NDP Leadership 53

I say HDs Quebec numbers are a fluke, no other recent numbers show it, so until thier is a poll to confirm it that is how I'll view it.

 

That being said the major effect of this will not be on the 2015 campaign, it'll be now during this leadership race. This will drive those uncertain or leaning towards Mulcair into supporting him. This coupled with his compaign picking up speed could lead to a first ballet win. At the very least it will raise him up higher on many lists. I also suspect that it'll push the ndp into working harder in Quebec.

 

Also I see no evidence Mulcair is a centralist. He supports pharmacare I believe I read somewhere and of course his cap and trade is very expensive restructuring of the economy. That's screams lefty to me and most people.

 

This is also not his whole platform which I suspect will be released some time in early January.

 

As to the other hopeful Niki Ashton there was Paul Dewar article where she got tacked in on the end. She has a policy announcement soon on housing which include a plan make buying a home for young people more affordable. Again I suspect the other platforms to be fully out in January so I cauten patience. I think she may be cutting back on the new politics repetitiveness. Also does no one see the resemblence to Jack's campaign style, high energy, confidence, and a slogan that is unleashed often enough to incite drinking games around it. Next time Niki says working families, er that was her mentor, I mean New Politics, take a drink. Should make the next debate waaaayyyy more fun to watch.

 

Btw why does she on her face book page have picture of her with the directors of the wheat board. Holding a teddybear? I know she reprsents youthful energy, but still that a bit too far. Unless this is the future mascot for the NDP:) A Diabolical plan I admit.

 

Piece of advice for niki, exploit your Greek understanding to show a greater understanding of the Euro crisis

 

Pual Dewar, Martin Singh, and Chisholm are wasting peoples time, Quebecers have made it clear fluency in french is a prerequiste for thier votes, it simply is to late to aquire it. It doesn't have to be right now, but if they are not fluent by the next french debate then they should resign from the race so as to no longer humiliate the NDP and if they don't it will make it more difficult to test those that remain. Its a slap to the face, especially chisholm, to Quebecers. We failed to tolerate Dions flawed english and at least he spoke english, unlike chisholm. If Dewar and Singh can't hit above dion they don't belong in this race either. Even Nash and Cullen should go if they don't make the standard by the second french debate. oh and the debate should be longer. If I was Turmel I'd even offer a refund of thier 15,000 for those too silly to realize on thier own that full french skills were required.

I won't lie, ideally at this point I'd like this race become between those who has the requiste language skills, Mulcair, Ashton, Topp, Saganash, and maybe Nash. Otherwise the debates will suck, because those who can debate in french and english will lose time to those who can't or at least not acceptably.

Also would like to see a national tv campaign recruiting for the NDP, while crowing about our accomplishments so far.

Idealistic Pragmatist wrote:

Anybody know what the holdup is in scheduling the January leadership debate?

Don't quote me, but I've heard everybody thinks somebody else is doing it.

 

To Shoon, I do hope we will see a narrowing of the field after the Halifax debate. It has been good to have a variety of candidates, their ideas, their organising, and their excitement, but I am getting tired of candidates that don't seem up to the task. Inadequate French is a very clear disqualifier but there are others too, like insufficient experience.

Based on the above traits and communications skills, I have a very clear picture in my mind of three tiers of candidates:

1st tier: Mulcair, Nash, Topp

2nd tier: Saganash, Ashton, Cullen

3rd tier: Dewar, Singh, Chisholm

I hope after the Halifax debate, whomever remains the third tier will drop off. I hope the second tier will also make clear what they need to happen, in subsequent months, to stay in the race. You shouldn't be in the race, if you can't do really well at convention. It goes against NDP tradition to ask leadership candidates to step off the soapbox and drop out, but I want the public to get a chance to know the next leader before they are elected and then defined (negatively) by the Conservatives. That is not possible right now, with so many candidates in the race, they suck up all the airtime.

While it remains to be seen, I think the party HQ really dropped the ball (again) on these debates. Here was an opportunity to expand the NDP base to a new audience by holding debates in new cities. Instead, it looks like they just went with NDP strongholds that would be "most able" to host the debates. What we are seeing now, is what a mistake this was. Places that have never hosted debates are clamouring to get in (e.g. Alberta, NFLD, Northern Ontario, others). With the raw energy we are seeing from these volunteers, a debate in these locations would be guaranteed to suceed, in fact some of these locations already have suceeded or would have suceeded if the HQ wasn't lumbering under the weight of these slow to spring up events in the NDP "strongholds." 

We also have to remember that some of these "strongholds" like Vancouver are getting two debates (i.e. the candidates town hall at BC NDP convention and one in March) and Toronto wanted two debates too (i.e. they already get the convention, two leadership campaigns running!). I have been watching how the leadership candidates respond to these debate scheduling issues and I would have to say that those candidates that accepted the invite to debate in Northern Ontario early (e.g. Mulcair) won points in my books and thus that issued calls for Toronto to have a second debate (e.g. Dewar) lost points.

That Wells piece is simply stunning. As a commenter writes:

Quote:

 Wow, I can't beleive some of you know everything would dismiss Romeo Saganash as not Quebec.  I mean the Cree only go back tens of thousands of years on the land mass we call Quebec.  What kind of heritage is that?

Wells doesn't even bother to dismiss Saganash. Based on this article, he is a non-person, not even worth mentioning. Meanwhile, wasn't he considered by many to be the best French speaker in the debate?

@ Unionist:

You missed one:

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-44-threads-firs...

Lou Arab wrote:

Wells is saying that in Quebec, there is no dispute that the candidate who can hold the province for the NDP is Mulcair. Obviously there is some dispute, since a number of NDP MPs are supporting other candidates. But outside the province, among the talking heads, they all think it's Mulcair.

I get your point, but let's remember that some of the Quebec MPs who have endorsed other candidates have explicitly said that they did so because they thought those candidates could win outside Quebec.

I do agree with your later point, though, that Mulcair would also have the best odds of winning more seats outside Quebec as well and I don't think Quebec MPs are the best judge of that anyway.

@AnonymousMouse - I actually meant to write "but inside the province" in the last line of what you quoted.  Sorry.

Lou Arab wrote:

@AnonymousMouse - I actually meant to write "but inside the province" in the last line of what you quoted.  Sorry.

I got that. My only point was that the handful of Quebec MPs who have endorsed other candidates are--in some cases certainly, in other cases possibly--supporting other candidates even though they know Mulcair has an advantage in Quebec. There are other reasons to support a candidate.

 

Quote:

Wells is saying that in Quebec, there is no dispute that the candidate who can hold the province for the NDP is Mulcair.  Obviously there is some dispute, since a number of NDP MPs are supporting other candidates.  But inside the province, among the talking heads, they all think it's Mulcair.

Are these the same talking heads who didn't see the NDP surge coming in Quebec? How do they know? 

Quote:

It goes against NDP tradition to ask leadership candidates to step off the soapbox and drop out, but I want the public to get a chance to know the next leader before they are elected and then defined (negatively) by the Conservatives.

Interesting in theory but 40% of the public didn't even bother to vote at all. Do you really think they're paying attention to the NDP race? A lot of NDPers are still wrapping their minds around the race. No matter how it plays out, the new leader will have to let voters get to know them. 

Thanks for posting the links Unionist. But why not create a thread called "NDP Leadership Thread Index" or something which might be easier to find. Otherwise, we have to remember that the index is in thread 53.

 

Howard wrote:

1st tier: Mulcair, Nash, Topp

2nd tier: Saganash, Ashton, Cullen

3rd tier: Dewar, Singh, Chisholm

 

Listen, If Topp had've stepped up to the plate and won a seat at any level for the NDP by now I bet tons of people would be supporting him but something, I don't know what, has stopped him from ever having done it and I'm pretty sure that is at least part of the reason why he got booed in Vancouver last Saturday.

 

While not having a seat is a liability for Topp, I don't see any evidence os "resentment" of him for that reason. I think the vast majority of NDPers acknowledge the great service he has done to the party behind the scenes. The booing you refer to I heard consisted of two people at most and it was essentially a "clac" by one of the other candidates.

What does it mean to "look the part"? Looking like Willard "Mitt" Romney? Who knows if he would still run for a seat in 2015 if is is not leader. It an election that is almost four years away. Is there anything in Harper's "story" that is supposed to resonate with the average Cdn?? 

Pig you want to to talk about people skills (or lack thereof) look no further than Bob Rae. He can give a nice speech, but one on one he is just about the coldest, most aloof person I've met in my life.

Its a very good question why Topp did not run before. Not only do I not know the answer, I dont have anything I would rate as a good guess.

Here's some 'shreds' on that topic.

I dont think there are many people who do know the answer, and probably most of them are in his campaign. Its as likely as anything to be something mundane.

Topps role in the party was not really someone who does others' bidding. He had a very good gig in the Layton leadership circle. And the fact he was in and out of every day intense roles probably had a lot to do with how long he was central. When Chiefs of Staff left the position, they moved on and did not come back.

As much of a guess as I will make is the fact that it was a good gig had at least a lot to do with why he did not run for office and join Caucus- that would be rocking the boat. Not to mention that while his boys were growing up he was only gone a lot for stretches. Being in Caucus would have ended that, and anyone who sees what that is like stops to think.

All of that and probably much more that is specific and personal that no one could guess at.

The reason I think he will run for office even if he loses this is that he has now turned a page. It is unlikely he could go back to something close to the role he had. I suppose there are a couple of the possible leadership winners who might want him to do something similar. But after that [possible] inclination they would bump up against the chemistry with other people they want in senior roles. You don't ust mix and match people for that sort of thing- least of all in a new operation.

While if he joins Caucus, he has his own base, to do with what he will and can. Mind you, bit of a wrinkle having to wait 3 years for the chance to join Caucus. Anything could happen in that time. But I doubt he is rigorously reflecting on all the possible permutations if he doesnot win this.

 

I think its funny how persistent is this notion that Topp was pushed on the party by the establishment, like he was their tool. Or even seeing it as a joint effort. I have no idea how he put it together, or even a guess any more about how far back he has been thinking about doing this. But make no mistake: Brian Topp has the skills and the gumption to drive himself where he is. And the people who believe in Topp the most who have been around him are not doing that just based on ambition and moxie they see.

Agreed: that does not say whether he has what it takes to be Leader. But it is what it is.

 

I'm inclined to agree with Malcolm, and that our victory in May was more of a contingent fluke than was the Mulroney sweep. Not that it cannot be completely consolidated, and more added. But it is shaky gound, whoever is Leader.

But I also think these differing opinions do not matter. Pessimist or optimist starting point: we have to put our best foot forward in Quebec, and choice of Leader is a big part of that.

Stock the booing of Topp in Vancouver was unfortuanate, but real. He ignored two calls from the moderator to stop after he exceeded his time. When he persisted after a momentary pause, people objected in the traditional fashion. Any camp trying to organize a put down of another candidate could not have predicted a faux pas like was committed would give them an openning.

Given his many endorsers in the hall, it did not help his cause that people booed. Not surprisingly spin doctors emerge with explanations of what happened. I have not listened to the tape of the event, but in the room the negative reaction was quite unexpected. Overall there is a good rapport among the candidates, no one especialy wants to see another do poorly, since it relects on all of them. All want to do as well as possible, obviously.

Ken, no need to guess on why Topp didn't run: he explained it very clearly himself in his opening news conference.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/09/12/pol-ndp-brian-topp.html

What he said was that his wife and kids had followed him around from city to city in his political career as a staffer, and finally she asked when it would be their time to have him. That's when they moved to Toronto, and he went to work for Actra. Their sons grew, Brian directed a few national campaigns, and then asked to pull back from the last one after the prostate cancer diagnosis, whereupon Jack asked him to head up the platform committee instead. I might have some tiny details wrong, but you can watch the raw tape above yourself if you want.

Now that his boys are teenagers and well on his way, he now has his wife's sanction to run for office, and he said unequivocally that he intends to do so in the next election, whether he wins the leadership or not. There's no basis for disbelieving him on that score, as he's usually done what he said he would do in the past.

nicky wrote:

Why should we assume that there will be a natural fall off of support in Quebec regardless of leader as Malcolm and others suggest? After his breakthrough in Quebec in 84 Mulroney not only maintained his seats there but increased them in 89, And this was when he was losing over 50 seats in the rest of the country. Recent events certainly show we can't take Quebec for granted. But remember the Angus Reid poll that shows Mulcair would increase the party's support in Quebec by TEN PER CENT. On a Uniform swing That would get us SEVENTY seats.

Nicky, anything is possible.  It's even possible that we'd sweep every seat in Quebec.

However, I've been around politics for a couple of days.  While one can point to cases where a sweep is followed by an even larger sweep, one can also point to cases where a sweep is followed by a collapse.  However, in my experience and observation, the most common outcome is that a sweep is followed by some incremental erosion.

I'm not assuming anything.  I just don't want us setting a bar that is, all things being equal, unlikely to be achieved.

If we win, say, 57 Quebec seats in 2015, I don't want the media narrative to be "NDP falls short."

Oh, and since uniform sweeps never hapen, then your seventy seat proection is worse than useless.  For God's sake, don't let that become the bar we need to clear to declare victory.

Just in:

Dear Friends

On Sunday, December 4th, Niki Ashton introduced her vision of a new politics to a national audience for the first time.

Pundits are talking about Niki Ashton's clear message of equality, her poise and the quality of her performance in both of our country's official languages.

" Round 1 Goes to Mulcair and Ashton. it was a treat to see the zest and command of this 29 year-old multilingual Manitoban. She's calling for a new politics. " Lawrence Martin, ipolitics.ca

"Niki Ashton comes ready to rumble, as poised and articulate in French as she is in English."
Paul Wells, Maclean's

"My verdict: overall, the best orators amongst the range of candidates were Thomas Mulcair and Niki Ashton, they met expectations and they looked capable of running an election campaign." Raymond Giroux, Le Soleil

" Who looked most comfortable in their own skin in the NDP debate? Nathan Cullen and Niki Ashton." David Akin, National Bureau Chief, Sun Media

In terms of french proficiency she was rated as one of the top four. "Good enough - Ashton, Topp. What do I mean by "good enough"? " Good enough to stand up to a two-hour television debate in one's second language against several unfriendly opponents during an election campaign. And good enough to be an effective leader of a Canadian national party with serious aspirations of forming the government." Don Macpherson, Montreal Gazette.

In the coming weeks, Ashton will continue to tour the country talking about a new kind of politics. A new politics that builds bridges between regions, communities and generations.

We're confident that, as more New Democrats and more Canadians meet Niki, they will respond positively to her vision of a new politics and join our party to support her. A lot of people are taking another look at Niki after her performance in the first debate. And we're just getting started!

But it will take money to wage that kind of campaign. The good news is that the money is out there for Niki to run the best campaign possible. The bad news is that most of it still hasn't been collected.

That's why we're writing to you today. We're asking you to donate $25, $50, $100, whatever you can afford to invest in the future of our great party, and our great country. And remember, if you donate, you willl get back up to 75% of your donation on your taxes!

Together, we can turn the page on the old, divisive and destructive politics of the past and write the first chapter of a new politics based on equality, inclusion and real economic, environmental and social progress. We hope you'll join us!

Campaign for A New Politics

Anyway, personal expectations of the range of possibilities in Quebec make no difference in how people approach this leadership race.

 

Brian Topp raises an interesting point in his post here this morning.

Touching on the good terms among the candidates.

Which is an interesting comparison to how we get here in these leadership forums. [Not that is necessarily even the obvious competition. If anything, this is at least more civil than average for Babble.]

I would actually like to see something in between. Not the candidates getting all hepped up at each other. But also not the generalized kid glove treatment with each other. While mixing it up a fair bit more might be good for the leadership race and the party, it is risky for any one candidate who breaks out of the mode of what looks like de facto required kid glove treatment. It doesn't look like Brian paid a price for doing that in the Ottawa debate- but the read of that was mixed, and it could have been worse.

For all the spleen vented around here, the NDP and the Canadian left have never been big on fulsome debate. Have a comparison to the UK Labour Party at any time, and the corresponding level of discussion in the pubs and on the internet.

Where can you find it Stockholm?

Done.

But hey, me getting it not right, and eventually Brian shows up here to speak for himself, and not just to this question.

Not bad.  

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Where can you find it Stockholm?

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/201112/16/01-4478439-les-chefs-laissent...

If you don't read french, you can always pop it into Google Translate.

 

AnonymousMouse wrote:

the handful of Quebec MPs who have endorsed other candidates are--in some cases certainly, in other cases possibly--supporting other candidates even though they know Mulcair has an advantage in Quebec.

Wilf Day wrote:

Handful implies five or less, not twelve.

Any links to the ones that 'certainly' think Mulcair is the better choice for Quebec purposes?

I can remeber one saying Topp is the one for the rest of Canada. You seem to be taking the leap that means he is indicating Mulcair is the best for Quebec.

[And then form that leap- on to inferring that is likely what all of them think.]

Brian Topp wrote:

Ottawaobserver has it basically right - I've focused on contributing as a party activist since 1999 (when I left the Government of Saskatchewan once the coalition government was safely in place there) because of committments I wanted to keep to my family and to the organizations I was hired to helped lead. We have debated this issue every leadership race in recent times. Is there any legitimate experience party members might consider other than being an opposition MP in parliament - a critically important role to be sure? Party members thought so in the past. All we can say for sure is that our rules permit any member to run for leader. We are looking to win a national election. We are looking to run a government. We are looking for someone to lead a complex party. We are looking for someone to outthink Mr. Harper, Mr. Rae and Mr. Paille. We are looking for someone who will make a winning appeal to Canadians. We are looking for someone who can lead our work in Quebec and across Canada. I've been involved in a central role in five federal elections. I worked at the heart of a successful NDP government for seven years. I'm a leader in the labour movement and the credit union movement. Members are familiar with my work measured against our opponents and as a case to put to voters -- for example, via our last three election platforms, which I played a role in shaping. I'm a bilingual Quebecer who has worked in Quebec, Ottawa, Saskatchewan and BC.

 

I'm not a perfect candidate alas, but no perfect candidates are running. As a case in point, I did indeed run over my time during opening statements at the candidates' forum in BC. I apologized afterwards to our moderator, Judy Darcy, for not hearing her timecall. It was a plain mistake. The four town halls I did in BC before and after the convention went better, as did the one I did in Edmonton the following day. I left strongly recommitted to keeping a better eye on the clock during forums.

 

I've been out talking to members in this campaign for three months now - a really heartening experience, speaking of experience. There are a strikingly lot of smart, thoughtful people in our party, and they're going to make the right decision in March.

 

All the best, Bt

The fact that you are the only one who posts on Babble which shows respect for our opinions has bumped you from fifth to third on my future ballet with the possiblity of higher depending on how the campaign goes.