Whatever happened to the "momentum"?

If winning media support in the short-term was a predictor of electoral success in the long-term I'd be worried. I want the structural things that will affect support over the longer-term to be addressed by our folks. That means building a frame to support our message over the longer-term, building up our fundraising capacity, getting riding associations in place in Quebec and getting the membership built up there, and building policy depth and organizational capacity.

Those things don't move horse-race polls in the short-term. Ignoring them moves poll results during election campaigns.

Chantal Hébert is a smart woman, but I don't always agree with her. Twitter has made the media focus on now, now, now, and become easily bored. They can sometimes confuse their own insatiable, rapacious demand for something new and stimulating with what's good for electoral politics and the country as a whole. And when they do, they miss other important things going on behind the scenes.

I'm surprised that Star article excerpted in MS's post  did not mention taking away the critic's positions of MPs running for the leadership - Nash was an outstanding finance critic, etc...

M. Spector, I was not responsible for the title of that other thread you're referring to. All I know is that, before the last election, the Liberals put everything they had into pleasing the national media and trying to move the polls month-to-month, and did not do the hard work needed to rebuild their party. There's every sign they're about to descend into another round of leadership sniping over whether Bob Rae can run for permanent leader, which will suck all the oxygen out of that room as well. Their caucus is mostly composed of an aging group of incumbents, who they will have trouble replacing. They have less than half the party membership the NDP had on September 1 (35,000), and managed to renew 5,000 of them in their online membership drive.

Yes, there is no face on the federal NDP for the time being. That is a temporary state of affairs. I simply refuse to engage in hand-wringing over monthly horse-race polls and mainstream media commentary four years out from an election.

At a meet and greet I attended, Mulclair said that the NDP will take all of the remaining Liberal seats in the next election as part of their strategy to win power. 

What did that "momentum" feel like, anyway?

A gentle summer shower?

The fleece of a newborn lamb?

or that special moment when you finally find something long enough to scratch that itchy place in the lower middle of your back?

ottawaobserver wrote:

There's every sign they're about to descend into another round of leadership sniping over whether Bob Rae can run for permanent leader, which will suck all the oxygen out of that room as well. Their caucus is mostly composed of an aging group of incumbents, who they will have trouble replacing. They have less than half the party membership the NDP had on September 1 (35,000), and managed to renew 5,000 of them in their online membership drive.

1.  There is no leadership sniping.  Bob Rae is the interim leader and nothing more.  He knows that at his age and with his baggage as Ontario Premier he cannot stay on permanently.  There are some who think he should stay longer, and people have the right to have different opinions - that is not sniping.  The NDP seems to have a had a lot of 'sniping' lately between Mulcair, Topp etc.

2.  Your comment about the age of the Liberal caucus is reflective of your tendency to take digs at the Liberals whenever you can.  You have a hatred for the Liberals and you have displayed it since I first started posting here.  I have also seen lists on other threads listing all the Liberal MP's and their ages and talking about how ancient they are and how little youth there is in the caucus.  The party has several younger MP's like Trudeau, Duncan and others and just elected a couple of new MP's in May like Ted Hsu and Sean Casey.

3.  The Liberal Party just went through its biggest defeat in history.  Do you really think it makes sense to have the party membership back up to a high level only 6 months later?  What is significant though is that the Liberals beat the NDP in fundraising in the last quarter.  That is interesting.

Debater wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

There's every sign they're about to descend into another round of leadership sniping over whether Bob Rae can run for permanent leader, which will suck all the oxygen out of that room as well. Their caucus is mostly composed of an aging group of incumbents, who they will have trouble replacing. They have less than half the party membership the NDP had on September 1 (35,000), and managed to renew 5,000 of them in their online membership drive.

1.  There is no leadership sniping.  Bob Rae is the interim leader and nothing more.  He knows that at his age and with his baggage as Ontario Premier he cannot stay on permanently.  There are some who think he should stay longer, and people have the right to have different opinions - that is not sniping.  The NDP seems to have a had a lot of 'sniping' lately between Mulcair, Topp etc.

2.  Your comment about the age of the Liberal caucus is reflective of your tendency to take digs at the Liberals whenever you can.  You have a hatred for the Liberals and you have displayed it since I first started posting here.  I have also seen lists on other threads listing all the Liberal MP's and their ages and talking about how ancient they are and how little youth there is in the caucus.  The party has several younger MP's like Trudeau, Duncan and others and just elected a couple of new MP's in May like Ted Hsu and Sean Casey.

3.  The Liberal Party just went through its biggest defeat in history.  Do you really think it makes sense to have the party membership back up to a high level only 6 months later?  What is significant though is that the Liberals beat the NDP in fundraising in the last quarter.  That is interesting.

B

Debater:

 * I bet you anything Bob Rae registers as a leadership candidate for the next contest.
 * I bet you anything that after Hedy Fry and Ralph Goodale retire, the Liberals will not keep their seats.
 * I bet you anything that a year from now the NDP will have a stronger balance sheet than the Liberals.

Now as for leadership sniping, I give you exhibits 1 and 2:

 * Warren Kinsella: "I see. So it's okay for the interim leader to break his promise to not run for the leadership, and to squelch the ambitions of anyone other than himself? Because, make no mistake, he promised not to seek the leadership post. And he said he would encourage, not discourage, others to seek the leadership. He's not telling the truth. And this is one "stupid blogger" who intends to make that point, over and over."

 * The What-Do-I-Know-Grit: "What a turd this guy is turning out to be.

Here's what Bob said then:

"This is a job that needs to be done now ... this is just my chance to serve," Mr. Rae said. "I think there will be a broader chance for renewal in the search for a new leader in a year and a half (or) two years, and I think it's important for the party to look very much to a new generation of leadership. And I'm sure that will happen."

Here's what Bob says now:

"I think the role of the interim leader is to do everything possible to rebuild the party. Beyond that, I don't recall anything in the job description that went beyond that."

Make no mistake folks. Bob is not on a "rebuilding" tour. Bob is on a "leadership" tour. Dear Bob, YOU ARE NOT THE NEW GENERATION OF LEADERSHIP!"

 * As a bonus, here's David McGuinty, Scott Brison and Carolyn Bennett:

Lawrence "Liberal Leaderitis" Martin in iPolitics.ca wrote:

"David, who talks to his brother frequently, gave every indication Dalton might be interested in making the jump. While saying Bob Rae was doing an excellent job as interim leader, he noted that "he gave his pledge that he would not seek the permanent leadership." In his current position, he said Rae should be "out there like Bill Graham was as interim leader soliciting possible new candidates to enter the race for the leadership". ....

Meanwhile, despite his pledge of last spring, Bob Rae has given signs he wants the permanent leadership position. Sheila Copps, the leading candidate for the party presidency - which will be decided at a party convention in January - stirred the pot in saying Rae should be allowed the right to seek it. Even MP Carolyn Bennett, who has supported Rae's bid for the top spot in the past, said yesterday that Copps' statement was "not helpful," adding that the party needed to avoid leadership controversies at this time.

While the caucus is very enthusiastic about Rae's performance, many share the view of Scott Brison that if he runs for the bigger position, he should step down as interim leader out of fairness to other candidates. A case in point is David McGuinty, himself, who relinquished his post as Liberal house leader because of his possible leadership ambitions and has had a lower profile since doing so.

Rae will be 67 at the time of the next federal election. In an apparent reference to the age issue, David McGuinty said a key question will be any leadership candidate's "capacity for growth." He said that "if we're honest here, we're talking about an eight year rebuilding project."

McGuinty said it is up to Bob Rae to make his intentions clear. Rae, however, doesn't wish to be rushed into doing that. He wants to continue to make gains for the party and see where things stand down the line. But with the party convention in January and debate over the Copps' candidacy for president - she is seen as a stalking horse for Rae by many - pressure will grow. Earlier this week, Copps reaffirmed her position of support for Rae's freedom to run for the full time job, saying "it would be up to Rae to defend his reversal."

Yes, no sniping there. Move along folks. One big happy family. What were we thinking, Debater.

ottawaobserver wrote:

If winning media support in the short-term was a predictor of electoral success in the long-term I'd be worried. I want the structural things that will affect support over the longer-term to be addressed by our folks. That means building a frame to support our message over the longer-term, building up our fundraising capacity, getting riding associations in place in Quebec and getting the membership built up there, and building policy depth and organizational capacity.

No no, ottawaobserver, don't you know that these trends are always correctly predicted by the pundits a long time before they occur? For a few examples of successful predictions, look at how Mayor Smitherman is doing in Toronto, the newly elected PC Premier of Ontario Tim Hudak, the newly elected PC Premier of Manitoba Hugh McFadyen, and that the Wildrose Alliance is rocketing up the polls in Alberta and is all but certain to form the next government there.

Oh, wait a minute....

I think it should also be pointed out that the Bloc Quebecois will naturally be receiving a bounce from their leadership campaign.

Hebert also predicted the end of the NDP across the country in March. Ummm nope. She has an axe for the ndp that is down to the handle. Just one of her NDP bash fests. Not credible and on anything ndp.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/948450--hebert-public-opinion...

Over that period, fatigue with the Conservative regime could increase and, with it, the inclination to vote for the Liberals — especially if the NDP spends it propping up the government. New Democrat efforts to play a decisive role in the minority Parliament have done little to shake the widespread popular perception that the Liberals are the alternative to the government.

thorin_bane wrote:

Hebert also predicted the end of the NDP across the country in March. Ummm nope. She has an axe for the ndp that is down to the handle. Just one of her NDP bash fests. Not credible and on anything ndp.

Actually, I quite like Chantal, and respect what she has to say.  She usually provides very apt and thoughtful analysis (especially as compared to her colleagues).  Sure she is not always right in her predictions, but she is the first to admit when she is wrong.

During the spring, after the CROP poll showing us in first place in Québec exploded like a bombshell on the campaign, when all of the other pundits on CBC were pooh-poohing the results as an aberration, Chantal responded by saying "With hall due respect, Hallan knows nutting habout what is going on in Québec.  I was in Montréal the other day, and there was ha lot of...I'm not going to call it Layton-mania, but hit's like dat." I nearly burst a gut laughing!

Chantal is very typically Québécoise in her outlook and I actually think she is somewhat sympathetic to us.  At the very least, she was clearly very amused by the Orange Crush and how it threw all of the chattering class into a tailspin.  That said, she recognizes that the NDP has not by any stretch closed the deal with Québec.  We have the potential of making Québec the centre of power of a long string of NDP governments much as the Liberals did throughout the 20th Century.  But selecting the wrong leader, or moving away from where Jack took the party in its approach to Québec issues could lead to disaster for us.

Winston wrote:

But selecting the wrong leader, or moving away from where Jack took the party in its approach to Québec issues could lead to disaster for us.

But the NDP has to move away from were Jack took the party in its approach to Quebec issues - that's the dilemma the NDP faces.  If it continues to promote policies that are the same as the BQ's, it will struggle to expand its support outside Quebec.

Why did you just quote your OWN post, Debater?

Didn't mean to imply that it did.  You just had me puzzled there for a second was all.

Other than the fact that the NDP wants to stay in Canada, what differences are there between the BQ and the NDP with regard to Quebec policy?

There actually is still support in Quebec for the idea of a strong, centralized federal government if it is presented by an articulate and intelligent spokesman.  Chrétien was a strong federalist and he did well in Quebec.  As Andrew Coyne said recently, a new poll in Quebec shows the majority of Quebecers support Trudeau's patriation of the Constitution, even though the chattering classes try to say otherwise.

And actually, voters outside of Quebec are becoming increasingly tired of 'asymmetrical federalism' getting out of control with regard to Quebec.  If the NDP does not pick up on this, it will benefit the Liberals and Conservatives.

But the point is even when there isn't a lot of support for a 'centralized' government, it is the job of a federalist party to promote it and to point out the positive features of it.  The question is, WHY is the NDP so opposed to a strong central government?

AC, what I have said above are not 'talking points'.  You seem to view anyone who disagrees with the NDP's pro-BQ and pro-sovereigntist policies as being a Liberal shill.  There is no smear or innuendo.  The NDP has taken positions that are disturbing to many people.  The point I am making is the same one that many, many people are making - both in the media and in the general public.  I do not make things up out of the blue, my friend.  I express intelligent, articulate, mainstream views.

The media and Canadians are worried that the NDP is "Bloc lite".  You are free to disagree, but it could harm your electoral fortunes.

Don't take my word for it - I'll provide some 'proof' since you've asked me to:

http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/rexmurphy/story/2011/06/02...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/29/barbara-kay-ndp-throws-qu...

http://www.vigile.net/NDP-is-selling-out-anglos-to-court

http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/language+hypocrisy/5642385/story.html

Ken B, there is a lot of supposition in those 2 paragraphs (which you have the right to engage in of course as I've pointed out in my own case).

You are parsing phrases.  Whether it is pro-BQ, or BQ-lite, the bottom line is that the NDP agrees with most of the BQ's policies on Quebec, and as some of the above links show, that concerns a lot of people.  And I'm not sure how the NDP has determined for Quebecers what they will never do again.  Using the 'never' word is risky.

As for the Libs, some people would say they have moved too far to the left and will do better once they come back to the centre where most Canadians are.  I am on the left, but the reality is that most Canadians are not.  (which is why the NDP can't form a federal government).  Canadians appear to want a somewhat fiscally conservative party, but one that is liberal socially.  Chretien realized this, and Harper knows it too.  Why do you think they have both been so successful?

A Prime Minister Maxime Bernier is more likely to puncture the NDP's Quebec bubble than the federal Grits are.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Debater:

 

Rex Murphy, Barabara Kay, and a story about Mulcair from 2009, really? Barbara Kay, the same Barbara Kay who when she is speaking with Charles Adler makes me want to say, get a room you two, that Barbara Kay. Really? Really? Really? Your Gazette Proof:

 

The NDP's language hypocrisy

 

  The Gazette November 2, 2011    

 

The federal opposition parties are protesting the nomination of Michael Ferguson as the next auditor-general because he doesn't speak French. The NDP has even submitted a complaint to Graham Fraser, Canada's official languages commissioner, because the nomination "fails to promote bilingualism."

During the last federal election, NDP posters in Quebec were French-only. During Thomas Mulcair's press conference when he announced he was running for the leadership of the NDP, there was a French-only poster on the dais.

The NDP, champions of bilingualism? What a joke!

Allan Brinson

Beaconsfield

 

Come on!

Look, I know that there is much discussion on this issue of "Assymetrical Federalism". I don't know if you were aroud during the referendum, but we almost lost that. So how does that become a Lib victory, especially given the rise of the BQ? I don't understand where you are coming from at all. Its like you are stuck in the 1970s somewhere and you are like Pricenss Liela saying help us PET, you're our only hope. The bottom line is we saw the rise of the BQ at the hands of you Libs and the Tories, and their demise only came at the hands of the NDP who Quebecers felt could speak for them and for their desire to remain in Canada at the same time.

Frankly, I really wish that someone else would speak to this. I don't know a lot about this but I know enough to know that what you Libs tried to do didnt' work and it almost cost us Canada. That WAS YOUR FAULT. You guys have NEVER accepted responsibility for it.

You know earlier in these threads you tried to use the old the Libs are the only ones who speak for immigrants schtick, and now you are using the old PET "we are the only ones who can perserve Canada", schtick. And that is what is. Its like something out of an old Vaudeville routine, or something you'd see on a Wayne and Shuster special on the CBC.

Again, I am at a loss to figure you out. You are either an old PET, Trudeau mania partisan who was around in the late 60s and 70s, or you are a you kid trying to recycle all the old Lib arguments, all of which frankly are based on playing the fear card. What the heck is the difference in either case between you and the Tories then. And if you don't like me calling you a kid, tough. Stop acting like one.

Man, I am getting sick of you. 

And I'm getting sick of telling you to back off from the personal attacks.  Stick to challenging the argument.

Yeah, best to let the innuendo go unchecked. Not all of the party's weaknesses have been explored yet, all the many openings for attacking a party in its attempts to replace seperatists,and vulnerable now to the likes of Pierre Karl Peladeau, old Quebec money seeking to control the media. It all helps to toughen a party's resolve. Do wish that the need to help the populace adjust to a bilingual, pan-Canadian party would not be confronted in a taunting manner, however. English Canada's moronic, francophobic element should not be encouraged.

I GUESS WE MIGHT AS WELL LET YOU STAND IN FRONT OF THE FLAG YOU LOVE THE MOST, MR. PRIME MINISTER.

I would hazard a guess that many people in Canada don't give Quebec a second thought from week to week. We have our own lives to live. On the satellite TV sometimes it lands on Montreal CBC and CTV where you hear some stuff about what is going on there. As far as I know many of the francophones in Toronto are not even from Quebec.

In terms of French, I would bet the average Anglophone Canadian is hearing more about Sarkozy and his pecadillos than anything from Quebec. And sometimes you have to wonder about people who obsess about Quebec, even though they do not live there, and there is almost zero effect on their lives from whatever Quebec did, does, or wants to do.

Debater wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Debater wrote:

And actually, voters outside of Quebec are becoming increasingly tired of 'asymmetrical federalism' getting out of control with regard to Quebec.  If the NDP does not pick up on this, it will benefit the Liberals and Conservatives.

Interestingly, when these voters you referred to are asked to explain what it is that is getting out of control, or any details about what it is they're talking about, they struggle to come up with anything.

Do you think asymmetrical federalism is getting out of control?  What's getting out of control?  Can you explain the excess is any special privileges Quebec is receiving?

It's too late to go into a whole discussion about the complexities of this, but it is never far from the surface in Canada.  It is one of the defining struggles in the country for goodness sakes.  The debate never ends.

Just last night on Goldhawk on CPAC I listened to a woman call in from BC after the NDP leadership debate.  She identified herself as a Nathan Cullen supporter and then told Goldhawk and a couple of the reporters on the panel (eg. Elizabeth Thompson) that she didn't think it was right that anglophone candidates should have to speak French when many of the Quebec politicians do not speak English.

So it is always a debate that risks being ignited.

Anglophone politicians don't need to speak French.  Leaders of federal parties do.

And what does this have to do with asymmetrical federalism?

Seems to me like "Obfuscator" would be a better handle for you.

Ignited by whom, Debater?