Unilingual candidates will not even score a ranking on my preferential ballot.
Same. Thirty percent of the Canadian population speaks French. Twenty two percent speak French only. To govern for all Canadians, the NDP needs a candidate that comes from the seventeen percent of bilingual Canadians (e.g. 1 out of every 6 Canadians is bilingual, I wonder if Parliament is as bilingual as the general population?).
Unilingual candidates will not even score a ranking on my preferential ballot.
Same. Thirty percent of the Canadian population speaks French. Twenty two percent speak French only. To govern for all Canadians, the NDP needs a candidate that comes from the seventeen percent of bilingual Canadians (e.g. 1 out of every 6 Canadians is bilingual, I wonder if Parliament is as bilingual as the general population?).
I don't at all disagree with the spirit of what you said, but I've still got to nitpick at the content (sorry, it's a pet peeve). The word 'bilingual' does not mean 'speaks English and French.' It means 'speaks two languages'. There are many, many bilingual Canadians whose English or French isn't nearly good enough to be the Leader of the Opposition...
Stephane Dion was (fairly, I believe) criticised for his poor English when he was Liberal leader, and in my estimation his skills in English far exceeded the fluency of some of our leadership candidates in French.
I think the Dion comparison is a fair test.
As a Francophone (raised in both languages) I'd suggest that of the NPD leadership candidates, the largest number have French superior to Dion's English:
Mulcair
Nash
Saganash
Topp
And Ashton, assuming she gets in.
From the what I've seen of Cullen and Dewar speaking French in the media (I've never seen or interacted witheither of them in person), I'd rate both of them as roughly equivalent to Dion - they actually are a little better than Dion when delivering prepared remarks (Cullen has worked on his accent it seems), but below Dion's skills in less rehearsed Q&A, spontaneous media interviews, and similar areas. Perhaps that is a sign that a lot of coaching and practice could bring them along...but both of them would have a significant hurdle to overcome in this area.
Chisholm says he doesn't speak French, so he is obviously below Dion's level. I've never heard Singh speak, so I can't compare him with Dion, but I've seen media reports that he speaks French.
Layton's French was not as strong when he was first chosen as leader (better than Dion's English though), and he was able to significantly improve it with a lot of concentrated effort. I'm not sure that the current circumstances (leader of the opposition instead of 3rd or 4th party, election to attempt to become PM in 4 years, greater scrutiny, 59 seats in Quebec, etc...) would allow a Dewar or Cullen the same luxury that Layton had (and Layton started with a somewhat better command than either of them have...)
Overall, the French skills of our leadership candidate pool is quite impressive -- especially considering the limited bilingualism of most of our previous leaders before Jack.
Their usefulness for the party is in gaining members, and supporting another candidate later on. Some of them will drop before the ballot I assume.
Since we are speaking about bilingualism, we do have certain candidates who are running without a seat in the house. This could be in a way advantageous. What if we showed that we cared about a certain riding that got the short end of the stick during the Orange Crush? We could have a leader run in Berthier-Maskinongé, however risky and fueled by populism rural quebec may hold. There is an opportunity to pay back their loyalty and trust which was invested in voting for a poteau
Anyways... Chisholm and the NDP race , Topp in Nelson & his continual BC support
I'm not sure that the current circumstances (leader of the opposition instead of 3rd or 4th party, election to attempt to become PM in 4 years, greater scrutiny, 59 seats in Quebec, etc...) would allow a Dewar or Cullen the same luxury that Layton had (and Layton started with a somewhat better command than either of them have...)
I'm surprised though at the people who are jumping on the Dewar bandwagon for example. I like Dewar but since his French isn't up to scratch, why support him? I guess to some New Democrats, being bilingual in French and English isn't a factor for them.
Anyone supporting Dewar care to answer why? Or Cullen? Or Chisholm?
thanks for posting that link to tva's coverage of nash's announce. first time i've heard her speak french, and i have to say that it doesn't sound all that european, will probably pass. beyond tokenism, nash's entry finally gives us the requisite four-square labor candidate, and despite there being no chance that i'll support her, i'm glad for any venue or process that gives her views public airing and mainstream attention. as for chisholm, i don't even like to think about what he sees as his path to victory. i doubt it'll harm the ndp support in qubec that we have a unilingual anglophone in the race for leader, but one assumes that ndp members are savvy enough not to commit hari-kiri in quebec by electing a guy who can't communicate with the majority of his caucus without a translator or a pantomime sketch.
getting back to mulcair and the (imo) overblown union stuff, i'm wondering where he sees the upside in that positioning (however much it was exaggerated and caricatured). he's doing this thing where he's trying to force the ndp cultural change/prep for government into the campaign as a logic of his candidacy, but it's not really resonating yet, and the risk is that it doesn't. in a race with so few points of contention, a personality-based contest where we have the bc populist, the toronto union lady, the sikh small business guy, the maritime charmer, the aboriginal activist, the party apparatchik/insider, the generic mp, and maybe punky brewster from the northern prairies, mulcair doesn't need to add one more point of contrast. everyone seems to know that we need a leader consistent with the historic opportunity to form national government,and contest here should reduce to that question - who's the best face for the party, who'll bring us to government? - he's trying to answer that question in a way that needlessly draws attention to aspects of his profile that hardcore party members won't love (being a product of quebec's political culture, mainly).
Here's a video of Chisholm, definately needs work on his french.
If by "generic MP" you mean Dewar, I think you don't know him well. He's an extremely inspiring person, and perhaps captures that part of Jack's legacy the best of any of them. This is why those who know him are hoping against hope that he can accelerate his french.
in a race with so few points of contention, a personality-based contest where we have the bc populist, the toronto union lady, the sikh small business guy, the maritime charmer, the aboriginal activist, the party apparatchik/insider, the generic mp, and maybe punky brewster from the northern prairies, mulcair doesn't need to add one more point of contrast.
I am sure that daddy will make a few suggestions as to what issues Niki should promote if she does throw her hat in the ring - besides the Wheat Board ...
I considered flagging this as offensive but concluded vaudree should have the opportunity to explain this post.
Niki Ashton has been a Member of Parliament for three years (and would have been two years earlier had Bev Desjarlais not split the vote). She has her own record. Frankly, trying to spin that she's no more than Daddy's Little Girl is just sexism - especially since her father is not that well known beyond Manitoba outside of activist circles (as indicated by your need to post the link so that no one would miss your "point").
You know, it might eve be possible that Niki Ashton is fighting the fight (and showing real leadership) on the Canadian Wheat Board issue because, as one of only three prairie NDP MPs she thinks she ought to be doing so. Or possibly because the demise of the Wheat Board is likely to have a negative effect on the Port of Churchill in her constituency.
You hit the nail on the head. Stephane Dion was (fairly, I believe) criticised for his poor English when he was Liberal leader, and in my estimation his skills in English far exceeded the fluency of some of our leadership candidates in French.
I would take it a step further: presuming to enter the race without the passable ability to communicate with a quarter of the country shows a callous disregard for francophones across Canada and is an insult to the 2 million Quebeckers who put their faith in us.
Unilingual candidates will not even score a ranking on my preferential ballot.
I had a chance to meet Dion face to face a couple of years before he became Liberal leader for a lobbying meeting. He gave us about half hour. His English was excellent (the meeting was half English and half French). He also struck me as very intelligent and had a mastery of many dossiers. The problem was he had an atrocious accent in English and he wasn't terribly charismatic. When he became leader, I thought, perhaps the Liberals really wanted a leader who would be an excellent Liberal Prime Minister. (Apparently, what they wanted at the time was a leader who they did not fear was a New Democrat, or one who hadn't spent much time in Canada in the preceeding decades.)
There's a similar dynamic in our leadership race. I'm still leaning toward Topp due to intelligence and committment to a labour perspective. I think he'd make an excellent Prime Minister. However, he has to prove he's more articulate and charismatic than Dion.I'm glad we still have a few months. I'm hoping there will be debates, meet & greets, etc. here in Montreal.
If he can't captivate a room, deliver a rousing, inspiring speech and charm people one on one, I'll move on to my number 2 choice (Nash, at least for now). Dewar and Chisolm seem very impressive. But I agree with the comments above. The leader must be fluent in English and French. I also have to read more about Saganash.
It has occurred to me that Peggy Nash is the one candidate for leader who passes the "why not?" question. Every other candidate there is a quick retort to the "why not question"
Why not Paul Dewar? Answer: His French isn't good enough
Why not Nathan Cullen? Answer: His French isn't good enough AND his joint nomination scheme is a non-starter AND he opposed the gun registry
Why not Robert Chisholm? Answer: His French isn't just not good enough, its NON-EXISTENT - GONG!!!
Why not Martin Singh? Answer: No experience, no one has ever heard of him, wanting to "apply the principles of Sikhism to Canadian politics" is a bit flaky sounding
Why not Romeo Saganash? Answer: Too inexperienced in national politics and in Canada outside Quebec
Why not Thomas Mulcair? Answer: His understanding of Canada outside of Quebec isn't good enough. He may not understand the political culture of the party he seeks to lead. He seems to shoot from the hip and has managed to make quite a few enemies in a very short time in the party.
Why not Brian Topp? Answer: He has never run for office, his retail political skills are unknown, it is an open question whether he has any charisma and can connect emotionally with Canadians
Why not Niki Ashton? Answer: Too young (and looks it), may lack gravitas, opposed the gun registry (btw: the LGR issues is not a big deal for me - but it would be a deal breaker for some people)
Why not Peggy Nash: Answer: well, hmm...give me a few weeks and I might think of something...
I'm not saying I support Nash. I'm still very undecided. I have not ruled out Topp by any means and I have an open mind to the others...but honestly, I cannot think of a single reason why NOT Peggy Nash. So far she is the only candidate in the race with no obvious glaring weakness.
Peggy Nash will be 63 at the next election and 67 at the (likely) election after that. While that's not an absolute non-starter, it is at least as valid as some of the reasons offered on other candidates.
I think by the tiime the next election rolls around (2015?) Canadians will be sick to death of what Harper has done to this country, and it's important that the NDP have the best leader possible. The only knock I see against Peggy is that the Conservatives will paint her as too close to unions. However, that might work in her favour, because I suspect most Canadians would love to be in a union.
Being in your early 60s is not much of a negative. In fact it's a pretty typical age for someone to become PM (wasn't Chretien 65 when he became PM? and if Jack was alive he would be 65 in 2015) and Nash looks younger than she is. It is not much of an answer to the "why not?" question. It seems more that we have to grasp at straws to come up with a valid reason against Nash.
All that being said, just picking the candidate who is the most inoffensive and who seems not to have any negatives can also mean you get stuck with someone who is second best in every category and is a bowl of mush...but I don't know if that is an issue with Peggy. That may have been the problem with Audrey McLaughlin.
pS. It really doesn't matter if the leader of the NDP is personally tied to the labour movement. The party as a whole is and the Tories will use that no matter what...so here we are back to "Why not Peggy Nash?" Can anyone come up with any really good reasons why she would NOT be a good leader?
Peggy Nash will be 63 at the next election and 67 at the (likely) election after that. While that's not an absolute non-starter, it is at least as valid as some of the reasons offered on other candidates.
I believe I heard that Layton was 61 and just getting started with being Opposition leader. He would have been 65 in 2015.
His understanding of Canada outside of Quebec isn't good enough.
Curious Stock... is there something that happened that makes you come to that conclusion?
As well, why is the question of "do they understand Quebec?" not asked of the other candidates? Considering the current situation in Quebec, I think that's an important question to ask.
My problem with Peggy is that every time I have seen her on television, she seems to speak in party functionary speech that reminds me of Ujjal Dosanjh who was a BC vice president before becoming premier. I never felt he could inspire the public in an election and my gut says that I don't think Peggy will be able to either. Although the BC NDP had already created many of its own problems in the 2001 election, Dosanjh's performance in the election was so unimpressive that the party fell to 2 seats provincially, something it had never done before. This is also a problem for Brian Topp in my opinion, although he seems to have a little more fire in his belly. I am pretty much of a policy wonk, but I have learned that when one has strong gut feelings it pays to give some attention to them. Undoubtedly, some will attack me for taking this approach, but they are my honest feelings.
I found an interesting Radio-Canada report from the Alma, Québec NPD meeting on the punditsguide. It has clips of Mulcair, Topp, and Singh speaking in French, and Singh's French sounds quite strong (he's got an inconsistent accent). Interesting 
For those who care, the two candidates with the best accents are Topp and Saganash IMO.
Malcolm, do you think it is offensive when family members give their two cents? Not everyone is Jack Layton who goes into the family business of politics and takes a left turn from where his dad was. Most kids who become politicians and/or political like their fathers share a lot of their parents' beliefs. Naomi mentions in her book that Avi gave a lot of feedback, which she appreciated. Avi tends to like giving feedback - I watched him on Counterspin - and he is lucky to have a wife that considers it a plus. I was talking, in part, about ideological leanings that tend to be passed on withing families. Do you think it is sexist that Jack has a son in City politics? Or do you think that father and son never talked politics to their mutual benefit? How did the NDP figure out the alternate paper trail Toilet Tony Clement left? Either the son or some other friend working in city politics and keeping their ears open.
Niki has a large constituency of First Nations whom she has always stuck up for but Saganash (and, to a lesser extent) Nash is after the same group of voters. As far as issues that influence her constituents but would also be an issue that has National appeal, that would be water. Check the link and ask yourself what Steve Ashton knows about water that none of the other Federal NDP candidates know about - other than his daughter. Water is a multilayered issue that is very big in Manitoba and Niki's father is the appointed expert in that regards.
Also, having a father in the Manitoba cabinet gives Niki a bit of inside information - don't knock the benefits of having an MLA for a father - I doubt that Steve Ashton is turning up his nose at having an MP for a daughter who can give him the heads up if something nasty is heading his way - ie the Garrison project.
My why not for Peggy Nash is the charisma question. Megan Leslie definitely has it, but she lacks Peggy's experience and life-long record of achievements. Peggy Nash shows flashes of charisma, but a lot of the time she comes across as dull. What I'm looking for is sincerity, the sense of someone comfortable in their setting, and if possible: passion. Passion about their ideas, passion about their beliefs...
I also worry about Peggy Nash's ability to steer clear of minefields on the economic front. The Conservatives are going to come out hard against the NDP on this issue, it was a winner for Harper in the last campaign. They will especially target her because of her background in the union movement, the autoworkers (who- I'm sorry if I am bursting bubbles- are not too popular among the general public), and her past positions opposing trade deals that many Canadians have already moved forward on if not tacitly support. NAFTA for instance, is very popular in Québec.
Remember also that the NDP is speaking to a new kind of voter now that it has risen to 30% in the vote and displaced the Liberals as the second party in the majority of the country. It is speaking to people that are historically more comfortable voting Liberal or Conservative, and even when change was in the air, sought to stick with the old tried and true. I want the NDP to be able to come at Harper forcefully and take away any advantage the Conservatives may have on the economy, without making many gaffes. Perhaps I am hoping for too much (maybe it will take the NDP a few elections to achieve this), but I dare to dream.
You look at the stuff that David Suzuki or Stephen Lewis put out - they don't show us every article or bit of paper that they read - just the important ones.
Someone was ranting on how she was having to do her own research while righting a book of fiction for her thesis and saying that she was not like Margaret Atwood who had a whole team of researchers looking up stuff for her. I told her that Margaret Atwood doesn't have a whole team of researchers looking up tidbits of information concerning environment things to make her fiction seem more real, her father worked with the environment and she is on various environmental boards so, if she had a question about something that she doesn't already know, there are plenty of people she can ask. Also, that Atwood was an avid reader so she was apt to have come up with the tidbit herself from some article someone else that she knew was excited about.
That is all I meant - by looking at family ties and what boards they are on etc you get an idea of, not just what ideas a person has been exposed to, but also the sorts of information they have access to.
The way one differs in ideas and ideology from family members is also noted since media tends to like to point out contrasts. For example, Jack and his father.
Niki also has a mother and a brother ... along with her other family of NDP MPS.
As far as the economy is concerned, I see that as one of Nash's biggest advantages. She is/was Finance critic and she negotiated major contracts with Ford. She's clearly has a solid economic grounding - who else in the race can point to even that much expertise? As for opposing trade deals in the past. So what? All of the NDP opposed various trade deals in the past. Once upon a time the Liberals were going to tear up the free trade agreement with the US if they ever took power.
My point about Mulcair not understanding English Canada is not that it is necessarily true but that it is a "knock" against him. My fear is that he will fall into the typical Anglo-Quebecer syndrome (I know it well being an Anglo-Quebecer myself) of thinking that Quebec is THE one and only issue that needs to be understood and is the ever present elephant in the room and that the rest of Canada is "the easy stuff" and doesn't require any work. When you grow up English in Montreal you tend to think that the other nine provinces are basically Westmount! NDG and POinte-Claire times 100. I would like to see evidence that Mulcair has made any real effort to understand the other nine provinces and the issues people living in them have. maybe he has. I want to see it. So far the impression I get is that he sees himself as representing Quebec to the NDP rather than representing the NDP to Quebec and to all the other provinces and territories. I hope I am wrong.
So far the knocks against the candidates fall into two categories: demographic and external characteristics over which they have no or little control now, and those they can shape or which they are imbued with.
Peggy worked for the CAW, but what does that mean specifically about her versus someone else? I'm not sure, and I suspect Stockholm is right that it may not apply more to her than any other New Democrat. For god's sake we can't run away from who we are, but people have voted for us before knowing full well who the NDP was, so there must be more to it than that.
The age thing could be an issue or not. She seems to have a lot of energy and in good shape. But Jack was 61 and eight years into his leadership. She would be 60 and just starting into it. I worry that we might not hold men to that same standard, but then again both Iggy and Bob Rae are 60, and seemed increasingly inflexible, whereas Jack was a very youthful 60.
The qualities of charisma and connectedness are part temperament, and part experience. Layton got much better at them over time. I just watched Robert Chisholm's entrance, and he just exudes warmth (especially on his home turf of Nova Scotia), and handled the tricky media questions authentically and honestly, but also pretty deftly. Dewar's got amazing presence too. Brian has a quiet authority, which may not be charismatic per se, but inspires a difference kind of confidence - that he's thought something through very carefully and thoroughly.
I do agree that that Peggy's air is that of quiet confidence as well. A little boring, but reliable. Sounds more like a Finance Minister to me than a Party Leader, but it's early days yet.
Vaudree, my issue was what I saw (and frankly still see, though it may not have been your intent) as a bellitling comment about her "daddy." I think it's perfectly fine that she is the daughter of a successful provincial politician. I don't think she should be belittled for it.
(And somehow I doubt anyone ever made comments about Stephen Lewis's "daddy" when he was first running.)
Boom Boom, Jack was 53 when he became leader and had led the party through four campaigns - and had we not made the breakthrough, I expect this might have been his last one had he lived. There is a difference between being in the second half of your time on the job in your mid60s and starting a new job in your mid60s.
Peggy Nash will be 63 at the next election and 67 at the (likely) election after that. While that's not an absolute non-starter, it is at least as valid as some of the reasons offered on other candidates.
She's only 3 years older than Mulcair. It's about perception, not actual age; for example, more people in 1968 would have thought that Stanfield was closer in age to Douglas than to Trudeau. And consider that the most popular politician in Quebec today is 64 years old.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Only+Duceppe+could+defeat+Legault+poll/5629936/story.html
Being in your early 60s is not much of a negative. In fact it's a pretty typical age for someone to become PM (wasn't Chretien 65 when he became PM? and if Jack was alive he would be 65 in 2015) and Nash looks younger than she is. It is not much of an answer to the "why not?" question. It seems more that we have to grasp at straws to come up with a valid reason against Nash.
Chretien was born in 1934 and became PM in 1993. He was closer to 65 when he stepped down in 2003 than when he became Prime Minister.
Re minefields
Howard, Peggy Nash was the former Finance Critic - which does give her an edge as far as avoiding certain minefields. Also, Tony Clement has made this less of a landmine than it was last time. I too hope that Nash has more flashes of charisma and spark - but also think that it was a problem with Alexa McDonough in that she had lots of spark and someone told her to mellow it down a bit and she did so too much. I don't think that they are giving that sort of advice any more.
I don't mind Martin Singh showing how Canadian values of fairness etc are also Sikh values - it will give us a better view concerning why a person of the Sikh faith would consider the NDP to be a better fit than, lets say, the Gribrals or Tories. What I worry about more is what he means when he is talking about the pro-business side of
=========
I heard a bit about Olivia Chow on babble just around the time Jack was announcing his bid to step into the ring about her qualifications and I think she was one of the pundents they were talking to. However, what really impressed me about Olivia was something very stupid which, on the surface looked insignificant or like window dressing. Olivia was not supposed to go up to the stage, it was not planned, but after Jack won, she was there to escourt him through the crowd. I caught on very quickly that Olivia was not being the traditional trophy wife - she kept putting herself between Jack and all the reporters trying to get through the crowd to talk to him. Olivia saw a problem and took care of it while appearing gratious.
There was a sense that Olivia had Jack's back - but also of her own political smarts and savy.
Niki Ashton just got married and doesn't have children yet. Saganash and Nash both have grown children and Saganash made the point that he wanted to wait until his kids were grown before he threw his hat in the ring. Another MP had twins and did not want to take the time away from his family at this point to lead his party. Choice of spouse is also important because successful men and women do have spouses who will pick up the slack when necessary to allow them to become more involved or take on bigger roles.
As far as the economy is concerned, I see that as one of Nash's biggest advantages. She is/was Finance critic and she negotiated major contracts with Ford. She's clearly has a solid economic grounding - who else in the race can point to even that much expertise? As for opposing trade deals in the past. So what? All of the NDP opposed various trade deals in the past. Once upon a time the Liberals were going to tear up the free trade agreement with the US if they ever took power.
I want someone who can truly connect the dots between the economy, the environment, and social justice. Nash did take a leading role in developing the Party's Green Car Strategy, but of course the greenest car is no car at all (and I don't mean a truck). The situation in 2015 may be profoundly different from the one now, and we want to be both relevant and seen as relevant while the Conservatives are increasingly irrelevant.
Malcolm, that is because Stephen Lewis became leader of the Ontario NDP before David Lewis became leader of the Federal NDP.
One sees comparisons between Peter MacKay and Elmer, or of Justin Trudeau and his famous father, or that Paul Martin was a junior (though, for the life of me, I don't remember his father at all). When one is dealing at the level of prediction, this usually works out not too bad.
For example, Stephen Lewis married a feminist so he promotes feminism and credits his wife for teaching him how to be a feminist. Thus, if one was looking at ML's Toronto Star articles, one would have a good idea what Stephen Lewis stood for on the issue even before Stephen Lewis really made his views known.
Couples differ, but, if one is playing the odds, one ignores such differences - unless they are known.
What did we know about GWB before he started running for the Republican party? We knew who his father was and what his father stood for and promoted. And we know that GWB treated Joyce Milgaard very shabily when she went to Texas when he was Governor.
What do we really know about Jeb? We do know that he hasn't gone out of his way to distinguish himself from his father or brother - which allows one to assume with some degree of accuracy that he is very much like them politically.
Niki Ashton just got married and doesn't have children yet. Saganash and Nash both have grown children and Saganash made the point that he wanted to wait until his kids were grown before he threw his hat in the ring. Another MP had twins and did not want to take the time away from his family at this point to lead his party. Choice of spouse is also important because successful men and women do have spouses who will pick up the slack when necessary to allow them to become more involved or take on bigger roles.
Cullen has young twins. Not sure who else you are referring to.
On the economy, with due respect, I think some of the comentators on this board are seeing the world through rose-coloured glasses. I still think it is the one issue the NDP has the most work to do on and, if polls are to believed, voters seem to agree. Peggy Nash, Thomas Mulcair, and Martin Singh have had the most interesting things to say on this subject to date, IMO. Not that any candidate has talked about the economy all that much. Other candidates have referred to it obliquely through statements on sustainability (e.g. Cullen, Saganash), and in fairness Dewar has talked about a cities agenda but I didn't feel like his ideas were anything new (Jack talked about the exact same things when he ran and he helped enact a lot of these ca$h for cities ideas while in government => sharing more cents off the gas tax; not to mention these issues are really old horse for the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, from whence they were borrowed). Topp's approach to the economy has been to use a lot of class warfare rhetoric. This is a well-loved tactic of the NDP in BC. They use class-based rhetoric to wedge voters, rile people up, and get them to the polls. I don't know if Topp would use this kind of approach in a general election campaign, but he has clearly calculated that it could help him to gain the leadership of the Federal NDP. I know the knee-jerk response to this post will be, "well if you are so clear about what is wrong with the NDP on the economy, what would you do?" I am not clear and I don't know fully what the NDP will/should do, but let me toss out the trade issue again. The NDP has been so great at opposing trade deals, but what about actually supporting some or one. What would such a trade deal look like, what would it include? On the otherhand, if the NDP doesn't want to have any new trade deals, what would it do with existing ones? Would it tear them up or would it expand them? Would it make an economic island out of Canada? A self-imposed economic exile, a voluntary Cuba? Or does it have plans for how it would like to interact economically, with the world? I would start the party dialogue there. I think some highly capable candidates can take it farther.
On the economy, with due respect, I think some of the comentators on this board are seeing the world through rose-coloured glasses. I still think it is the one issue the NDP has the most work to do on and, if polls are to believed, voters seem to agree. Peggy Nash, Thomas Mulcair, and Martin Singh have had the most interesting things to say on this subject to date, IMO. Not that any candidate has talked about the economy all that much. Other candidates have referred to it obliquely through statements on sustainability (e.g. Cullen, Saganash), and in fairness Dewar has talked about a cities agenda but I didn't feel like his ideas were anything new (Jack talked about the exact same things when he ran and he helped enact a lot of these ca$h for cities ideas while in government => sharing more cents off the gas tax; not to mention these issues are really old horse for the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, from whence they were borrowed). Topp's approach to the economy has been to use a lot of class warfare rhetoric. This is a well-loved tactic of the NDP in BC. They use class-based rhetoric to wedge voters, rile people up, and get them to the polls. I don't know if Topp would use this kind of approach in a general election campaign, but he has clearly calculated that it could help him to gain the leadership of the Federal NDP. I know the knee-jerk response to this post will be, "well if you are so clear about what is wrong with the NDP on economics, what would you do?" I am not clear and I don't know fully what the NDP will/should do, but let me toss out the trade issue again. The NDP has been so great at opposing trade deals, but what about actually supporting some or one. What would such a trade deal look like, what would it include? On the otherhand, if the NDP doesn't want to have any new trade deals, what would it do with existing ones? Would it tear them up or would it expand them? Would it make an economic island out of Canada? A self-imposed economic exile, a voluntary Cuba? Or does it have plans for how it would like to interact economically, with the world? I would start the party dialogue there. I think some highly capable candidates can take it farther.
I believe it not unlikely that within the decade, possibly before the next election, it may be not a question of a self-imposed economic exile, but an absolute necessity to become far more self-sufficient, particularly with respect to food and energy. The Party does have trade policy, and it is not just a question of whether to tear up or expand trade deals (actually trade deals is a misnomer, as they are also investment agreements), but whether they can be improved significantly (or are useful at all) within the context of how to build a sustainable and democratic economy.
Malcolm, that is because Stephen Lewis became leader of the Ontario NDP before David Lewis became leader of the Federal NDP.
One sees comparisons between Peter MacKay and Elmer, or of Justin Trudeau and his famous father, or that Paul Martin was a junior (though, for the life of me, I don't remember his father at all). When one is dealing at the level of prediction, this usually works out not too bad.
For example, Stephen Lewis married a feminist so he promotes feminism and credits his wife for teaching him how to be a feminist. Thus, if one was looking at ML's Toronto Star articles, one would have a good idea what Stephen Lewis stood for on the issue even before Stephen Lewis really made his views known.
Couples differ, but, if one is playing the odds, one ignores such differences - unless they are known.
What did we know about GWB before he started running for the Republican party? We knew who his father was and what his father stood for and promoted. And we know that GWB treated Joyce Milgaard very shabily when she went to Texas when he was Governor.
What do we really know about Jeb? We do know that he hasn't gone out of his way to distinguish himself from his father or brother - which allows one to assume with some degree of accuracy that he is very much like them politically.
Clearly you've missed the point. I am not arguing against the value of having family who are also politicians. I am criticizing the dismissive language that you used.
And BTW, David Lewis, as a long time organizer and federal secretary, was at least as well known in the Ontario NDP as Steve Ashton is in Manitobe, yet when the brash young Stephen Lewis decided to challenge a sitting MPP for a provincial nomination, I doubt people were making condescending remarks about his "daddy."
The problem here is not that Niki Ashton has a father who is a politician. It's that the language you used was condescending, dismissive and offensive.
Ok I get it now, should have said "dad" rather than "daddy". I meant daddy in the sense that he would be giving advice whether she wanted it or not. Dad or father would be more her only getting advice if she sought it out. Niki is strong willed enough to make her own decisions, but she has to be. The temptation to be a back seat driver will be too strong to resist completely. Think of it this way, David Orlikow was a notorious back seat driver - just ask Judy W-L! He was telling her what to do (among others) until his last weeks of life.
Policywink - was a bit mixed up. Now I remember that the pundents said that they did not think that Cullen would run because he just had twins. They were wrong. Remembered the comment but not the name attached.
Howard - re Dewar talking about cities
Part of the race is to sign up more members. I expect one person of the bunch, at least, to talk about cities. That Jack talked of them a lot would mean that we would hear a certain number of the talking points before. Each candidate seems to want to develop a niche - both to represent a certain segment of the party and to justify them entering the race.
Agree that whoever wins will have to be seen as credible on fiscal issues. However, they will have to walk a type rope between being seen as fiscally prudent without selling out on base values - which is the criticism at the other end. Logically, there will be fiscal restrains preventing any leader from wanting to do everything they want so priorities will be important.
About being close to unions - the NDP has never denied this (though sometimes the unions have went Liberal). If the NDP distance themselves from this, they will appear dishonest, though, a good leader would say that they are for workers and better working conditions for all workers.
Peggy Nash might receive a bit of problem with CAW in that David Lewis did not support propping up the Auto industry - and the party is going to have to figure out exactly where it stands on the issue - is it against propping up an industry or will it only do it with certain strings attached and what are those strings. That said, her strength with workers rights will go over good with traditional NDP supporters.
As far as trade agreements, Bill Blaikie was trying to get workers rights into the Free Trade agreement - create a special kind of tariff on goods made by low wages so that one did not have an advantage by using slave labour over union labour. He was not against Trade per see but wanted to improve the agreement so that there were more worker rights and less corporate rights - wanted chapter 11 taken out. The NDP has been traditionally for workers rights and environmental protections and their complaints about Harmonization seems to be as much about safety and environmental standards as it is human rights, law and immigration issues.
I don't know what any of the candidates think about trade agreements, but these were there same issues brought up with the Columbian deal and CETA so I doubt that the NDP has changed much on the issues. The NDP is critical of Buy American and seem to osculate between limited support of NAFTA to get around that and using the fact that the Americans are pulling this stuff to get out of NAFTA without paying a fee.
Ok I get it now, should have said "dad" rather than "daddy". I meant daddy in the sense that he would be giving advice whether she wanted it or not. Dad or father would be more her only getting advice if she sought it out. Niki is strong willed enough to make her own decisions, but she has to be. The temptation to be a back seat driver will be too strong to resist completely. Think of it this way, David Orlikow was a notorious back seat driver - just ask Judy W-L! He was telling her what to do (among others) until his last weeks of life.
Policywink - was a bit mixed up. Now I remember that the pundents said that they did not think that Cullen would run because he just had twins. They were wrong. Remembered the comment but not the name attached.
Howard - re Dewar talking about cities
Part of the race is to sign up more members. I expect one person of the bunch, at least, to talk about cities. That Jack talked of them a lot would mean that we would hear a certain number of the talking points before. Each candidate seems to want to develop a niche - both to represent a certain segment of the party and to justify them entering the race.
Agree that whoever wins will have to be seen as credible on fiscal issues. However, they will have to walk a type rope between being seen as fiscally prudent without selling out on base values - which is the criticism at the other end. Logically, there will be fiscal restrains preventing any leader from wanting to do everything they want so priorities will be important.
About being close to unions - the NDP has never denied this (though sometimes the unions have went Liberal). If the NDP distance themselves from this, they will appear dishonest, though, a good leader would say that they are for workers and better working conditions for all workers.
Peggy Nash might receive a bit of problem with CAW in that David Lewis did not support propping up the Auto industry - and the party is going to have to figure out exactly where it stands on the issue - is it against propping up an industry or will it only do it with certain strings attached and what are those strings. That said, her strength with workers rights will go over good with traditional NDP supporters.
As far as trade agreements, Bill Blaikie was trying to get workers rights into the Free Trade agreement - create a special kind of tariff on goods made by low wages so that one did not have an advantage by using slave labour over union labour. He was not against Trade per see but wanted to improve the agreement so that there were more worker rights and less corporate rights - wanted chapter 11 taken out. The NDP has been traditionally for workers rights and environmental protections and their complaints about Harmonization seems to be as much about safety and environmental standards as it is human rights, law and immigration issues.
I don't know what any of the candidates think about trade agreements, but these were there same issues brought up with the Columbian deal and CETA so I doubt that the NDP has changed much on the issues. The NDP is critical of Buy American and seem to osculate between limited support of NAFTA to get around that and using the fact that the Americans are pulling this stuff to get out of NAFTA without paying a fee.
Great commentary, if I do say so.
And I think exploring the various candidates negatives was a good idea. Just a couple comments on that I want to make.
I agree that Nash's age is a marginal factor. As noted she is what 4 years older than Mulcair. Women live longer and she comes across as healthy and lively. All other things considered, younger is better, but that's it.
I'm not sure about comparing Dion and Topp. Dion was not just obviously bright- which Topp does not come across as- you HEAR that about him. Dion got tagged as aloof and arrogant. That just is not going to happen to Brian Topp. Which means he will not having anything standing in the way of making his own style of connection.
That said, the uncertainty around that is what both Nash and Topp have to show their way past.
My problem with Peggy is that every time I have seen her on television, she seems to speak in party functionary speech that reminds me of Ujjal Dosanjh who was a BC vice president before becoming premier. I never felt he could inspire the public in an election and my gut says that I don't think Peggy will be able to either. Although the BC NDP had already created many of its own problems in the 2001 election, Dosanjh's performance in the election was so unimpressive that the party fell to 2 seats provincially, something it had never done before. This is also a problem for Brian Topp in my opinion, although he seems to have a little more fire in his belly. I am pretty much of a policy wonk, but I have learned that when one has strong gut feelings it pays to give some attention to them. Undoubtedly, some will attack me for taking this approach, but they are my honest feelings.
wow, well said, this is sort of my impression.
The biggest problem with Dion is that he had no political instincts, never having had to fight for and win a nomination in his riding initially. He was picked by Aline Chretien, and dropped into a safe Liberal seat in a by-election by her husband.
Chretien himself had awful english - but great political instincts. Topp obviously has some pretty good political instincts himself, but not the full set (?yet?).
His understanding of Canada outside of Quebec isn't good enough.Curious Stock... is there something that happened that makes you come to that conclusion? As well, why is the question of "do they understand Quebec?" not asked of the other candidates? Considering the current situation in Quebec, I think that's an important question to ask.
What makes you think it doesn't get asked?
I mean, I don't know what journalists ask, but when I've met various candidates over the past few months, I've made very sure to ask questions about Quebec to the non-Quebec candidates and questions about the rest of Canada (especially beyond Ontario) to the others. You're right that it's terribly important.
My why not for Peggy Nash is the charisma question. Megan Leslie definitely has it, but she lacks Peggy's experience and life-long record of achievements. Peggy Nash shows flashes of charisma, but a lot of the time she comes across as dull. What I'm looking for is sincerity, the sense of someone comfortable in their setting, and if possible: passion. Passion about their ideas, passion about their beliefs...
I'm with you on this. Still, though, after seeing her in a few interviews (where she holds my attention better than in speeches), I'm starting to sense a real potential for improvement in this area. She clearly is passionate; she just needs to learn how to come across that way a bit more.
Bear in mind that merely being an MP, or the kind of public figure some of the candidates were before they got elected, does not present either the demand or the opportunities for the level of 'public performing' that is under scrutiny here.
Only Mulcair and Chisholm have been there already. For the rest: we are right to expect that they 'clear the bar' on that, and skeptical about supporting them until they do. But there is no reason to project from how they are no to limitations of where they could easily be after 3 months, let alone 5, of meeting groups of people.
I had the same thought - the only people who talk about "class warfare" these days are talking heads on Fox news who dismiss any suggestion that the wealthy should pay higher taxes as "class warfare". IMHO the real class warfare is one being waged by the rightwing politicians and the rightwing media that is a class war on behalf of the top 1% and against everyone else!
Topp's approach to the economy has been to use a lot of class warfare rhetoric. This is a well-loved tactic of the NDP in BC. They use class-based rhetoric to wedge voters, rile people up, and get them to the polls.
"Class warfare" rhetoric? That's exactly what the right-wing calls it. Unbelievable.
Chretien himself had awful english - but great political instincts. Topp obviously has some pretty good political instincts himself, but not the full set (?yet?).
What I didn't realize until I spent some time in Quebec was that Chrétien had awful French too ;-)
Foreign control of industry, and resources,
Factually speaking, there is very little of this. Most of the Canadian economy and resources are Canadian owned or owned by multinational companies with executive offices in Canada (as well as abroad). Example? The mining industry in Canada and worldwide is largely Canadian owned. Most of these mining companies trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
Since June of 1985 there have been 14, 269 foreign takeovers of Canadian corporations, valuable Canadian assets and mostly by rich Americans.
Since the Mulroney government scrapped FIRA, no one knows how much of those takeovers were financed by Canadian banks using the savings of Canadians. Ottawa does not want to know.
The job of tracking foreign investment for takeovers is down to Stats Canada, and their figures on foreign investment for acquisition purposes are always out of date.
No rich country has allowed a third as much foreign-ownership of its manufacturing sector as Canada has. Canadian manufacturing is more than 50% foreign-owned and controlled.
More than three dozen key sectors of Canada's economy are majority foreign-owned and controlled.
uh, howard didn't say "class warfare rhetoric", he said "class-based rhetoric".
on another bc-related issues, i just read this tossaway line near the end of an article in the vancouver weekly 'georgia straight' on mulcair and topp, suggesting that the dix machine is getting behind topp because he carries the lowest risk to their provincial prospects. great work! so if topp just fizzles out on the no-charisma/boring issue, what does that mean?
Just out of curiosity, for those who want to make it public, is there a candidate you are leaning to?
I have to say that at the moment, with having heard a real debate from the candidates and not knowing exactly where they stand on several issues, I would go in that order:
1- Saganash
2- Nash
3- Mulcair
I am really excited by Saganash and I am looking forward to see his ability to debate with others. Nash would be, like for many of us, my second choice. I am looking forward to hear her more passionated and inspiring side yet. As for Mulcair, I still think he is the best to beat the Conservatives. I still have doubts that he can really rally a big bunch of the caucus and I look forward to see him explaining his vision.
uh, howard didn't say "class warfare rhetoric", he said "class-based rhetoric".
Uh, for the second time I'll quote directly:
"Topp's approach to the economy has been to use a lot of class warfare rhetoric. This is a well-loved tactic of the NDP in BC."
