Continued from here.
Issues Pages:
NDP Leadership 45
Mon, 2011-12-05 07:14
#1
NDP Leadership 45
Mon, 2011-12-05 07:25
#2
Hopefully, in the next debate, the Johnny One-Notes will put their hobby horses out to pasture and try to winkle some substance out of what the candidates are saying...with electability by Mainstreet - against all the media and Steve's machine - in mind.
A tall order, but it sounds like just the sort of discussion for a Body and Soul thread. Does anyone have a ouija board?...we may need to call in a few outside experts.
Mon, 2011-12-05 07:39
#3
mean moderator mashes
going on 200 thread.
moving right along....
and not having a follow-up worthy of Slumberjacks request.........
3. Pretty much everyone, either here on Babel or in the commetariat, say Tom finshed first or near-first. The disagreements are largely about how the others did. If there is a winner to be declared I think it is obvious.
4. It is significant that Tom's detractors on Babble use this occasion to resurrect the Libby Davies matter. It is a transparent ploy to deflect our attention from his strong performance yesterday afternoon.
5. Topp sees himself in competition with Dewar and Nash for second place. He needs to pass them in order to get on the last ballot. That is why he ovetly tried to undermine each of them. To some extent their respective constituencies in the party overlap. Party establishment / apparatchik / labour / Ontario. To me this reflects what I see elsewhere - that Topp, despite his endorsements, is not doing very well with the rank and file. I watched the debate in a bar where Dewar partisans predominated (at least before the debate). A number expressed hostility to Topp's tactics. Topp should not count on their votes on the last ballot.
6. (Apart from Chisholm) Dewar took the hardest hit yesterday. Deer in headlights, wooden, painful French, unsure of himself, nervous. You've heard it all eslewhere.
7. My ranking of the debate: Mulcair, Cullen, Ashton, Topp, Nash, Saganash, Singh, Dewar, Chisholm.
Who didnt expect Mulcair to perform the best?
As to the 'Libby Davies ploy' being brought by Mulcairs detractors to distract from his strong performace. It wasnt originaly brought up by a known detractor [is there anyone but me and a very occassional other- poor boy under attack]... I actually dismissed its significance, and it was brought back into attention by WZ who has previously rated Mulcair as first or second in his choices- and still appears to after the discussion. Not to mention that the big pack of hyena detractors [me] also rated Mulcair as strongest. If wandering discussion qualifies as working to distract, then this nefarious plot is in every Babble thread.
There is another equally simple reason that Topp would choose Nash and Dewar to pick on. He apparently decided to show some combativeness- having the opposite image issue of Mulcair, who also as expected played against type. If he is going to do that, who to mix it with? Going after Mulcair could be a disaster in the likely event they both got serious about it. And it would look really cheap to go after the lower tier candidates. [Over what even?]
I agree with your ranking though.
The other candidates need to grab some of the light that Mulcair has all of at the outset as the presumed most winnable. Dewar went backwards. Topp impressed few, but he was in there. For him, thats progress. IF he is and continues to learn on his feet, he's going places.
Mon, 2011-12-05 08:20
#4
Arthur Cramer
I want to like Mulcair. I think the time is right for a leader from Quebec. I just would like to be sure that the calm and reasonable sounding man we saw yesterday was the real thing.
I don't honestly care about age. I have known many people of my age and older who couldn't lead the way out of a wet paper bag, with a hole in it and a flashlight. The next few debates are going to be hopefully useful in giving us a feel about how these people really are like. For me the diversity of candidates was remarkable. Nash by the way seems very lucid on most things but I still don't have a read on here. I am not sold on Topp, but mainly because the establisment is really behind him and I natrually tend not to want and pick the party insider preferred candidate. My wife and I both voted for Blakie. I wish Bill was in this again. He is a fine man, and though no one's fool, he is able to talk to people and thinks before he speaks. I always really liked that about him and I wish the party had given him more credit then he got. He is a plus to us here provincially but I really wish he would come back to us Federally.
Mon, 2011-12-05 08:28
#5
Boom Boom
Rebecca Blaikie does well on P&P. She'll make an awesome MP one day.
Mon, 2011-12-05 08:55
#6
Idealistic Prag...
1. 2 hours divided by nine is hardly ideal. That is about 6 minutes for each candidate in each language. It hampers anyone getting a good fix on the candidates. As I have said before, the format tends to handicap the strong performers and protect the weak.
I was concerned about that going in, but am much less concerned now, actually. I think we actually got a pretty good idea of who the best performers are in a debate format. In fact, I'd say that far from "protecting" the weak performers, the format seems to make it hard for them to recover from any slip-ups. The weak moments become all people remember.
Mon, 2011-12-05 09:00
#7
Hopefully, in the next debate, the Johnny One-Notes will put their hobby horses out to pasture and try to winkle some substance out of what the candidates are saying...with electability by Mainstreet - against all the media and Steve's machine - in mind.A tall order, but it sounds like just the sort of discussion for a Body and Soul thread. Does anyone have a ouija board?...we may need to call in a few outside experts.
For advice on how to hobble hobby horses?
Mon, 2011-12-05 09:03
#8
Idealistic Prag...
I want to like Mulcair. I think the time is right for a leader from Quebec. I just would like to be sure that the calm and reasonable sounding man we saw yesterday was the real thing.
I'm actually even okay with him having a temper and thereby not being "calm and reasonable" 24/7. What I need to know if I'm going to be able to vote for Mulcair, though, is that he's not going to gut the backrooms out of spite. I want to know that he can work with caucus, yes, but also that he can work with the New Democrat organizers whose livelihoods he'd have much more direct control over as leader. I want to know that they can all put aside any hard feelings and work toward a common goal. If he can assure me of that, somehow, before the end of all this, he could very easily end up as my first-choice pick. I just haven't figured out a reliable way of finding out an answer to that question.
Mon, 2011-12-05 09:04
#9
Did you see the highlighting of your quote there?
Heck, you could always follow your own advice.... winkle some of that substance.
Mon, 2011-12-05 09:13
#10
And beyond putting aside hard feelings, to lead... which has little to do with the public personna and is generally demostrated even out of our view.
I'm not honestly sure how he is supposed to show that. But he's the one looking for support, and has the minds around to cogiatate with. I make the same demands on Topp showing retail skills, with a same sense of wondering what is a measure of that. People act like its all about gravitas and all that conventional stuff. Its not. But that doesnt answer what is the measure of retail skills. Again, that is Topp's problem. The questions are there, answer them guy.
And both those very different questions are not answered with blah, blah, blah [directly].
Mon, 2011-12-05 09:26
#11
As noted, Mulcair came into this already possessing all the assets to portray himself as the leader who can win.
No one else had really a shred of that. So it is predictable and predicted that he would start out with minimal competition.
The flip side of that, is that the other candidates have to get a good chunk of that to be in the hunt for being the new Leader. And while they cannot all do it, at least someone will.... and Mulcairs dominant position can therefore be expected to erode.
It is still very early. But on the other hand- the first debate is done and he has not yet lost any of that central dominance.... and the longer he keeps it, or even most of it, the less likely anyone will beat him.
In other words, there may be a rough consensus of a top tier of four candidates... but that is just the candidates who are likely to end up in the last round. No one else is really in the hunt until they can have some of that glow of feasible winner for themself.
[And getting it in February is probably a complete non-starter, with the 'deadline' possibly being MUCH sooner.]
Mon, 2011-12-05 09:40
#12
Arthur Cramer
Idealistic Pragmatist:
That is a great job flushing out what I guess I implied in my statement. Obviously Jack's (blessed be his memory) reall strength was his ability to convince people he actually heard them. I would really like to see Mulcair show this. I know we won't have another Jack or another Tommy (blessed be his memory), but I would like to see a leader rise with that ability and with the ability to speak in a way that resonates with people the way Jack and Tommy did. I feel funny calling Tommy, "Tommy". I mean I never knew him, but that is how we all think of him.
My mother met him when she was a little girl several times whenever he came through Winnipeg. She says he seemed like a very open, gentle caring man, and she said she recalled be able to talk with him and being heard as a iittle girl that she can't recall feeling with most other adults during her childhood. I guess that tells you a lot about the kind of man he was.
Mon, 2011-12-05 09:48
#13
Mulcair is probably the most "Prime Ministerial" of the bunch, though I don't feel the Leader of the Oppositon needs to have a temper and getting in shouting matches, that can be left to others, so he should be careful of that.
@ vaudree,
There's been lots of issues with NL and Quebec in regards to NL trying to develop the Lower Churchill. It would appear that Quebec does not want NL to develop the Lower Churchill because it's major competition for Hydro Quebec. NL has tried to get access to Quebec's power grid but Hydro Quebec will not allow it, stating that they don't have enough capacity on the grid eventhough the NL government is willing to upgrade the grid. I also think our government may have proposed building our own grid through Quebec and they denied that. Hydro Quebec's attempt to purchase New Brunswick Power was also thought to be an attempt by them to stop the developmentment of Lower Churchill. I'm not sure what came of it after but because of NAFTA Quebec was considered to be breaking rules by not allowing NL access to their grid so they were risking a court challange in the US.
Here are two articles on it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/05/12/williams-quebec-513.html
So depending on who's in government in Quebec, among other factors, I don't know how an east-west power grid would go over.
Mon, 2011-12-05 09:50
#14
Idealistic Prag...
That is a great job flushing out what I guess I implied in my statement. Obviously Jack's (blessed be his memory) reall strength was his ability to convince people he actually heard them. I would really like to see Mulcair show this.
Yeah, I'd ideally like to see that from Mulcair, too. It would be amazing if he could better convey to people that he wanted to not just talk to them, but to listen to them. If he can't do that, though, it won't stop me from ranking him high on my ballot, so I see that as a different issue than the one I raised a few comments back. The earlier issue--what I think of as being a unifying force not just with caucus but with NDP organizers at all levels who are not elected--is much more essential to me.
Mon, 2011-12-05 10:03
#15
It is interesting that the 'natural constituency' of people who place a premium on this without being prompted seems to be pretty limited.
It is a goodly part of the people I know. But, well, duh.
You have to question the representativeness of Babble for reflecting the range of what the NDP cadre thinks, but
I dont know of a better place. With appropriate allowances made, I find it as useful a gauge as I know of.
I think this is the only natural constituency that Topp starts with. It appears to be relatively small, and even among them- being the practical sort we are, we mostlly hang back waiting for him to demonstrate requisite retail political skills.
Mon, 2011-12-05 10:08
#16
Howard wrote:
Pierre Ducasse had good ideas (some of which were subsequently implemented; e.g. the Sherbrooke Declaration) and he was the only fluently bilingual candidate in the race. He articulated a vision of social democracy that was detailed and philosophical. He called on the party to take big risks and invest in areas where it had never done well before (i.e. Québec). Where are Ashton's big ideas? We've all heard her big slogans.
Actually, it wasn't his "good ideas" we loved. We fell in love with Ducasse over two lines:
- "In order to achive what you have never achieved, you must d what you have never done."
- His self-description as a "pragmatic radical." (Or was it "radical pragmatist? - I'm getting old.)
We didn't start to hear much substance from Ducasse until well into the campaign.
But then, I suppose a young female candidate faces a different standard than a young male candidate.
Nice try Malcolm. What the NDP had never done was elect a truly bilingual leader from the province of Québec. You could also argue that it had never truly committed to building the province in Québec. The NDP braintrust has certainly argued that for the last 8 years as they went about building the Québec section. Ducasse's radical pragmatist and Jack's radical pragmatist agendas carried the day at convention and went forward in to items like the Sherbrooke Declaration, the post-2003 convention's first economic policy (written by Ducasse), and Ducasse's efforts (through the media) to change the NDP's image as anglophone and "centralisateur" as Layton's Québec lieutenant. It is a shame Ducasse was never elected but his impact is undeniable. Most importantly though, as OttawaObserver has noted, no one expected the victor of the 2003 convention to go on to be Prime Minister. The hope was simply that a new leader could put the NDP back in the range of 20 seats. Even by that count, Pierre Ducasse was found lacking, probably because of his lack of experience.
I note you also haven't disputed Ashton's lack of substance. Use your connections to take that critique off the table. Get Ashton to announce some innovative policies. Have Ashton lay out her game plan for getting the NDP those extra seats on the prairies we all so badly want, and I can forgive this "profile-building" run that she has launched.
Also, drop this "victim of sexism" defence, it is getting very old and very stale. So is the "boomer" centrism critique, given that most of the people I observe getting excited about Ashton are...boomers (Boom Boom excluded
).
Mon, 2011-12-05 10:17
#17
knownothing
Craig Oliver was on CTV last night talking about how well Nathan Cullen did calling him Layton-esque. I thought he was too. Too bad about his merger ideas, or candidate selection-process or whatever. He should get more ideological instead of partisan and he would be a great leader. Other than that Mulcair was good and so was Nash. Topp was super aggressive towards Dewar and that was great. Good to see some real debate. I hope Topp does more of the, "How are you gonna pay for that?"
Mon, 2011-12-05 10:41
#18
Yes, strange to hear that coming from a New Democrat. Meant to shock Conservative viewers brought up on a diet of tales about NDP tax and spend policies, of course. We're learning.
Mon, 2011-12-05 10:52
#19
Historical note. We may be a small consituency, but a contributing reason Jack Layton built such a commanding lead in the leadership race despiteiminmal caucus support and national profile, is that Jack's reputation on this pulled the bulk of us into his camp, and from across the ideological spectrum.
But there is little basis for comparing to now. Jack's profile outside Ontario was very limited, but he already had credibility beyond the capacity to build and work a team. Topp is having to build that / show that during the race.
Mon, 2011-12-05 10:56
#20
Topp was super aggressive towards Dewar and that was great. Good to see some real debate. I hope Topp does more of the, "How are you gonna pay for that?"
I must agree. We're not doing ourselves, or Canadians looking to the party for leadership, any favours by coddling the candidates and leaving their weaknesses unexposed. So I don't mind Topp going aggressive, regardless of his own calculation for doing so. It lifted him to second tier for me. (And for what it's worth, my first tier is Saganash, Mulcair and Nash; second Ashton, Topp and Dewar; third Cullen, Singh and Chisholm.)
Mon, 2011-12-05 11:00
#21
You don't seriously expect us to believe Nash and Dewar don't have endorsements in their back pocket for momentum purposes, do you.
Actually I am, yes, sceptical of that idea. Why wait for the second debate? or the fifth? I'd get the endorsements out now.
I disagree with you, as endorsements close to the voting show a final surge.
Regardless, Nash picked up 5 progressive economists this morning: Mel Watkins, Jim Stanford, Andrew Jackson, Marjorie Griffin Cohen, and Gordon Laxer.
Mon, 2011-12-05 11:33
#22
Craig Oliver was on CTV last night talking about how well Nathan Cullen did calling him Layton-esque. I thought he was too. Too bad about his merger ideas, or candidate selection-process or whatever. He should get more ideological instead of partisan and he would be a great leader.
Even if Nathan Cullen were leader wouldn't the party still need to adobt his idea at a policy convention? I think he should be asked if he is willing to abandon this idea if the grassroots of the party disagree.
One thing I will bring up about the debate that I dislike is that it is to I guess scripted by the party, if that makes sense. The moderators were basically useless becuase all they were there for was to read out questions, usually the moderator/moderators will allow a question to be anwsered and then they will try to expand on it themselves and make it a bit tougher. Or the moderators will ask their own questions. I don't think the candidates were asked any tough questions and I don't think there was enough detail of economics in the debate. I don't believe they were asked about how they would handle the debt/deficit, if they were willing to reduce the public service, things like taxes, interests rates, etc. Maybe this isn't the time for that stuff I don't know but I would like to know more detailed information on where they stand.
Mon, 2011-12-05 11:34
#23
Mon, 2011-12-05 11:45
#24
I found the debate quite illuminating, though not always in a positive way. I hated the format, though nine candidates make it impossible to get into any real, meaningful "debate".
My ballot preference has changed as a result of last night. I was underwhelmed by Nash, blown away by Cullen (who would supplant Nash as my second choice were it not for his odious "co-operative nominations" garbage), really impressed by Ashton. Thought Saganash was hard to watch, though better in french, still found him wanting. Topp was also hard to watch but largely due to his awkward body language and demeanor (watch the playback on fast forward and its hilarious, it looks like he's dancing because he sways his body so much back forth, it reminds me of watching Liberal candidate Randy Ball debate Robert Chisholm 20 years ago during Robert's first successful campaign in Halifax Atlantic which was equally hilarious...speaking of which...) as I've said before Robert is one of my favourite people in politics, who I admire to a degree I can hardly articulate - and it was really hard to watch that last night. I could shake off the awkward opening but the issue with french was far far worse than I expected. I thought there would be some effort but other than the occasional "merci" and one scripted question there wasn't even that. It's just not acceptable and was embarrassing. Dewar was disappointing. Mulcair went from being barely ahead of Nash in my mind to being light years ahead of this pack. He was the only one who looked like a prime minister. When the candidates differ little on policy or ideology the intangibles have to come into play and on the intangibles Mulcair is in a class by himself.
Pre debate my ballot would have been:
1. Mulcair
2. Nash
3. Dewar
4. Ashton
5. Chisholm
6. Saganash
7. Cullen
With the others not on my ballot; to:
1. Mulcair by a long way.
2. Nash, but far back now.
3. Ashton
4. Cullen
5. Dewar
6. Saganash
7. Chisholm
Mon, 2011-12-05 12:09
#25
Boom Boom
Also, drop this "victim of sexism" defence, it is getting very old and very stale. So is the "boomer" centrism critique, given that most of the people I observe getting excited about Ashton are...boomers (Boom Boom excluded
Well, I did put Ashton third (after Nash and Mulcair) in the English debate; that's pretty earth-shaking for me. 
ETA: In the next debate, if Ashton drops that "new politics" meme, she could very well be #1 in my book. She's the future of the party. "New Politics" grates on my nerves, because I'm sure I've heard it all before, a long, long time ago. Plus, it's an earworm.
Mon, 2011-12-05 12:12
#26
Even if Nathan Cullen were leader wouldn't the party still need to adobt his idea at a policy convention?
Good one! Leaders bound by convention! That's a fabulous idea. But wouldn't it have to be approved by the leader first?
Mon, 2011-12-05 12:48
#27
You continue to talk in blissful ignorance of the actual rules around Convention and what comes from it, let alone the unwritten but equally important precedents.... which are themselves much more developed than stuff like 'Leaders / Caucus does as it sees fit".
So here is what would come into play with Cullen's suggestion.
Not surprisingly, the Constitution does not speak to how to not run candidates. That is always the prerogative of both riding associations and the party [by Canadian law as well as the Constitution, in the person and at the discretion of the Leader]. And Cullen's proposal is about voluntary participation by the ridings [this would never get off the ground, but that is besides the formal points being raised here]. The particpating ridings would simply not nominate a candidate, and the party [Leader] would not exercise the prreogative to appont a candidate.
Nonetheless, it would be expected to have a policy with such impact to be discussed by the party as a whole. Convention is the highest decision making body of the NDP. But Unionist always raises that to a fetish that does not exist in the Constitution, let alone consensually agreed practices. No one EVER thought Convention could meet frequently enough or cover enough ground to be the decision making body for everything of importance. that has to be very selective.
So Convention is the highest decision making body. But Council makes all decisions in its absence- which is most of what happens.
Formally speaking, none of Cullens proposal would have to be vetted through Council. But for anything of this import, that would be the expectation.
That said, in the [very] hypothetical event that Cullen were to win the leadership, and had continued to press this proposal, that would be seen by all as a pretty substantial vetting already. So people still vehemently opposed would need a damn good argument to get Council to put the proposal on a shelf.
Mon, 2011-12-05 13:01
#28
Formally speaking, none of Cullens proposal would have to be vetted through Council.
See? Pan for gold and you find a nugget. Ken agrees with me!
If the leader proposed something like this, s/he would be invulnerable from a rules viewpoint (which is exactly what the question was, as I understood it).
If a [b]member[/b] proposed strategic voting, however - watch out! That's expulsion territory.
That's why, if you want to influence policy, you're better off being [size=20]The Leader[/size] than [size=5]a member[/size].
Mon, 2011-12-05 13:10
#29
Formally speaking, none of Cullens proposal would have to be vetted through Council.
See? Pan for gold and you find a nugget. Ken agrees with me!
If the leader proposed something like this, s/he would be invulnerable from a rules viewpoint (which is exactly what the question was, as I understood it).
If a [b]member[/b] proposed strategic voting, however - watch out! That's expulsion territory.
That's why, if you want to influence policy, you're better off being [size=20]The Leader[/size] than [size=5]a member[/size].
Or have the leader's ear like The Talented Mr. Topp or The Talented Ms. Davies or The Talented Mr. Broadbent.
Mon, 2011-12-05 13:25
#30
Rebecca Blaikie does well on P&P. She'll make an awesome MP one day.
Agreed...she's great in person, too!
Mon, 2011-12-05 13:43
#31
Why I would take you seriously, I dont know. But nice twisting U.
See? Pan for gold and you find a nugget. Ken agrees with me!
If the leader proposed something like this, s/he would be invulnerable from a rules viewpoint (which is exactly what the question was, as I understood it).
If a [b]member[/b] proposed strategic voting, however - watch out! That's expulsion territory.
That's why, if you want to influence policy, you're better off being [size=20]The Leader[/size] than [size=5]a member[/size].
The Leader would be invulnerable from a rules perspective because there are none with a bearing.
You are not agreeing with the substance of what I said: that despite any rules bearing on it, convention would clearly require such a proposal being explicitly vetted by the membership. The appropriate vehicle being Council. To which I added the caveat that since Culllen could only become Leader in the [near impossible] event of his proposal being widely popular, an attempt to kill it at Concil would have the optics of being an attempt to overturn the will of the members.
And as to bringing in the 'new'- added anyway- 'comparison' to what happens around pushing strategic voting inside the NDP- there is no argument there. Many, many, many members have, and to this day, still do, urge strategic voting. Many members on this board have. In practice, Buzz Hargrove got the boot because he went WAY beyond pushing strategic voting.... he flat out campaigned for the Liberals, and was happy to do it in ridings with NDP incumbents or where the NDP was close, and the Cons were not in the running. He even appeared on the campaign literature with the incumbent running against union sister Peggy Nash.
That does tend to want to get people wanting you expelled.
Any more specious fun and games?
Mon, 2011-12-05 13:47
#32
My preference ranking after the debates:
1. Mulcair
2. Saganash
3. Topp
4. Nash
5. Cullen
ETA:
6. Ashton
7. Singh
8. Dewar
9. Chisholm
Mon, 2011-12-05 14:09
#33
Craig Oliver was on CTV last night talking about how well Nathan Cullen did calling him Layton-esque. I thought he was too. Too bad about his merger ideas, or candidate selection-process or whatever. He should get more ideological instead of partisan and he would be a great leader.
Even if Nathan Cullen were leader wouldn't the party still need to adobt his idea at a policy convention? I think he should be asked if he is willing to abandon this idea if the grassroots of the party disagree.
I think Cullen's idea about shared nomination meetings is a non-starter. Having said that, the last Convention defeated a resolution rejecting any merger or cooperation with the Liberals. This does not constitute support for any particular proposal, but there could be considerably more support for his proposal amongst the general membership (and even in the parliamentary caucus, given the debate at Convention) than there is on Babble.
Mon, 2011-12-05 14:09
#34
@knownothing:
If you watched the Craig Oliver analysis on CTV News, he said from the outset that "Tom Mulcair really commanded the evening, and was the only one you could really imagine going toe to toe with Harper"
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20111204/ndp-leadership-ottawa-debate...
Cullen is fine for an also-ran, but he has ways to go before he can prove himself to be a potential PM. He has got to show dramatic imporvment in his French, for one thing. Doubt it is possible.
Mon, 2011-12-05 14:15
#35
I seem to be one of the few people on here that actually likes Cullen's plan. I'm not totally sold on it, but I think it could work.
Mon, 2011-12-05 14:17
#36
KenS says: "Endless topic. But suffice to say that Quebec demands a huge chunk of future profit- not just transmission tolls- for being a transmission corridor. Try the word extortionist."
I would count that as a loss for Topp and gain for Dewar then since extortionists are not technically against extortion - just very patient.
LOL mod comment.
Nicky says: "6. (Apart from Chisholm) Dewar took the hardest hit yesterday. Deer in headlights, wooden, painful French, unsure of himself, nervous. You've heard it all eslewhere."
You are right that Tom did very well but wrong that the Libby talk started after the debate or even on this 44th thread. I think that Dewar was born looking like a deer in the headlights so it doesn't say anything about his performance. If Tom shares your views, I think that I would change the song dedication to Tom from Murray McLauchlan's Whispering Rain to Little Red Riding Hood be Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs. I am not in the area and unilingual but interested if you youtube it.
BoomBoom agree with you about Rebecca Blaikie. I wish that Bill would put something on line detailing his attempts to fix Free Trade/NAFTA so I can show the Americans that the deal did not need to be how it was. And Jagmeet Singh was Ottawa's loss and Ontario's gain.
Note to self - start reading at #8 after Question Period
Mon, 2011-12-05 15:50
#37
I want to like Mulcair. I think the time is right for a leader from Quebec. I just would like to be sure that the calm and reasonable sounding man we saw yesterday was the real thing.
I'm actually even okay with him having a temper and thereby not being "calm and reasonable" 24/7. What I need to know if I'm going to be able to vote for Mulcair, though, is that he's not going to gut the backrooms out of spite. I want to know that he can work with caucus, yes, but also that he can work with the New Democrat organizers whose livelihoods he'd have much more direct control over as leader. I want to know that they can all put aside any hard feelings and work toward a common goal. If he can assure me of that, somehow, before the end of all this, he could very easily end up as my first-choice pick. I just haven't figured out a reliable way of finding out an answer to that question.
That is my concern about him to. Mulcair has a lot going for him, but he needs to be able keep a diverse caucus happy - to keep his sword pointed at Harper and the Tories and not have it turned towards his fellow NDP MPs. The Liberals destroyed themselves over in fighting. The Tories muzzle their MPs - which is also not a model for the NDP. We have good strong MPs that speak their mind and the leader has to be able to allow them to be good and strong but keep the party from destroying itself from within like that.
Mon, 2011-12-05 15:53
#38
Have to say I enjoyed the debate. I should add the qualifier that I had three pints of Smithwick's, and was enjoying some very pleasant left wing company at O'Grady's. I'd like to watch all the debates that way.
Pretty much agree with the majority of the comments above. Chisholm should just withdraw at this point. Was left with a good impression of Ashton, having previously not known enough to have an opinion. From the beginning, I liked the idea of someone like a Romeo Saganash as party leader, but since seeing him and learning a bit more I like more than the idea, I like him.
Lots of time left though, and I still have an open mind, with the obvious asterisk given my comments in the previous thread.
Mon, 2011-12-05 16:57
#39
1. 2 hours divided by nine is hardly ideal. That is about 6 minutes for each candidate in each language. It hampers anyone getting a good fix on the candidates. As I have said before, the format tends to handicap the strong performers and protect the weak.
I was concerned about that going in, but am much less concerned now, actually. I think we actually got a pretty good idea of who the best performers are in a debate format. In fact, I'd say that far from "protecting" the weak performers, the format seems to make it hard for them to recover from any slip-ups. The weak moments become all people remember.
Also, the leader will have to produce 45-second clips for the media, or 20-second, or whatever they will use. Jack proved you can say a lot in 45 seconds, if you are sharp about it. We'll see how sharp these nine are.
. . . endorsements close to the voting show a final surge.
True, if your voting universe is fixed. Signing up new members should be happening now. (Get your tax rebate faster.)
Mon, 2011-12-05 16:58
#40
Idealistic Prag...
Paul Wells on the leadership debate: "An embarrassment of riches"
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/12/05/ndp-debate-1-an-embarrassment-of-riches/
Mon, 2011-12-05 17:25
#41
We have good strong MPs that speak their mind and the leader has to be able to allow them to be good and strong but keep the party from destroying itself from within like that.
My concern, too. If Mulcair didn't already enjoy the support of nearly a third of the MPs, I would be more worried about him. Apart from the dispute with Libby (which I don't mean to diminish; he was out of line), I don't know that he's been a source of strife in caucus.
Mulcair appears to be a respectful, good listener, who responds to questions with the thoughtfulness of someone who's actually listened to them. Topp does not. I thnk Mulcair actually has it in him to manage a diverse caucus and help raise its game. Topp hasn't shown me that he does.
Mon, 2011-12-05 17:28
#42
I want to like Mulcair. I think the time is right for a leader from Quebec. I just would like to be sure that the calm and reasonable sounding man we saw yesterday was the real thing.
I'm actually even okay with him having a temper and thereby not being "calm and reasonable" 24/7. What I need to know if I'm going to be able to vote for Mulcair, though, is that he's not going to gut the backrooms out of spite. I want to know that he can work with caucus, yes, but also that he can work with the New Democrat organizers whose livelihoods he'd have much more direct control over as leader. I want to know that they can all put aside any hard feelings and work toward a common goal. If he can assure me of that, somehow, before the end of all this, he could very easily end up as my first-choice pick. I just haven't figured out a reliable way of finding out an answer to that question.
Why would Mulcair have hard feelings?
Mon, 2011-12-05 17:39
#43
Idealistic Prag...
Why would Mulcair have hard feelings?
Do you mean that literally in the sense that you're asking about what might cause him to have hard feelings, or are you asking me why I am worried that he might have hard feelings?
Mon, 2011-12-05 17:41
#44
Why would Mulcair have hard feelings?
Do you mean that literally in the sense that you're asking about what might cause him to have hard feelings
Yes.
Mon, 2011-12-05 18:00
#45
Idealistic Prag...
Based on some things he said directly to me and some other things I overheard him say to others throughout the same evening, he seems to feel that the Topp campaign has treated him unfairly and that there are a lot of organizers within the party who are siding with Topp and company against him in a very us-and-them scenario. Combine this with a Mulcair supporter on rabble talking early on about how as leader Mulcair would be likely to "clean house" when it came to the backrooms, and I started worrying that Mulcair wouldn't be able to work well with some of the long-term (and very successful) party organizers.
This feels like skirting on the edges of being too negative about one of the leadership candidates, though, so let me say that I actually found him to be a pleasant and thoughtful person overall, and am definitely still considering voting for him. I just wish there were an easy way of putting this particular fear to rest.
Mon, 2011-12-05 18:10
#46
I get the feeling that either Mulcair or Topp winning would cause a lot of hard feelings...that's why I'm leaning towards someone who can keep the team united.
BTW: What do people make of the five leading economists (Stanford, Cohen, Laxer, Jackson and Watkins) endorsing Peggy Nash?
Mon, 2011-12-05 18:11
#47
Based on some things he said directly to me and some other things I overheard him say to others throughout the same evening, he seems to feel that the Topp campaign has treated him unfairly and that there are a lot of organizers within the party who are siding with Topp and company against him in a very us-and-them scenario.
Do any other babblers know anything further about this?
Mon, 2011-12-05 18:14
#48
Arthur Cramer
Stockholm. my feeling is that the quintupleeconomistorama endorsemet is certainly significant and maybe sugggests there is doubt about Topp's progressive bona fides and his ability to win. But, I don't feel any better today over whom to support for leader. This is a tell, but it doesn't really lean me one way or the other.
Mon, 2011-12-05 18:26
#49
I don't think they doubt Topp's "progressive bona fides". I think they just think Nash's are better. I think they are picking up on the difference between her and Topp that Walkom alluded to in his column.
Mon, 2011-12-05 18:51
#50
BTW: What do people make of the five leading economists (Stanford, Cohen, Laxer, Jackson and Watkins) endorsing Peggy Nash?
I'm already leaning towards Nash, but I highly respect all of them and their endorsements carry weight with me.
Mon, 2011-12-05 19:06
#51
I get the feeling that either Mulcair or Topp winning would cause a lot of hard feelings...that's why I'm leaning towards someone who can keep the team united.
I can't imagine anyone not supporting the eventual winner, given that the NDP now feels it is so close to winning power. Thoughts otherwise?