NDP leadership 57

Gee Winston, I note that the use of age to diss one candidate is reasonable but the mention of age to express a realistic concern about another candidate (perhaps your preferred candidate?) is "BS."

We aren't talking about an incumbent party leader leading the party into another election at 64.  We're talking about the prospect of a brand new party leader first leading her party into an election at 64.  I'm quite sure we'd still need her and still feed her at 64, but I doubt she's hoping to lead the party through only one election.

You are quite welcome to decide that a 72 year old Peggy Nash leading the NDP into her third campaign in 2023 is a non-issue.  I am equally entitled to say that it is a matter of concern at several levels - including electability.

Boy though, you boomers really do get sensitive about age.

I agree with everything Duncan has written, but I feel like I could say much the same about almost any candidate in the race.

Different emphasis on different points, of course, but nothing exceptional by the standards of this race except that Nash checks off a lot of traditional NDP criteria to an exceptional degree.

Truly exceptional person by any normal standard, certainly, but the standard is higher in this race.

AnonymousMouse, please nte that I conceded upfront that the issue of age played out differently for 29 year old Ashton than for 60 year old Nash.  It is the same issue but it isn't.

That said, while the Schreyer point does not prove anything of itself, I think it's a bit of rose-coloured hindsight to describe Schreyer as a giant.  We may see him as a giant today.  He was no giant in 1969.  And while his ten years in public office were an advantage in some respects, it was ten years of being an opposition member with no prior responsible job experience to point to either.

I think Winston's claim that we're only looking to "two majority governments" is beyond silly.  None of us know if any of these candidates will actually beat Stephen Harper in 2015 - and while I think any of them could, that's an entirely different estimation.  I'm not prepared to make decisions based on wishes and wants.  If we lose in 2015 and the same leader takes us into 2019, there will be a significant expectation from the electorate that our leader would serve through at least one more full term. 

Perhaps you should take a leaf from AnonymousMouse's last comment and instead of throwing a temper tantrum, offering up some reasonable assurance that her age at subsequent elections won't be an electoral liability.

Speaking of which, I'd agree with posters upthread that age - at both ends - is probably a harder issue for women.  However, I think any 68 year old seeking a first term as PM ( a very relaistic outcome if Nash wins) would face some electoral challenges regardless of sex.

Malcolm wrote:

Gee Winston, I note that the use of age to diss one candidate is reasonable but the mention of age to express a realistic concern about another candidate (perhaps your preferred candidate?) is "BS."

Gee, Malcolm, you seem to have missed most of thread 56 where I was trying to quell OnTheLeft's shall we say "over-exuberant" promotion of Peggy Nash.

On the contrary, Peggy is pretty low on my list right now, while your candidate is pretty high.  I still think that either Brian or Tom would make the best choice for leader, but Niki and Nathan both are impressing me immensely.

Malcolm wrote:

We aren't talking about an incumbent party leader leading the party into another election at 64.  We're talking about the prospect of a brand new party leader first leading her party into an election at 64.  I'm quite sure we'd still need her and still feed her at 64, but I doubt she's hoping to lead the party through only one election.

You are quite welcome to decide that a 72 year old Peggy Nash leading the NDP into her third campaign in 2023 is a non-issue.  I am equally entitled to say that it is a matter of concern at several levels - including electability.

I doubt that she would seek a third mandate, after having governed for 8 solid years - she would hand over the reins to one of the many capable younger voices she had mentored and developed (on this one point, I agree with Duncan - Peggy would recognize the strengths in her caucus), so we would be seeking a third mandate with...I don't know, PM Leslie? PM Ashton, PM Cullen?

If she were to lose in 2015, she'd be out.  Granted, if we selected a younger leader, we may be able to tolerate losing the 2015 election (as long as we maintain our position), but so what.

Malcolm wrote:

Boy though, you boomers really do get sensitive about age.

For f*ck's sake, I'm barely older than Niki!  I was born in 1979 (the last year to qualify as Generation X, as I understand it).  I still listen to Nirvana.

I really don't want to be harping on Nash this much--she is very high on my own ballot--but it's the fact that I think a lot of her supporters are backing her precisely because they think she's best at "bridging the gap between movement and party" that really terrifies me.

I really don't want Harper to win a fourth mandate. It scares me. And to stop him, we have to bridge the gap between the party and the country, not the movement and the party.

Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive, but I think the movement has to realize that the party is a party as much the party can't expect the movement to just be a bunch of water carriers for its interests. If instead you make "being of the movement" your decisive criteria in choosing a leader, you're marginalizing yourself with the vast majority of Canadians who aren't part of any political movement.

And, besides, the "movement" tends to respond best to leaders who stick to their principles but also manage to WIN ELECTIONS rather than those who prove they're "one of us".

Well Winston, I think we should be electing a leader who would still be in a position to lead us in 2019 precisely because there's no guarantee we will win in 2015.  And if a candidate first becomes PM in 2019, we probably need to accept the likelihood of that leader taking us into 2023. 

It's not "BS."  It's a legitimate concern.

I think electing a leader who would step aside following a non-collapse election loss in 2015 to be strategically and tactically bizarre.

Thus I think that we have to consider the prospect that whoever we elect may well be leading the party in 2023 (and for a bit afterwards).

Peggy Nash will be 72 in 2023.  That isn't a disqualification, certainly, but it is a concern.  I think it's a legitimate concern.

I don't think it's decisive (of itself) - like some candidates' weakness in French.

But I think it's foolish not to bear it in mind.

Malcolm wrote:

Ottawa Observer, in addition to the fact that Ruth-Ellen was recovering a language previously spoken, it should be noted that she has been able largely to live in immersion for the past six months.  Paul, in the meantime, is running a national campaign and spending more of his time in English Canada with English speaking audiences.

But here's hoping.  If the francopunditocracy start telling me Dewar's French is up to snuff, I'll put him back on my ballot.

The second best part of the leadership campaign for me, after watching all the lefties citing the right-wing media in favour of their candidates, Malcolm, is watching you cite all the Liberal apologists like Don MacPherson, and give them arbiter status over who should lead your party. ;-)

A Quebecker friend of mine today was telling me that what they appreciate is someone who is learning french and speaking it to say things that are relevant in that culture and society. Anyways, we'll know enough to make judgements with by March 24.

Hmm.  In browsing Mulcair's site, I found an article from Le Journal de Montreal, which states, "Faith in socialist doctrine is as important to the NDP as faith in Québec independence may be to the Parti Québécois.  Mulcair landed in the NDP in 2007....However, he fully endorsed the PLQ’s 2003 platform which set-out to re-engineer the apparatus of government to reduce its size, commit fully to public-private partnerships (P3s), make more room for private health, etc. Such policies are blasphemy to orthodox New Democrats."

Yuck.  I think that blows it for me as far as giving Mulcair a high ranking.

Malcolm wrote:

Peggy Nash will be 72 in 2023.  That isn't a disqualification, certainly, but it is a concern.  I think it's a legitimate concern.

I don't think it's decisive (of itself) - like some candidates' weakness in French.

But I think it's foolish not to bear it in mind.

I just don't know why you would want to focus so much on an issue that, by your own admission, is not "decisive", when there are other concerns with Nash's candidacy that are.  Moreover, while I as a 32-year-old am not offended by your suspicion that 72 might be a little too old to be a politician, perhaps all of the Boomers who recently lost their life's savings in markets that were run like casinos and now face the prospect of having to work into their 70s will be greatly offended.  I don't think that your narrative is helping your candidate amongst a demographic that represents the majority of Canadians and members.

I don't give two hoots how old Peggy is.  The reason I am doubtful of her candidacy is that she doesn't inspire me; what Duncan calls "quiet perseverence" I call flat delivery.  I recognize that a lot of people really love Peggy and find her inspiring, but while I am open to being convinced otherwise, I have seen little myself to explain how they are inspired.  I just don't think she can possibly win in 2015, and for me that's decisive.

mark_alfred wrote:

Hmm.  In browsing Mulcair's site, I found an article from Le Journal de Montreal, which states, "Faith in socialist doctrine is as important to the NDP as faith in Québec independence may be to the Parti Québécois.  Mulcair landed in the NDP in 2007....However, he fully endorsed the PLQ’s 2003 platform which set-out to re-engineer the apparatus of government to reduce its size, commit fully to public-private partnerships (P3s), make more room for private health, etc. Such policies are blasphemy to orthodox New Democrats."

Yuck.  I think that blows it for me as far as giving Mulcair a high ranking.

Kind of a misleading article - since he ran as a member of the PLQ, it counts as tacit approval of all of their platform.  As has been explained already ad nauseum, Québec politics is polarized on federalist-sovereignist lines, not left-right lines.  If you're a federalist, you're a Liberal; if you're a sovereignist, you're a péquiste.  Both parties have members that range from right-wing pricks (Charest, Bouchard) to social democrats (Lévesque, Mulcair).  The first membership card Tom Mulcair ever carried was an NDP card back in the 70s, and I think the fact that he ran for us in 2007 in Québec proves where his loyalties are.  Just because Buzz Hargrove supported Paul Martin in 2004 and 2006 does not make Peggy Nash a Liberal either.

mark_alfred wrote:

After reading on his site of his support for P3s and more private health-care, Mulcair has just dropped from a definite #2 (and I was contemplating #1) to #8 as far as my rankings go.  So, unless something changes, Topp #1 and Nash #2, then the rest and then Mulcair.

You're talking about a Quebecor article on his site that CLAIMS he supports those things even though he has consistently argued against P3s and private healthcare.

mark_alfred wrote:

After reading on his site of his support for P3s and more private health-care, Mulcair has just dropped from a definite #2 (and I was contemplating #1) to #8 as far as my rankings go.  So, unless something changes, Topp #1 and Nash #2, then the rest and then Mulcair.

 

Regardless of where the article came from (a Canoe/Quebecor publication), Mulcair himself included this on his website.  It's leading me to some serious reconsiderations.

I'm starting to think OnTheLeft and mark_alfred are "agents" of Mulcair's opponents in the race lol Both are "Mulcair is great but then I found this..."

Mulcair does NOT support more private health care. Period. He supports a publicly funded system. He also strongly supports a national prescription drug coverage program and a national childcare program.

I agree though... odd for whoever in the campaign put that out there. It's an opinion piece that is inaccurate. I think it had more to do with Mulcair having the "instinct of the fox".

There are sure a lot of nighthawks on Babble.

I may not be posting too frequently over the holidays for personal reasons.

I would like to say that regardless of the occasional acrimony expressed here, and the invasion of some obvious trolls, Babble is still the best vantage point to observe the leadership race, apart from actually being in the trenches. I have come to value and look forward to the views of so many of you, even you Malcolm.

Best wishes of the season to everyone.

I liked this. A lot.

Repeating it because with so many posts so quickly, I'm sure things get lost.

ottawaobserver wrote:

And what was this business of [Nash] bragging to Barbara Yaffe that unlike Brian she wouldn't raise taxes, Duncan? It just sounds like the lefties get a bit of mainstream media attention for their preferred candidate and go all soft all of a sudden.

I want to hear about specifically how we are going to beat the Conservatives and win the next election, according to the leadership candidates. That involves policy, positioning, framing, targetting, building up an organization, and not tearing down the one that's been built this far, and having someone who can understand all that, and still be a great communicator, and top notch negotiator.

Admittedly that's a tall order, but it's what we had from Jack. 

Every specific item touched on here is essential to me.

Should be obvious that Topp covers them all. But I will look at any candidate all the more, to the degree even, that they make the importance of these points clear in the message they deliver to us.

That is not what we have heard so far.

Dewar, Mulcair and Nash that I know of have distanced themselves. Or more than distanced.

Brian Glennie wrote:

Its just my feeling but I believe the NDP is going nowhere if we elect a leader who is unable to generate excitement and passion for change.

Like all the passion and excitement around Dexter that got the NDP to a strong majority in Nova Scotia.

And all that passion and charisma emenating from Stephen Harper that got him into the Prime Minister's seat.

oldgoat wrote:

Anyway, let's try to deal with substance and get away from the whole "shill" thing.  

This means I'll have to rework my entire approach for the new year.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

After reading on his site of his support for P3s and more private health-care, Mulcair has just dropped from a definite #2 (and I was contemplating #1) to #8 as far as my rankings go.  So, unless something changes, Topp #1 and Nash #2, then the rest and then Mulcair.

 

Regardless of where the article came from (a Canoe/Quebecor publication), Mulcair himself included this on his website.  It's leading me to some serious reconsiderations.

I'm starting to think OnTheLeft and mark_alfred are "agents" of Mulcair's opponents in the race lol Both are "Mulcair is great but then I found this..."

Mulcair does NOT support more private health care. Period. He supports a publicly funded system. He also strongly supports a national prescription drug coverage program and a national childcare program.

I agree though... odd for whoever in the campaign put that out there. It's an opinion piece that is inaccurate. I think it had more to do with Mulcair having the "instinct of the fox".

And as for the P3 bit...his videos show him thimbs down on the Champlain Bridge proposal. Commuters should not have to pay to go to work, in his view.

Just to clarify...objections to the support provided by the NDP to the bombing of Libya are now being referred to as an obsession with 'purity?'

It took a world war, the subsequent exhaustion of an Empire, and civil disobedience conducted on a massive scale to finally deliver India from the clutches of British imperialism.

nicky wrote:

There are sure a lot of nighthawks on Babble.

I may not be posting too frequently over the holidays for personal reasons.

I would like to say that regardless of the occasional acrimony expressed here, and the invasion of some obvious trolls, Babble is still the best vantage point to observe the leadership race, apart from actually being in the trenches. I have come to value and look forward to the views of so many of you, even you Malcolm.

Best wishes of the season to everyone.

I'd like to second that sentiment...in a few days I will be going to southern Africa for a few weeks of r and r (and a chance to learn more about the legacy of South African apartheid!) and will miss much the action here - though my interventions may pop up now and then if I find any internet cafes in the Kalahari desert!

Happy Saturnalia!

Winston wrote:

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!  

Just the CAW? What about other unions? 

Winston wrote:

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!  

If it makes you feel better, as far as company kept goes, Buzz campaigned for her Liberal incumbent oppenent in Peggy's first victory.

ottawaobserver wrote:

Duncan's blurb is not helping me either. The fact (and maybe Peggy shouldn't wear this herself) that the first item on a list of strategic assets is "knowing what question to kick off Question Period with" is deeply concerning to me. If that's the extent of a putative leader's strategic political judgement, we will never pull off what needs to be accomplished to get over the top. In fact, it makes me think we need a Topp to go over the top.

And what was this business of her bragging to Barbara Yaffe that unlike Brian she wouldn't raise taxes, Duncan? It just sounds like the lefties get a bit of mainstream media attention for their preferred candidate and go all soft all of a sudden.

I want to hear about specifically how we are going to beat the Conservatives and win the next election, according to the leadership candidates. That involves policy, positioning, framing, targetting, building up an organization, and not tearing down the one that's been built this far, and having someone who can understand all that, and still be a great communicator, and top notch negotiator.

Admittedly that's a tall order, but it's what we had from Jack.

I agree.  I look at the polititical landscape.  Assuming most current ridings are held, there are about 60ish, mostly Conservative seats that have to be won in order for us to acheive government.  I want nothing less.  Tall order, but I'm a bit tired of poetic victories.  A goodly portion are in rural Canada.  An area we as a party, until Jack recognized the problem and began taking a few steps, we have traditionally ignored over the last couple of decades.  I am looking for someone who understands we have to build capacity and winning campaigns in these types of ridings as they are the difference between which side of the house we sit on.  

 And let me give all of the campaigns a hint- it won't be done when the moment you are asked about rural issues you start talking about bringing back the long gun registry and ignore all of the issues rural Canadians are facing.  Wrong answer.

Newfoundlander_Labradorian wrote:

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?

Parkdale-High Park has never been an NDP stronghold, and we only won it very recently. Nash and DiNovo (Provincially) have been instrumental to that success. And that success has contributed to the growth of the party throughout Toronto.

Winning over the majority of her riding? The 47.02% she got in the last election is great, not a majority I admit. But Peggy has had the best showing in the riding for the NDP in history, and the closest any NDPer came to her success was in 1979, when we only got 23.5%. I think it's a bit of stretch to say that winning a majority in your riding is a criteria for being leader.