it's a non-Tory government.
There is more shere nonsense in Ken Burch's last post than I have the stamina to refute. Look at the thread a couple years ago on the topic of the 20th aniversary of McLaughlin's win for a discussion which demolishes every feeble argument he advances.
I will just say that Barrett in defeat scored 47% of the vote, more than the BC NDP has ever received since, even in victory.
Of course Ken may choose to diregard everthing I said in the old thread because, to use his inspired dismissive phrase, I am a "white guy."
I'm not saying that Barrett would necessarily been a better leader than McLaughlin - but i do think that a lot of people decided they wanted a woman as leader first and then searched madly around for a woman who meet some minimal standards of competence. The NDP was not alone. The Tories made the same mistake when they picked Kim Campbell - they saw her as a check list of demographic factors (ie: woman - check, from the west - check, speaks French (sort of ) - check, had a cute picture on the cover of Saturday Night - check) and they wound up with someone who was good on paper but was a total flop as a leader.
If Romeo Saganash proves to me that he is the most most intelligent, well-rounded, strategic, charismatic candidate or the NDP leadership - i will happily vote for him. But don't expect me to vote for him blindly just to assuage my guilt about what Europeans did to the First Nations when they conquered Canada.
If Romeo Saganash proves to me that he is the most most intelligent, well-rounded, strategic, charismatic candidate or the NDP leadership - i will happily vote for him. But don't expect me to vote for him blindly just to assuage my guilt about what Europeans did to the First Nations when they conquered Canada.
Is it just me, or does anyone else have a problem with that statement?
Finally, if the NDP once again elects a white guy, it will once again send a message to immigrants and First Nations groups that they will NEVER see an NDP leader who looks like them. Why do that, when the party has nothing to gain by sending that message? A person who can only envision hetero white dudes as leaders isn't going to have any left-of-center views. It's possible to be left-of-center and be right-wing on SOME things, but not race or gender issues. So there's no reason to get into the "we have to stay with the bland, safe straight white guy" thing again. It wouldn't have helped in '93, and it won't help now. The voters want guts and vision, not a promise that you won't NOTICE that it's a non-Tory government.
So, let's not go with the best candidate if that happens to be a white male like Peter Julian for example but go with a woman or a person of colour or First Nations person regardless if they're up to the job of leading the party and becoming Prime Minister in 2015?
English interview with Roméo Saganash
His life story is so inspiring and he has a real humble charm.
Personally, I think Barrett would have been better positioned to face the populism of Reform, but there is no way to test that theory either way. I agree with Stock that the rush to choose a woman didn't necessarily choose the best suited women.
All that said, parsing the past is not particularly helpful.
Seems to me the current horserace looks like this:
(Assumes all candidates still being buzzed about run.)
First tier - Topp and Mulcair (despite the media narrative, I think they are equally placed)
Second tier - Julian, possibly Dewar and Nash
Third tier - Saganash, Chisholm and Ashton
If Romeo Saganash proves to me that he is the most most intelligent, well-rounded, strategic, charismatic candidate or the NDP leadership - i will happily vote for him. But don't expect me to vote for him blindly just to assuage my guilt about what Europeans did to the First Nations when they conquered Canada.Is it just me, or does anyone else have a problem with that statement?
As someone who comes from a mixed black and native family, I don't have a problem with that statement.
I think Romeo Saganash is a good candidate but it seems a few people jumped onto the Saganash bandwagon with knowing little about him in terms of political skills. It was "awesome! Canada needs it's first native PM", etc. That would be great. But that doesn't automatically mean Saganash is that person.
Same went for Audrey. The next NDP leader after Broadbent had to be a woman. Great. But was she the best woman for the job? Not at all. And people were told to stay out of that race because it was time for a woman. That is fact. A potential leadership candidate was told... not hinted... to stay out of that race. Sadly, he listened and so did a few others.
Personally, I think Barrett would have been better positioned to face the populism of Reform, but there is no way to test that theory either way. I agree with Stock that the rush to choose a woman didn't necessarily choose the best suited women.All that said, parsing the past is not particularly helpful.
Seems to me the current horserace looks like this:
(Assumes all candidates still being buzzed about run.)
First tier - Topp and Mulcair (despite the media narrative, I think they are equally placed)
Second tier - Julian, possibly Dewar and Nash
Third tier - Saganash, Chisholm and Ashton
I agree with regard to the Reform threat in the West.
As for Topp, have you heard any New Democrats supporting his candidacy? On here or in your personal contacts? I'm curious. I have yet to speak with someone who is supporting him besides the big name endorsements.
I like him (Saganash)...but I will need to see a lot more of him and all the other candidates before I choose - and ultimately my ONLY consideration is - who can defeat Harper and be elected Pm of Canada in 2015 and then govern effectively. I'm not interested in symbolic gestures. I want someone who has what it takes to win.
I like Saganash, I think he has a lot of pluses that some of the so-called second and first tier candidates don't. I'd really like to see a leader from Quebec who doesn't have a hawkish rightwing foreign policy position. Apart from Nash, he sounds like the best of the bunch so far. I like Cullen but the NDP needs a leader that can consolidate and cement the NDP's stronghold in Quebec, I'm not sure he's well-suited for that.
There is more shere nonsense in Ken Burch's last post than I have the stamina to refute. Look at the thread a couple years ago on the topic of the 20th aniversary of McLaughlin's win for a discussion which demolishes every feeble argument he advances.
I will just say that Barrett in defeat scored 47% of the vote, more than the BC NDP has ever received since, even in victory.
Of course Ken may choose to diregard everthing I said in the old thread because, to use his inspired dismissive phrase, I am a "white guy."
Nicky, as it happens, I am a "white guy" also It's just that I don't think that people who look like I do with or without pants are the only kind of people who should win federal party leaderships. The NDP should choose leaders who are from ALL the communities of Canada.
That 47% figure you're referencing must mean the showing Barrett led the BCNDP to in 1979. I was referring to his FEDERAL showing in 1993 when he was standing for re-election in Esquimalt Juan De Fuca, a riding he should have been able to count on holding if he was really intrinsically electorally superior to Audrey.
And here's the result in Barrett's riding in 1993(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquimalt%E2%80%94Juan_de_Fuca)
Reform
Keith Martin
16,352
35.29
+24.86
New Democrat
Dave Barrett
12,600
27.19
-23.73
Liberal
Ross McKinnon
9,970
21.52
+9.52
Progressive Conservative
Grace Holman
4,582
9.89
-15.21
National
Dan W. Whetung
2,214
4.78
Natural Law
Don McCarthy
426
0.92
Independent
Louis J. Lesosky
98
0.21
-0.09
Canada Party
Alisen Oliver
97
0.21
Audrey had flaws as a leader, but nobody the party could ever have chosen in 1988 could ever have overcome the problems caused by the collapse of popular support for TWO NDP provincial governments(B.C. and Ontario)at the same time. There's nothing Barrett could have done that would have been any more effective than what Audrey did. And Buzz Hargrove would still have stabbed the federal NDP in the back even with Barrett as leader.
Plus, it's more than likely that Barrett's contempt for francophones(as expressed by his childish refusal to even try to learn French) would have guaranteed that the massive gains the NDP made in Quebec this year would have impossible, since Quebecers would STILL be mad at the Dippers for choosing a leader whose attitude towards them was pretty much that of a very slightly left-of-center Preston Manning.
Dave was a great premier of B.C.-but we might as well admit that he could never have been a successful federal leader. He just didn't have any special national magic.
Personally, I think Barrett would have been better positioned to face the populism of Reform, but there is no way to test that theory either way. I agree with Stock that the rush to choose a woman didn't necessarily choose the best suited women. All that said, parsing the past is not particularly helpful. Seems to me the current horserace looks like this: (Assumes all candidates still being buzzed about run.) First tier - Topp and Mulcair (despite the media narrative, I think they are equally placed) Second tier - Julian, possibly Dewar and Nash Third tier - Saganash, Chisholm and Ashton
And your "first tier" just happens to be the two white dudes. And only one woman even in the second tier?
Are you not at all worried about what message it would send to FN Canadians or other Canadians of color to say that, when it really comes down to it, the NDP has to have a leader that looks like MOST of the leaders of the past?
Putting Topp and Mulcair first says you don't think that Canada is ready for the idea of a modern choice as party leader. I mean, sure, Mulcair and Topps are mundanely qualified, but will they focus on anything at all but looking "safe"? Will either of them even try to work for an alternative vision of what life could be like in Canada and the world? It's gonna be kind of pointless to vote NDP if the party reduces itself to just "we're for the healthcare system, but other than that we won't do anything you'll notice".
Dave was a great premier of B.C.-but we might as well admit that he could never have been a successful federal leader. He just didn't have any special national magic.
Personally, I think Barrett would have got us to official party status. That would have been a huge victory in 1993.
I don't put a huge emphasis on the loss of his own riding. Sometimes you get screwed by the tide. And the individual candidate only accounts for a small percentage of the vote. That said, he got 27% to Keith Martin's 35% when the NDP got 15.5% in BC that year.
