How can the NDP hang onto its gains in Quebec if it picks a leader from outside Quebec?

Responding to Wilf...

Again, it wasnt my intention or thought to predict that Mulcair would leave if he doesnt become leader.

I was addressing the point raised of what he would do IF he ran and did not win. So I was first pointing out that burnt out and bad feelings are frequently the consequence of leadership bids. The intent is to point out that there isnt something different about Mulair- if it should happen, it happens.

And then, disposing of what was brought up: IF, like many other front runners that dont make it, he were to leave... it would not be to the Liberals.

-----

And as to there being any basis in Libby the anti-Mulcair... that is rooted in how Mulcair reacted to Libby on the Mideast thing, amd only assumptions that have currency here and other quarters about how Libby took that.

Regarding Mulcair's future if he enters and doesn't win, yes, there is a history in all parties of the second-place person calling it quits before too long, especially if that person had been regarded as THE front-runner.  Frances Lankin, for example an NDP example, lost to Hampton despite being the presumed heir-apparent, and while she stuck it out for the following election, she left active politics for the United Way mid-way into her next term.  Even earlier,  Ian Deans left after losing to Michael Cassidy.  It happens even when the person was not the perceived front-runner - Richard Johnston and Jim Foulds eventually left because neither could stand Bob Rae (although both stuck it out at least one more election after the leadership contest - in Johnston's case two elections).   But, it's not inevitable, by any means.  Joe Clark - who had every reason to stalk off the national stage after he was thrown overboard for Mulroney - ended up serving as a senior member of his rival's government.   A great deal depends on how the winner goes about binding wounds and soothing hurts after the victory party.  If Topp defeats Mulcair in a head-on vote, Topp would prove himself to be incredibly stupid to freeze out Mulcair - no matter what reservations some may have about his past or his current positions,indisputably one of the party's top performers -- particularly if a significant plurality of the Quebec caucus ends up endorsing Mulcair.  If Mulcair defeats Topp, he would also have to be stupid beyond belief to exile on of the party's shrewdest and most successful strategists, who entered the race backed to the hilt by the party's old guard.  If Julian, Cullen, Saganash, Nash, Chisholm, or Dewar end up on top how stupid would s/he have to be to toss away two of the party's strong assets - particularly if doing so may also destroy the party's newly established Quebec base in the process?  In a party that once made Audrey McLaughlin leader, the incredibly stupid IS possible, but none of these candidates and prospective candidates strike me as remotely stupid, let alone politically suicidal.  In a backwater third-party, winners and losers might easily give into pique and indulge their triumphalism or bitterness, but for a party that is official opposition, with federal power in sight for the first time in its long history, we can reasonably hope that the discipline of possible victory will win out over people's lesser instincts. 

At the same time, once the field is set, maybe someone with some clout could quietly bring all the candidates together and have them swear to a pact not to set the guillotine in motion against one another once the contest is over.

KenS wrote:

And as to there being any basis in Libby the anti-Mulcair... that is rooted in how Mulcair reacted to Libby on the Mideast thing, amd only assumptions that have currency here and other quarters about how Libby took that.

We might also remember Libby comforting Tom when Jack was lying in state.

back to quebec and the points someone made about why quebecers voted for the ndp en masse this last time around.  i agree that quebecers wanted to defeat the harper government, which many/most see as non-representative of quebec values.  i also agree that many/most didn't see the bq as a particularly compelling group to achieve those results, and that they connected with jack the man (particulary because he was very strongly framed as a quebecois).  but it's a lot more complicated than that, like aside from being ndp forever, that's pretty much why i was voting ndp, and i'm mostly an anglophone.  there were several other narratives and lines of reasoning in play, most of which are inconceivable to people who don't know quebec.

so first, and most simply, the sovereignist coalition in montreal began to de-thread roughly around 2006, in the period before/during/immediately following the cpc breakthrough in the quebec city region, boisclair's election as leader of the pq, the (suprisingly temporary) rise of the adq in the regions, and the rise of richard bergeron on the montreal scene.  since i don't feel like writing a lot about this, i'll just go over it all very schematically.  in effect, support for sovereignty had been on the wane for some time, masked somewhat by a sponsorship/gomery-fuel flare up, it returned to that track once the lpc government was defeated at the federal level. it's hard to explain the extent to which the lpc brand is destroyed in quebec, but suffice it to say that the gomery commision stuff was huge, and most of the principle players were quebecers, and it all hit very hard, in a way that wouldn't really make sense to people from outside.  in effect, many people blamed the political class as a whole more than they blamed canada, and support for sovereignty, the temporary reaction to a media narrative, segued into desire for massive change.  the quebec political situation since has been rocked by convulsions.  it's almost certain that bergeron will be the next mayor, and it's almost certain that the pq will be annihilated in the next election by another adq-type francophone-appealing party (hopefully solidaire).  the ndp was a part of this.

the thing is that the ndp can't hold that place in quebecers' minds if it doesn't deliver.  and i'm sorry rabblers, but just being social-democratic doesn't count.  quebec really is almost another country, to an extent that would shock anyone not from alberta, it's actually barely canada at all, as i think most people would recognize it.  these quebec seats are probably the ndp's to lose, but so were all the bc and sask seats in the 80s.  i'm telling you this: anyone who wins the leadership of the ndp, even with a chrisholm or cullen level of embarrasing french, will have top-notch advisors to try to figure quebec and do what the party can.  but there's just no way to control the way a leader connects with a people (and this is a people) and i can't see any possible way that the ndp holds the current level of support with a person who doesn't connect.  and we can tell ourselves whatever fairy tales we want about jack and social democracy, but it comes down to that.  we get a leader who understands and connects with the quebec people, we own the province.  we get a leader who doesn't, we lose it.  for people who know nothing about the quebec (unfortunately, almost all of you), google "action démocratique du québec".

so yeah, great on all these great people joining the leadership race, but it's highly likely that if any of them win, it'll be a total disaster for social democracy in canada.

flight from kamakura wrote:

support for sovereignty had been on the wane for some time, masked somewhat by a sponsorship/gomery-fuel flare up, it returned to that track once the lpc government was defeated at the federal level. it's hard to explain the extent to which the lpc brand is destroyed in quebec, but suffice it to say that the gomery commision stuff was huge, and most of the principle players were quebecers, and it all hit very hard, in a way that wouldn't really make sense to people from outside.  in effect, many people blamed the political class as a whole more than they blamed canada, and support for sovereignty, the temporary reaction to a media narrative, segued into desire for massive change.  the quebec political situation since has been rocked by convulsions.

It seems from this vantage point that while Quebeckers may not have changed their minds on the soveriegnty issue, they don't necessarily want to go through more divisive referendums as they did in 1980 and 1995. Every time the PQ mentions soveriegnty, their support drops, and if it wasn't for the fact that Charest won't call another referendum, he would have been voted out a long time ago. I like what Dr. Khadir is doing, fighting on the angles of corruption and economy, and I really hope this continues, but I would hope that QS doesn't play up sovereignty too much, lest it become another flash in the pan. It's worth noting that the NDP won ridings that are staunchly federalist and sovereigntist, and I would hope that QS can unite Quebeckers on this basis.

As for the sponsorship scandal itself, the way I've explained it is: imagine that Canada had a referendum on joining the States, and voted narrowly in favour of doing so. Next, imagine that we find out some time later that Americans interfered in that campaign in shady, underhanded ways in contradiction to our campaign finance laws. How angry would we feel?

flight from kamakura wrote:

i'm telling you this: anyone who wins the leadership of the ndp, even with a chrisholm or cullen level of embarrasing french, will have top-notch advisors to try to figure quebec and do what the party can.  but there's just no way to control the way a leader connects with a people (and this is a people) and i can't see any possible way that the ndp holds the current level of support with a person who doesn't connect.  and we can tell ourselves whatever fairy tales we want about jack and social democracy, but it comes down to that.  we get a leader who understands and connects with the quebec people, we own the province.  we get a leader who doesn't, we lose it.  for people who know nothing about the quebec (unfortunately, almost all of you), google "action démocratique du québec".

I would think that a leader either connects with people or doesn't, and cannot be coached (see Dwain Lingenfelter in Saskatchewan), and that would apply anywhere. Having said that, I agree with the general gist of this post, that whomever wins must show an ability to connect with (to borrow a Layton-ism) "monsieur et madame tout le monde," and hopefully the campaign will give a good indication. I am willing to go on a limb and say that every candidate in the race has people in Quebec who will vouch for them.

I am not a Quebecer but I spend a lot of time there and have a number of political friends there. I have tried to follow Quebec politics closely for years.

I think Flight has hit the nail on the head. With Mulcair we turn Quebec into a stronghold on which we can build. At least two recent seat projections indicate he can expand the party to 70 (!!!!) seats in Quebec. With anyone else we risk pissing away the greatest advance the party has ever made in federal politics.

Many members outside Quebec just do not seem to recognize how well regarded Mulcair is in Quebec and how much he was responsible for our breakthrough there. And how much we risk by limiting Quebec's weight in the leadership selection.

The Topp camp tries to make the point that Mulcair will not play well in the ROC. I just don't see that. I think the political skills that he brought to bear in Quebec are equally compelling elsewhere. The ROC just hasn't had a good look at him yet.

nicky wrote:

The Topp camp tries to make the point that Mulcair will not play well in the ROC. I just don't see that. I think the political skills that he brought to bear in Quebec are equally compelling elsewhere. The ROC just hasn't had a good look at him yet.

I have not read Topp making that point. 

You are trying to make this an us against them race and you are making up stories to sow division within the party.  The NDP needs to win seats in every region of the country to have a chance at becoming a party that governs for more than one term. I was far more interested in him as a leader until people started to tell me that I must support him or Quebec will tell the ROC to fuck off.  This is not productive to any kind of unity in the party or in the country.  It is exactly the narrative that separatists in Quebec love.

Both Boivin and Guigerre made exactly that point with Topp right beside them at the times they said it.

flight from kamakura wrote:

i'm ultra charmed by nathan cullen, he stopped me and my brother on the street in vancouver years ago because we were wearing ndp pins, talked us up, gave us ludicrously straightforward answers to fraught questions, he's amazing.  but if he won, clearly, the path to an ndp victory would be through the west and we'd lose almost all the quebec seats.  to me, that's hard and unnecessary.  let's put the guy in there who can consolidate the gains and expand upon them elsewise.

If Cullen charmed you, what makes you think he can't charm other Quebecers? Or that other candidates couldn't?

I agree that any candidate who can't get Quebec behind them isn't worth voting for. I just don't think that we know RIGHT NOW who can make that happen and who can't. And I also think it's important to choose someone who can get Quebec AND other regions behind him (or her), and I don't think we know right now who that person is, either.

New Democrats in the rest of Canada are NOT going to vote for a leadership candidate who cannot demonstrate meaningful support in Quebec.  Period.

This whole thread is a surrender to the corporate media talking points.

This whole business about projecting seats under leadership scenarios is inherently flawed because we have no idea who will lead the Liberals. Their decision may well be informed by the NDP - although IMHO they should be looking for someone who can win seats from Conservatives in ridings where the NDP is weak and would be expected to remain so.

No matter what, the Liberals should choose someone who can win back the 905 first and foremost. But what else? If the NDP picks Mulcair, maybe the Liberals should put more energy into the ROC than Quebec. If the NDP picks Topp, maybe the Liberals would see this as an opportunity to break into seats that went Liberal->NDP or even to compete for seats that went Bloc->NDP.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

New Democrats in the rest of Canada are NOT going to vote for a leadership candidate who cannot demonstrate meaningful support in Quebec.  Period.

This whole thread is a surrender to the corporate media talking points.

Agreed

Me three!

And I'll add this for thought: Quebeckers might not vote, again, for a party that cannot demonstrate meaningful support in the rest of Canada. That's just to supplement what Malcolm said, not to contradict.

I am not following the bit about the media talking points or who here has claimed that Quebec voters were insular and parochial. 

In any event, we all agree one central issue is how will this guy/gal play in Quebec (although I am not sure if we all agree that it is more imp than how he/she will sell in, e.g., Down East or in the Prairies). 

The next question becomes: how do we reasonably make that judgement when so many of us know so little about Quebec, its politics and its culture. I suggest that minimally carefully listening to people who, you know, are from Quebec might be a key to that judgement.  

Related, does anyone know whether Topp is organizing now to sign up new members in Quebec? if part of his appeal is that he can sell in Quebec I would think he would devote some time and effort to that especially given that M. Mulcair seems content to proceed more leisurely. 

Of course Topp is working on selling memberships in Quebec.  The evidence is clear.  He's not completely brain dead.  Therefore he is working to sell memberships in Quebec.

Selling memberships in Quebec is the most effective means of demonstrating suport in Quebec.  But given the high number of NDP voters and the low number of NDP members, it is also (arguably) the most fertile province for membership sales.  The challenge in Quebec will be finding the people to do the selling, not finding the buyers.

Malcolm wrote:

Of course Topp is working on selling memberships in Quebec.  The evidence is clear.  He's not completely brain dead.  Therefore he is working to sell memberships in Quebec.

Selling memberships in Quebec is the most effective means of demonstrating suport in Quebec.  But given the high number of NDP voters and the low number of NDP members, it is also (arguably) the most fertile province for membership sales.  The challenge in Quebec will be finding the people to do the selling, not finding the buyers.

I wasn't referring to him personally selling cards to friends and family in Quebec. I was wondering if there was any evidence of him (or anyone else) building a team of sellers, ie organizing.  I think it far from clear that Topp would need to be brain dead to invest heavily in a PQ membership drive. He could decide it was not worth the effort and expense to expand the Quebec electorate given the difficulty of finding and cultivating likely Topp voters there.  He might also decide to skip a Quebec membership drive after concluding that each new Quebec NDP member (whoever signs them up) is more likely to vote Mulcair at the end of the day than for him. In any event, serious evidence of an aggressive mass membership drive (online or otherwise) by any of these candidates would impress me greatly. I havent seen that evidence yet.  

Seriously klexo?

If Topp wants o be taken seriously, he has to demonstrate serious capacity in Quebec.  Any candidate has to.  Topp (and the rest of them) have no choice at all about expending some resources in Quebec on membership sales.  To do otherwise is the kiss of death for the very reason you mention.

Love to see some more Rabble "meme"...from inside Quebec. I believe they never will appreciate being spoken for by folks not living their cultural and economic needs.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

The people of Quebec are not a monolithic identity when it comes to political issues.  The only chance for long term success is to build the party in Quebec.  I don't believe for a minute any of the potential candidates are not totally cognizant of that necessity.  Malcolm has it right that there is no way that the NDP will elect a leader with no Quebec base.  Us members are not that short sighted and have never shown any real inclination to follow the advice of the MSM talking heads.  If we followed their advice we would all have become Liberals long before the last election.

 

All more or less agreed though I am not sure what you mean by "a Quebec base."

To repeat my question is what are any candidates doing or planning to do to build the party in Quebec? Is there an mass membership campaign occurring now but that is going unreported? 

Well if the people of Quebec are parochial enough to only consider a homer for leader I sure as fuck hope we get more than two choices from La Belle province.  

Power Play and all those other stupid shows in March had Mulcair in the fight for his life to get reelected in May.  They make it up as they go along and in reality they have no clue.  Besides Lapierre is a Liberal shill and used to run in Outremont.  He has a vested interest in the story line that nobody in Quebec cares about the NDP. 

Who in Quebec would you like to hear from? So far we have had a good number of Quebec residents posting in this thread and other leadership threads. I pay attention to Unionist's views and have no use for MSM talking heads like Lapierre. 

Malcolm wrote:

New Democrats in the rest of Canada are NOT going to vote for a leadership candidate who cannot demonstrate meaningful support in Quebec.  Period. This whole thread is a surrender to the corporate media talking points.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Agreed

Unionist wrote:

Me three!

And I'll add this for thought: Quebeckers might not vote, again, for a party that cannot demonstrate meaningful support in the rest of Canada. That's just to supplement what Malcolm said, not to contradict.

Let me try again, klexo.

If a candidate cannot demonstrate serious capacity to produce new members in Quebec, that candidate WILL LOSE SUPPORT IN THE REST OF CANADA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thus, any candidate who actually wants to be taken seriously IN THE REST OF CANADA, will invest significant capacity in selling memberships in Quebec.

Again, babblers keep falling for the national media meme.

f_f_k  I doubt if anyone here does not understand the political reality that the PM's job is rightly reserved for someone from Quebec. Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien and Martin are a few recent examples. 

Is there any reason to even bother with the race?  I think for the good of the country all the candidates except those from Quebec should just bow out. I really hope though that we at least get a few more choices. We have 59 MP's with diverse and interesting backgrounds. Given it has to follow the Canadian tradition and be a Quebecois PM I would hope to see at least 3 or 4 serious candidates in the race not just the current two.  I hate coronations.

I think that it matters to Quebeckers that they see their voice matters in the party they support. BQ and Creditiste success arose, in large measure, from the simultaneous loss of faith in all federalist parties' capacity to make Quebec voices count. A leadership process that is decided by English Canada that ends up selecting a Quebecker will do more damage to the party's fortunes in the province than a process in which Quebec voices count but a politician from TROC is chosen.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

f_f_k  I doubt if anyone here does not understand the political reality that the PM's job is rightly reserved for someone from Quebec. Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien and Martin are a few recent examples. 

Is there any reason to even bother with the race?  I think for the good of the country all the candidates except those from Quebec should just bow out. I really hope though that we at least get a few more choices. We have 59 MP's with diverse and interesting backgrounds. Given it has to follow the Canadian tradition and be a Quebecois PM I would hope to see at least 3 or 4 serious candidates in the race not just the current two.  I hate coronations.

Rightly reserved? Prior to Trudeau most Prime Ministers (with the notable exceptions of Laurier and St. Laurent), were not from Quebec. Even after Trudeau there are three Prime Ministers not from Quebec, but only one was elected.

What should make it easier for the NDP by 2015 will be the economy under Harper. One might guess that like the Liberals were elected at the end of a recession in the early 1990s,  and who enjoyed capitalism's swan song during the latter half, that the Harpers would be positioned similarly. Surely this recession is like the two before it in each decade of the neoliberalorama and will pick up again? 

Not so. There will be no economic recovery this time. Not in the USA, and not in Canada since Mulroney and Chretien tied Canada's economic wagon of fortunes to that mess down there. Harper is going to try on the austerity measures at some point or risk finishing with a skyrocketing federal debt in addition to soaring unemployment. And we know he's not a socialist.

I think these ReformaTories will be finished by 2015 unless they make a desperate grab for socialist methods and make things happen for the sake of their political capital with Canadians. I have to think, though, that by 2015 Harper will be about as popular among Canadians as RB Bennett was by 1935. Three decades three recessions, and this one's going to leave some bruises. These Harpers will be totally lost without step by step instruction from right wing think tankers whose thoughts were tapped some time ago,  and from Washington now mired in corruption and chaos in general. This will be the most cautious term any conservative government has ever had to knuckle under to with a real opposition party in their faces for the next four years. They were beatable last time, and the Harpers will be exiting stage right by 2015, mark my words. Harper is not a marathoner. He was ready to pack it in this last election campaign unless they handed him a phony majority. This will be his real test, and he's got nothing up the old ReformaTory sleeve except to trust big business to start spending and investing attitude. And that's not going to happen this time. His big business pals will be whining and crying for corporate welfare handouts as usual, but that's about it.