We need to keep this thing going.
Issues Pages:
NDP Leadership Thread - Part 42
Tue, 2011-11-29 18:11
#1
Malcolm
NDP Leadership Thread - Part 42
Tue, 2011-11-29 20:46
#2
Lou Arab
Without it we all might have to get some work done. 
Tue, 2011-11-29 23:11
#3
I started up the last one intending to write at more length on "electability" further to nicky's post, but never got around to it.
But I don't think there's any one magic bullet when it comes to electability. Dion was unelectable, not because he had bad english, but because he had no political smarts. That said, we've seen that political smarts comes in a number of different packages. Naheed Nenshi's style is quite different than Stephen Harper's or Rob Ford's or Darrell Dexter's or Allison Redford's.
The online poll that went around by one of the campaigns did a very good job highlighting some of the qualities a leader might need (and of course it asked people to rate the various candidates on them). Here are some of those questions:
* will be able to put together the best possible campaign team
* best able to appeal to those who have traditionally not voted NDP (another question about appeal to those who traditionally have)
* will have the broadest base of support in caucus
* has most experience in government
* will be best able to work with, and appeal to, the members of the party and the electorate in Quebec
* would best provide the party with a new direction
* best able to win the next federal election
* best understands the needs of your province
* would best provide the party with much the same direction as Jack Layton
* best able to hold the party together
* best able to beat Stephen Harper in a debate
* closest ideologically to yourself
There were a few others, but they were more pro and con arguments about a candidate being tested.
Anyways, I believe a number of people are arguing that Mulcair is the ONLY electable one because he is the ONLY one who could work with and appeal to Quebecers. I usually hate arguments that say it's the ONLY way, unless that's either obvious to me (it's not), or prove-able (it's not).
My most important criteria would include the items about being able to put together the best campaign team, appealing to non-traditional NDP voters, being able to hold the party together, able to win the next election, being ideologically closest to me, having government experience and so forth. And I would rank different candidates differently on those measures.
I don't believe Mulcair could put together the best campaign team for the next election, for example, though he might be the best able to appeal to Quebecers. Topp has experience in the centre of a government, but as a staffer, while Mulcair has experience as a provincial minister. I'm not sure Mulcair could *beat* Harper in a debate, if his only style was brow-beating him, which is frankly uncomfortable to watch all the time, whereas I think Dewar has a more disarming style that's easier for woman and younger folks to warm up to. I also don't believe Mulcair necessarily best understands the needs of many other provinces, while other candidates may be weaker in their understanding of Quebec. And there is a real question about which of them could *best* hold the party together.
So, hopefully that was a more helpful answer to nicky's question. What do others think?
Tue, 2011-11-29 23:23
#4
I agree that realative "electability" is very much a moving target. I can think of a lot of people who swiftly rose to party leadership positions in Canada because they were supposed to be the most "electable"...and they ended up being the most spectacular FLOPS. Remember how John Turner was so "electable" that he was supposed to be the ONLY person any rational Liberal could possibly support when Trudeau stepped down in 1984 - total FLOP. What Kim Campbell - all the great minds in the Tory baintrust were convinced that she was super "electable" - she was a woman, from the west, had posed semi nude on the cover of saturday night magazine, could speak French (sort of) - total FLOP. Paul Martin was supposed to be the ultimate in electability - total FLOP. Lest we forget that when Ignatieff finagled his way into the Liberal leadership in Dec. 2008 - it was largely because all the big name Liberal operatives were convined that he was "electable" - total FLOP.
I can think of other examples - the Canadian Alliance dumped Preston Manning for Stockwell Day - because Day was supposed to be "electable" - he FLOPPED. Back in 2004 the conventional wisdom on the right was that Stephen Harper would never be electable an that the only hope was Belinda Stronach!
All of that being said - I do think that parties on the right can get away with boring technocratic leaders because the kinds of people who vote for right-leaning parties tended to like those patronising "stern father" type politicians. People on the left and potential left (ie: the kinds of people the NDP needs to attract) are the kinds of people who want a warm fuzzy feeling about the people they vote for.
Wed, 2011-11-30 00:14
#5
Malcolm
Stock, you might like to add Dwain Lingenfelter as another example of the "only" electable leadership candidate whose actual election results were less than stellar.
Electability is a pretty difficult (read nigh on impossible) quality to measure with any assurance. I'd agree that Mulcair is probably the best positioned to consolidate the Quebec gains - but I'm far from convinced that he is the only candidate who could do it. Indeed, the only candidates I'm convinced could not consolidate the Quebec gains are those whose effectiveness in French would be found lacking in Quebec - a list that obviously includes Chisholm but would likely include others (tentatively Dewar and Cullen - we lack reliable data on Singh).
The other facet, of course, is to determine who can grow the party's support outside of Quebec - and I'm far from persuaded MUlcair finishes anywhere near the top of that list. For example, one of the most fertile sources of increased NDP support outside Quebec is to win back NDP-Conservative swing voters in BC and the Prairies. Arguably Cullen or Ashton would be better positioned there - as would Topp who has political experience in both BC and Saskatchewan. I don't think Mulcair would be hopeless there, but I'd likely spot him no better than fourth or fifth.
Wed, 2011-11-30 01:17
#6
For example, one of the most fertile sources of increased NDP support outside Quebec is to win back NDP-Conservative swing voters in BC and the Prairies. Arguably Cullen or Ashton would be better positioned there - as would Topp who has political experience in both BC and Saskatchewan. I don't think Mulcair would be hopeless there, but I'd likely spot him no better than fourth or fifth.
Based on the 2011 results, how many seats you think could be won in the prairies?
Just off the top of my head, I see a few seats in Saskatchewan tops... one more in Manitoba... and Alberta? Will that get us anywhere near government?
BC is a bit different where we placed second in 19 seats but some weren't even close of course. I don't see it getting us to government.
Say for the sake of debate... we can win 15 new seats in the west and BC. Clearly not enough.
If we really want to take out the Tories, we have to look to Ontario where they won 73 seats.
Who would sell best in Ontario... in a province still weary of the NDP and where the Liberals still have a lot of strength?
Also, as we saw in New Brunswick, there is growth potential in Atlantic Canada but it will take some investment.
A little bit off topic. Sorry :)
Wed, 2011-11-30 02:04
#7
Hunky, Malcolm said "one of the most fertile", not "the best way to take out the Tories". Now you might argue that Ontario is also more fertile, and maybe so.
Anyways, under certain circumstances I could see us getting more than just a few on the prairies, in four years' time. And we won't have to fight Liberals to do it, for the most part, just Conservatives. Ontario is more complicated, though perhaps more rewarding seat-wise.
However, "selling well in Ontario" is subsuming an awful lot of diversity within 4 words. Really hard to say in that case.
Wed, 2011-11-30 03:51
#8
knownothing
Topp has very little electability IMHO smart, crafty, machiavellian but no political charm, not like Jack, all seems premeditated
Mulcair has the charm but is softening his demeanor because of this campaign that he has a bad temper
Dewar is very electable if his French improves, not sure i trust him though
Nash is electable but uninspiring
Others have good qualities but are in tough
Wed, 2011-11-30 05:15
#9
Topp has very little electability IMHO smart, crafty, machiavellian but no political charm, not like Jack, all seems premeditated
Mulcair has the charm but is softening his demeanor because of this campaign that he has a bad temper
Dewar is very electable if his French improves, not sure i trust him though
Nash is electable but uninspiring
Others have good qualities but are in tough
The debates will go a long way in determining the "electability" of the candidates. I'm withholding my judgement until then although I suspect Mulcair has the advantage. But then again I could be wrong.
Wed, 2011-11-30 05:19
#10
One of the big questions is Dewar's French, and in a few days we all get to see a test of this.
I think before the debate would be a good time to discuss the bar he needs to clear. With the cavet that the bar needs to be cleared by the end of the race, not by December 4. And of course the caveat that everyone will have different bars, as with everything else in the race.
Here's my first attempt at where that bar is.
Dewar's French can be seriously laboured, and shot through with wrong tenses and other glaring grammatical errors- but if he can understand all the questions and points put to him, and his answers are comprehensible.... that is the floor, and the rest depends on things that are really general leadership qualities.
If people can understand him, he shows heart, and that he understands Quebec and it's people... he has all the elements that he needs, and pretty much what Jack had when he was getting to know Quebec as a public figure.
Obviously, that is a minimum bar. Topp, Mulciar, Nash and Ashton have much more going for them on that score. But for me, every candidate has at least one very big negative they have to clear. And everyone has or should have this one for Dewar.
Wed, 2011-11-30 05:29
#11
Hopefully, my bilingual daughter will watch the debates with me.
But in many ways she's not much better a judge than me. Even though she easily understands all conversation now, everyone who learns a language not as a younger child remembers how much easier it is to undertand the anglophones with their slow and halting speech. What is easier for us, is not always tolerable- or necessarily fully comprehensible, to native French speakers.
So I'll be interested to hear the opinions from francophones and 'biculturals' who grew up speaking French.... using some bar like this. IE, not what is best.... rather what is in [or might get to] the realm of what francophones can be comfortable with.
Wed, 2011-11-30 05:34
#12
Topp does not come across live as Machiavellian or any of those negative things commonly attributed to him.
Mulciar is going to have to strike what might be a tricky balance for him. He easily wins debates, and he wants to show his advantages of meeting the traditional standards of being the most 'prime ministerial'. But there are flip side disadvantages and vulnerabilities in all of that.
Wed, 2011-11-30 06:04
#13
It's too early for me to reply comprehensively to Ottawa Observor so I will only make a few points.
1. One thing that impresses me about Mulcair is how versatile he is on his feet. You suggest that all he does is brow-beat and has no other speed. While he is certainly able to deiliver a knockout punch I have also seen him shift through numerous rhetorical gears - wit, charm, persuasion, depth of analysis, sheer intelligence. As I have said before he can also project a real sense of gravitas and assurance that he knows what he is talking about. You underestimate, if not misrepresent him, by sugestiong he has just one style. You don't have to take my word for it. Go on Youtube. Look at his long interviews with CPAC and Ish Theilburg (sp ?)
2. I have never said he is the ONLY one who can appeal to Quebec, just that he the one who can best consolodate and grow our position there. I don't see how you can disagree with that. By the same token, I do not disagree that some of the others have the POTENTIAL to safeguard our position in Quebec. But it remains to be seen whether they can demonstrate that. We will be taking a gamble with some of them that reminds me of some delegtates at the 89 convention who hoped against hope that Audrey would some day somehow grow into the job. Are we being responsible in making a similar gamble at this pivotal point in the party's history?
3. I have affection and respect for Paul Dewar whom you seem to have endorsed. But as leader? I heard him speak at the Ont Provincial Council a couple weekends ago and all I heard was a bunch of raw-raw cliches that I might have expected from someone running for high school president. He left that audience deflated. His French is mediocre at best. He has NO CAUCUS support, not one MP. And utterly no support that I can see in Quebec. Frankly he seems out of his depth to me but I am willing to take a closer look at him, as you all should at Mulcair.
4. The team. I have met several of Mulcair's Toronto organizers whom I suspect you know and whose abilities I suspect you respect. I see no evidence that Mulcair would purge the present team or fail to build on it responsibly. After all some of them worked with him in delivering Quebec in the last election. There may be a couple of the present apparatchik who engaged in slandering Mulcair in the early going but this school-childish stuff has largely backfired on their preferred candidate. Mulcair is too smart a politician to engage in purges and I think you know that too.
There will be debates and there will be polls and we will see who, if either of us, is right.
Wed, 2011-11-30 07:28
#14
I expect that as usual your comments will be full of food for thought. But before I go any further, right at the beginning...
You suggest that all he does is brow-beat and has no other speed. While he is certainly able to deiliver a knockout punch...
OO did NOT say all Mulcair does in brow-beat and has no other speed. And that's not just a rhetorical twist- its a complete turnaround of what someone else said.... which may even undermine your following point. Don't know, not having read it yet. But that's the operative principle.
You did/do the same thing around the importance of Quebec question. We have posters here who do argue that concern with the NDP's standing in Quebec as absolutely paramount- whatever they may think, they never acknowledge that anything else matters. That understandably gets countered with 'we also have to be careful with our standing in the West', etc. Which you then turn into a straw person to argue with: people who are too willing to write off Quebec or take for granted what we have there.
Wed, 2011-11-30 07:45
#15
OO: "....if his only style was browbeating him ...."
n: "You suggest that all he does is browbeat."
KS: "a complete turnaround of what somewhat else said."
"Complete"?????
I really don't understand your endless jesuiticlal splitting oF hairs.
Wed, 2011-11-30 08:15
#16
2. I have never said he is the ONLY one who can appeal to Quebec, just that he the one who can best consolodate and grow our position there. I don't see how you can disagree with that. By the same token, I do not disagree that some of the others have the POTENTIAL to safeguard our position in Quebec.
You have never said or even implied that he is the only one. But OOO said nothing about whether he is the best.
I have previously said that he probably does have the most guaranteed appeal in Quebec. Which is one factor in his favour. A very big one. Where many of us would disagree with you [at the end of the race we will know, we are guessing now] is how much better Mulcair is on that one, and where he stands on a number of other equally big factors. So even if we agree he is probably the safest bet in Quebec- that is not even remotely as compelling in and of itself and on its own as you suggest.
I have affection and respect for Paul Dewar whom you seem to have endorsed. But as leader? I heard him speak at the Ont Provincial Council a couple weekends ago and all I heard was a bunch of raw-raw cliches that I might have expected from someone running for high school president.
Assuming for the purposes of discussion that Dewar was not impressive to most people- and this is true for all the candidates except Mulcair. They've never been under a spotlight like this before. Even Nash, who has a lot of time in the media, its just not the same thing. None of them is going to be even 50% on at every event. That kind of pacing is not instantaneous.
So they have some time. If they have what it takes, they'll show it well before the end of the race. That is what matters.
Gravitas, comfort and ease that Mulcair has always works. But it is not necessarily the best way to connect, and certainly is not the only way.
I see no evidence that Mulcair would purge the present team or fail to build on it responsibly. After all some of them worked with him in delivering Quebec in the last election. There may be a couple of the present apparatchik who engaged in slandering Mulcair in the early going but this school-childish stuff has largely backfired on their preferred candidate. Mulcair is too smart a politician to engage in purges and I think you know that too.
I doubt that he would purge people either. Unfortunately, the bar is much higher than that.
Amusingly, someone in the last thread said that it was someone else, not Layton, who recruited Topp to what became his 2004 war room role. "And Topp did not support Layton's bid for leadership." If that is true, bully for both of them.
That is what is required of the Leader, proactively pulling together the team. Dewar has shown as much ability to do that as he has had opportunity to show. Mulciair has only demonstrated that he can be a decent mentor. I'm not saying he cannot do that. I honestly do not know. But the bar is much, much higher than merely tolerating and not purging people who did not support you.
And if you dont care to name the 'aparatchik,' then that comment deserves to be ignored. Although there is no real point to it anyway.]
There will be debates and there will be polls and we will see who, if either of us, is right.
Polls will demonstrate nothing except greater name recognition among the miniscule slice of the general population who are paying attention.
Nor will the debates provide anything more than further grist for the mill. As you have phrased it, people will come out of the debates being right on opposite sides of innumerable questions.
Wed, 2011-11-30 08:16
#17
I see your point nicky about the use of 'browbeating'- to a degree.
OO's point was specific to Mulcair going up against Harper. [Which again, is where many people are free with saying that Mulcair is the only one who adequately deals with Harper.]
While you were making a general statement about how Mulcair is, or is not- overall, and in all kinds of situations.... where none of would suggest that Mulcair is all about brow-beating, etc.
Wed, 2011-11-30 08:27
#18
I'm curious to see how Topp's tax policy shows up and plays in the debates.
Here are some guesses.
I don't see anyone else bringing it up- no matter how critical they may be. Except possibly with a cute little dismissive wave, and even that could just hand Topp an opportunity.
One big reason is that in a large field, the Prisoner's Dilemna is very operative. It is in all the other candidate's interest to have Topp cut down; but for someone else to do it. There are lots of risks to being the one who tries, and only a dubious chance for it making you look better.
Plus, it simply violates the compelling logic against drawing attention to your opponent's advantages- which you do even with scathing criticism.
Nor are these debates going to be the bloodsport circus that the national party leaders debates can be.... which will militate against any lunging for the jugular.
Wed, 2011-11-30 08:51
#19
Idealistic Prag...
Dewar's French can be seriously laboured, and shot through with wrong tenses and other glaring grammatical errors- but if he can understand all the questions and points put to him, and his answers are comprehensible.... that is the floor, and the rest depends on things that are really general leadership qualities.
If people can understand him, he shows heart, and that he understands Quebec and it's people... he has all the elements that he needs, and pretty much what Jack had when he was getting to know Quebec as a public figure.
I have heard his French more recently than most, I think, and I know that he can meet that rather low bar. His French is noticably improved from the campaign's early days. I'm less convinced than you are that that will be enough, though, in a race where several of the other candidates have actual excellence in French.
I suppose ultimately it will be for the francophone membership (and media) to decide.
Wed, 2011-11-30 09:06
#20
I am saying pretty much the same thing- that the proof will come in the pudding [in Quebec].
But I'm guessing that it will not be easy to judge. If he is clearly a hit- even if not the biggest hit- with francophone Quebec membership, that will be compelling. But it is more likely going to require nebulous judgements.
And I dont know about the francophone media. If he impresses a bunch of them, fine. But that is much more unlikely- they just are not looking for the same thing.
But yeah, even charitable people- if Dewar's speech makes them wince inside, it would be hard for them to clear that and take a look at whether they like the heart this guy shows. It isnt going to work if she mostly feel sorry for him.
I VASTLY prefer excellence in French. But so far, all the ones that qualify for that have different but very big negatives. Conceivably, none of them will sufficiently clear those, which brings me to where Dewar stands with his big negative.
His could turn out to be the least intractable.
Wed, 2011-11-30 09:12
#21
And by the way, the big question mark is how francophone Quebecois respond to the candidate, not francophones [in general].
Francophones functioning in an anglophone world do not in general have the same expectations. Even francophones in New Brunswick who function day to day in a francophone world, do not have the same expectations.
Wed, 2011-11-30 09:46
#22
Helps to be on the inside on these questions, eh Ken. Allows one to rattle on.
Wed, 2011-11-30 09:53
#23
Too mysterious George. Inside of what?
Maybe you mean, inside of the Dewar and/or Topp campaigns?? Nope. Same as you, just waiting to see what drops out.
The only thing I am inside of at all, is what various people in Nova Scotia are doing [and snatches from BC].... which is going to be true about where you live for anyone in circulation for some time.
Wed, 2011-11-30 11:05
#24
dacckon
Brian Topp releases 2nd policy paper
Much more ideological than the first one, which was economical. Talks about how equal countries like Norway do better & the relationship b/w markets and the state
Edit: Martin Singh and Healthcare (Very detailed.)
Wed, 2011-11-30 11:07
#25
... "electability" is very much a moving target. I can think of a lot of people who swiftly rose to party leadership positions in Canada because they were supposed to be the most "electable"...and they ended up being the most spectacular FLOPS. Remember how John Turner was so "electable" that he was supposed to be the ONLY person any rational Liberal could possibly support when Trudeau stepped down in 1984 - total FLOP. What Kim Campbell - all the great minds in the Tory baintrust were convinced that she was super "electable" - she was a woman, from the west, had posed semi nude on the cover of saturday night magazine, could speak French (sort of) - total FLOP. Paul Martin was supposed to be the ultimate in electability - total FLOP. Lest we forget that when Ignatieff finagled his way into the Liberal leadership in Dec. 2008 - it was largely because all the big name Liberal operatives were convined that he was "electable" - total FLOP.
Good post.
I would add that Robert Winters led the Liberal Party 1968 convention until the late ballots -- I recall -- because of his great electability -- esp. compared to the non-machine, non-conformist popular heartthrob, professor Pierre Trudeau.
Also, that when John Turner beat Chretien in 1984 he ostensibly brought together all the key demographics and visuals -- Anglo, former Montreal, (sort of) bilingual, Ontario business connections, Ottawa cred, former Finance Minister, West Coast roots and riding -- that on paper added up to a sure thing. So electable! For the record: a one-season wonder as PM.
Wed, 2011-11-30 11:15
#26
If talking about raising taxes on anyone was still the third rail for the NDP- or most likely still is- then I would accept that saying we NEED that for a mandate is not good enough.
But who says that things have not changed enough that the NDP is ready to turn this to our advantage and give it wings?
I'm not going to use "Don't let anyone tell you it cant be done." 
....
But you better have a good argument why we cannot do this, or that it isnt ncessary.
Wed, 2011-11-30 11:16
#27
From the intro to that position paper:
I don't think managing the status quo is what our party is here to do. I don't favour moving our
party "to the centre" and thereby defeating ourselves even as we win, by adopting the agenda
of our opponents.
Managing the status quo is what the Nova Scotia government does, and all it does. I would be willing to bet a number of people here don't like hearing that, but no one has challenged it.
No person in a position of leadership in the NDP- let alone one running for Leader- SAYS they want to move the party to the centre, and Dexter was no different.
But if you get to government by flying under the radar and with the sommanding criteria of what is guaranteed to be the easiest way in, you have no mandate.
It isn't rocket science: no mandate, and a broken treasury, you do nothing except manage the staus quo. You actually end up being the ones who finished exectuting the neo-con plan. The Harper government is making CERTAIN that the federal Treasury will be completely broken.
If we do not have a mandate to begin raising revenues from taxation, then we will be left to applying the finishing touches to what the Liberals started and the Cons continue with a vengeance.
Wed, 2011-11-30 11:49
#28
But my message is a hopeful and optimistic one. By having the courage to make different choices – and by having the courage to ask for a mandate to make different choices, by being clear now and right through to the next election about who we are and what we stand for -‐-‐ we can change Canada and create, one practical step at a time, a more equal society, with many benefits for all Canadians. I think that’s what more and more Canadians are looking for.
Wed, 2011-11-30 11:57
#29
He is consistent about equality; we had a brief discussion once and I raised the issue of the increasing individualization of identity in advanced industrial states (viz Giddens), and how collective action was undermined.
Topp remained determined about pushing for more equality.
Wed, 2011-11-30 13:58
#30
knownothing
More generalized statements, where is the specifics?
We all stand for equality that is why we are here!
Wed, 2011-11-30 14:09
#31
It's too early for me to reply comprehensively to Ottawa Observor so I will only make a few points.
1. One thing that impresses me about Mulcair is how versatile he is on his feet. You suggest that all he does is brow-beat and has no other speed. While he is certainly able to deiliver a knockout punch I have also seen him shift through numerous rhetorical gears - wit, charm, persuasion, depth of analysis, sheer intelligence. As I have said before he can also project a real sense of gravitas and assurance that he knows what he is talking about. You underestimate, if not misrepresent him, by sugestiong he has just one style. You don't have to take my word for it. Go on Youtube. Look at his long interviews with CPAC and Ish Theilburg (sp ?)
I've been trying to follow as many videos of the different candidates as I can find. I did watch the whole Mulcair interview with Ish Theilheimer at Straight Goods, but haven't looked at the CPAC or Coulises de Pouvoir ones yet. Sadly, there have been fewer of Mulcair speaking to groups on the road than there have been of other candidates, and I hope that's something his campaign addresses soon, given the comparative advantage on that front he is argued to have.
Don't get me wrong, I know Mulcair has substance. A lot of it.
2. I have never said he is the ONLY one who can appeal to Quebec, just that he the one who can best consolodate and grow our position there. I don't see how you can disagree with that. By the same token, I do not disagree that some of the others have the POTENTIAL to safeguard our position in Quebec. But it remains to be seen whether they can demonstrate that. We will be taking a gamble with some of them that reminds me of some delegtates at the 89 convention who hoped against hope that Audrey would some day somehow grow into the job. Are we being responsible in making a similar gamble at this pivotal point in the party's history?
We were both a part of decisions at that convention, nicky. Remember, Barrett had no french. You argue he had other qualifications that were in demand at the time, and those made him the better choice. There were no perfect candidates on that ballot either. People made the best choices they could, each for different sets of reasons. We've apparently drawn somewhat different lessons from that time, but everyone is taking them into account, believe me.
3. I have affection and respect for Paul Dewar whom you seem to have endorsed. But as leader? I heard him speak at the Ont Provincial Council a couple weekends ago and all I heard was a bunch of raw-raw cliches that I might have expected from someone running for high school president. He left that audience deflated. His French is mediocre at best. He has NO CAUCUS support, not one MP. And utterly no support that I can see in Quebec. Frankly he seems out of his depth to me but I am willing to take a closer look at him, as you all should at Mulcair.
I'll clarify: I'm long-time friends with Paul Dewar, and he's our local MP. I'm almost as long-time friendly colleagues with Brian. I've been a long-time supporter of seeing more woman in politics, and I think it's vital that First Nations folks are welcomed actively into the centre of our political system. But above all, I want substance and I want to elect someone I feel inspired to follow. The shape of the final ballot I cast is far from written in stone.
After your comment about Dewar at Ontario provincial council I found 3 videos from that day (Mulcair, Dewar, Saganash). The thing that struck me the most was the different energy levels of the candidates. Probably because there are more versions of Paul's stump speech available on video from more different places (I've seen Vancouver, Edmonton, Ontario provincial council, Halifax, and maybe others so far), I'm remembering the big picture rather than any one performance. I didn't arrive in Toronto until the Leaders Levee, and so didn't see that one performance in person.
As to caucus support, he said rather explicitly that his campaign was to be the antithesis of a top-down approach, and so he wasn't trotting out endorsements to begin with. There was certainly a hint on the Ontario tele-townhall of one northern caucus member who will probably endorse him, and I have some guesses about several others.
He did do a town-hall on international democratic development in Montreal, and picked up the endorsements of the staff who were fired from Rights and Democracy, who also paid tribute to his understanding of Quebec. I suspect he'll build up to more activity there as the campaign proceeds.
As to other candidates, I've been to see Cullen both times he's held an event in Ottawa, and Nash the one time she has. No-one else has had an event here yet, and no-one else has tele-townhalled me. I didn't get the Broadbent phone blast for Brian either. Maybe it's because Dewar's campaign has targetted Ottawa more than others in the early going, which would be natural, but his campaign is just more active around here and online, and thus I have more to report on it.
Nash is worrying me, because she hasn't said anything substantial yet in terms of where she'd go as leader, policy-wise, strategically or otherwise. She's still talking like the Finance Critic on that SunTV interview with David Akin (though it was a very solid interview on that basis).
4. The team. I have met several of Mulcair's Toronto organizers whom I suspect you know and whose abilities I suspect you respect. I see no evidence that Mulcair would purge the present team or fail to build on it responsibly. After all some of them worked with him in delivering Quebec in the last election. There may be a couple of the present apparatchik who engaged in slandering Mulcair in the early going but this school-childish stuff has largely backfired on their preferred candidate. Mulcair is too smart a politician to engage in purges and I think you know that too.
There will be debates and there will be polls and we will see who, if either of us, is right.
I'll come back at my comment on browbeating. Most of the arguments made by those around Mulcair are that he's tough enough to take on Harper, rip him to shreds, bring the fight, etc., etc. He's also known as vicious in the scrums in Ottawa. I of all people know not to put too much stock into the political acumen of the political reporters on the Hill, but they do see these folks up close every single day, and know a lot about them that we don't (also who does the leaking, which we don't know), and they know who they like and who they don't on a personal level.
It's my impression that Mulcair doesn't believe in charming his enemies as a political tactic. And thus he accumulates more enemies. He's very charming to his allies and potential allies, to be sure. But I think the former observation is one that distinguished him from Jack and distinguishes him from someone like Dewar. Nash I can't really envision on the campaign trail yet, and Topp has clearly resolved to lead with his intellect.
Cullen will facilitate a fantastic cabinet committee meeting on strategic planning. I'm just not following him where he wants to go, in terms of his plan for an electoral coalition.
Wed, 2011-11-30 14:17
#32
Idealistic Prag...
It's my impression that Mulcair doesn't believe in charming his enemies as a political tactic.
I would actually be quite comfortable with that style if he didn't give the impression of his "enemies" including several large handfuls of people within the party.
Wed, 2011-11-30 14:55
#33
Lysiane Gagnon:
The only "star" of the party in Quebec was Thomas Mulcair, and he too disappeared from radar screens, all required by his leadership campaign.
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/chroniqueurs/lysiane-gagnon/201111/28/01-4472448-plc-un-parti-mort.php
Never mind some of her conclusions. My first question is, are none of the new Quebec MPs getting air time except Turmel? If so, she should quit hogging the limelight. My second question is, given how able and media-savvy Mulcair is, why has he disappeared, or has he? My third question is, given Topp's presence in the print media in Quebec, has he really never made it onto TV yet? If so, why?
Wed, 2011-11-30 14:58
#34
It's my impression that Mulcair doesn't believe in charming his enemies as a political tactic. And thus he accumulates more enemies. He's very charming to his allies and potential allies, to be sure. But I think the former observation is one that distinguished him from Jack and distinguishes him from someone like Dewar.
Charming your opponents worked well for Obama for example.
Wed, 2011-11-30 15:06
#35
Never mind some of her conclusions. My first question is, are none of the new Quebec MPs getting air time except Turmel?
Actually I was under the impression that several Quebec MPs were getting publicity - esp. Alexandre Boulerice and also Helene Laverdiere. Also Saganash is on Tout le monde en parke this Sunday night...I'm not sure what more she expects at this stage. I think a lot of the Quebec MPs are getting plenty of press in their local and regional papers too.
Wed, 2011-11-30 15:31
#36
It's my impression that Mulcair doesn't believe in charming his enemies as a political tactic. And thus he accumulates more enemies. He's very charming to his allies and potential allies, to be sure. But I think the former observation is one that distinguished him from Jack and distinguishes him from someone like Dewar.Charming your opponents worked well for Obama for example.
A perfect example of "necessary but not sufficient". Obama didn't ask much of people either, until it was too late. He was perfectly charming, and a horrible strategist and negotiator.
But you've helped me refine my definition of what I'm looking for, so thanks.
Wed, 2011-11-30 15:46
#37
Boom Boom
Here in Manicouagan our MP (Jonathan Genest-Jourdain) is getting local press coverage.
Wed, 2011-11-30 16:17
#38
It's my impression that Mulcair doesn't believe in charming his enemies as a political tactic.
I would actually be quite comfortable with that style if he didn't give the impression of his "enemies" including several large handfuls of people within the party.
Expand, please. "Large handfuls" of what people? While I take this innuendo with a pinch of salt.
Wed, 2011-11-30 16:21
#39
Here in Manicouagan our MP (Jonathan Genest-Jourdain) is getting local press coverage.
Here, west of the Ottawa, babblers are anxiously waiting to be informed about the CONTENT of those stories, Boomer. More, please. Anything to surmount/overcome the bloody gossip columnists.
Wed, 2011-11-30 16:30
#40
Idealistic Prag...
Expand, please. "Large handfuls" of what people? While I take this innuendo with a pinch of salt.It's my impression that Mulcair doesn't believe in charming his enemies as a political tactic.
I would actually be quite comfortable with that style if he didn't give the impression of his "enemies" including several large handfuls of people within the party.
I actually can't figure out how to "expand" without violating my own prohibition against potentially undermining a leadership candidate in public, sorry. So I'll leave it at this: it's an impression I got based on meeting him once. I could easily be wrong--it was just the once, after all.
Wed, 2011-11-30 16:33
#41
Topp does not come across live as Machiavellian or any of those negative things commonly attributed to him.
Myself and many others beg to disagree. Topp comes across as an conniving, manipulating, back-room strategist. I doubt he really is this way in real life, but that how he comes across to me.
Wed, 2011-11-30 16:36
#42
Based on how much contact with him, Orangutan, and of what type?
Wed, 2011-11-30 16:53
#43
Expand, please. "Large handfuls" of what people? While I take this innuendo with a pinch of salt.It's my impression that Mulcair doesn't believe in charming his enemies as a political tactic.
I would actually be quite comfortable with that style if he didn't give the impression of his "enemies" including several large handfuls of people within the party.
I actually can't figure out how to "expand" without violating my own prohibition against potentially undermining a leadership candidate in public, sorry. So I'll leave it at this: it's an impression I got based on meeting him once. I could easily be wrong--it was just the once, after all.
Oh plese DO expand. On the strength of that one meeting. Did he have 5 o'clock shadow?
Wed, 2011-11-30 17:20
#44
Brian Topp releases 2nd policy paper
I find there to be a gap in that Topp discusses "social democracy and a more equal Canada" without discussing the democratic deficit caused by Canada's antiquated voting system. Shouldn't social democrats be talking about democracy?
Inequality poses a tremendous threat, and not just to the poor, not just to the lowest 50% of income earners, not just to the 99%, but to everyone.Gazillionaires seem quite happy pursuing their own self-interest. Not sure what Topp is trying to get at by suggesting that the 1% are victims. Gout?
Wed, 2011-11-30 18:48
#45
dacckon
Gazillionaires seem quite happy pursuing their own self-interest. Not sure what Topp is trying to get at by suggesting that the 1% are victims. Gout?
It reminds me of a famous quote I love to repeat when arguing with conservatives.
The legacy of Social Democratic Party governance in Sweden is widely regarded as increasing the quality of life, naturally among those who benefit directly from an affluent, low-inequality society, but even among the wealthy. One Volvo executive admitted that a strong social welfare state, like the Swedish, helps finance a quality of life that low individual taxes cannot. When faced with the question, "Why don't you leave (Sweden)? Certainly, you would pay a lot lower taxes and probably also have a higher salary in the U.S.", he responded, "Yes, of course, I would have a lot more money in my pocket. But I would also almost never get home before 7 o'clock and I certainly would not have the vacations everyone has a right to here... and you know what else, I would have to spend a lot more money on insurance, college for my kids, and travel back home to my family. In the end, I'm not really sure I would be any better off.
Social democracy benefits everyone.
Wed, 2011-11-30 19:03
#46
Boom Boom
Here, west of the Ottawa, babblers are anxiously waiting to be informed about the CONTENT of those stories, Boomer. More, please. Anything to surmount/overcome the bloody gossip columnists.Here in Manicouagan our MP (Jonathan Genest-Jourdain) is getting local press coverage.
Too many stories where he is mentioned for me to comment on each one, so, instead, I've listed all that I can find, and you can pick and choose which interest you. 
Genest-Jourdain appuie Mulcair - [Le Nord-Est]
Cinq bureaux de circonscription d'ici 2012 - [Le Nord-Est]
Été occupé pour le député de Manicouagan - [Le Nord-Est]
Des drogues qui mènent à la violence - [Le Nord-Est]
Le nouveau député NPD Jonathan Genest-Jourdain réorganise sa vie - [Le Nord-Est]
La vague orange emporte Gérard Asselin - [Le Nord-Est]
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain célèbre sa victoire entouré d'Innus - [Le Nord-Est]
Le candidat NPD mise sur la jeunesse et les Innus - [Le Nord-Est]
Genest-Jourdain propose un nouveau contrat social - [Le Nord-Est]
Le NPD propose une zone de préservation dans Manicouagan - [Le Nord-Est]
Manicouagan, château fort bloquiste - [Le Nord-Est]
Gordon Fergusen sera candidat conservateur dans Manicouagan - [Le Nord-Est]
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, candidat pour le NPD - [Le Nord-Est]
Les Septiliens votent pour la continuité - [Le Nord-Est]
M. Jourdain porte sa candidature dans le district de l'Anse - [Le Nord-Est]
Deux conseillers élus par acclamation à Sept-Îles - [Le Nord-Est]
Les groupes «rock métal» sortent de l'ombre - [Le Nord-Est]
Des déficients intellectuels découvrent le fonctionnement de la justice - [Le Nord-Est]
Genest-Jourdain appuie Mulcair - [Le Nord-Est]
Cinq bureaux de circonscription d'ici 2012 - [Le Nord-Est]
Été occupé pour le député de Manicouagan - [Le Nord-Est]
Des drogues qui mènent à la violence - [Le Nord-Est]
Le nouveau député NPD Jonathan Genest-Jourdain réorganise sa vie - [Le Nord-Est]
La vague orange emporte Gérard Asselin - [Le Nord-Est]
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain célèbre sa victoire entouré d'Innus - [Le Nord-Est]
Le candidat NPD mise sur la jeunesse et les Innus - [Le Nord-Est]
Genest-Jourdain propose un nouveau contrat social - [Le Nord-Est]
Le NPD propose une zone de préservation dans Manicouagan - [Le Nord-Est]
Manicouagan, château fort bloquiste - [Le Nord-Est]
Gordon Fergusen sera candidat conservateur dans Manicouagan - [Le Nord-Est]
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, candidat pour le NPD - [Le Nord-Est]
Les Septiliens votent pour la continuité - [Le Nord-Est]
M. Jourdain porte sa candidature dans le district de l'Anse - [Le Nord-Est]
Deux conseillers élus par acclamation à Sept-Îles - [Le Nord-Est]
Les groupes «rock métal» sortent de l'ombre - [Le Nord-Est]
Des déficients intellectuels découvrent le fonctionnement de la justice - [Le Nord-Est]
Wed, 2011-11-30 19:05
#47
Boom Boom
I just seem to be getting a whole lotta "The page you requested is no longer here [error 404]", Boomer.
Hmmm.... I was reading the first one earlier today. Okay, I'll try to link to each one individually instead of using the whole link.
Wed, 2011-11-30 19:06
#48
I just seem to be getting a whole lotta "The page you requested is no longer here [error 404]", Boomer. But if "he" was mentioned in them all, I'm dismayed at not having access to them.
Wed, 2011-11-30 19:06
#49
You're a life-saver, mate.
Wed, 2011-11-30 19:07
#50
Boom Boom
Does this work for you? Works for me. Genest-Jourdain appuie Mulcair
Wed, 2011-11-30 19:24
#51
Coming back to the question of electability, some basic math:
NDP seats won in QC: 59
Potential gains in the West: 18 (10 in BC, 2 in AB, 4 in Sask, 2 in MB)
Ideally, we would have a leader who could guarantee that Quebec + gains in the ROC.
Unforutnatelly, such a perfect candiate may not exist. Some think Mulcair is vulnerable in the West b/c his is from QC. Personally, I don't think so, but I defer to those who are more familiar with Western political culture.
In any case, those who want Dewar b/c he is "electable" in the West must understand that Dewar will put the QC seats in serious danger. I find it interesting that some of the same people who say that Mulcair cannot become QC Premier because he is half Irish Anglo, believe that an Anglo who speaks labourious French (Dewar) might hold 60/75 QC seats. Just does not make sense.
Here is my view, as someone who has lived in QC for many years. QCers will not (under normal circumstances) vote for a leader who speaks anything less than near perfect French. Mr. Layton was an exception, who built his credibility over four election cycles. That DOES NOT MEAN QCers are racists. Some of the most pupular public figures in Quebec are perfrectely bilingual anglophones, with an accent. For e.g.: John Gomery. (If Mulcair were to lead the Quebec Liberals, he would be given a very fair hearing bythe general public. I don't think that the QLP will have him, though, because he alienated too many of the party's financial backers...).
I am NOT syaing that we should turn our backs on the West. Personally, I think Mulciar stands a good chance there, He has many qualities that may appeal to Westerners: proven competence, environmental credentials, fiscal responsibility. But, again, I'll let those who think Westerners won't vote for a Quebec leader make their case. Even if you subscribe to such a view , though, it would be MADNESS to elect Dewar who MIGHT get the NDP a total of 18 new seats, and lose 59 seats (+ the Ontario "anti-conservative" strategic voters).