NDP Leadership 26

Welcome.  I am pretty sure the Romeo will get my first ballot support also.

Romeo Saganash's newest Huffington Post column came out today. In this one he talks about how Canada can reach true prosperity through reconciliaton:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/romeo-saganash/member-of-parliament_b_10175...

Ippurigakko wrote:

I'd vote Romeo Saganash for NDP leader! thats because hes an aboriginal (First Nation - Cree) all of us (Aboriginal peoples) would vote him if he would first aboriginal Prime minister ever!!!!

 

I surprisedly Jonathan Jourdain-Genest not support him! He support Tom Mulcair....

Jonathan is aboriginal - Innu (Montagnais).... how come?! =(

I hope not all white people decide to vote for white candidates :)

Credit to the Dewar team for that video. He's not my preference, but that's good work.

One admittedly shallow critique about Dewar, though: IMO he always looks like he just got out of bed. He conveys an impression of ill-preparedness, even when he isn't.

I think that, while not all candidates are declared, the field is pretty much finalized.

Topp, Mulcair, Saganash, Dewar, Cullen, Singh, Chisholm, Nash and Ashton.

BTW, although I'm not supporting him on the first ballot, I signed Saganash's nomination papers tonight.

Malcolm wrote:

I think that, while not all candidates are declared, the field is pretty much finalized.

Topp, Mulcair, Saganash, Dewar, Cullen, Singh, Chisholm, Nash and Ashton. 

Just a note that its not clear yet that Chisholm is going through with it. No indications that he is NOT, just that time is dragging on with no noises that it WILL happen, such as we have been seeing 'escape' from around Peggy Nash.

" Reporter to candidate: Did you say: "Grind the rich into hamburger to feed the poor."?

Candidate: " I meant good jobs at good wages."

Bloom County, 1970's

I recommend that be the opening line for brother Topps'at the press conference launching his economci strategy-  and at suitable  opportunities. followed by a serious discussion mongst adults the 99%

He should do: 

Canada is like an old cow. The West feeds it. Ontario and Quebec milk it. And you can well imagine what it's doing in the Maritimes. 

Tommy Douglas . 

Earthy. Wry Humour .Courage of convictions. Warmth. Deep roots. A socialist.  Somebody you can trust. Somebody you like to hear speak so you can laugh and learn. The New Party. Tommy??

. 

KenS wrote:

Flaherty scoffs at NDP frontrunner's ‘dreamy' tax-the-rich scheme

McParland: Elect me and I shall tax, Topp bravely pledges

Galloway: Brian Topp wants NDP to run on tax-the-rich platform

 

Boom Boom wrote:

I'm also pulling for Romeo, although if Peggy Nash enters the race, it'll be either one of these two, I'm not sure yet.

That is where I am now with Julian out and Cullen still bleeding from self inflicted wounds. 

  i was at the conseil general in alma. sorry for the spelling and capital mistakes, i am writing this down on my way back. i attended the candidates event and got the chance to speak with a lot of people afterward and here is a general feedback. 

first of all, the format was more of an introduction from each of the candidates (they all had 5 minutes to speak to the crowd). it wasn't a good indication of each of their visions but more of a personality and charisma ''contest''. without being totally unanimous, the following feedback was pretty much the same from the people i spoke to:

tom: he came first to the stage and was really clear on his vision and goals. he was at ease on the stage. he made a few ''subtle'' shots at topp like when he mentioned that he disagrees with people saying that he cannot improve our base and votes in the rest of canada. mulcair speech was typical mulcair: strong, precise and it feels like a real political fighter. out of the people i spoke to, he was a clear favorite.

nathan: he was really charming and his french was better than we were expecting. his speech wasn't about his vision, his goals, but more of a crowd pleaser and charming moment with jokes. some people said afterward that they were now interested in his candidacy. unfortunately i didn't learn anything on nathan's vision.

martin: he also had a really clear vision with two clear goals: a national medicare plan and engage the business people in the ndp. he made some really strong points but his speech might had lack charm and consistency. his body language was also really natural but a little off for a political speech. all in all, i have to admit his vision sounds really refreshing and i am looking forward to hear more of his vision in the future debates.

brian: i didn't feel like he really succeed and connected to the crowd (this comment was pretty unanimous). he made some good points though and his vision is clearly close to layton ''taxing more the wealthy and the businesses to have a more fair society''. i have no doubts on how smart brian is, but he really has to find a way to connect with a crowd. i've seen a few interviews and this live speech and i was left wondering how could we achieve a wider success with the same vision as layton but without the charm and charisma he has? one thing for sure though, i am not saying i won't be voting for topp but my concerns are stronger with each week passing.

paul: he was the only one with notes and a written speech. i got the chance to speak with him twice that night and he has a big likability factor for sure but his french will need improvments to be able to really connect with francophones. his speech was well written and well delivered, although like nathan there were some nervous moments. i admire his guts (and nathan's and martin's) to stand there and speak to the crowd in french when they are not comfortable but that won't be enough, we clearly need a leader at least as good and at ease in french as harper.

romeo: i didn't know what to expect from him. he started with a few good jokes and showed a lot of respect for the other candidates. then he presented his general vision on how we wants to build bridges and make canada a more than ever united country. some of my friends were moved by his speech. saganash has charm and warm and i just can hope for him to grow as a public figure. i was concern romeo would be too soft and not engaging based on previous interviews he did in the past.

after the speech i got the chance to speak with paul, nathan and romeo. and my impressions were confirmed: nathan is a good guy with a fun and positive attitude, paul is close to people but his french really needs improvments and romeo is really warm and engaging. i wanted to meet brian but we had to go to another party with the lgbt people.

when i spoke with saganash, he told me a few really interesting points:

1- he is touring the country right now and is in saskatchewan today helping candidates with meetings and door to door.

2- he is doing meet and greets accross the country and at one of them they got 300 new members.

3- megan leslie will most likely not endorse any candidate but she supports him and she is the one who will be introducing him in  his tour and meetings in the maritimes.

4- the main pillars of his campaign will be: engaging canadians and building bridges, environment and renewable energies, management of our national ressources and being a voice of peace in the world. he will start being more active and vocal on these topics but his goal at the moment is still for people in the roc to get to know him.

last thing: from people in the know, there will be 8 candidates at least and one new candidate will launch her campaign this week. yes, i said her ;) 

the other candidate should announce his intention in two weeks.

if there is anything you guys want to know about this event, let me know, i'd be glad to answer. sorry if it looks a little biased toward romeo, i was not in the first place, but he really engaged me and i've tried to give you my most sincere overall feedback for each candidate.

Je me demandais s'il y avait des babblers au conseil general. Merci samuelolivier pour l'info.

samuelolivier wrote:

3- megan leslie will most likely not endorse any candidate but she supports him [Romeo Sagnash] and she is the one who will be introducing him in  his tour and meetings in the maritimes. 

Megan is working on getting all the candidates to NS- and staying non-aligned. She might introduce other candidates as well.

I'm only making an educated guess on this, but I would think Romeo would not be saying that she supports him even privately, unless she did. Mind you, as Romeo knows, people change their minds. Equally, I think that after she wraps up her non-aligned role of getting everyone to come here, that Megan not supporting a candidate is not necessarily permanent.

hi kens and thanks for the claryfication about megan leslie. sorry if i used the word support, to me supporting someone doesn't mean not supporting anyone else. i was expecting megan leslie to introduce all candidates to nova scotian voters :) not sure if she will endorse someone at one point though.

as for peggy nash, i can't say who said she will, but trust me i am not saying someone in the know lightly. i hate when people are mentioning someone in the know or an insider source, but this time i had to use this wording as i can't say who said that to someone else while i was there... oh well... you're right, we were all expecting saganash to support topp and tadam! he decided to run himself ;)

Some kind words for Mulcair from an unlikely source:

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/21/mulcair-the-man-background-in-politics-law-environment-are-solid-qualifications?%20law,%20environment%20are%20solid%20qualifications

(I hope the source dosen't deter some of you fom supporting Mulcair)

I have no problem in taking Peter Worthington's words stricly on the merit of the substance.

Quote:

if you believe a strong Opposition is necessary in a democracy, Quebec's Thomas Mulcair seems the best choice to lead the NDP.

...... he may be just what the party and Canada's politics need in these times of bland, play-it-safe leaders.

I think that when it come to bland or not, there is no worry about Tom Mulcair.

But Worthington is taking the traditional idea of Opposition- one that cuts across party lines and the right-left divide: equating Opposition with "combative".

As in the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to argue vociferously against whatever the government is doing.

There is no question that Tom Mulcair is combative. And no question in my mind that is a good thing.

But not playing it safe is not just a question of being combative. For most of us here it is not  primarily what it is about.

Not playing it safe is for us a question of politics. And on that score, so far others than Tom Mulcair are doing a better job of defining the appeal of their vision.

In fact, Mulcair's particular cross to bear in this campaign- the particular lingering doubts he has to deal with- is that he will default to playing it safe politics.

Playing It Safe

(and Jack Layton's NDP)

The Nova Scotia NDP is the epitomy of playing it safe.

Once the NSNDP had a lock on Official Opposition- by 2003- the playbook was all about no sudden moves.

These days, all governments eventually do themselves in, or simply grow long in the tooth. Usually both. So you dont do anything to get in the way of government simply falling your way.

'Mandate' you say. Pffft.

While Jack Layton was clearly not that kind of playing it safe to the core, I never had the confidence that the NDP under his leadership was going to break away from that model of building your support among voters. I hoped. But I was never sure.

The federal NDP seemed a long way off from even being Official Opposition, and I guess that was a good deal of why I could say to myself simply 'we shall see' on this question.

And then, come May- here we are. Boom. So how we get to government, and and on what terms, became the immediate question.

Brian Topp staking out 'tax the rich,' and some of the other basic agenda items he has tossed out both reassures me about him and what he would do, and about the kind of direction we are likely to have got from Jack Layton.

As I said before, I think a bar has been set for this leadership race. And I look forward to hearing from all the candidates where they stand on that basic question, or set of questions, about the direction of the NDP now.

Because if you want an example of the pragmatic effects of eschewing a mandate- then look to Nova Scotia. There are lots of unambiguously positive things to be learned from the experience and path of the NS NDP. But there is this too.

I have played the interviews with the candidates posted by Dacckon in Post #68.

One thing that stands out for me, in light of the comments in some circles that Mulcair is really a "Liberal", is his revelation that he first bought a membership card from provincial NDP leader Henri-Francois Gautrin in 1974 when he was a student at McGill and when the NDP was nowhere in Quebec.

Topp says he first joined the NDP "in the 1980s" so Mulcair's attachment to the party precedes Topp's by at least six years.

That being said Mulcair does not indicate whether his allegiance was uninterupted until he was recruited by Layton in 2007. Even so, his interest in the party goes back 37 years, much longer than some of his critics recognize.

Any concerns I have about Mulcair on policy at this point are about his present, not his past--I think he's more than proven himself to be a loyal New Democrat. Right now, though, the anglophone media (along with several of his Twitter fans) is pushing the "Mulcair's the centrist" or even the "Mulcair's the furthest right" line. And while I don't give a whole lot of credence to the media's characterizations of the candidates, I'm not finding anything in his stances to either confirm or deny this, so I have to wonder. I plan to ask him about this myself the next time I see him, but does anyone who knows him better than I do know whether he would actually identify as such? And does he really think the party needs to soften some of its left-wing edges to win?

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

does anyone who knows him better than I do know whether he would actually identify as such? And does he really think the party needs to soften some of its left-wing edges to win?

I dont know him in the least. But I have an opinion based on close observation of what I can glean.

I do not think Tom Mulcair has ever said that the party needs to soften its left wing edges.

But I also think you are right that he has said little on this question. He is not the only candidate that has said little, but given that even a lot of his proponents within the party make supportive comments about his assumed centrism [whatever word/label they use for it], he has more of a practical need to inject some of his own substance around this.

Though, once again, it is still really early. And it is a perfectly valid strategy to concentrate first on circulating; and frankly, capitalizing on his heads above name recognition and ready connection with groups.... before he starts taking the downsides that go with identifying where you stand.

Its a very different strategic situation than what Topp faces. Despite all the characterisation of him as 'THE front runner'... Brian not only does not have Tom's assets, he does not have any assets that would allow him to just coast for a while on 'this is me, here I am'.

Brain Topp can only win by identifying himself, has to start pretty early, and has a lot to draw on in doing so. [There is no question he is totaly prepared for this.] Tom Mulcair's natural advantage lies more in the direction of making sure he has as much room as possible to gather support.

ottawaobserver wrote:

To Nicky: yes, there was another story about that meeting in the weekend french press, and it had an interesting angle:

http://lepoint.canoe.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=211351&id=1180&classif=Dernire+heure#

Turns out the BQ was having a meeting and leadership panel at the very same hotel as the NDP in Alma this past weekend!

The report doesn't say anything about respective crowds.  Does anyone know which party had the bigger audience for its leadership hopefuls and was there any overlap in people listening to both?

Northern Shoveler wrote:

The report doesn't say anything about respective crowds.  Does anyone know which party had the bigger audience for its leadership hopefuls and was there any overlap in people listening to both?

Brushing off my rusty (and never very polished) French I come up with:

About the BQ turnout: "Une quarantaine de militants seulement étaient au rendez-vous."

So about 40.

And NDP: "De jeunes militants néo-démocrates sont venus de Montréal, pour ne pas manquer l'évènement, lors duquel se sont réunis 150 délégués."

So 150, including some NDP youth who travelled up from Montreal "pour ne pas manquer l'évènement."

Apparently these were not general membership events, but council meetings, so it's unclear whether the larger NDP crowd reflected interest or just internal process differences. Anybody got insight into that?

...or Chisholm in NS in 1998-1999 - but then look at who is in power in NS today!

ottawaobserver wrote:

Yes, I was annoyed with Dobbin's column as well. His dismissals of Mulcair and Topp based on things he's read or who they are associated with in his mind prove the shallowness of his analysis. It's hard to take anything else he says seriously as a result. And not for the first time. He was completely wrong about Jack as well.

My inclination is to dismiss anything Dobbin says because he's one of these numbskulls who is still going on and on with that stale old Liberal blogger talking point about how the NDP should not have voted non confidence in Paul Martin in Nov. '05 (because supposedly paul martin was sooooo progressive and was going to do all these wonderful things yadda yadda yadda) and that somehow its the NDP's "fault" that Harper is PM (never mind that Paul Martin purposely engineered his own defeat because he thought he could get a majority in a snap election and then ran a dreadful campaign).

The thing that guarantees (almost) an NDP win in 2015 is Harper really going gung-ho right wing fanatic between now and then. Pissing off the unions won't help him, either. The NDP really needs to sell itself as a government-in-waiting with the new leader -and reach out to as broad a base as possible, even to the Liberals, to ensure a change of government in 2015. Four years of a Harper majority yet to come. Sigh.