NDP Leadership 51

Quebec political analyst Joel-Denis Bellavance said on Power Play tonight on CTV that the NDP risks being a one-term wonder in Quebec unless it elects Mulcair leader.

Meanwhile, Don Martin suggested to Bellavance that if Mulcair becomes leader he will hurt the NDP in the rest of Canada, and Bellavance didn't seem to disagree.

Interesting dilemma.

Yawn.

Time for some Christmas shopping. 

Isabelle Morin, Member of Parliament for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, has endorsed Brian Topp today.  She becomes the eleventh MP to endorse Topp.

Isabelle Morin was one of the five MPs who publicly called on Peter Julian to run for the leadership and pledged support to him if he did.  She is the second of these five to endorse another candidate for the leadership; Kennedy Stewart endorsed Topp shortly after Julian announced he wouldn't run.  The other three (Brian Masse, Alex Atamanenko and Rathika Sitsabaiesan) have not endorsed any of the candidates who are running.

Debater wrote:

Quebec political analyst Joel-Denis Bellavance said on Power Play tonight on CTV that the NDP risks being a one-term wonder in Quebec unless it elects Mulcair leader.

Meanwhile, Don Martin suggested to Bellavance that if Mulcair becomes leader he will hurt the NDP in the rest of Canada, and Bellavance didn't seem to disagree.

This is claptrap on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. First of all, if Mulcair became leader of the NDP, I think he would do just fine in English Canada. Is an an anglophone crusader for federalism in Quebec and he is a very articulate polished performer. He would be an easy sell to the NDP universe in TROC.

Second of all, I thik that the only way the NDP loses Quebec is if Robert Chisholm becomes the next leader - which will not happen. All the other candidates are either perfectly bilingual (ie: Saganash and Topp) or speak very very good French (Nash and to a lesser extent Cullen and Dewar). The fact is, THERE IS NO WHERE ELSE FOR QUEBECERS WHO VOTED NDP TO GO! Who else will they vote for?? Forget Harper's Tories who are several quantum leaps to the right of mainstream Quebec opinion on every issue. The BQ? Well they now have a rightwing business tycoon as their new leader who wants to reorient the BQ to just campaign in support of Quebec independence - talka bout going after a niche market. He seems ready to abandon Duceppe's attempt to position the BQ as a leftwing party. As for the Liberals, they are totally moribund, have a toxic brand and have no leadership contenders likely to light Quebec on fire. All things eing equal, the NDP will have ten times as many seats as the Liberals in Quebec in 2015.

So again, its easy to spout pablum about the NDP losing ground in Quebec, but i have yet to hear any reasonable theory as to which party would gain ground in that scenario.

Stockholm wrote:

Debater wrote:

Quebec political analyst Joel-Denis Bellavance said on Power Play tonight on CTV that the NDP risks being a one-term wonder in Quebec unless it elects Mulcair leader.

Meanwhile, Don Martin suggested to Bellavance that if Mulcair becomes leader he will hurt the NDP in the rest of Canada, and Bellavance didn't seem to disagree.

This is claptrap on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. First of all, if Mulcair became leader of the NDP, I think he would do just fine in English Canada. Is an an anglophone crusader for federalism in Quebec and he is a very articulate polished performer. He would be an easy sell to the NDP universe in TROC.

Not anymore he isn't Stockholm!  That was only back in his days as a Charest MLA in Chomedy.  He now supports increasing Bill 101 and abolishing the Clarity Act!  He has been denounced by The Montreal Gazette.  You're a smart man and I think you know this.  There are loads of statements by Mulcair on record now supporting BQ policies.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Mulcair+defender+anglo+rights+more/5...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/10/18/national-post-editorial-b...

I don't actually see much difference between what Mulcair supports and what provincial and federal Liberals support in Quebec. I guess i need to remind you that the Quebec Liberal Party - including all its anglophone MNAs voted to unanimously to oppose the Clarity Act. The Liberals under interim leader Rae seem to be trying to be even more pro-French than the NDP what with their recent stances on bilingual AGs and supreme court judges etc...

Wake me up when the federal Liberal Party pledges invoke the notwithstanding clause and amend the constitution and disallow Bill 101 all in the name of "protecting" the poor Westmount Rhodesians from the French oppressors - then we'll talk.

BTW: The angryphone columnists in the Gazette have been attacking Mulcair and the NDP for not being dedicated enough to "English rights" for years and this reached a crescendo pitch during the federal election campaign. It didn't matter and anglo-Quebecers voted almost en masse for the NDP. You, like most Liberals, are stuck in a time warp where you think this is 1977 all over again. Wake up Rip van Winkle!

AnonymousMouse, it sounds like we understand one another, and just disagree, but at least agree on what we're disagreeing on.

First of all, there's a much harder edge to a lot of Mulcair's interventions than you're acknowledging. I will be the first to admit he's been very upbeat more recently during the leadership campaign, but I also notice that he can't miss taking a jab at other candidates in nearly every audio or video I've heard of him. That kind of thing is not winning me over.

Secondly, I disagree with you that Dewar "doesn't look prime ministerial", though again I'll admit that's certainly in the eye of the beholder. Certainly he wins support from across the board in Ottawa, and so would have to be given credit for having broader appeal than you think. He looks very prime ministerial to me, and I think is particularly appealing to younger voters.

As to your comment on Topp's original point about being positive, it's one he's argued for some time, and I think is a key part of how Jack decided to proceed (plus it just fit Jack's style in general already). But that's the one thing that sometimes doesn't sit right about Brian, because here he is saying you need to be positive to beat the angry old uncles, but in the next minute takes a few swipes at his competitors as well (and not very well either). While I'll be the first to agree that Paul Dewar didn't have a great first debate, probably his best part of that performance was when he fended off Topp. Had the tables been turned, one wonders how well Brian would have done. It showed me that Paul has some good political chops, and can be effective under fire - and even then keep it fairly positive at the same time.

I still need to be satisfied about his french, and see more from him in Quebec. I also want to watch Topp's progress from now to March.

But I feel pretty strongly about the style aspect. I don't know your gender, but I wonder if it's in part a male-female thing. I am really really sick of nasty angry "tough" politics. REALLY sick of it. I don't even watch question period or the political shows anymore, and I only consult Twitter under absolute dire necessity to know, or by watching filtered Twitter tickers. I do not want to watch a big nasty angry dust-up between our guy and their guy, and I sure as hell don't want to participate in it. I think there are other ways to win against Harper with women and younger folks, and in fact I'm pretty sure that's the only way to do it. Those are our key target groups, and all the research I've seen on them is that they hate it too.

Hunkey_Monkey wrote:

Interesting... I've heard he's been underwhelming at most of his meet and greets.

Besides "knowing a lot", what impressed you, Stock and Lou?

I've seen him perform in scrums, panels, and during the debate and the forum at the BC conventions. Not very impressive. Did you find him much different?

What can I say? I've seen Topp underwhelm too.  But last night he had the crowd eating out of his hand.

He had a lot of great stories.  Almost every question was answered with an anticdote of some sort - generally one that was really interesting and charming.  It helped to illustrate his points, show how experienced he was, and keep the audience listening.  It was the exact opposite of what I've sometimes complained about Peggy Nash doing - where she speaks only in political theory and never brings the subject down to earth.

He showed a plausable path to victory.  He showed good instincts. And he showed he can connect with this crowd of middle class, educated, mostly older party members.

Does it mean I'm going to vote for him? I don't know, maybe. I still have to see him 'perform on the small screen' as David Climinhaga describes.  I'm concerned that he might be the right candidate for the base, but might not translate well to the 40% of Canadians we need to vote NDP.  I'm concerned that he might be easy for the Conservatives to slime, like they did Dion and Iggy, and I'm concerned that for all the brave talk about holding Quebec with a non-Mulcair leader - it's nothing but talk. Finally, I'm concerned that last night was something of a fluke and he can't be comfortable in other, more stressful situations.

But for all those concerns, Topp is still an impressive person and my opinion of him is much higher today than it was yesterday.

Thak you for all your work, AM. Much appreciated.

KenS wrote:

"The backgrounder does not say it will extend the existing NDP plan- in fact, it does not referr to it."

The backgrounder says the plan would extend beyond just the 700 large emitters in the country--which was what was covered by the previous plan--to include all major sources of emissions.

The press release on Mulcair's website explicitly says "Mulcair proposed a new 'comprehensive cap and trade plan' that would build on the popular proposal New Democrats campaigned on during the last election".

http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2011/12/08/mulcair-announces-new-compre...

KenS wrote:

"But core parts of the plan- presuming it is the existing NDP one- are politically sensitive, and that is why we have seen only occassioonal references to it in the last 5 years- and never even a big picture painted of the whole plan. So what good is is just Mulcair referring to it? What does that get us? You want the man to be leader anyway. Why should the rest of us think he means to do any more than the staus quo mention 'there is a cap and trade plan' that we have been getting?"

I completely disagree that we've only seen occassioonal references to the NDP's cap and trade plan over the last five years. Layton talked about it all the time--cap and trade, cap and trade. Mulcair is NOT just referring to it, he's proposing extending it to be an upstream plan that covers all major sources of emissions rather than just the 700 largest emitters. Those large emitters--LFEs, large final emitters at fixed sites--are responsible for 50% of climate change emissions (I know because Jack Layton said it all the time). Mulcair is proposing that cap and trade should be "comprehensive", "upstream" and cover all major sources of emissions. That's a big, bold idea.

KenS wrote:

"The climate change legislation we pushed and Harper killed was not an attempt to implement our proposed legislation. That bill was neither a comprehensive policy, nor was it politically sensitive in going places the NDP has not been ready to go."

Our legislation wasn't an attempt to implement our legislation? Assuming you mean that it wasn't an attempt to implement our PLAN, that's simply not true. The legislation would have required the government to use its existing authority to cap emissions from LFEs to cover climate change pollution and required them to meet overall caps on greenhouse gas emissions. That left lots of details for the government to work out, but that's because (a) private members' bills can't appropirate funds and (b) the public service will be needed to work out all the details.

"Could you name off the basic elements of the NDP climate change package [which Cullen was the major architect of], and how they relate to each other? If so, you are in a fairly small minority even among policy aware people in the NDP."

Cap and trade. Large final emitters. Phase in 100% auction of permits. Minimum price floor ($35/ton if memory serves). Revenue positive with money used for a variety of purposes laid out in our platform in the last election. Overall emissions reduction of 25% below 1990 levels by 2020.

Obviously, specific numbers like revenue projections, price floors and emissions targets will change over time--particularly since the Cons aren't likely to do anything positive between now and the time we form government, but that's the basic outline of the plan. The whole picture.

KenS wrote:

"Mulcair left out entirely that a goodly portion of revenues in the NDP plan go to protect lower income households from the resulting broad price increases in all elements of the cost of living."

From the very portion of the backgrounder you quote: "Use revenue generated by a cap and trade system to help families reduce their energy use and lower their overall energy costs."

Mulcair has proposed a big, bold idea. He's not hiding the nature of the policy, but he's obviously selling it in the way he believes will appeal to the most people possible.

I don't really have a clue what you would like to see him do, but it seems like you're saying that even if we win the next election won't be able to implement such a plan unless he goes around talking about how cap and trade will produce "broad price increases" across the economy--that we'd somehow lack a mandate.

I don't at all think that's necessary for a variety of reasons--including the price lag to which you refer, but many other factors as well that will all mitigate the impact on oridinary people. There are times when people need to be told "hard truths", but research shows quite clearly that people are already willing to bare the price of dealing with climate change that would be involved in a cap and trade plan. There were several very specific studies done on the cost to ordinary consumers of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislation in the States; surveys showed even Americans were willing to pay the amount of money involved as a cost of addressing climate change. Ther have been other less specific polls in Canada showng that people are willing to pay to fight climate change. We need to be honest about what our policies are, present them in the most positive way possible and let our opponents be the ones to criticize the downside. Then we need to win the next election and get it done.

Stockholm wrote:

"Just a few corrections here. Turner was not leader of the opposition when he was destroyed. he succeeded Trudeau and was PM just like Kim Campbell (briefly)! then he lost the election."

Of course. Thanks for pointing that out. On the other hand, Turner and Campbell might be examples of the same rule as applied to "newly selected leaders of the two largest parties in the House that inevitably come under the most scrutiny". We could throw in Paul Martin too. Trudeau called an election so fast he didn't have a chance for that first bas year; Martin's year arguable started during the long exit of Jean Chretien.

Stockholm wrote:

"On the other hand here are some other examples of opposition leaders who did have bad starts: Pearson in 1957/58, Stephen Harper got off to a rough start in 2004 and almost quit after losing the '04 election."

Yes, and so did Jean Chretien as you mention, but that's my point: they all had the chance to recover before the election. That, of course, leads to my caveat that this may just be a question of whether the leader gets a chance to recover from that first year before a campaign, but I think it is--at the very least--strong evidence that the first year can really matter.

Howard wrote:

I think we can all agree that we find Debater grating

United in our opposition to the Liberal blowhards amongst us.

In other words, you dislike it when someone says something which is true and backs it up with citations to newspaper articles and editorials as I did above.  What I stated was not just my opinion, but a matter of fact regarding Mulcair's public record & voting history in the past several years, and as you can see, he has already made some enemies in the media.

But don't worry, Howard, I find it quite grating myself here sometimes when I am always I'm wrong even when I'm right.  It would be different if we were on t.v. together on a political panel where you couldn't get away with it, but when we're on a board which is 99% NDP supporters I realize that might is right around here.  It's easy to gang up against the lone voice that doesn't agree with the majority spin.

Come 2012 you may be even happier.  In the New Year I may move on to pastures anew and trouble you no more.  Isn't that great?    I may be returning to my swamp in the ground from which I was born.  And you'll be free to have everyone agreeing with everyone else here with no dissenting view.  Just like life at a Conservative caucus meeting presided over by King Harper.

"Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out."  

'I, Claudius' by Robert Graves 

ottawaobserver wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:

I will refrain from commenting on that for fear of starting another dust up, but suffice it to say I have had similar thoughts.

BTW, I haven't found our conversation to be a "dust up". Just the contrary. Very constructive and interesting.

Yes, I didn't mean with you. I meant general dust ups about Topp tactics.

ottawaobserver wrote:

AnonymousMouse, it sounds like we understand one another, and just disagree, but at least agree on what we're disagreeing on.

Agreed.

ottawaobserver wrote:

First of all, there's a much harder edge to a lot of Mulcair's interventions than you're acknowledging. I will be the first to admit he's been very upbeat more recently during the leadership campaign, but I also notice that he can't miss taking a jab at other candidates in nearly every audio or video I've heard of him. That kind of thing is not winning me over.

I think you'd obviously see Mulcair take a somewhat lighter touch as Leader than as Deputy just as he took a lighter touch as Deputy than as a minister and took a lighter touch as a minister than as an opposition member provincial (where he was truly on the attack).

That being said, I don't think your last commnet is fair. He took one mild jab at Topp over experience very early on in Quebec radio, but since then hasn't thrown so much as a slap at the other candidates. He has been very frank about having some problems within the party over Quebec membership sign ups and increasing French language capacity, and he has certainly acknowledged the whisper campaign that someone or some people were using against him in the media early on, but none of that is a jab against the other candidates.

ottawaobserver wrote:

Secondly, I disagree with you that Dewar "doesn't look prime ministerial", though again I'll admit that's certainly in the eye of the beholder. Certainly he wins support from across the board in Ottawa, and so would have to be given credit for having broader appeal than you think. He looks very prime ministerial to me, and I think is particularly appealing to younger voters.

I wouldn't go as far as to say Dewar "doesn't look prime ministerial". I'm saying that the very "boy next door" appeal that allows Dewar to play with a broad cross section of a riding like Ottawa-Centre (where his mother's presence/memory looms large) also plays into the most damaging stereotypes about the NDP--which have always been more "they've got their heads in the clouds" than "they're Communists!". If Dewar wins between the massive deficit he will start at in Quebec and the opportunity he will present to the Cons, I think he'd have a very difficult time. If he wins, no one will hope that scenario doesn't come to pass more than I, but hope is not a plan.

ottawaobserver wrote:

As to your comment on Topp's original point about being positive, it's one he's argued for some time, and I think is a key part of how Jack decided to proceed (plus it just fit Jack's style in general already). But that's the one thing that sometimes doesn't sit right about Brian, because here he is saying you need to be positive to beat the angry old uncles, but in the next minute takes a few swipes at his competitors as well (and not very well either).

I will refrain from commenting on that for fear of starting another dust up, but suffice it to say I have had similar thoughts.

ottawaobserver wrote:

But I feel pretty strongly about the style aspect. I don't know your gender, but I wonder if it's in part a male-female thing. I am really really sick of nasty angry "tough" politics. REALLY sick of it.

I am male. And I do agree there is a gender element to this, but I also agree we can BE better and DO better than the tactics Liberals and Conservatives have been throwing at each other for years. I'm just not worried that Mulcair is what the negative spin being put out there about him claims he is. Yes, he can clearly be a street fighter when he thinks he needs to be, but he almost always keeps it highbrow, that's clearly NOT his only speed and I think he generally has the political judgement to tell when he needs to be at that speed (less so when your a party leader, for one).

A friend relayed to me that they took this up with him directly at an event he did in Toronto. Mulcair specifically said "being tough isn't the same thing as being mean".

ottawaobserver wrote:

I am really really sick of nasty angry "tough" politics. REALLY sick of it. I don't even watch question period or the political shows anymore, and I only consult Twitter under absolute dire necessity to know, or by watching filtered Twitter tickers. I do not want to watch a big nasty angry dust-up between our guy and their guy, and I sure as hell don't want to participate in it. I think there are other ways to win against Harper with women and younger folks, and in fact I'm pretty sure that's the only way to do it. Those are our key target groups, and all the research I've seen on them is that they hate it too.

A great big huge yes to this.

There is no comparison between Dewar and Chisholm. Chisholm does not speak French. Period. Nothing. Nada. Dewar speaks and understands at what i would call an advanced level. He just has a heavy accent and screws up his tenses from time to time. On a scale of 1 to 100 where 100 means being a native speaker French and 1 means speaking no French whatsoever - Chisholm would rate about a 5 and Dewar would rate about a 70.

doofy wrote:

Daniel Paille is not an English-Canadian style "business tycoon". (i.e. He is not a separatist Maxime Bernier) A close friend of Jacques Parizeau, he is more of a "champagne socialist", or at least that's the way he is presenting himself. If you listen to his rhetoric, he is attempting to draw a clear distinction between Reform Party "Canadian" values and "Quebec values". If the NPD is unable to effectively defend "Quebec values" in Parliament, QCers might be inclined to go back to the Bloc.

What will Paille do when CAQ wins the Quebec election and the PQ is demolished and the Legault government brings in a rightwing agenda of savage cuts to social programs and privatization? How would he be able to keep a straight face and claim that "Quebec values" were so different from Harper's values if the ex-PQ Premier of Quebec brings in a neo-con agenda and becomes Harper's best buddy?

Instead of insulting peoples intelligence with juvenile name calling, if there is something I've said above that you disagree with - why don't you make an argument.

Did I hurt your feelings by calling Legault and the CAQ-ADQ alliance - a rightwing party? Does it upset you that I pointed out that new BQ leader the small "c" conservative business tycoon Paille will have a hard time claiming that "Quebec values" are radically different from "Canadian values" (if we accept Paille hateful anti-Canadian quasi-racist insult that all of English Canada's values are personified by Stephen Harper) if the next Quebec government has a rightwing philosophy that is actually very similar to the federal Conservative Party?

Stockholm wrote:

Dewar speaks and understands at what i would call an advanced level. He just has a heavy accent and screws up his tenses from time to time. On a scale of 1 to 100 where 100 means being a native speaker French...Dewar would rate about a 70.

Umm, no. I appreciate your generosity towards Dewar, but unless the Ottawa debate was an off night for him, his French is significantly lacking. Could he lead a school trip to Québec? Yes. Could he go on tout le monde en parle without making a hash of it? Not given current evidence.

Based on his performance in Ottawa, Dewar's French is at the level of someone wrapping up their first year of university French as a second language. Singh is somewhere in second year and Chisholm dropped out after the first week of class. Not good enough... 

ETA: Cullen is also in second year. Nash has a BA in French (no really!). Ashton has done her studies and spent some time in immersion. Saganash and Topp are native speakers (the latter slightly out of practice but that is peripheral). Mulcair is a native anglophone speaker, which means that in spite of his unfortunate accent ;) he has excellent French.

doofy wrote:

  The entire political specturm in Quebec is to the left of the one in English Canada.

Except when it comes to turning a blind eye to privatization of health care and being somewhat xenophobic and against accommodation of ethnic and relgious minorities.

The fact remains that in the next election, if Quebecers are still unhappy with Harper - they will have two choices - vote NDP to defeat him and replace him with an NDP government that will be 98% aligned with "Quebec values" (with the two exceptions above) or vote BQ and opt out of playing any role in the governance of Canada and guarantee another Tory government.

Stockholm wrote:

doofy wrote:

  The entire political specturm in Quebec is to the left of the one in English Canada.

Except when it comes to turning a blind eye to privatization of health care and being somewhat xenophobic and against accommodation of ethnic and relgious minorities.

The fact remains that in the next election, if Quebecers are still unhappy with Harper - they will have two choices - vote NDP to defeat him and replace him with an NDP government that will be 98% aligned with "Quebec values" (with the two exceptions above) or vote BQ and opt out of playing any role in the governance of Canada and guarantee another Tory government.

Four years is a long time and the hatred of the federal Liberals may dissipate. What if they pick Dominic LeBlanc? He's likable and fluently bilingual. He's Acadian. Not saying it will happen but to write off the Liberals would be a big mistake. Same goes for writing off the BLOC especially when they continue to poll in the mid 20's.

We can't take our seats in Quebec for granted. To say there is nowhere voters can go is doing just that.

It is worth noting though that the BQ has just four seats, and has no official party status and in about a year will lose all of its funding...by 2015 they may have already filed for bankruptcy protection from their creditors...it will be amusing to see Paille running around telling people to vote BQ just as a show of support for Quebec independence - after the PQ will have been annhiliated provincially.

Keep in mind that the BQ started its free fall in Quebec in mid-April after Duceppe gave a rousing speech to the PQ convention about his single minded devotion to Quebec independence and how he YEARNED for another referendum! I just hope Paille continues Duceppe's strategy and goes right on talking about separation and more referenda...at that rate if the BQ even competes in 2015 they will be lucky to get over 10% of the vote in Quebec.

Quite frankly, if I was a real "pur et dur" sovereignist - I would abstain from voting in federal elections altogether since why vote in the election of a country who existence i don't respect! 

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

I think OO is referring to the fact that the two Quebec MPs with the highest profile before and since the election (not counting those who are running like Mulcair or Saganash or those who are obliged to be neutral like Turmel and Caron) are Francoise Boivin and Alexandre Boulerice - and they are both backing Topp. There are a few other somewhat Quebec MPs who were somewhat higher profile before being elected or since like Tyrone Benskin and Helene Laverdiere and they are still neutral.

Boom Boom wrote:

 Rob Russo on CBC Sunday said the BQ are going up and the NDP down; and that the Quebec electorate is notoriously fickle (or something similar). ETA: On P&P tonight someone (Patrick Paquin?) on one of the panels said the Cons are pretty well finished in Quebec because (for example)  Quebec resentment over scrapping the long gun registry is growing.

I find it amusing how commentators from English-Canada who know zilch about Quebec will either say that Quebec votes "tribally" (and how do they describe the way Albertans vote - pray tell?) or they say the Quebec electrorate is so "fickle, when actually its no more fickle that many other parts of Canada. In fact Quebec was very consistent in its support for the BQ through six elections from 1993 to 2008 and then had a big realignment this year. During that period "FICKLE Ontario" went from giving 101 out of 103 seats to the Liberals to giving the Liberals just 11 seats out of 106! Oh and btw: in 1993 Nova Scotia gave all 11 of its seats to the Liberals by huge margins...four years later, the Liberals lost every single seat there as the NDP took 6 and the Tories 5 - boy those Nova Scotians sure are FICKLE and UNPREDICTABLE...and let's not even talk about those crazy FICKLE voters in Newfoundland who annhilated the federal Tories en masse in 2008 just because their "tribal" King Danny told them ABC!

BTW: For all the talk about the long gun registry being such a big issue in Quebec...let's not forget that just days after the Tories first voted to scrapt it two years ago - the Tories won a seat from the BQ in a byelection in rural Quebec.