Paille may be right of center, maybe even a small-"c" conservative but if he only worked in the private sector for 6 years I'm not sure if the term "rightwing business tycoon" is accurate. You make it sound like he's Conrad Black!
NDP Leadership 51
Tue, 2011-12-13 23:43
#52
Tue, 2011-12-13 23:47
#53
Dewar's French is 25-30, not a seventy. It is totally unacceptable to every Quebec NDPer I know.
The standard also isn't "can you speak and understand French", it's whether you can perform in French--whether you can connect with people in French. Neither Dewar or Nash can connect well enough in French to avoid starting out way behind in Quebec.
Think of it this way, potential Liberal voters outside Quebec are a group of people far more willing to bend over backwards to overcome language barriers than our voters in Quebec and Dion's English (which is better than either Dewar or Nash's French) was still a disasterous barrier to connecting with people.
We also have to remember that, to hold our seats, we're talking about having to replace Jack Layton--an almost singularly well liked politician in Quebec. It's incredibly difficult to come by that kind of popularity, but we do have one candidate who already has it: Thomas Mulcair.
Sure, it might be possible for another candidate to develop that popularity inside Quebec--and they all have to build themselves up outside Quebec--but our current seat count in Quebec is predicated on having a leader with that kind of popularity and Mulcair's the only guy who we KNOW has it.
With th rest its a crap shoot.
Tue, 2011-12-13 23:50
#54
Now I remember why we dropped all the who's good at French talk earlier. 
It leads nowhere positive.
Tue, 2011-12-13 23:51
#55
If Mulcair is so perfect and is so totally indispensable to the NDP in Quebec, why have so many Quebec MPs endorsed other candidates for the leadership?
I'm not taking anything away from Mulcair. He has many good qualities and I have not even totally ruled out voting for him...but I resent these threatening messages from his people of "vote for me or else..." Obviously Francoise Boivin, Alexandre Boulerice, Alain Giguere, Charmaine Borg, Isabelle Morin (5 for Topp);,Romeo Saganash, Christine Moore, Pierre Dionne Labelle (3 for Saganash), Jean Francois Larose, Francine Raynault, Francois Choquette (3 for Ashton) and Ann Minh Thu Quach and Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (2 for Nash) think that someone other than Thomas Mulcair would be the best leader of the party.
Tue, 2011-12-13 23:53
#56
His name is Paillé. Daniel Paille plays left wing for Boston.
Tue, 2011-12-13 23:56
#57
Paille may be right of center, maybe even a small-"c" conservative but if he only worked in the private sector for 6 years I'm not sure if the term "rightwing business tycoon" is accurate. You make it sound like he's Conrad Black!
Define your opponent before he gets to define himself - Politics 100
Tue, 2011-12-13 23:57
#58
His name is Paillé. Daniel Paille plays left wing for Boston.
WE will see that Daniel Paille (my key board doesn't do accents) is truly "un chien de paille" (a straw dog)
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:15
#59
Christine Moore is in the neighbouring riding to Romeo Saganash and rides his coat tails to some degree.
Take that back.
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:16
#60
I think we can all agree that we find Debater grating
United in our opposition to the Liberal blowhards amongst us.
If we all just stop taking his bait and responiding to his posts, he'll be stuck shouting the virtues of the Liberal Party all by himself: a "masDebater", if you will.
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:20
#61
Boom Boom
He could always start up a Liberal thread - and see how many join in.
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:23
#62
Malcolm
Ottawa Observer in the previous thread:
One thing for sure, we should not re-prosecute the 1989 federal convention, or the 2009 Saskatchewan one, or whichever other leadership race people want a do-over on.
As the person who frequently refers to the 2009 Saskatchewan leadership race, I think it's a little . . . misleading . . . to say that I'm calling for a do-over on the outcome (pleasant a prospect as that may be). I think it's reasonably clear and consistent that my references make a perfectly legitimate point - that presuming that current perceived standings are a) not necessarily accurate and b) by no means immutable, and that writing off candidates based on their perceived standing less than half way through the race is a trifle daft. Saskatchewan 2009 is a obvious point of reference for me to use since I was more closely involved in that campaign and at a higher level than I have been involved in any other leadership race (including the present one).
Ottawa Observer later in the same thread:
Because when numerous people say that you have no substance, and the answer is that no-one else does either, you already know that won't cut it for the party overall in trying to win the next election.
Then it's a criticism to be applied across the board and not just against one candidate. I can understand holding some candidates to a higher standard on this - but it seems strange that the only candidate being taken to task on this is Ashton. Logically, if anyone should be held to a higher standard than the others, it should be the candidate(s) basing their leadership narrative on the much ballyhooed "experience."
Yes, I'd like to see a great deal more substance across the board. I just find the oft-repeated suggestion that Ashton and Ashton alone lacks substance as itself suffering a lack of substance. It's a convenient meme, but I find it isn't really backed up by facts.
Ottawa Observer again:
the leader sets the strategic direction for policy whether you like it or not
I'd quibble over the words, but I take your point. I fail to see what relevance it has in answering my point. The pary sets policy; not the leader. The leader certainly has great influence over that process at all times. When in government, the leader (in conjunction with others) also has a significant role in determining policy priorities, as well as in extrapolating from principles to address policy gaps.
The last thing I want is to become a pale imitation of the Liberals, determining policy on the basis of who wins the leadership. We should be for or against the idea of increasing taxes on the wealthiest based on the merits of the policy, not for it if Brian wins and against it if Peggy wins.
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:25
#63
Christine Moore is in the neighbouring riding to Romeo Saganash and rides his coat tails to some degree.Take that back.
Why? Romeo was a huge star candidate in northern Quebec, particularly in the Cree community. Everyone I know thought Moore had a chance even before the Orange Wave because people were excited about Romeo's candidacy.
You don't think Ryan Cleary rides Jack Harris' coat tails to some degree?
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:27
#64
Malcolm:
I don't think Niki Ashton has a lack of substance, but I think she would be better off as a candidate if she did two things.
1) Go into detail on one aspect of a policy more often rather than policy lists or general statements.
2) Seem a little less scripted (don't know that she is too scripted, just seems that way sometimes).
That would better CONVEY Ashton's substance on the issues.
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:28
#65
If Mulcair is so perfect and is so totally indispensable to the NDP in Quebec, why have so many Quebec MPs endorsed other candidates for the leadership?
I'm not taking anything away from Mulcair. He has many good qualities and I have not even totally ruled out voting for him...but I resent these threatening messages from his people of "vote for me or else..." Obviously Francoise Boivin, Alexandre Boulerice, Alain Giguere, Charmaine Borg, Isabelle Morin (5 for Topp);,Romeo Saganash, Christine Moore, Pierre Dionne Labelle (3 for Saganash), Jean Francois Larose, Francine Raynault, Francois Choquette (3 for Ashton) and Ann Minh Thu Quach and Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (2 for Nash) think that someone other than Thomas Mulcair would be the best leader of the party.
Mulcair is obviously not perfect. And, more importantly, there's nothing "threatening" about pointing out that Mulcair has an enormous advantage because he's a proven quantity in Quebec--where we hold 60% of our seats--while none of the other candidates are. As I wrote, they could succeed there, but it's a big risk. Accepting that that is true does not preclude voting for another candidate, it just favours Mulcair.
But, please, Mulcair has 29 Quebec MP endorsers so far, compared to 5 for the next closest candidate (and that candidate is beyond close friends with the top party staffer in Quebec who is managing his campaign and obviously has some influence of his own).
People have lots of reasons for endorsing candidates other than "who will play best in Quebec". Christine Moore is in the neighbouring riding to Romeo Saganash and rides his coat tails to some degree. Boulerice and Giguere specfically said they didn't think Mulcair would play as well OUTSIDE Quebec. Giguere has been friends with Brian Topp for 20 years, apparently.
So it seems clear that an overwhelming majority of Quebec MPs think Mulcair has the best CHANCE to do well in Quebec. That's not the only consideration, but it is what it is.
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:31
#66
Idealistic Prag...
His name is Paillé. Daniel Paille plays left wing for Boston.
And Paillé now plays right wing for the Bloc Québecois?
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:35
#67
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.
I don't think anyone was insulting your intelligence; just questioning the validity of your interpretation of Québec politics. I agree with others who have surmised that a Dewar victory will mean disaster for us. For starters, his French is not even close to "70%" - it is worse than mine and I would not rate my own any higher than 30-40%. In my mind, Dewar is in the same league as Chisholm in the bilingualism department: their French is simply not good enough. In every course I have ever taken or taught, a fail is a fail; it doesn't matter whether it is with 40% or 0%.
Peggy Nash's French, on the other hand, is at the level that I believe might just be sufficient for Quebeckers to give her a fair hearing. Topp and Mulcair are clearly fluent. I think that Québeckers will feel insulted if we select a leader with French below the level of these three (competent fluency), especially having delivered 59 seats to us in May. We were given an opportunity, let's not blow it.
Whatever their other positive attributes, I don't see Dewar and Chisholm as being up to the job.
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:43
#68
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.
Wrong again. The BQ started its free-fall in tandem with the Jack-mania that started in Montréal and spread through the province after Jack nailed his appearance on Tout le monde en parle. We were sitting at about 20% before the show, within a week after the CROP poll showing us at 35% in Quebec was published...the rest is history. Québeckers really thought Jack could take out PMSH; they were very disappointed that he didn't (so was I).
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:43
#69
I guess Saganash and Ashton's fluency in French don't count?
BTW: When "Unionist" was being dismissive of my opinions, it had nothing to do with the debate on what mark to give Paul Dewar's French - it was because I dared to suggest that the new leader of his beloved Bloc Quebecois is a right of centre business tycoon who is probably spending a few years in the desert leading the moribund BQ because there was no room for him on the Legault's CAQ ship.
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:48
#70
Malcolm
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).
It's worth emphasizing that leader and deputy leader are different jobs The leader's job is to be a positive and attractive face for the party. The deputy leader's job is different.
As a friend of mine once observed, the principal gives out the academic achivement awards. The vice-principle hands out detention.
The question is whether or not Mulcair can make the transistion (or knows there's a transition to be made). That was a big part of Lingenfelter's problem in Saskatchewan.
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:51
#71
Malcolm, I'm not picking on Ashton. (I'm picking on *you*; joke, eh...) But I am actually responding to your questions, debate and spin about her. I never write that stuff until you say something about how Ed Schreyer became premier at 33, etc. etc. In that thread you said you didn't get why the knock was against her on substance. People tried to tell you. I can't tell you how many places I've read that they liked her but found the "new politics" language shallow and lacking. Admittedly a few people like it too. There's been no evidence the campaign is jettisoning it, and as I said, it has not been an active campaign at least in my direction.
Her entry was over-hyped to begin with, and then it under-delivered. So after that expectations were artificially low for her in the debate, and then she beat them. Good for her. If she wants to be a top-tier contender, she has to do a lot more, though (and, lovingly, you know it). Continuing to argue the point is like Mulcair not being able to get off the paranoia about mailing the blessed membership cards into Quebec.
Show us what you've got.
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:53
#72
WE will see that Daniel Paille (my key board doesn't do accents) is truly "un chien de paille" (a straw dog)
try holding down alt while typing '1,3,0' on your number pad for é, alt 1,3,8 for è, alt 1,3,5 for ç and alt 1,3,3 for à.
There was no ALT key on my dad's iPad when I tried that out. Maybe it's not a computer.
ETA: someone keeps adding an extra close-quote tag, or not understanding how to embed them inside each other.
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:54
#73
Wrong again. The BQ started its free-fall in tandem with the Jack-mania that started in Montréal and spread through the province after Jack nailed his appearance on Tout le monde en parle. We were sitting at about 20% before the show, within a week after the CROP poll showing us at 35% in Quebec was published...the rest is history. Québeckers really thought Jack could take out PMSH; they were very disappointed that he didn't (so was I).
There is a lot of debate on that point...I think it was a convergence of factors. But for the NDP to catch fire there had to b a vacuum to take advantage of - most Quebec columnists I have read feel that it wasn't just Quebecers liking Jack on TLMEP - it was also that Duceppe repulsed them by pressing the "pur et dur" sovereignist "let's have another referendum just for the fun of it" crap that they hate so much. When Duceppe trotted out an old dinosaur like Jacques "money and ethnic votes" Parizeau the free fall accelerated even further.
I think we are being very condescending towards Quebecers by implying that all that matters to them is who has the best accent in French and who entertains them the most on a variety show? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe Quebecers actually liked the SUBSTANCE of what the NDP and Layton were saying?? That maybe they felt that the NDP reflected their values more than any other party did and that the main reason they had not embraced the NDP in the past was that they thought the NDP was not "viable" in Quebec and could not win. In 2015 with 59 incumbents running for re-election - no one will be able to claim that voting NDP is a hopeless, wasted vote in Quebec. But seriously, if I was a francophone Quebecer reading this thread I would be insulted and feel that anglos take us all for a bunch of school children who just vote for the latest shiny new object and that we don't care at all about substance (unlike those mature, anglos who take their politics seriously!)
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:55
#74
Malcolm
That's the 2nd time you have ignored the presence of Romeo Saganash. Which pretty much makes the rest of your points -well pointless.
And Niki Ashton.
(And Martin Singh.)
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:56
#75
There is a lot of debate on that point...I think it was a convergence of factors. But for the NDP to catch fire there had to b a vacuum to take advantage of - most Quebec columnists I have read feel that it wasn't just Quebecers liking Jack on TLMEP - it was also that Duceppe repulsed them by pressing the "pur et dur" sovereignist "let;s have another referendum just for the fun of it" crap that they hate so much. When Duceppe trotted out an old dinosaur like Jacques "Money and ethnic votes" Parizeau the free fall accelerated even further.
I think we are being very condescending towards Quebecers by implying that all that matters to them is who has the best accent in French and who entertains them on a variety show? Has it ever to you that maybe Quebecers actually liked the SUBSTANCE of what the NDP and Layton were saying?? That maybe they felt that the NDP reflected their values more than any other party did and that the main reason they had not embraced the NDP in the past was that they thought the NDP was not "viable" in Quebec and could not win.
I don't think it had anything to do with the national question (and Duceppe's involvement with it) in anyway. It was their (non-"tribal", just so we're clear) dislike of the Harper Government, coupled with Jack's invitation to "Travaillons Ensemble" that helped them take the "beau risque". It took Jack's appearance on TLMEP for the province to realize that we were an option.
Québec extended an olive branch to the rest of Canada in order to rid us all of Harper. Canada slapped them in the face by handing the bugger a majority.
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:57
#76
WE will see that Daniel Paille (my key board doesn't do accents) is truly "un chien de paille" (a straw dog)
try holding down alt while typing '1,3,0' on your number pad for é, alt 1,3,8 for è, alt 1,3,5 for ç and alt 1,3,3 for à.
Has to be the Left-Alt key if memory serves.
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:57
#77
Wrong again. The BQ started its free-fall in tandem with the Jack-mania that started in Montréal and spread through the province after Jack nailed his appearance on Tout le monde en parle. We were sitting at about 20% before the show, within a week after the CROP poll showing us at 35% in Quebec was published...the rest is history. Québeckers really thought Jack could take out PMSH; they were very disappointed that he didn't (so was I).
Thanks for the reality check, Winston. But don't expect to make much headway in this particular conversation.
ETA: Whoops, we crossposted:
I don't think it had anything to do with the national question (and Duceppe's involvement with it) in anyway. It was their (non-"tribal", just so we're clear) dislike of the Harper Government, coupled with Jack's invitation to "Travaillons Ensemble" that helped them take the "beau risque". It took Jack's appearance on TLMEP for the province to realize that we were an option.
Québec extended an olive branch to the rest of Canada in order to rid us all of Harper. Canada slapped them in the face by handing the bugger a majority.
Exactly right, on every point. But as I said...
Wed, 2011-12-14 00:58
#78
Stôckhölm.
Wed, 2011-12-14 01:05
#79
Wrong again. The BQ started its free-fall in tandem with the Jack-mania that started in Montréal and spread through the province after Jack nailed his appearance on Tout le monde en parle. We were sitting at about 20% before the show, within a week after the CROP poll showing us at 35% in Quebec was published...the rest is history. Québeckers really thought Jack could take out PMSH; they were very disappointed that he didn't (so was I).
Thanks for the reality check, Winston. But don't expect to make much headway in this particular conversation.
ETA: Whoops, we crossposted:
I don't think it had anything to do with the national question (and Duceppe's involvement with it) in anyway. It was their (non-"tribal", just so we're clear) dislike of the Harper Government, coupled with Jack's invitation to "Travaillons Ensemble" that helped them take the "beau risque". It took Jack's appearance on TLMEP for the province to realize that we were an option.
Québec extended an olive branch to the rest of Canada in order to rid us all of Harper. Canada slapped them in the face by handing the bugger a majority.
Exactly right, on every point. But as I said...
The Bloc had been declining in the polls for awhile, and the NDP started out the race in Quebec in the high teens or low 20s. Jack did well on TLMEP, which was said to be worth a 5-point bump in the polls at the time. But there was much greater movement after the debates.
Where the pollsters disagree is whether the movement was associated with the debates, or didn't show up until after the PQ convention on Easter weekend, the big Layton rally in the east end, and the event the next day with Parizeau.
The Macleans pollster was in the field after the debate, but before the PQ convention, and says the movement did not show up until after the convention. But an Environics poll that they never released at the time, but talked about at the post-election seminar on exit polls, had shown the NDP with a big gain already by the day of the Layton rally.
"Freefall" is not the same as "decline". The Bloc were in "decline", and then they went into "freefall" and the NDP soared to first place. That came later than TLMEP, for sure.
Wed, 2011-12-14 01:07
#80
WE will see that Daniel Paille (my key board doesn't do accents) is truly "un chien de paille" (a straw dog)
try holding down alt while typing '1,3,0' on your number pad for é, alt 1,3,8 for è, alt 1,3,5 for ç and alt 1,3,3 for à.
Wed, 2011-12-14 01:13
#81
It should also be noted that Jack Layton had appeared on TLMEP a number of times prior to the 2011 election campaign. In fact he was on the show a week before the 2008 election and was seen to have done very well and got rave reviews, yet the NDP only got one seat and 12% of the vote a week later. Quebcers are not a bunch school kids who all vote in lockstep for whoever they found the most entertaining on a variety show. Believe it or not there some real, live Quebecers whomactuallymvote for the party with policiesnandnvalues they most agree with, just like in the rest of Canada!
Wed, 2011-12-14 01:16
#82
But back to my main point: Chisholm's French is not good enough to communicate effectively with Quebeckers, and neither is Paul Dewar's.
I don't want to see anyone else calling for Chisholm to drop out of the race, without asking the same of Dewar.
Wed, 2011-12-14 01:16
#83
I was sort of talking about this issue with someone the other day. I put it like this. "The Conservatives already have the asshole vote sown up. Why would we want to compete with that. It seems far better to me to compete on values and ideas, making life better and hope, not who can pee the farthest."
As you can tell OO I am much less articulate than you and maybe a little saltier too.
Maybe. Still, I'd rather not get in a pissing match with her.
Wed, 2011-12-14 01:21
#84
Malcolm
WRT "readiness," I think it's pretty daft to assume that any of the nine candidates would't have to "grow into the job." In fact (language aside) the one who'd have the least growing to do would likely be Chisholm since he's the only one who's ever been a party leader before.
Now, some would doubtless have less growing to do than others. Arguably Mulcair would have the least of the six candidates I'd count as credible.
I'm prepared for the prospect of some "growing into the job," though not without limits.
The one area where I don't think we can allow any time to "grow into the job" in the matter of capacity in French. The new leader has to be sufficiently functional in French to maintain credibility in Quebec. In that regard, the fairly consistent analysis from a variety of sources suggests that Chisholm, Dewar and Singh simply aren't ready for prime time. Reviews are mixed for Cullen and Nash - though better for Nash.
The fact that Chisholm fails completely while Dewar merely fails is of no interest to me. I look on this as a pass/fail exam. Ashton, Mulcair, Saganash and Topp have all passed. Nash will likely pass. Cullen may pass. The rest have failed.
Wed, 2011-12-14 01:23
#85
Well, I would make a terrible leader, that's for sure, Wilf. ETA: i.e., if the requirement was to be upbeat and positive all the time.
Wed, 2011-12-14 01:27
#86
The fact that Chisholm fails completely while Dewar merely fails is of no interest to me. I look on this as a pass/fail exam. Ashton, Mulcair, Saganash and Topp have all passed. Nash will likely pass. Cullen may pass. The rest have failed.
My thoughts, exactly Malcolm. And I agree that proficiency in French is one area where the prospective leader will have near to zero chance of "growing on the job." Some of the other details, well I guess we'll see.
Wed, 2011-12-14 01:27
#87
We also have to remember that, to hold our seats, we're talking about having to replace Jack Layton--an almost singularly well liked politician in Quebec. It's incredibly difficult to come by that kind of popularity, but we do have one candidate who already has it: Thomas Mulcair. Sure, it might be possible for another candidate to develop that popularity inside Quebec--and they all have to build themselves up outside Quebec--but our current seat count in Quebec is predicated on having a leader with that kind of popularity and Mulcair's the only guy who we KNOW has it. With th rest its a crap shoot.
Do you have any stats or polls that show just how popular/well known Mulcair is in Quebec? I'm not trying to pick a fight with you or anything like that, I'm just curious.
Wed, 2011-12-14 01:30
#88
In that regard, the fairly consistent analysis from a variety of sources suggests that Chisholm, Dewar and Singh simply aren't ready for prime time.
The tweet from Chantal Hébert on debate night was something along the lines of "le candidat bilingue de la nouvelle écosse est Martin Singh".
As to the rest of it, some qualitative opinion research would settle the question, but we don't have any.
For myself, I'm an anglo who worked in french on the Quebec side of the river here for a year. To some Quebeckers I was "maudite anglaise" and to others I was an anglo with a cute french accent who made herself understood and was nice to work with. It's not TLMEP, but there you go.
Wed, 2011-12-14 01:47
#89
In that regard, the fairly consistent analysis from a variety of sources suggests that Chisholm, Dewar and Singh simply aren't ready for prime time.
The tweet from Chantal Hébert on debate night was something along the lines of "le candidat bilingue de la nouvelle écosse est Martin Singh".
As to the rest of it, some qualitative opinion research would settle the question, but we don't have any.
For myself, I'm an anglo who worked in french on the Quebec side of the river here for a year. To some Quebeckers I was "maudite anglaise" and to others I was an anglo with a cute french accent who made herself understood and was nice to work with. It's not TLMEP, but there you go.
Well, as qualitative as it may be (as opposed to quantitative, which is what opinion research would be), the most flattering description I have seen in the French-language press to describe Dewar and Cullen that "ils se débrouillent en français," which is certainly not a ringing endorsement.
From my own point of view as a "maudit anglais," albeit one who has never been described or had their accent described as "cute," I thought Cullen and Singh's French were both better than Dewar's, if only because they don't seem as uncomfortable or unsure in using it, and in Cullen's case since his accent was to my mind a lot better. But that is really not saying much...
As for TLMEP, I think the ability to manage that sort of a situation is essential for the new leader to connect. The last thing we need is for a French-language version of Dion's "You mean if I were the Prime Minister yesterday?...wait, wait, can I start again?" even if I think Québecers are more forgiving for this sort of thing than English Canadians were to Dion.
As Dion proved, a facility for the subjunctive tense (even as rare as it is in English) is a pre-requisite for prime time.
Wed, 2011-12-14 01:49
#90
If you had said teaserS you would have been closer (as in more than 2 or 3, or 20 or 30 even). Anyways, no point prosecuting this again either. We both understand each other (one jaded hack to another).
Wed, 2011-12-14 01:50
#91
Malcolm
In that regard, the fairly consistent analysis from a variety of sources suggests that Chisholm, Dewar and Singh simply aren't ready for prime time.
The tweet from Chantal Hébert on debate night was something along the lines of "le candidat bilingue de la nouvelle écosse est Martin Singh".
As to the rest of it, some qualitative opinion research would settle the question, but we don't have any.
For myself, I'm an anglo who worked in french on the Quebec side of the river here for a year. To some Quebeckers I was "maudite anglaise" and to others I was an anglo with a cute french accent who made herself understood and was nice to work with. It's not TLMEP, but there you go.
And your French is far superior to mine. I can ask for a hamburger, ask for the toilet, ask a certain presumptuous question as per a song from the 1970s and (if I've been taught it correctly) I can order a round of drinks and say that my (presumably unilingual anglophone) friend is paying.
As a result, I'm dependent on the Twitterverse and the Punditry. From there, I get a fairly consistent finding about the quality of French of the nine candidates which I sum up again:
- Good enough: Ashton, Mulcair, Saganash, Topp
- Probably good enough: Nash
- Possibly good enough: Cullen
- Not good enough: Chisholm, Dewar, Singh
Wed, 2011-12-14 01:51
#92
Malcolm
Malcolm, I'm not picking on Ashton. (I'm picking on *you*; joke, eh...) But I am actually responding to your questions, debate and spin about her. I never write that stuff until you say something about how Ed Schreyer became premier at 33, etc. etc. In that thread you said you didn't get why the knock was against her on substance. People tried to tell you. I can't tell you how many places I've read that they liked her but found the "new politics" language shallow and lacking. Admittedly a few people like it too. There's been no evidence the campaign is jettisoning it, and as I said, it has not been an active campaign at least in my direction.
Her entry was over-hyped to begin with, and then it under-delivered. So after that expectations were artificially low for her in the debate, and then she beat them. Good for her. If she wants to be a top-tier contender, she has to do a lot more, though (and, lovingly, you know it). Continuing to argue the point is like Mulcair not being able to get off the paranoia about mailing the blessed membership cards into Quebec.
Show us what you've got.
We have more than three months of campaigning left. I'm sure all nine candidates will show us something more.
I merely observe that one candidate has been singled out for a supposed lack of substance at a point in the campaign when none of the campaigns have shown much substance. I don't expect her to be cut any slack for being the youngest candidate, but it seems a trifle odd to me that she should be held to a higher standard. While I'm not prepared equate Niki's resume with Romeo's, I do find it a little like his tweet the other night, "Learn four languages, negotiate treaties, defend rights, become an MP. Still get asked if you're a 'serious' candidate."
As to the "hyping" of her announcement, I fail to see that her announcement was hyped any more than anyone else's - apart from my teaser here that she would differentiate herself by announcing outside of a natural area of strength (which she did - and was the only candidate to do so). She's been hyped neither more nor less than anyone else. She was handed the low expectations because (not to put too fine a point on it) of institutional agism and sexism. She took advantage of the low bar and cleared it - exceeding not just the low expectations of jaded hacks but surpassing a couple of media darlings in the process. She's gone from bottom tier "clearly running just to make a name" to second tier "long shot but in it to win." Not bad momentum in just a couple of weeks.
And without wanting a redo on the 2009 Saskatchewan leadership race, I do think a comparison is in order. When we were 14-15 weeks out from the convention in that race, no one was talking about Ryan Meili as "long shot but in it to win." He was still largely seen as "trying to build a profile to run for the nomination in Riversdale." And internally, we were still wondering if Ryan had a shot of coming in third instead of last.
Wed, 2011-12-14 01:54
#93
We also have to remember that, to hold our seats, we're talking about having to replace Jack Layton--an almost singularly well liked politician in Quebec. It's incredibly difficult to come by that kind of popularity, but we do have one candidate who already has it: Thomas Mulcair. Sure, it might be possible for another candidate to develop that popularity inside Quebec--and they all have to build themselves up outside Quebec--but our current seat count in Quebec is predicated on having a leader with that kind of popularity and Mulcair's the only guy who we KNOW has it. With th rest its a crap shoot.Do you have any stats or polls that show just how popular/well known Mulcair is in Quebec? I'm not trying to pick a fight with you or anything like that, I'm just curious.
I don't have them handy, but Mulcair and Layton have both had mid-50s approval, mid-teens disapproval. This is INCREDIBLY rare in Quebec where if you're lucky enough and wellknown enough to have a 55% approval rating it usually means you have a 45% disapproval rating.
Update: It's not an approval rating poll, but--by way of example--this Angus Reid survey claims the party would get 52% in Quebec under Mulcair and 31% under Topp each compared to 43% under Layton. Of course, Topp or others might improve, but Mulcair is a known quantity.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/44054/conservatives-still-first-in-canad...
Wed, 2011-12-14 01:54
#94
Malcolm
If you had said teaserS you would have been closer (as in more than 2 or 3, or 20 or 30 even). Anyways, no point prosecuting this again either. We both understand each other (one jaded hack to another).
Come now. It was the same tease in a number of posts.
And as jaded as I am, I really do think it's interesting that only one candidate was prepared to be a little daring in their choice of locale for their launch.
Wed, 2011-12-14 01:59
#95
Well, as qualitative as it may be (as opposed to quantitative, which is what opinion research would be) ...
Unless it was focus group research.
As for TLMEP, I think the ability to manage that sort of a situation is essential for the new leader to connect. The last thing we need is for a French-language version of Dion's "You mean if I were the Prime Minister yesterday?...wait, wait, can I start again?" even if I think Québecers are more forgiving for this sort of thing than English Canadians were to Dion.
As Dion proved, a facility for the subjunctive tense (even as rare as it is in English) is a pre-requisite for prime time.
I agree they have to do TLMEP. Do they have to do it next week? I don't know.
But the issue with Dion was not the subjective tense. It was that he was a very stubborn pedantic man who had no political or inter-personal skills. Chretien couldn't get any tense right, but he got the politics right in many ways (though not all), and that's the difference. He could handle himself, and people liked him.
Mulcair doesn't know that much about the rest of Canada, and hardly travelled as the NDP Deputy Leader outside Quebec before he ran for leader (though, admittedly for some very good reasons). If you don't think being tone-deaf to the west is as big a potential problem, then we will learn that all over again the hard way. Nash is also surprisingly weak in her knowledge of the country outside Toronto the couple of times I've heard her. This is also of concern.
Wed, 2011-12-14 02:03
#96
Well, as qualitative as it may be (as opposed to quantitative, which is what opinion research would be),
Qualitative opinion research refers to tools such focus groups which introduce too many biases and have sample size too small to provide quantative results, but can help answer open ended questions and assess social dynamics.
Such research would prove much, but would tell us which candidares might have language issues.
Wed, 2011-12-14 02:03
#97
In that regard, the fairly consistent analysis from a variety of sources suggests that Chisholm, Dewar and Singh simply aren't ready for prime time.
The tweet from Chantal Hébert on debate night was something along the lines of "le candidat bilingue de la nouvelle écosse est Martin Singh".
As to the rest of it, some qualitative opinion research would settle the question, but we don't have any.
For myself, I'm an anglo who worked in french on the Quebec side of the river here for a year. To some Quebeckers I was "maudite anglaise" and to others I was an anglo with a cute french accent who made herself understood and was nice to work with. It's not TLMEP, but there you go.
And your French is far superior to mine. I can ask for a hamburger, ask for the toilet, ask a certain presumptuous question as per a song from the 1970s and (if I've been taught it correctly) I can order a round of drinks and say that my (presumably unilingual anglophone) friend is paying.
As a result, I'm dependent on the Twitterverse and the Punditry. From there, I get a fairly consistent finding about the quality of French of the nine candidates which I sum up again:
- Good enough: Ashton, Mulcair, Saganash, Topp
- Probably good enough: Nash
- Possibly good enough: Cullen
- Not good enough: Chisholm, Dewar, Singh
Haha: you get what you want to hear. And then you wonder why people keep bringing up the age and experience thing .... Ah, Malcolm .... don't ever change ! ;-)
Wed, 2011-12-14 02:05
#98
Malcolm
Oh, BTW, Lawrence Martin describes Niki Ashton as "a unique presence, a dynamo who could finish high."
. . . it is the New Democrats who are leading the charge of the youth brigade. The last election brought a bunch of college kids to the chamber, including four NDPers from McGill University. They are about half the age of Justin Trudeau. They need time to make their presence felt. They need a tribune.
That’s where Niki Ashton comes in. The pent-up, highly talented 29-year-old has so much brass that at that tender age she’s running for the leadership of the NDP. Thus far, it’s not an also-ran performance. She could be an important player in the outcome.
Wed, 2011-12-14 02:09
#99
OK, I *knew* you were going to bring up that profile (from a columnist you normally think is in the tank for the Liberals, I hasten to add). Why do you make me quote the rest of it for the sake of balance?
She's quick on her feet and has a voice, too hectoring at times, that can cut through glass....
Ms. Ashton talks of the need for a new politics. But she needs new vocabulary and new ideas to distinguish herself from the many other leadership contenders.
I would have never posted those quotes if you hadn't brought it up.
Wed, 2011-12-14 02:14
#100
Mulcair doesn't know that much about the rest of Canada.
I see no evidence of that. I'm sure it's true in some ways, but I haven't seen it. He did used to live in Manitoba, I believe.
Update: He worked on revising the Manotiba statutes with regards to minority language rights, but I'm not sure whether he actually ever lived there.
Wed, 2011-12-14 02:16
#101
Mulcair doesn't know that much about the rest of Canada.
I see no evidence of that. I'm sure it's true in some ways, but I haven't seen it. He did used to live in Manitoba, I believe. Update: He worked on revising the Manotiba statutes with regards to minority language rights, but I'm not sure whether he actually ever lived there.
I did know about that work. I'm not sure about where he lived at the time either.