Here's a suggestion, to save me the time of linking to each story individually: copy the headline you want into your browser, and google.
NDP Leadership Thread - Part 42
Wed, 2011-11-30 19:28
#52
Boom Boom
Wed, 2011-11-30 19:48
#53
dacckon
Nathan Cullen's plan to improve democracy (mmp, vote on el Queeno, and the senate)
Some background info on Thomas Mulcair (West Island)
Wed, 2011-11-30 20:08
#54
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.
Those are good points. To a person who has learned French as a second language, it might be easier to comprehend the halting and bad speech of another person who is still learning French as a second language. But to native speakers, they might simply "tune out" the speaker because the bad accent, grammer and general lack of fluency is simply grating.
For that reason, when it comes to communicating with Quebec, it really would be necessary to be fluent in French, although I guess it might be possible to achieve sufficient fluency if your fairly functionally adept in tthe language in oral communications.
I recall when I travelled in central America that the easiest people to talk to in spanish were indigenous people who learned Spanish as a second language.
Wed, 2011-11-30 20:16
#55
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.
Actually, the knock against Mulcair has NOTHING to do with him being from Quebec. The fact is - westerners have embraced Quebec leaders on many occasions - Trudeau in 1968, Mulroney in 1984 and 1988, Chretien to some extent in 1993. The knocxk against Mulcair is the 100% based on issues people have with his personality and his ability to be a "team player" - those issues would be the same even if he were from Manitoba and represented a riding in Winnipeg.
Wed, 2011-11-30 20:26
#56
In post 15 KenS pointedly refused to comment on my assertion that certain people had been slandering Mulcair because I wouldn't name them. If a pseudonym will suffice Ken you can look to post 54.
Wed, 2011-11-30 20:31
#57
People here know little about him. What is your source, Stock?
And wouldn't that qualifier at the end of this line: "Trudeau in 1968, Mulroney in 1984 and 1988, Chretien to some extent in 1993," exactly fit the development of something else shambling out of the West? Lyin' Brian was trying to appease all parties and wound up leaving a party with no players (well, two) and Chretien was trying to satisfy the monster's demand for lower taxes...and we all felt that.
No, your explanation is a bit thin on the ground, Stock. Incredibly thin, and nonsensical.
Wed, 2011-11-30 20:55
#58
Here is what you said nicky:
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.
And you referred us to the person who I guess you think is behind the pseudonym Stockholm. Can't speak to his ancient history. But for the several years back that I know of, he has never worked for the party. And I would be suprised if he ever had, beyond maybe some long ago campaign work.
Oh well. How about the other 'apparatchik'?
And I dont know where you get off with I 'refused' it to comment on your suggestion. In the first place,I didnt know what you were referring to.
Wed, 2011-11-30 21:06
#59
Actually, the knock against Mulcair has NOTHING to do with him being from Quebec. The fact is - westerners have embraced Quebec leaders on many occasions - Trudeau in 1968, Mulroney in 1984 and 1988, Chretien to some extent in 1993. The knocxk against Mulcair is the 100% based on issues people have with his personality and his ability to be a "team player" - those issues would be the same even if he were from Manitoba and represented a riding in Winnipeg.
To be fair to doofy, I did counter the notion that the next leader MUST come from Quebec because Quebec is the only thing of paramount importance, with the point that Mulcair is vulnerable in the West. I wouldn't count that as a 'knock' against him. It is a counter to the notion that there is some kind of absolutely compelling logic that we have to choose the leader who some people think is the only one who can maintain our base in Quebec.
But that whole discussion is a mugs game.
I think doofy was just acknowledging that point- not saying it is THE knock against Mulcair.
Wed, 2011-11-30 21:20
#60
Doofy: "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. "
Wed, 2011-11-30 21:28
#61
Which is not what anyone said: "Westerners would not vote for a Quebec leader." So I guess no one will be making that case.
Wed, 2011-11-30 21:33
#62
Based on how much contact with him, Orangutan, and of what type?
I have met him in person before, and he gave me a impression he could not be trusted (though his media appearances give me a stronger impression of this).
I don't like feeling this way and I have tried to like to guy. I really feel bad for the guy. He has improved from that horrible press conference when he announced his candidacy.
ALSO - Can we move the conservation of potential NDP gains to another thread?
Wed, 2011-11-30 22:46
#63
I didn't think that press conference was horrible at all. I watched it in its entirety, and I thought it was a very intelligent presentation; one that impressed the assembled reporters quite a bit in fact, because he directly answered every question they asked him.
Wed, 2011-11-30 23:04
#64
And that is what he does every time.
Thu, 2011-12-01 00:12
#65
Malcolm
doofy, are you predicating your assessment of potential gains b doing an Eric Grenier style "simple math" projection? If so, quit your day job and start writing facile crap for the Globe and Mail.
Within the last twenty years, the NDP has held 10 seats in Saskatchewan and 7 (IIRC) in Manitoba. Regaining seats in that proportion may not be an immediate prospect, but the NDP writing off the West today is as idiotic as the NDP writing off Quebec would have been two years ago.
Historically, the path to majority governments - from Laurier to Mulroney - has been carrying Quebec and the West.
Thu, 2011-12-01 00:23
#66
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.
Dewar's campaign has very much the aura of being top-down here in Manitoba where is brother, Bob, is well-placed in our provincial government. Many of the government and party staff are taking an active role in his campaign, and are pitching Paul as "the Prairie candidate."
Don't get me wrong, I'm not slagging him - making maximum use of the resources you can is how you win and his ability to organize has definitely impressed me - but calling it a bottom-up approach is a bit disingenuous.
Thu, 2011-12-01 01:03
#67
Well, even a bottom-up campaign has to have a base of support, I guess. Thanks for the perspective, Winston.
Thu, 2011-12-01 06:11
#68
Nathan Cullen has just gone up a lot in my book by proposing a referendum on the monarchy. It's about time we had a choice on this.
Thu, 2011-12-01 07:21
#69
NDP leadership candidate opens 'distracting' debate on monarchy
I think the two weeks ago Nathan Cullen had it nailed.
Thu, 2011-12-01 08:43
#70
I think it is an important debate and I am glad Cullen has initiated it. Canada is not a British country anymore, let alone a colony.
Thu, 2011-12-01 08:53
#71
Mulcair has not released any policy papers as yet. Ken doesn't believe he will. That's debatable, but not prove-able until the end of the campaign.
This is from another thread where the discussion was a distraction. And even if it were here, I pled guily as charged.
On the other hand.... :) ...
It isnt just an utterly pointless argument over predicting the future. I do repeat the quick and dirty end- 'dont hold your breath waiting.'
But that stems for a fuller analysis of the evidence of the present that I have given: what Mulcair's positioning strategy is in this race.
Pat of the problem is that the terms are so starkly utilitarian. Fair is fair, I'll compare the Topp and Mulcair campaigns in the same strictly utilitarian terms of positining in the race.
Cant do that now. But I will acknowledge that Mulcair comes into the race with the most obvious advantages of being the most centrist, and being the easiest to portray himself as the most electable. Those two things are not the same. There is overlap in who they appeal to. But there are also a good many members for whom being centrist is not desirable, but for whom appearing to be the most electable is very commanding in appeal.
This is a competition, so of course Mulcair is going to be very careful about maintaining both those appeals and the advantages they conferr. And being 'cautious with your assets' does not necessarily mean what I draw from it.
Thu, 2011-12-01 08:58
#72
Meanwhile, I need to apply myself to the very immediate deadline: an important element element of butting our heads up against 'our' government here in Nova Scotia.
Thu, 2011-12-01 09:00
#73
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.
Likely more in the West: Edmonton will have eleven seats after redistribution, BC will gain six seats, Saskatchewan should have six urban ridings plus one or two winnable northern ridings, and we can win more than four Manitoba seats. Say a total of 24 in BC, 5 in Alta, 6 in Sask, 5 in Man = 40.
But the biggest potential is Ontario. And Ontario wants a leader who is either a Quebecer or has appeal in Quebec, because that makes us a real Canada-wide party. Nash is, sadly, unknown in Quebec. We have three Quebecer candidates: Mulcair, Saganash and Topp. Someone like Svend Robinson, who was very well known in Quebec, might do nicely; but we have no one like that. Mulcair, Topp, or Saganash -- IF all of them can appeal well to Quebec, which is not yet proven -- could reasonably create a potential for 62 seats out of Ontario's 121. With 65 in Quebec, 62 in Ontario, 40 in the West, a dozen in Atlantic Canada, and at least one in the North, we have 175, a majority of eleven in a 338-seat House.
We require a leader who is capable of that.
Thu, 2011-12-01 09:16
#74
Malcolm,
I think it's quite optimistic to envision 10 seats for the NDP is Saskatchewan, but you are right, anything can happen. However, it's still the in relam of possibility.
We have 59 seats in QC NOW. The priority should be to hold those seats, and if possible make gains outside. It makes no sense to give up on even half of the QC caucus, with the POSSIBILITY of picking up something outside. So far, none of the candidates, apart from Mulcair, is having any real traction in QC. In fairness, Topp's name is mentioned, but rarely in a positive light. (with the exception of Lysiane Gagnon's intital psotive reviews). Saganash also appeared on Les coulisses du pouvoir and, apparently will be on TLMEP this week. Will be intersting if he manages a ccome from far behind campaign.
The other candidates are complete unknonwns in QC and most (all) of them do not speak French well enough to make a connection.
Sorry for the cliche, but it's better to have a bird in your hand than two in the bush.
Thu, 2011-12-01 09:38
#75
Anybody but Mulcair is going to be a complete unknown, everywhere, let alone Quebec.
But the new Leader of the NDP INSTANTLY will not be a complete unknown.
If Martin Singh were to come from nowhere to become leader of the NDP, he would be a household name in the whole country... while Mulcair would be recognized by at most 20% even in Quebec.
The question is how they will play. Which is guesswork. In Quebec, less guesswork about Mulcair. But NOT the categorical difference you and others suggest on the limited relevance of who is known NOW.
And no one EVER has suggested that the West is more important than Quebec, or silly things like conceding losses there so we can get something elsewhere. You started the current run mugs game [others did it in weeks past], by suggesting that everything else was secondary after picking who is supposedly the best choice for us in Quebec.
How about we just drop that whole mugs game?
Thu, 2011-12-01 12:17
#76
I think Ken is making the key point here, which is to try and see not where the puck is now, but where it will be, both immediately after the race and then later on after the Liberals have their race and we move into pre-election. We can game some of this out now, and in fact in picking a leader I'm trying to picture things in both time frames.
Thu, 2011-12-01 12:30
#77
It is good to consider who scored the most goals last season to predict who will be best next season.
Thu, 2011-12-01 12:37
#78
That's certainly an important factor to consider, nicky. I think someone has proven somewhere that who won the seat last time is not a perfect predictor of who will next time, though. If we considered that particular hockey player's record in 2008, where he said 12 seats could be won and we ended up with 1, it would also be unfair to the calibre of his play.
Thu, 2011-12-01 12:42
#79
Ah, but that one seat was the most important one for our future growth.
Besides Jack said he wd be PM in 08 so we can allow for a little hyperbole
Thu, 2011-12-01 13:24
#80
Anybody but Mulcair is going to be a complete unknown, everywhere, let alone Quebec.
But the new Leader of the NDP INSTANTLY will not be a complete unknown.
I agree with this. But we shouldn't forget the lesson of "Joe Who." (And similarly, that of Stephane Dion.) Canadians knew who Clark was after his victory, but the impression that he was a nobody stuck, and for the most part, IMO, that wasn't a matter of name recognition but of perceived gravitas. Of our nine contenders, and despite his not being my first choice, I don't see anyone challenging Mulcair in this regard, now or after the convention.
Thu, 2011-12-01 13:46
#81
The reason the impression that Clark was a nobody stuck is because he was hopelessly obtuse and pedantic, had poor political skills, ran through staff like a revolving door in the New York subway, and was a stubborn coot who did not listen. It's also why he lost his minority governnment.
Dion had similar traits. If you look around our leadership race and see any similarities, run for the hills. So far I haven't seen anything like that.
One thing you should not do, however, is allow Liberals and Conservatives to define who is a "nobody" now. Last Christmas Rex Murphy named Jack Layton the most overrated politicians of the year. Layton got the last laugh on him four months later.
Thu, 2011-12-01 13:59
#82
Actually Rex Murphy called Layton the most over-rated politician of the first half of 2011 in an At Issue special in june 2011 AFTER he had won 103 seats!
BTW: On another note can i just point out what a wonderful person Sudbury NDP MP Glenn Thibeault is!
http://www.xtra.ca/public/Ottawa/An_MP_remembers_a_brother_lost_to_AIDS-...
"Thibeault was 21 when his brother died, and he felt the need to get involved with the local AIDS Committee in North Bay, where he was working as a radio newscaster. As a young, straight man showing up at the committee’s AGM, people wondered why he was there, but Thibeault was eager to play his part.
“I was speaking to the ED, and said I’m more than happy to be on the board, and as a media guy more than happy to help out with fundraising,” Thibeault recalls. “By the end of the meeting, I ended up being vice-chair of the board, chair of the planning and policy committee that comes with being vice-chair. I was chair of the fundraising committee and chair of the awareness committee, and I walked out going holy cow, what did I just get myself involved in?”
Still, his youthful energy and ideas were beneficial in an era when stigma around AIDS as a gay disease was more prevalent.
Thibeault will never forget his brother’s funeral, which Roger helped plan, ensuring pictures were also displayed of 12 other friends that had died of AIDS.
“So many of his friends ended up dying alone because they didn’t have family, they didn’t have friends, they were even shunned from their own community because they had HIV/AIDS in the early 90s,” Thibeault says. “Now I say why am I involved in the hospice in Sudbury? It’s because I wanted to ensure that no one has to [die alone].”"
Thu, 2011-12-01 15:15
#83
It isnt just an utterly pointless argument over predicting the future. I do repeat the quick and dirty end- 'dont hold your breath waiting.'
But that stems for a fuller analysis of the evidence of the present that I have given: what Mulcair's positioning strategy is in this race.
He has said, publicly, that he will release a platform that will be well thought out and costed.
If you're wrong on this, what else you wrong on, Ken? *wink*
Thu, 2011-12-01 16:01
#84
Malcolm
We have 59 seats in QC NOW. The priority should be to hold those seats, and if possible make gains outside.
I have no issue agreeing that the immediate priority is to consolidate the gains in Quebec. But if all we do is consolidate the gains in Quebec, we've accomplished little.
BTW, I think it is dreaming in technicolour to assume that even Mulcair is in a strong position to hold us all 59 Quebec seats. I've been around politics for some time and my usual experience is that a major breakthrough virtually always ebbs - at least a little bit - at the next election. All things being equal, we'll be lucky to hold on to more than 40 - 45 Quebec seats. Winning in 2015 means gaining ~75 - 80 seats outside Quebec.
Thu, 2011-12-01 16:26
#85
The Reform Party came out of no where to sweep much of western canada in 1993 and instead of falling back, they won even more western seats in 1997 and more again in 2000. The Tories under Mulroney did even better in Quebec in 1988 than they did in 1984.
Thu, 2011-12-01 20:03
#86
He has said, publicly, that he will release a platform that will be well thought out and costed. If you're wrong on this, what else you wrong on, Ken? *wink*
Sounds like that word "if" is in there just nominaly. [If] I am wrong on this, what else AM i wrong on.
By the same token of what I've plead guilty to: Mulcair promising a platform is not the same as producing it.
I also am positive there will be a platform. I did not say that consistent with his strategic positioning there will be no policies and platform. I said that what would be consistent with everything we have seen so far is that nothing he proposes will pin him down a bit- toa anybody.
And fully costing is easy if it is all safe stuff. The Nova Scotia NDP costed all of its boutiquey little proposals too. And how much did they have to do with governing now? Do you suppose between us we could name a couple of them without consulting any sources?
And yes, I am only saying that would be consistent with what Mulcair is delivering so far. Which is not to say that there will be no change.
Thu, 2011-12-01 20:09
#87
dacckon
There will be a debate on Dec 4 and Im sure we'll hear about policies there. Especially from those who havn't released much.
Should be an interesting discussion. Hopefully.
Thu, 2011-12-01 21:45
#88
Andrew Coyne says at this time he thinks Peggy Nash will edge out the other contestants. He said that her French is better than Dewar's, she has more electoral experience then Topp, and she's more likeable then Mulcair.
Thu, 2011-12-01 21:57
#89
Just heard on "At issue" that Bob Rae will be on TLMEP this Sunday; checked the website and no word about Saganash. Does anyone know what happened? Apparently, Saganash was supposed to be on the show this week. Was his appearance cancelled?
Or did people confuse "Tout le monde en parle" and "Les Coulisses du pouvoir"? Saganash WAS on "Les coulisses" last week...
Thu, 2011-12-01 22:05
#90
Well, Chantal Hébert is the one who said Bob Rae will be on "Tout Le Monde En Parle", so I assume she knows her French Quebec t.v. shows. I would assume it is accurate since she said it. If it came from an Anglophone reporter who didn't know much about Quebec I would be more skeptical.
And yes, Peggy Nash could pull a surprise upset according to Coyne. Hébert and Bruce Anderson didn't want to make any predictions.
Coyne could be right. Topp has never held elected office and still doesn't have a seat, Mulcair is disliked by almost everyone, and Dewar, while having potential, may need to wait until he is more bilingual.
so Peggy could be a better choice. 
Thu, 2011-12-01 22:42
#91
knownothing
Hebert has been a hyper-biased journalist of late and her hatred of the NDP is showing. She is so desperate to get the Liberals back in the driver seat she is going to lose any credibility she had.
Thu, 2011-12-01 22:43
#92
knownothing
Of course Coyne isnt going to say anything nice about Mulcair.
Thu, 2011-12-01 22:43
#93
Boom Boom
Okay, that's over the top, Debater - that's complete bullshit about Mulcair.
Thu, 2011-12-01 22:44
#94
dacckon
I don't see how Topp not holding office is bad. All statistical data shows that people do better when unelected. Mulcair isn't disliked by everyone, there are alot of mps backing him. They all really all great candidates, And I have to pick at the minor details(which arn't fully available yet).
But really, don't quote Andrew Coyne as a source of anything of worth. What does he know?
Thu, 2011-12-01 22:47
#95
I didn't think what any of the At Isue panel said was particularly out of line. In fact I more or less agreed with Anderson and Coyne's impression of the race so far. Hebert is a perenial contrarian malcontent who tends to bad-mouth everyone. I've seen her say some very negative things about the Liberals too recently. I don't really see what her point is about Rae being on TLMEP - sooner or later everyone who is at all major gets on that show. Ignatieff was on two days before the May election and apparently did reasonably well - and still got crushed. Given that the NDP won't pick its next leader until March 24 - I would not expect Mulcair or Topp or anyone else in the leadership race to be on the show this early - but there are about a dozen more Sundays to come and I'll bet that a couple of NDP leadership hopefuls will be on on the show in February/March when the race really heats up and after a couple of debates have taken place.
Thu, 2011-12-01 22:47
#96
What's over the top? The mainstream media have pretty much said they can't stand Mulcair. Have you seen the things they have said about him? He is one of their pet hates. Coyne himself said tonight on 'At Issue' that even the people in the NDP don't like him.
John Ivison wrote a column during the 2011 election in which he said members of the NDP had told him they hoped Cauchon beat Mulcair. I don't know whether they are exaggerating, but the media have certainly put a target on Mulcair's back. If he becomes leader, it could be a gift to the other parties because it looks like the media will give him negative coverage.
Thu, 2011-12-01 22:48
#97
Hebert has been a hyper-biased journalist of late and her hatred of the NDP is showing. She is so desperate to get the Liberals back in the driver seat she is going to lose any credibility she had.
Why do you assume Hébert is in favour of the Liberals. She has written some brutal columns about the Liberals earlier this year. eg. "Have the Liberals passed the point of no return?"
Thu, 2011-12-01 22:50
#98
I don't see how Topp not holding office is bad.
I think its pretty universally acknowledged - probably even by Brian Topp himself - that his total lack of any electoral experience is a liability. Maybe his other great qualities make up for that liability - but it is a liability nonetheless.
Thu, 2011-12-01 22:54
#99
Incidentally, Hebert was 100% correct when she challenged the conventional wisdom that the race was between Topp and Mulcair. She said that Mulcair has no greater claim to being a frontrunner than do Nash or Dewar - and i agree.
Thu, 2011-12-01 22:59
#100
I don't see how Topp not holding office is bad.
I think its pretty universally acknowledged - probably even by Brian Topp himself - that his total lack of any electoral experience is a liability. Maybe his other great qualities make up for that liability - but it is a liability nonetheless.
The fact that he won't be in the House of Commons for the forseeable future, and therefore won't even be the Official Opposition leader, isn't great. Someone will likely give up their seat for him so he can get elected but that can be risky.
Thu, 2011-12-01 23:11
#101
Given that Topp is not running in Danforth, I have to assume that he has a "plan B" to get a seat very quickly. Still it is one more complication that the party would not have to face with any other person as leader (other than Martin Singh)