NDP leadership 57

I haven't seen the debates (I just have dial-up), but I remember Cullen from pushing the Climate Accountability Act in committee, which seemed impressive (at least I think it was Cullen).  Yeah, I'm a bit leery to support him given the joint nomination idea.

Regarding Mulcair, I too am a bit curious what is behind Broadbent's and Romanow's quick search for an alternative with Topp.  I've always liked Topp's articles in the Globe (Second Reading) but I've also always thought that Mulcair seemed pretty impressive.  Does anyone have any idea what is behind Broadbent and Romanow's action?

In all seriousness, Nash has had a tough enough time winning her own seat and doesn't have a great track record at it. If she can't win over a majority of her riding after 7 years how does she expect to win over the country in less then 4?

@ma

Favours owing from decades of faithful work in the trenches? I'm sure you are not going to hear an up-front explanation given...but gosh, wouldn't it ever be a barn-burner if it happened? And wouldn't Steve's propaganda machine drool as it recorded every sordid detail? If such exists?

Naw, let's keep digging for fact.

Nash has run four times, she won twice and lost twice. Great record!

As well Kennedy is not my boy, however you seem like you'd be more of a Lorne Gershuny supporter then a Nash supporter.

It was inevitable that Peggy Nash would start to get a full vetting. A lot of her campaign to this point has been hyper-boosterism by her young and exuberant supporters, and gushing by her older ones. As irritating as it's been, that's not her fault (though it's not helping).

She has some differences in policy and approach from the other candidates, which are worth exploring. And she has some traits, or some people think she does, which might or might not make her suitable for the job. It's as sexist to give the men a rough ride and not the women, as it would be the other way around.

Surely we can have a non-hyperventilating discussion along those lines.

OnTheLeft wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

Nash has run four times, she won twice and lost twice. Great record!

As well Kennedy is not my boy, however you seem like you'd be more of a Lorne Gershuny supporter then a Nash supporter.

Her riding was a Liberal stronghold. She lost close elections in 2004 and 2008.

And you seem just like an outright Liberal shill.

And you seem just like an outright commie shill. 

ottawaobserver wrote:

It was inevitable that Peggy Nash would start to get a full vetting. A lot of her campaign to this point has been hyper-boosterism by her young and exuberant supporters, and gushing by her older ones. As irritating as it's been, that's not her fault (though it's not helping).

She has some differences in policy and approach from the other candidates, which are worth exploring. And she has some traits, or some people think she does, which might or might not make her suitable for the job. It's as sexist to give the men a rough ride and not the women, as it would be the other way around.

Surely we can have a non-hyperventilating discussion along those lines.

Hear, hear!

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

And you seem just like an outright commie shill. 

Well, this is a left-wing discussion board. And it's rather ironic that a contributor to a left-wing discussion board would attempt to besmirch another contributor by using the term "commie," something that right-wingers and moderates are usually more prone to. 

OnTheLeft wrote:

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

And you seem just like an outright commie shill. 

Well, this is a left-wing discussion board. And it's rather ironic that a contributor to a left-wing discussion board would attempt to besmirch another contributor by using the term "commie," something that right-wingers and moderates are usually more prone to. 

It's a little ironic that your party's best hope of forming government is by persuading Liberals to your party yet you bash me, someone who has never supported a Liberal before, for being a Liberal. 

mark_alfred wrote:

I've noticed that some have criticized Nash's site as not having enough concrete policy pronouncements on it.  Admittedly, when I checked her site, I found it difficult to find policy pronouncements (I think they might be buried in the news releases.)  However, I found this was also the case with Mulcair's site.  There was a lot about him, but very little policy pronouncements that I could find.  If someone knows where these are on his site, and could provide a link for me, I would appreciate it.

I know in the case of Mulcair, policy statements will be announced in the new year.

ottawaobserver wrote:

It was inevitable that Peggy Nash would start to get a full vetting. A lot of her campaign to this point has been hyper-boosterism by her young and exuberant supporters, and gushing by her older ones. As irritating as it's been, that's not her fault (though it's not helping).

She has some differences in policy and approach from the other candidates, which are worth exploring. And she has some traits, or some people think she does, which might or might not make her suitable for the job. It's as sexist to give the men a rough ride and not the women, as it would be the other way around.

Surely we can have a non-hyperventilating discussion along those lines.

How is it not helping?

Winston wrote:

Indeed when I look at examples of successful women politicians (Helen MacDonald, Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto, etc), they seem to be the ones that best played the "man's game".

 

Helen MacDonald? You must mean Clark...? lol

RevolutionPlease wrote:

This is embarassing for the NDP and the left. And if someone looks like a Liberal, don't engage the bait.

????  Huh  ????

With regard to On the Left's outrage on the last thread:

OTL, you are entitled to your opinions.  You are not entitled to your own facts.

Tommy Douglas ran an activist government, but he also ran a government that was very focussed on the principle of balancing budgets - even though it took nearly all his time as premier to clean up the mess bequeathed by four decades of Libservative incompetence and corruption.

Far to many people "on the left" of the NDP like to forget Douglas's commitment to fiscal responsibility and to ignore his oft-stated maxim that you cannot stand on your feet with a banker on your back.  Tommy knew - and you bloody ought to know - that uncontrolled deficits constitute a massive transfer of wealth from the public purse to the hands of the wealthiest classes.

Finally, no one with even the slightest knowledge of Medicare in Saskatchewan would argue that Douglas introduced Medicare in 1946.  He offered support to an experimental program in the Swift Current area, but that experiment was initiated by local activists and municipal governments, not by Douglas and the CCF government.  It built on other local and regional health initiatives in various parts of the province dating back to 1916 - when Tommy Douglas was a boy of 12.

While a hospital insurance plan was passed in 1946 and implemented in 1947, Medicare was not introduced until July of 1962 - which led immediately to a strike by most of the province's doctors.  Tommy, in the meantime, was off to lead the New Party in Ottawa, so it really isn't propoer to say that Tommy introduced Medicare at all.  It was Woodrow Lloyd that did the heavy lifting.

So, if you want to use the icons of Saskatchewan prairie socialism to bolster your talking points, could you at least make some effort to get the facts straight?

Winston wrote:

Though she is not supporting Peggy, she lamented that there seemed to be no room in modern politics for people who communicate differently than A-personality males. She argued that Nash and Saganash (her examples) could never succeed in the federal leadership arena, especially against Harper, because our politics are only designed for combat rather than consensus. She made a rather convincing argument that it is the domination of politics by this type of discourse that encourages the disenfranchisement of women, young people, aboriginals, etc.

I agree. And it's a sad state of affairs.

Sadly, I also think electing the first NDP Prime Minister, the first female* or aboriginal Prime Minister and to do so with a campaign that simultaneous attempts to transform the entire communications culture of modern politics itself would be nigh on impossible.

Any one of the three would be difficult. Any two would be incredibly difficult. All three? I don't think so.

On the other hand, I don't know that Nash, Ashton or Saganash actually have to do the third. They don't have to be the absolute "Alpha Male" to fit into people's generally frame of reference for political leadership.

(*Elect the first elected female Prime Minister to be precise.)

CanadaApple wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

It was inevitable that Peggy Nash would start to get a full vetting. A lot of her campaign to this point has been hyper-boosterism by her young and exuberant supporters, and gushing by her older ones. As irritating as it's been, that's not her fault (though it's not helping).

She has some differences in policy and approach from the other candidates, which are worth exploring. And she has some traits, or some people think she does, which might or might not make her suitable for the job. It's as sexist to give the men a rough ride and not the women, as it would be the other way around.

Surely we can have a non-hyperventilating discussion along those lines.

How is it not helping?

Rah-rah boosterism works for student council president (and likely many positions in the Young Liberals of Canada). One would think that when selecting the first federal NDP Leader who could become prime minister, we might be able to focus on the more serious criteria. It's not working with me, anyways. The more I see people retweet giddy protestations of awesome love for their candidate, the more I need to reach for the Pepto-bismal and despair that this is the way most people would make their decisions.

The issue of Peggy Nash's age has come up a couple of times, but gotten very little attention.  Personally, I'm inclined to think that if one candidate's age (Ashton's) is a legitimate issue, then it's just as legitimate an issue for Nash.

Of course, the way age is an issue plays out differently for the two female candidates (who coincidentally happen to be the oldest and youngest).  Ashton is pilloried for having no meaningful experience - though she likely has broader experience that Ed Schreyer did when he became Premier of Manitoba at the same age Ashton will be at the next general election.

With Nash, it's different.  No one is prepared to argue that 60 is too old to lead the party into an election or to be Prime Minister.  Heck, she wouldn't even be the oldest federal leader we've elected.  And she is one year younger than Jack Layton, who we mostly thought at least might be leading us into the election in 2014.

But here's the thing: unlike the United States, parties don't choose their leader (presidential nominee) for one election or one electoral cycle.  Plus, no US presidential nominee will (normally) lead their party into more than two campaigns four years apart.

ILP-CCF-NDP leaders, historically, have been around a little longer than that, and led their party through multiple elections.  For two of our most successful federal leaders (Broadbent and Layton) it took several elections for them to reach their fullest potential.

• JS Woodsworth - 6 elections - 21 years - he became leader of the Independent Labour Party in 1921 and was leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation at the time of his death in 1942.
• ML Coldwell - 5 elections - 18 years - he became leader on the death of Woodsworth (though he'd been de facto leader from 1939) and stepped down at the last CCF convention in 1960 (although Hazen Argue had effectively taken over most of the responsibilities of the leadership in 1958)
• HR Argue - 0 elections - 1 year - he became leader at the 1960 convention (although he'd been de facto leader from 1958) and was defeated by Douglas at the New Party founding convention in 1961.
• TC Douglas - 4 elections - 10 years - from the New Party founding convention in 1961 until he stepped down in 1971.
• David Lewis - 2 elections - 4 years - from the 1971 leadership convention until he stepped down in 1975.
• JE Broadbent - 4 elections -14 years - from the 1975 convention until he stepped down in 1989.
• Audrey McLaughlin - 1 election - 6 years - from the 1989 covention until she stepped down in 1995.
• Alexa Mc Donough - 2 elections - 7 years - from the 1995 convention until she stepped down in 2003.
• GJ Layton - 4 elections - 8 years - from the 2003 convention until his death in 2011.

That's nine leaders over 90 years - an average of ten years per leader - including Argue's footnoted curiosity of one year.  It's also an average of three elections per leader.

Now, Jack Layton would have been 65 had he been leading us into the 2015 election.  But realistically, I'm not sure how many of us were convinced that was going to happen enyway, even before we know about his health.  And few of us would have thought that Layton would be leading us into the 2019 election at 69.

So, given that we normally elect leaders for at least two election cycles, the question about Peggy isn't so much "is she too old at 60 in 2012?" as "will she be too old at 68 in 2019? or "will she be too old at 72 in 2023?"

One so far uncommitted New Democrat of my acquaintance commented that the unfortunate thing about this race was that Niki Ashton isn't five years older and Peggy Nash isn't five years younger.

Women live longer than men, so Nash being 60 is no problem with me.

On the Left - There is a difference between being progressive and increasing social spending.  They aren't the same thing.  (In fact, over time at least, effective progressive policy will often decrease the need for particular types of human services spending).  But however you cut it, Medicare was not introduced in 1946 and saying it was . . . does not enhance the credibility of your posts.

Mark - Nash being 60 is not an issue with me either.  Nor is Nash being 64 at the next election.  Nash being 68 in the (notional) 2019 election starts to become an issue and Nash being 72 at the (notional) 2023 election becomes a serious matter.  I don't know about you, but I'm not looking to elect an interim leader.

Malcolm wrote:

Mark - Nash being 60 is not an issue with me either.  Nor is Nash being 64 at the next election.  Nash being 68 in the (notional) 2019 election starts to become an issue and Nash being 72 at the (notional) 2023 election becomes a serious matter.  I don't know about you, but I'm not looking to elect an interim leader.

Jean Chretien was 59 in 1993, 63 in 1997, 66 in 2000, and 69 when he retired.

Mackenzie King was 74 when he left office as PM (and this was back when the male life expentency was in the mid 60s).

Louis St. Laurent was 75 when he retired.

Michael Ignatieff was 64 when he contested his first election this year.  He lost for many reasons, but I doubt age was one of them.

Hazel McCallion turned 90 this year and is still ruling Mississauga with an iron fist!

Cut the BS.

Doug wrote:

My worry with Peggy Nash, completely aside from her personal qualities, is that she makes it entirely too easy to turn the next election into a referendum about whether the CAW should run the country. That's probably not a game the NDP can win.

I admit that the CAW (esp. Buzz Hargrove) link is off-putting to me as well...but you can`t always judge people by the company they keep!  

Malcolm wrote:

On the Left - There is a difference between being progressive and increasing social spending.  They aren't the same thing.  (In fact, over time at least, effective progressive policy will often decrease the need for particular types of human services spending).  But however you cut it, Medicare was not introduced in 1946 and saying it was . . . does not enhance the credibility of your posts.

Yes I should have been more specific with the Saskatchewan Hospitalization Act and the Old Age Pension Plan.  

I don't think Nash's age matters, but Malcolm makes a fair point that one can't simply think about the next election. I also think the sad fact of the matter may be that it would be harder for an older woman to get elected than an older man like Chretien or Martin. But I don't really care about that. I don't think it'll be that important a factor even if it is the case and I'm inclined to ignore such sexism to the greatest degree possible.

But I don't think the comparison to Ashton is a fair parallel. The reason youth is such a hindrance is because it usually reflects a lack of experience. I've repeatedly written that I like Niki Ashton a lot. The Cullen/Ashton/Leslie leadership race of 2023 will be a barn burner. But I don't think serious criticism of Ashton's lack of experience compared to other candidates can be chalked up to any combination of sexism and ageism.

Let's take Malcolm's oft used counter example of Ed Schreyer.

Schreyer was first elected to public office 10 years before he became leader as opposed to Ashton who was elected four years ago. Schreyer had been elected both as an MLA and as an MP, but returned to provincial politics. Schreyer was running for Premier, not Prime Minister. And the NDP was the third place party when Schreyer got elected leader (though admittedly it was a near three way tie in the legislature).

Now, I wasn't around to watch 1903--sorry, 1968--Manitoba leadership race, but I also imagine that Ashton's got stiffer competition now than Schreyer did 43 years ago.

Not to mention, Schreyer was a giant. Exception that proves the rule anyone?

Ashton's age and gender do come into the equation in so far as if she looked and sounded older it might cover her age and provoke fewer questions about her experience, but that's not ageism or sexism. If her campaign could answer questions about her age by saying "she's been a provincial and federal office holder for ten years" that would be pretty effective. But they can't.

I think rather than challenge complaints about Ashton's age/experience with complaints about ageism/sexism, her supporters (not only Malcolm) would be better off to say "Look at what good it did for the party that Pierre Ducasse got 4.6% of the vote in 2002; you can always support Mulcair as your second choice".

Whoops. I meant they could say that you can always support one of the other fine candidates as your second choice--whoever that may be :)--but you get the picture.

(I will admit it is a little hard to restrain yourself when people are saying she should drop out of the race, but the same argument works either way. Not everybody has to be running to win.)

As far as I can see the Nash campaign is doing well, despite a late start. It has attracted lots of volunteers, many of them in their early twenties, and lots of fine policy people from my generation 65 plus, and younger. Better to have those than not, I would say, gushing in support or not.

It is a campaign. Meet and greet matters. In the NDP, people do not wait for the mainstream media to tell them how to vote. Meeting people from dawn to late at night is the way political figures in leadership positions operate. Peggy has been meeting people all day since her days as a ticket agent at Air Canada right after her honours French degree from UofT. She likes people, and generally they like her. She makes connections very well like all skilled politicians do. She, Dewar, Ashton, Cullen, Sagnash, Singh, and former candidate Chisolm all work hard at talking to people.

Small groups matter, Peggy does those well because she knows the issues and can discuss them. Topp does well in that atmosphere, as does Mulcair.

Mulcair owns the platform, he is a star. In partisan debate he is superb. Peggy can give a great speech, as she did from the floor at the 20002 Winnipeg Convention in support of the New Politics Initiative, which is where she caught Jack's attention. Her strength is going out and connecting activist concerns to NDP issues, bridging the gap between movement and party.

The ability to lead the party is not dependent on any of the above, though the ability to win the race requires all the above skills. Leaders need to inspire confidence in their ability, bring out the best in others, and exhibt good judgement continously across a range of activities, from choosing a lead-off question in the house from several options, to moving a staff member up to a position of confidence, to dealing with a wounded ego, to facing crisis number five at 10 am.

For me Peggy is the best leadership choice because of what she brings to two tasks. She is the one who can build the party. And she can best present Canadians with an alternative to the Harper tryanny. She is well placed to help the party make the gains we need to make in Ontario and B.C., consolidate the new party base in Quebec, and go on the offensive in the prairie heartland.

She is a woman candidate. That is not normally an advantage in a general election. it will not hurt her in the leadership race, any more than her former life as a union negotiator will be held against her.

The criticism of her candidacy will increase as her prominence grows.

Working on behalf of a candidate you better have a very good idea from the start of what kind of person you are supporting. Character matters. The people who know Peggy best are out working hard on her behalf. She is trusted.

In the NDP, members have high expectations of what is possible, no one wants to be let down. The ability to manage expectations may be her secret weapon in a general election. Quiet strength, no nonsense appeal: "New Democrats know the value of a dollar." it may work better than simply trying to demonize Harper. After all, he might even disappear, you never know.