NDP Leadership 53

nicky wrote:

Uniform swings are not completely useless as Malcolm says.

Beyond a quick and dirty, uniform sweeps are a pointless exercise.  A uniform sweep in the last Saskatchewan election would have left the NDP with about four seats which, if my vague recollection of arithmetic is correct, is somewhat less than nine.  The problem with 308 is precisely that he uses uniform sweeps (first invalid methodology) and tweeks it by averaging poll results from different companies (second invalid methodology) and then tweeks it further with guesses based on his own faulty assumptions (third invalid methodology).

All of which is beside the point Nicky.  You want us to work on the assumption that the next election should leave us with 59 seats in Quebec (net presumably) al things being equal.  I'm just saying that, based on a little bit of electoral experience picked up here and there, that such an outcome, while certainly possible, is not they typical outcome on the available data.  The most likely outcome is incremental erosion.

Furthermore, while leadership will be one of the determinants, it won't be the only one.  The performance of 59 Quebec MPs will be at least as significant - and arguably more so.

I`m not a big fan of rose coloured glasses.  I think they are unhelpful in terms of useful political analysis.

AnonymousMouse wrote:

Everyone I know in Quebec thinks we can hold our seats there or win more in the next election.

Whether it be the demise of the Union National or the rise of the Liberal Party, PQ, Social Credit, Mulroney Tories or the Bloc, Quebec moves in big swings and rarely swings back without giving the party they've taken a chance on the opportunity to show whether they'll deliver.

It is silly to think of what happened in the last election as a fluke. Quebecers knew exactly what they were doing. Now they're waiting to see if we are what we promised to be: a progressive party that's actively interested in including Quebec and sensitive to their unique concerns.

Worth framing.

Part of the media misconception is their wilful ignorance of 57 of our Quebec MPs, everyone but Mulcair and Boivin. Yesterday the Globe ran a piece that said Daniel Paillé had lost his seat to an unknown NDP candidate. I replied, but the Globe did not print:

Quote:

Professor Antonia Maioni (Obsolescence Stalks The Bloc -- Dec. 14) wrongly copies the media habit of calling the NDP's 59 Quebec MPs "unknown" candidates.

One-third of them, 20, had been NDP candidates before. Another 19 had previous leadership experience, including the strong candidate who defeated Daniel Paillé in May, Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, an archaeologist with an M.A. in Anthropology. She was co-founder of her union at the Musée d'archéologie et d’histoire de Montréal, a leader in that union and in the Centrale des Syndicats Démocratiques. She serves in the NDP shadow cabinet as Critic for Skills (Human Resources and Skills Development).

I think everyone should keep jumping on the media when they say things like that.

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.

Handful implies five or less, not twelve.

Topp 5: Françoise Boivin, Gatineau; Alain Giguère, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin; Alexandre Boulerice, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie; Charmaine Borg, Terrebonne—Blainville; Isabelle Morin, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Ashton 3: Jean-François Larose, Repentigny; François Choquette, Drummond; Francine Raynault, Joliette.

Nash 2: Anne Minh-Thu Quach, Beauharnois—Salaberry; Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, Hochelaga.

Saganash 2: Christine Moore, Abitibi—Témiscamingue; Pierre Dionne Labelle, Rivière-du-Nord.

Shoon wrote:

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

I just got the year-end appeal in the mail yesterday. It implied my donation would go into a war-chest to launch a fight-back campaign on day one of our new leader's era. Sorry, no. If it had promised a national tv campaign recruiting for the NDP, I'd have donated to that.

Malcolm you are just plain WRONG that a uniform swing in Sask would have left the NDP with just 4 seats.
The Sask Party gained 13.3 per cent. The NDP lost 5.3. I think we can agree that is a swing of 18.6. In 2006 the NDP won 10 seats by more than that. Of those ten they lost three, Douglas Park (21), Coronation Park (24) and PA Northcote (18.9). They won two where they were under that line - Lakeview (15.5) and Rosemont (18.5).
If anything the recent Sask election is an almost perfect illustration of the theory of uniform swing.

Doofy, I wish I knew why Broadbent endorsed Topp over Mulcair, especially because I share your view that Mulcair has by far the most electoral promise. At Mulcair's fundraiser In Toronto I asked a senior labour official this question and he said there was considerable recrimination about Broadbent jumping in too soon, especially because there is an element of buyer's remorse about Topp.

As revered as Broadbent may deservedly be in the party, we must also remember that his political instincts are not perfect. He started the 89 election with 30 percent and let that spiral down to 20 over the course of the campaign.

A couple months ago I also asked the question of John Harney, Broadbent's great rival for the leadership in the 70s. He said,"because he thinks Mulcair looks like me."

I also agree with you about the reaction we can expect from the Quebec media if Mulcair is defeated.I think this will be compounded by two factors if it happens - 1. Mulcair losing despite his obvious merits and 2. The perception that the leadership rules were unfair in restricting Quebec's weight. I said this in Babble in late August and was met with a howl of invective which I hope is not repeated.

nicky wrote:

I also agree with you about the reaction we can expect from the Quebec media if Mulcair is defeated.I think this will be compounded by two factors if it happens - 1. Mulcair losing despite his obvious merits and 2. The perception that the leadership rules were unfair in restricting Quebec's weight. I said this in Babble in late August and was met with a howl of invective which I hope is not repeated.

There may be lots of good reasons to support or oppose Mulcair, but i don't want to feel like I'm being blackmailed by the Quebec media to pick him as leader or else...

That is your idea nicky. You and some other people.

What is the point of asking [again] the question of people who make clear they fundamentally disagree with your assesment? Disagree with every element of what you see as a general perception [to be] out there.

It is not a real question when it depends on a statement of fact not shared by the audience.

Ken if you mean by "audience" you and a couple others on Babble you may be right. I strongly believe, however, that my concerns are shared by many thoughtful New Democrats who are uninfluenced by whatever the MSM may say but have sincere concerns for the future of their party.

Nicky, everyone shares your concerns.  

I was addressing specifically and ONLY the following that you said, so stop trying the false equation of general concerns to specific statement.

nicky wrote:

how do you think the Quebec voter will feel if he perceives that Quebec's leading candidate was only beaten because of an unfair process?

And on that in particular you will not find a consensus of agreement that this is a shared statement of fact- that this perception is likey to be the dominant one under those circumstances.

Well, Mulcair's foray into the Labour movement seems to be bearing fruit.  Interesting indeed to see the strong support he's getting in these circles.

According to twitter, he has gained the endorsement of Michael Fraser, former Nat'l director of UFCW and VP of the CLC.  Another big name in the Labour movement to go along with Samuelson (OFL) and Kube (BCFL).

My goal wasn't to be mean, just an honest opinion, I question thier tactal abilities, more so Howard then Chisholm who does have leadership ability, abet flawed Judgement at times. I hope your right because if Chisholm can't be made to drop out and his ties to NS are too tight for Turmel press too hard on him to drop out. I pray it finally dawns on him he's hurting the party. He's a good man, but politicians have big egos.

You mean like Brian Topp?

Sorry couldn't resist the cheeky response.

So people complain when his endorsements are mostly rookie MPs from Quebec, they complain when gets endorsements from those with greater experience. Is it just me or do the goal posts for Mulcair keep getting moved?

If Mulcair got endorsements from all the Greek Gods somebody would complain why didn't the Norse Pantheon support as well and what message that sent.

Here is the bottom line the only endorsement that matters is my own and the masses as a whole, aka popularity with the people.

So here is what I see each candiadates assets.

Mulcair: Smart, knowldgable, Charismatic, Experienced, Popular in Quebec, showed great intergity as minister, he's shown great courage standing up to Charest, he's shown he's progressive while in office, he can make liberal Oppenants foam at the mouth, calm under pressure.

Niki Ashton: Confedant, Good Speaker Energetic, a real fighter, interested me making a long term brand Fluent, superlingual (four fluent languages and like five works in progress) Lt. Urura of the NDP. Now if she can speak Kligion and Romulan she jumps to me top spot.

Topp: Accessible, Good writer, Tactician, intelligent, cunning.

The rest I'll do later.

Wilf Day wrote:

Handful implies five or less, not twelve.

Fair point. No more than a handful for any one other candidate, but more than that combined. But, then again, that's compared to a majority of the Quebec caucus for Mulcair and an overwhelming majority of those Quebec MPs who have endorsed so far.

KenS wrote:

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.

Also a fair point. Boulerice and Giguere at a minimum have said their endorsement was based on the fact they thought Topp could win outside Quebec. I think it was silly of them to say that before they had ever seen him campaign and has proven not to be the case based on watching him campaign, but you're right that doesn't necessarily mean they think Mulcair would be best inside Quebec--it is somewhat implied, but surely not a certainty.

Of course, the context was that I was disagreeing with the assertion that because some Quebec MPs have endorsed other candidates that means they think someone else has a better chance of winning in Quebec.

My point, which I made more clearly in previous comments, was that the mere fact that there are Quebec MPs who have in some cases endorsed other candidates does NOT mean that those MPs disagree with the idea that Mulcair has the best chance of winning in Quebec.

Regardless, I think Mulcair has the best chance of winning both inside and outside Quebec.

KenS wrote:

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

No, I inferred that most or all of them could think Mulcair has the best chance of winning in Quebec even if they've endorsed other candidates because they may have endorsed other candidates based on other reasons.

That still true. Not a single MP that I'm aware of who has endorsed any candidate other than Mulcair has even suggested that they are doing so because they think their candidate has the best chance of winning in Quebec.

If we agree that the the #1 hurdle for next leader consists of  being able to speak to Canadians (and particularly to Quebecois), no other candidate, apart from Mulcair has, up till now, demonstrated an ability to clear that hurdle. Dewar and Chisolm will, short of divine intervention, not be able to even come close to speaking French well enough to appeal to the Quebec electorate. They, (and I would argue others, but hopefully we can at least agree on those two) should withdraw before the resumption of the House of Commons. They would be much more useful providing bench-strength in Parliament and it would make the debates slightly more manageable.

As to why certain hihg-profile Quebc MPs are endorsing Topp.... I obviously have no idea, not being an NDP insider. But it may be that Boivin and Boulerice are themselves thinking of the NDP leadership at some point in the future. Having two "pur-laine" QCers (and I am counting Mulcair as a pur-laine since he spent almost his entire career in QC) in a row might seem unlikely and so they would rather endorse the candidate from outside QC. I recall Martin Cauchon being in a similar position at the 2006 Liberal convention. He was one of the few Rae supporters who crossed over to Ignatieff on the final ballot. Of course, it may have been for other reaons, but there was much speculation along the lines of what I just said.

For further evidence about Boulerice and Boivin's ambitions, I look to Robin Sears's article in "Policy Options" published last June/july. It was quite nasty towards Mulcair, minimzing his role in the new NDP shadow cabinet & speculating that "some of the new QC recruits", and not Mulcair, would ultimately run to succed Layton.

KenS wrote:

Nicky, everyone shares your concerns.  

I was addressing specifically and ONLY the following that you said, so stop trying the false equation of general concerns to specific statement.

I think that makes sense. Here's another way of looking at it.

It starts with nicky's question:

"If we don't pick the candidate seen as 'most likely to hold Quebec', the Quebec media will paint it as a slap in the face and--even without that factor--Quebec voters may genuinely be insulted by the fact we did not respond to the huge opportunity they gave us on May 2nd."

"Since most people seem to share that concern, how does that not lead to the inevitable conclusion that we must either change the voting formula or elect Mulcair as our next leader?"

Then people disagree with nicky's "inevitable conclusion", but don't provide any alternative resolution to the question he raises--even though we all seem to agree it's a problem.

And, oddly, I agree with those who reject nicky's conclusion as well. Assuming unrelated constitutional obstacles to changing the voting formula, I think the problem with nicky's proposed solutions are that they do amount to--as one commenter put it--"blackmail". That, or at the very least a dark warning that "you have no choice, you must vote for Mulcair".

But here's the other way of looking at it.

Quebecers gave us a huge opportunity on May 2nd--an olive branch to the rest of Canada in fact. Regardless of any political considerations, as good New Democrats I think we all feel a responsibility to grasp hold of that olive branch--and we understand that we don't get to do it on our terms, that's not how "reaching out" works. Our party has never had a leader from Quebec before. Even in this race we don't have a single francophone candidate*. But we've just been given the greatest incentive to choose a leader from Quebec that we could ever, possibly, have.

And we also happen to have an MP in our midst who is already our deputy leader, who has the kind of government experience that is so rare in our caucus, who has a record of prinicipled politics that has made him incredibly popular in his home province and who has the credibility and communications skills to make him most electable candidate we've got--Quebec aisde. That person also took a huge risk in running for us in the first place, he has never showed anything but loyalty to the party despite repeated media claims he was going to stab our previous leader in back and he would not only be our first leader from Quebec, but was also one of only two public faces of the same history making victory that we're now looking to embrace.

It would be wrong to say that because of all that "We Have to Pick Mulcair". We're not Liberals and--as New Democrats--we instinctively make up our own minds. But, for me personally, if we're serious about including Quebec, it means we do at least have to ask ourselves "If not now, when?"

In that context, one of the other candidates would have well ahead of Mulcair on other qualities to get my vote. And since Mulcair is such a good politician, that was unlikely to happen from the beginning. Short of that, someone would have to provide me with a far more compelling reason not to support Mulcair than anything I've seen so far--the worst of which has been nothing more than vaguery or innuendo; there've been well established and subatantive critiques as well but not nothing I find remotely compelling.

We shouldn't feel blackmailed, that's for sure, but part of me feels like we're approaching this as if it's any other leadership race--in which case I still think Mulcair would be a front-runner based on his intelligence and political skills alone. But it's not just the political consequences of choosing another candidate that should alter our perspective either. If we're serious about including Quebec in our party, it's also the political and subtantive opportunity that has been created by the facts on the ground.

I say again: If not now, when?

(As an aisde, some will inevitably say "What about Topp and Saganash?" My response to that is that it isn't just about being "from Quebec". Mulcair is wildly popular in Quebec. He is widely seen inside Quebec as "their candidate". This is no doubt largely because Topp has spent most of his career outside Quebec in pre-Quebec NDP party politics and Saganash has spent most of his career in aboriginal politics rather than Quebec provincial politics. None of that means they aren't Quebecers. It's just the combination of Mulcair's name recognition and popularity make people view him differently. Picking Topp might be seen as choosing an "old guard" candidate with a nod to Quebec. And you could probably come with a similar description of how picking Saganash would seen. But with Mulcair, people in Quebec are watching to see if we embrace him--and them along with him. That doesn't mean we have to pick him, it's just one factor, but one that is not at play for Topp and Saganash despite their being from Quebec.)

(*Saganash's first language is Cree, Topp and Mulcair are both from mixed families, but clearly better in English)

nicky wrote:

Malcolm you are just plain WRONG that a uniform swing in Sask would have left the NDP with just 4 seats. The Sask Party gained 13.3 per cent. The NDP lost 5.3. I think we can agree that is a swing of 18.6. In 2006 the NDP won 10 seats by more than that. Of those ten they lost three, Douglas Park (21), Coronation Park (24) and PA Northcote (18.9). They won two where they were under that line - Lakeview (15.5) and Rosemont (18.5). If anything the recent Sask election is an almost perfect illustration of the theory of uniform swing.

If your argument in support of Thomas Mulcair is based on an idiotic fairy tale like the uniform swing, then you have no argument at all.  The very data you present proves that the uniform swing analysis was wrong in five cases.

One might as well argue that the 2007 Saskatchewan election proves that first past the post elections routinely produce legislative bodies that approximate the popular vote.  It would be both as accurate and as addlepated.

Can you provide any links to QC journalists who can't stand Mulcair?  Everything I have been reading about him has been very positive.  I think he is only politicain to be simultaneously praised by Don Macpherson ( the Gazette), Vicent Marissal (La Presse), Michel David (Le Devoir) and even Josee Legault ( Voir). Admitedly, Legault did not cover Mulcair; she was actually working for the PQ in the early 2000s. The fact that even she says that he is "un redoutable communicateur" and has "des forces évidentes face à Stephen Harper" should give you an idea of how widely respected Mulcair is in Quebec. 

Stockholm wrote:

I'm a bit confused by the so-called consensus of the Quebec media. On the one hand we are led to believe that the NDP has a gun to its head its "either you make Quebec favourite son Mulcair your leader or your 59 seats are gone", but at the same time, I also keep reading that most of the journalists who have covered Mulcair up close at the National Assembly and on Parliament Hill - can't stand him. I'm not saying that being liked by the press is the be all and the end all, but I keep hearing over and over that the same political reporters from Quebec who imply that the NDP MUST pick Mulcair - are also the first ones to shit on him when given the chance.

This is not what I've read AT ALL. What I've seen are references to a couple of specific reporters--namely Andrew Coyne and Brian Lilley--that Mulcair has taken on in a way that was unflattering to them and unlikely to make them his pals. Never that there's a general dislike for the man amongst the press. I suspect a lot of MPs have specific reporters they don't get along with.

My support is not based on swing theory or what ever that is, my support for Mulcair is based on:

A) My repect for his record as a whole.

B) His roll in May 2.

C) His debating skills and the versitility he has shown in this area.

D) His smarts and expertise in whatever file he's been given.

E) He's really popular in Quebec and given his enviromental record will be in BC in time and other enviromentalist friendly regions, like many metropolitian areas. Also he has lived in Winnipeg for two years so he probably has some understanding of the praire's. His popularity in Quebec will help with Ontario as well and the fact he plans to invest alot of attention to the Maritimes will help with that region well.

F) His strong reputation and record will help protect him from liberal and conservative attacks.

G) His charm, its more then an accident of birth that makes him so popular in Quebec, and it being a personality trait means with time it is transferable to other regions.

H) His government and house leader experience as well as his ability to master his files will aid him in using the talent in Cacus and outside it to maxium advantage.

I) When the NDP decides to change the constitution his previous experience in changing one will be an asset. Legal and Constitutional experise is something he shares with Saganash.

J) He supported many of the same position as his fellow hopefuls, so that signals to me that he's not really a centralist, but rather has an air of being a centralism aka selling his positions as being centralist which will help sell it to those deluted fools that believe in the mush absolute middle.

K) His talk about about moving the centre to us hints at updating the industrial era lingo of the Socialist/Social Democrats to something fits the information age and how real people talk. (side note I've felt for a long time that the idealogies of the left, Socialism/Social Democracts need to be updated to reflect the information age we are in and the one that will emerge in time, but that is for another thread)

L) His couragous choice in running for the NDP instead of an easier route to power shows his guts, his willingness to fight for what he believes.

M) As does his fight with the Premier of Quebec on behalf of both the enviroment and the fair application of the law.

N) He was fighting the federal liberals even as a minister in Quebec, see his comments on Stephen Dion's performance as enviroment minister, which was very sad in comparsion,to Mulcair.

O) Quebec politics is a cunning, dangerous and wily challenge honning Mulcair's street smarts.

P) Having been in a Quebec government he has greater familarity with how a pharmacare plan, Childcare plan, and other progressive Quebec inniatives work, even if he was not the minister responsible he has greater exposer to it.

Q) He has run a departmental budget, giving him experience in dealing with budgets.

R) He has union experience which he can draw on, but he's not blind to the flaws unions can possess as well. Also his union experience was with a Quebec union which will give him an edge on building bridges with the Quebec Unions which currently support the Bloc.

S) He can get under an oppentants skin, while staying calm, which I saw him do on QP to Goodale. An enraged and baited opponet is one that makes mistakes.

T) Only Nixon could go to China. While Mulcair maybe excessively pro Isreal, if he does spank Isreal over something or push for something for Palestians they will far more likely take iy,seriously then if Topp or Nash said or did it and he has shown a willingness to take Isreal to task in the past.

U) He can multitask.

Bonus reason) His acknolwagement of the importance boosting knowledge sector jobs and building the industry for the future.

V) He has experience in multiple critic roles, between his time federally and at the National assembly, including both industry and finance.

W) He has promised to bring back the wheat board.

X) In his time as a leader for an Anglo rights group in Quebec shows a willingness to stand up for a minority group while building bridges between it and the majority.

Y) His time with Ruth Ellen and his defence of the new Quebec MPs im general shows a willingness and ability to both protect and nurture Talent.

Z) He's the deputy leader which shows Jack's faith in his leadership abilities.

Reasons A to Zed why I'm going to choose Mulcair to be leader.

I don't have an issue with rationale discussion about Mulcair's obvious and significant strengths.

I do have an issue with the frankly counterproductive narrative of a couple of Mulcair supporters who consistently present the matter of Mulcair's strength in Quebec as though the rest of us have some obligation to bow the knee to the Great and Mighty Tom.

I'll observe that a couple of idiots tried that in the Saskatchewan leadership race - until senior people on the Link campaign basically told them, "STFU - you aren't helping."

Fact of the matter is that Mulcair is already fairly high on my list - and well placed to move higher.  But Nicky and others should perhaps realize that the blackmail language is not helping their preferred candidate.

(BTW, the earlier comment - now corrected - was supposed to be "Mulcair or Chaos," referencing the Liberal narrative from an election in the 1930s.)

I'll also note that in 2009 the SNDP steamrollered into choosing the candidate deemed most electable.  You may want to look into how that worked out.