NDP Leadership 51

125 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Wed, 2011-12-14 02:20

Malcolm

ottawaobserver wrote:

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 ! ;-)

Not sure which of my points you're referring to, but . . .

Re: Ashton and substance, I got further repetitions of a meme with nothing to support it. Repetition of a meme isn't evidence. Indeed, it lacks substance.

Re: French capacity, while there are outliers, there is an overall consensus in what I've read in a variety of places that Ashton, Mulcair, Saganash and Topp are up to the required standard in French and that Chisholm, Dewar and Singh are not. I've seen a couple of commentators rate Singh and Dewar slightly higher, but those have been far and away the exceptions.

Wed, 2011-12-14 02:26

#103

Wilf Day

ottawaobserver wrote:

If there is no-one else who can keep Quebec but Mulcair, one really has to wonder why the more experienced and senior members of our Quebec caucus are coming to different conclusions. Are they all stupid?

Overstated, he says with some trepidation. I'll submit a somewhat subjective evaluation of who are the "more experienced and senior" Quebec MPs offering endorsements: Francoise Boivin, Alexandre Boulerice, Christine Moore, Anne-Marie Day, Manon Perreault, Claude Patry, Hélène Leblanc, Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, Robert Aubin. Mulcair 5, Topp 2, Nash 1, Saganash 1.

AnonymousMouse wrote:
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). . . So it seems clear that an overwhelming majority of Quebec MPs think Mulcair has the best CHANCE to do well in Quebec.

Overstated the other way, I'm afraid. Mulcair has 29 Quebec caucus supporters plus himself; 30 of 59 is a clear majority but not an overwhelming one.

doofy wrote:

Brian Topp (Jack Layton)- Born and raised in Quebec, but spent his career in English Canada. Will he be seen as an outsider? Could go anywhere from 1 to 59 seats; problem is that the NDP does not have the luxury to lose dozens of seats in Quebec. Most likely will lose seats rather than gain.

Not limited to Topp, but given the right circumstances there are many seats to be gained in 2015. First, there will be three more. Second, looking at the existing seats (which is subject to redistribution, but the best I can do) I would say all 16 remaining seats are potential wins with serious local candidates except maybe Mégantic—L'Érable, maybe Beauce, maybe Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, and possibly Mount Royal (that by-election might be wide open; oh, is that rumour unfounded?).

ottawaobserver wrote:

To some Quebeckers I was "maudite anglaise" and to others I was an anglo with a cute french accent.

Are you so sure it was just the accent?

Wed, 2011-12-14 02:26

#104

CanadaApple

ottawaobserver wrote:

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.

How much do you expect the next Leader to know about all the different parts of the country? And how exactly do you measure such a thing?

Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I'm just curious about what you have too say.

@AM-Thanks for sharing that poll!

Wed, 2011-12-14 02:36

#105

Winston

ottawaobserver wrote:

Winston wrote:

Well, as qualitative as it may be (as opposed to quantitative, which is what opinion research would be) ...

Unless it was focus group research.

Which, without any quantification, is about as valid as what Malcolm has done by reduxing what he has heard and read in the press and in forums and posted here. Lo and behold, the results of his redux are spot on with what my own are, as well as other friends of mine.

ottawaobserver wrote:

I agree they have to do TLMEP. Do they have to do it next week? I don't know.

Umm...yes they do. Maybe not TLMEP exactly, but media scrums, yes, interviews with less than sympathetic personalities (many of whom may resort to a very erudite line of questioning), yes. Hell, even communicating with our caucus will require French skills better than Dewar's.

ottawaobserver wrote:

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.

Yes it was the subjunctive tense that screwed Dion up. Quite simply put, he could not derive the meaning of a standard sentence structure in the English language (i.e. could not differentiate between the perfect (past) tense and the imperfect subjuctive tense). In not understanding a basic English sentence, he could not respond intelligently or intelligibly.

ottawaobserver wrote:

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.

Wow! Quite the hatchet job on most of our potential leaders!

I definitely did not get the sense that Mulcair was tone deaf to the West's concerns when he was out here (see...I actually LIVE out West...born and raised). I found it interesting that Mulcair actually lived here in Winnipeg for two years - he headed up the team of legal experts that the Manitoba NDP government selected to translate and update all of Manitoba's statutes into French when the Province became officially bilingual 3 decades ago.

Neither did I find that Brian Topp was out of touch with the West when I met him here. Indeed, his long years of experience in Saskatchewan clearly made him very well-informed on "our" issues, as well as those of the rest of the country.

As for Peggy Nash, I listened in on 2 hours of her phone-in town hall, as she talked to Manitobans and Saskatchewaners about their issues. Despite my misgivings on her delivery, I do not think she was in any way tone-deaf to the issues of the West, whether it be related to the farm economy, resource extraction (potash, tar sands, etc), etc. Looking forward to seeing her in person tomorrow.

All three of them have significant endorsements out West here (former premiers, MLAs, union leaders and other people I trust greatly), accusing any of them of being tone-deaf to the West is a big stretch. Accusing Paul Dewar of having inadequate French skills is not.

In conclusion I am not willing to lose 58 (+/-2) seats in Québec (which is what electing Paul Dewar will do, IMO), just because some people are telling me he is "the Prairie Candidate". Don't get me wrong, I really respect the guy (I really like Chisholm too) but I truly don't think they can win.

Wed, 2011-12-14 02:48

#106

AnonymousMouse

Wilf Day wrote:

AnonymousMouse wrote:
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). . . So it seems clear that an overwhelming majority of Quebec MPs think Mulcair has the best CHANCE to do well in Quebec.

Fair point, but I was basing my comment on those who have endorsed someone in the race with the added factors that the other endorsements are spread between multiple candidates and some of them are based on factors other than who has the best chance of holding Quebec.

Wed, 2011-12-14 02:49

#107

AnonymousMouse

Wed, 2011-12-14 02:59

#108

AnonymousMouse

Winston wrote:

...just because some people are telling me he is "the Prairie Candidate"...

That's effing ridiculous, not to mention insulting to Niki Ashton.

I like Dewar a lot, but I thought it was silly that he brought up Manitoba more in the opening debate than Niki Ashton did. I don't mean to be an asshole, but is he secretly running for Mayor of Winnipeg?

Yes, we all know his brother is a bigwig out there--and that will help Dewar with endorsements and organization--but that doesn't actually mean anything in terms of whether he represents the province, much less the Prairies.

Wed, 2011-12-14 02:59

#109

Malcolm

ottawaobserver wrote:

I would have never posted those quotes if you hadn't brought it up.

So I'm the only babbler not allowed to plump for my preferred candidate? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Why didn't you quote the bit at the end where he says she probably won't win?

Overall, a very positive article about Niki. And nobody questioning her capacity to speak French.

Wed, 2011-12-14 03:06

#110

Malcolm

Winston wrote:

In conclusion I am not willing to lose 58 (+/-2) seats in Québec (which is what electing Paul Dewar will do, IMO), just because some people are telling me he is "the Prairie Candidate".

I don't doubt somebody tried that sales pitch on you, but how silly is that.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that a guy from Ottawa is "the Prairie candidate" just because his brother lives in Winnipeg. Especially when one of the other candidates is actually from, you know, the Prairies and another actually lived and worked in Saskatchewan for nearly a decade.

Wed, 2011-12-14 03:07

#111

Malcolm

*** never mind - I'd misunderstood something ***

Wed, 2011-12-14 03:41

#112

ottawaobserver

Winston wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

I agree they have to do TLMEP. Do they have to do it next week? I don't know.

Umm...yes they do. Maybe not TLMEP exactly, but media scrums, yes, interviews with less than sympathetic personalities (many of whom may resort to a very erudite line of questioning), yes. Hell, even communicating with our caucus will require French skills better than Dewar's.

Umm... he already does scrums in both languages outside the House regularly.

Umm... that's different than TLMEP, as everyone concedes.

Winston wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

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.

Yes it was the subjunctive tense that screwed Dion up. Quite simply put, he could not derive the meaning of a standard sentence structure in the English language (i.e. could not differentiate between the perfect (past) tense and the imperfect subjuctive tense). In not understanding a basic English sentence, he could not respond intelligently or intelligibly.

The knock on Dewar is his speaking not his comprehension. And any shrewd media-trained politician could have guessed at the general meaning of the question, and bridged to their key message. Dion was incapable of that. No political skills.

Also, it should be added in Dion's defence, he did get totally screwed by CTV and Mike Duffy in particular, because the producer had promised Dion's aide that they would cut that part out, but the Vice President of news personally overturned that commitment, and teed it up for Duffy who took it way over the top. They lost a case before some industry association ombudsman over that (by which time it was too late, of course).

Winston wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

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.

Wow! Quite the hatchet job on most of our potential leaders!

I definitely did not get the sense that Mulcair was tone deaf to the West's concerns when he was out here (see...I actually LIVE out West...born and raised).

Lucky you. I lived in BC for two years and worked throughout the interior. Also, I've worked in 9 of 10 provinces for various lengths of time.

I knew about Mulcair's work in Manitoba, and Topp's work in Saskatchewan, thank you. And I never said Topp didn't know the country, so don't put words in my mouth. I heard Nash on the Ontario townhall, and she was a bit tone-deaf on some of the rural stuff, and on another encounter I didn't feel she had the best handle on where exactly we need to target next.

But, I have an open mind, and I'm listening critically but fairly to everyone.

Winston wrote:

All three of them have significant endorsements out West here (former premiers, MLAs, union leaders and other people I trust greatly), accusing any of them of being tone-deaf to the West is a big stretch. Accusing Paul Dewar of having inadequate French skills is not.

In conclusion I am not willing to lose 58 (+/-2) seats in Québec (which is what electing Paul Dewar will do, IMO), just because some people are telling me he is "the Prairie Candidate". Don't get me wrong, I really respect the guy (I really like Chisholm too) but I truly don't think they can win.

If you said "put at risk xx seats in Québec, which I fear is what it might do" this would all have more credibility with me, because I share the same concern. I'm trying to be precise about quantifying the problem, and realistic about what the timelines are for addressing it.

You have a different point of view, and good for you.

But qualitative opinion research you're wrong on. Here's a panel discussion of NS, Ontario, and Manitoba campaign directors from last weekend's BC convention discussing amongst other things that very point:

http://www.livestream.com/bcndplive/video?clipId=pla_0eda775f-9374-4acc-b715-8f538605a8d4

Wed, 2011-12-14 03:53

#113

ottawaobserver

Wilf Day wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

If there is no-one else who can keep Quebec but Mulcair, one really has to wonder why the more experienced and senior members of our Quebec caucus are coming to different conclusions. Are they all stupid?

Overstated, he says with some trepidation. I'll submit a somewhat subjective evaluation of who are the "more experienced and senior" Quebec MPs offering endorsements: Francoise Boivin, Alexandre Boulerice, Christine Moore, Anne-Marie Day, Manon Perreault, Claude Patry, Hélène Leblanc, Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, Robert Aubin. Mulcair 5, Topp 2, Nash 1, Saganash 1.

I was mainly thinking of folks who had been active in the Quebec section of the party prior to the last election. Boulerice and Boivin would be the main ones, but I didn't traverse the list as comprehensively as you, Wilf.

Wilf Day wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

To some Quebeckers I was "maudite anglaise" and to others I was an anglo with a cute french accent.

Are you so sure it was just the accent?

Disco-style poodle perms: cute or not cute? You be the judge.

Wed, 2011-12-14 07:35

#114

KenS

ottawaobserver wrote:

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 ! ;-)

Malcolm wrote:

Not sure which of my points you're referring to, but . . .

....

Re: French capacity, while there are outliers, there is an overall consensus in what I've read in a variety of places that Ashton, Mulcair, Saganash and Topp are up to the required standard in French and that Chisholm, Dewar and Singh are not. I've seen a couple of commentators rate Singh and Dewar slightly higher, but those have been far and away the exceptions.

There you have it in that item.

You put Singh and Dewar in the same category as Chisholm. Chisholm is a unilingual anglophone. Period.

The fact that many commentators do not think Dewar and Singh bear consideration does not justify putiing them in the same category as Chisholm.

Deawar and Singh and Cullen are in a category where people have to decided for themselves whether their French is sufficient. And even then, more like: might be sufficient by the end of the race when we vote.

Wed, 2011-12-14 08:03

#115

KenS

For Mulcair and Nash on that, I know what OO is talking about.

The two of them have spent a life time in urban politics. And rooted in one city. [Notwithstanding Mulcair's years in Quebec.] Even when you are dealing with national [Canada or Quebec] issues, as both were for a number of years.... its still being immersed in the day to day of big city politics.

So was Jack Layton. And that was a knock against him when he sought the leadership. But Jack Layton had empathy in buckets and grasped everything he touched.

Possibly we are being unfair to the two of them- but I never see them say things or pitch themselves in a way that shows me they get it. Mulcair understands his natural affinity to 'Prarie socialism'- the practice of politics in SK and MB, but I do not see anything that tells me he 'gets' the West. And I dont see that he has the qualities of listening to people not inclined to agree with that would be the path to correcting that.

Wed, 2011-12-14 08:04

#116

KenS

CanadaApple wrote:

How much do you expect the next Leader to know about all the different parts of the country? And how exactly do you measure such a thing?

Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I'm just curious about what you have too say.

Good question.

The minimum is that the Leader needs to know the basics of the sensibilities and sensitivities of the regions- particularly but not limited to the political/governing ones.

That is easier to say as a principle, than to judge in practice. Unless of course someone shows their tone deafness by stepping in it. There are not many instances of that, none for the candidates that come to mind, so we have to judge on more subtle and nebuolus indicators.

Here is an instance/example. A number of people in these threads have shown a too limited understanding of how perceived 'favouritism to Quebec' can play in the West among our supporter universe. Particularly in BC, and especially outside the urban core. The lack of understanding shows through the perception of this as some black and white thing- being anti-Quebec, or people seein Mulcair as some kind of closet sovereignist. It's much more subtle than that. [The same resentments exist in the Maritimes, but are taken less seriously here- they are less likely to motivate people.]

I dont know of anything as evident as that which any of the candidates has shown. So it comes to things they say- or do not say- that make you wonder if they are on a continuum of the same thing.... which would mean trouble down the road.

It is also something that is not necessarily remedied sufficiently by 'delivering corrective information' to the candidate. If you want an example of that: Dion again. Very smart man. But absolutely thick and unteachable. Even a small fraction of the Dion disability can be crippling for the party.

Wed, 2011-12-14 08:05

#117

JeffWells

KenS wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Not sure which of my points you're referring to, but . . .

....

Re: French capacity, while there are outliers, there is an overall consensus in what I've read in a variety of places that Ashton, Mulcair, Saganash and Topp are up to the required standard in French and that Chisholm, Dewar and Singh are not. I've seen a couple of commentators rate Singh and Dewar slightly higher, but those have been far and away the exceptions.

There you have it in that item.

You put Singh and Dewar in the same category as Chisholm. Chisholm is a unilingual anglophone. Period.

The fact that many commentators do not think Dewar and Singh bear consideration does not justify putiing them in the same category as Chisholm.

I think that depends upon the category. If the category is "required standard," than I'd say yes, it's justified. Because with 59 Quebec seats on the line, our standard had better be higher than heavily accented, uncomfortable and barely functional.

Wed, 2011-12-14 08:17

#118

knownothing knownothing's picture

Someone told me Mulcair has worked in every province. I have no proof of that however.

Wed, 2011-12-14 08:20

#119

Gaian

OO, I follow your posts in awe of your grasp of the Canadian political scene. But can you tell me why you would say " Mulcair doesn't know that much about the rest of Canada..." and then after being informed that he worked for two years in Manitoba (and no doubt all of the cockpit of Canadian history was reviewed) you do not retract that quote? You seem emminently fair in your description of others. What's with Mulcair and you?

You can see that it's given Ken the opportunity to take the bit in the teeth of his favourite hobby horse:
"Possibly we are being unfair to the two of them- but I never see them say things or pitch themselves in a way that shows me they get it. Mulcair understands his natural affinity to 'Prarie socialism'- the practice of politics in SK and MB, but I do not see anything that tells me he 'gets' the West. And I dont see that he has the qualities of listening to people not inclined to agree with that would be the path to correcting that."

Oh, just possibly unfair, with psychoanalysis from a distance. But then, there I go being "unfair" again, OO.

Wed, 2011-12-14 08:20

#120

KenS

For myself, this isnt a top of the list item for things the Leader prospect needs to pass with flying colours.

** Must have adequate French communication skills.

** Must have adequate retail political skills.

There is a big range of opinion on what is adequate to clear the bar, or what 'aspects' of adequate are essential, etc.

But we agree these are must haves.

Given that the judgements of the candidates ability to understand the regions and demographic spread of Canadians is bases on rather nebulous criteris, short of someone putting their foot in it, this is just one of many criteria for my assessing them. Not going to be defining in itself.

[Tangent: on those first two 'must have' items where there is consensus on that, but the diagreement is around what is adequate to clear the bar.... There are two different kinds of discussants who hold the bar high on one or both. There are those who simply make it clear the bar is high, period. And there are those tht leave you with the suspicion that the argument that the bar must be higher than other people think has a lot to do the fact that their preferred candidate clears, and few or none of the rest do.]

Wed, 2011-12-14 08:32

#121

KenS

JeffWells wrote:

I think that depends upon the category. If the category is "required standard," than I'd say yes, it's justified. Because with 59 Quebec seats on the line, our standard had better be higher than heavily accented, uncomfortable and barely functional.

That the bar has to be high is a consensus agreement. But there is still a lot of room in 'how high'. Nor are there any uniquely agreed criteria. Most of us think that 'heavily accented' is not a problem. [Chetien- even with anglophones being less tolerant]. Uncomfortable and barely functional we can agree in principle are not acceptable... but still not agree about the 'measure'. Plus the timing question.

Part of the problem is that some people have candidates they are at least considering, to whom they are willing to give time to see if they can clear the bar. A lot of other people dont like any of the candidates on whom the jury is out, so they have no interest in juggling 'what is good enough'.

Wed, 2011-12-14 08:41

#122

KenS

Gaian wrote:
OO... can you tell me why you would say " Mulcair doesn't know that much about the rest of Canada..." and then after being informed that he worked for two years in Manitoba (and no doubt all of the cockpit of Canadian history was reviewed) you do not retract that quote?

She can answer the larger question. But one or two people has said they thought he lived there. The only think certain is that he did some work for MB on language rights. No one has said they know he lived there. And given the time period I think it happened- it seems unlikely.

Giving a legal and policy wonk review and opinion on language rights is hardly the cockpit of Canadian history. And even less is it what we are talking about: an understanding of the sensibilities that vary vastly by regions [and 'locational demographic']..

Wed, 2011-12-14 09:11

#123

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

ottawaobserver wrote:

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.

I think the Edmonton contingent will be a pretty good position to confirm or deny this after Friday!

Wed, 2011-12-14 09:17

#124

Idealistic Prag... Idealistic Pragmatist's picture

There is no such thing as the "subjunctive tense" (it's called the subjunctive mood, because it can be used in any verb tense) and there is certainly no such thing as the "subjective tense."

Sorry, that was grating. Carry on...

Wed, 2011-12-14 09:34

#125

KenS

Thats OK. When it come to subjunctive anything, some of us have no idea what is being talked about anyway.

Pages

Topic locked