NDP Leadership 61

V

A lot of us would like to see something besides the passing around of creampuffs in the leadertship 'debates'.

That isnt what national politics is like, it leads to an endless string of 30 second sound bites, and it militates against the candidates defining themselves.

And you would think that with Mulcair out in front- even without anything like a commanding lead- that its a ripe situation. But there is the noted Prisoner's Dilemna: it is in all the other candidates collective interest to scale down Mulcair, but each individual candidate is very likely to take a hit for it, while the other candidates reap any benefits.

One exception I can see. Peggy Nash.

Peggy could use showing some edginess. And I do not see that she in particular would get backlash.

Criticizing other candidates does not need to be off limits in practice. I'd like to see a cost and benefit made that it is healthy and beneficial.

Maybe a bit of relatively safe stuff would open things up.

I'm more interested in someone who can change the rules, which have traditionally benefited aggressive, privileged men in our society, and which have grown poisonously effective in Conservative hands. To be plain about it. I don't think cruel zingers establish the high-point in democratic potential. I believe that, instead, they are part of what has turned off a critical mass of people at election time.

Who is talking about "cruel zingers"? And how likely is it we will go from passing around cream puffs to that? Do you see any of the nastiness in the race- or even a potential for it- of the kind that happens all the time on the national stage and turns people off?

Is anything but passing around cream puffs a display of testosterone?

following on JeffWells:

And for another example. Nash got a lot of marks for her role as Finance Critic. But if you look at the Question Period reparte, it is more like delivering lines [which staff probably provided]... and the delivery has more to do with a university seminar than something like what a Leader has to handle many times in the course of a week.

Since Nash is at least held back somewhat by appearing flat a lot of the time in unscripted situations... what does she have to lose in taking some chances?

The only one who is likely to be able to win this by playing it safe is Mulcair.

When I first started pondering what might happen in this phase of the race, I figured that meant we would start seeing some deliberate break out moves by the candidates. But then I wonder.

if there were more hard news i would not return to the Skinny Dipper poll and the limited lessons we migt draw from it.

On an old scratch pad I wrote down the numbers from Dec. 20:

Nash 588, Dewar 425, Mulcair 421, Ashton 243, Cullen 235, Saganash 145, Topp 140, Chisholm 49, Singh 23.

On the last ballot Nash beat Mulcair with 57.2%

Things have changed markedly. A few minutes ago it was M 766, N 721, D 506, A 327, C 323, T 213, sag 211 and Singh 33. Nash's margin over Mulcair on the last ballot is reuced to 52 to 48%.

But these are cumulative numbers from the beginning of the "poll" perhaps six weeks ago. The difference over the last nine days may be a better measure of momentum (and even where the race stands today) than the overall results. These numbers are

M 345

N 133

D 81

A 84

C 90

T 73

sag 66

Sh 10

It is obvious that Mulcair would win handily on the last ballot if only these votes were counted.

On the first Ballot Mulcair leads Nash by about 40 to 15 %. For what it is worth, this is fairly similar to the Angus Reid poll, so widely deprecated here. The relative order of the others is similar as well

The point has been made that a high proportion of Dewar's voters do not make a choice bewteen M and N on the last ballot. It is suggested this is because D's second preferences would already have been eliminated.

Not sure about this. There is nothing to prevent them from listing all eight in order in which case their final preferences would register. Also it is not like Dewar is on the extreme of the party such that his supporters would not countenance switching to other candidates.

I suspect it is because a high proportion of D's voters simply plumped for him and made no alternative choices. Early on in this poll D was either leading or in close contention for first.This may have reflected an early campaign among his supporters to slant the count in his favour.

There was a similar phenomenom in the CBC online poll where Dewar had a large, some might say improbable, lead.

Just another reason not to treat these polls too seriously. Anyway, i thought I wd share some of my tinkering so you can draw any conclusions you think merited.

KenS wrote:

Is anything but passing around cream puffs a display of testosterone?

You know, as much as the media hate our "friendly" leadership races, I think the public notices and appreciates the contrast between us and the decidedly mean-spirited, anti-cream puff Tories (not to mention the the hopeless internacine conflict that plagues every Liberal race).  Our party has a set of values - our leadership contestants are all expected to display them (which they do).  Ideological differences amount to shades of orange and the deciding factor comes down to style and delivery.

KenS wrote:

Since Nash is at least held back somewhat by appearing flat a lot of the time in unscripted situations... what does she have to lose in taking some chances?

The only one who is likely to be able to win this by playing it safe is Mulcair.

You really want to see that Nash/Mulcair smashdown, don't you?  Might I suggest a UFC-style battle on a ring lined with cream puffs?

KenS wrote:

There is no debating in the debates. It doesnt have to be a circus, but a good chunk of us are looking for more than differences in delivery style. You can have debates and everyone be respectful.

Since I have many times observed that it is very risky, at best, for an individual candidate to make critical moves... I countered that with the observation that Nash could use that, and is least likely to pay a price. And from that: maybe if someone made a start, we'd have some more actual discussion.

We have only seen one debate so far (the joke of a "town hall" in BC surely doesn't count).  To be fair, I think the organizers did a fantastic job with what they were dealt - a "debate" with nine contestants borders on the absurd.  There are 5 more debates coming up, and I expect them to identify a few more differences between the candidates - I do hope the field narrows a bit more before then.

As to candidates making "critical moves", after the poor reception of Brian Topp's attempt on that front in the first debate, I doubt anyone is going to be attempting to go on the attack.  That's just as well in my view, since I think all it would accomplish is to provide more grist for the Tory hate-machine mill.

I understand that some may be put off by the UFC smackdown between Nash and Mulcair that I extended from your remarks.  May I suggest instead a UFCW smackdown on a bed of cream puffs instead?

My impression is that Mulcair would just like to run down the clock.

For me Mulcair is the default and extremely adequate Plan B.  He'd hold our seats in Quebec, he'd win more seats elsewhere, and I think he could get us a majority.  I think he is ready to take on Harder today, and maybe he is the only one who can say that.  He is quite articulate, has a good grasp of the issues, and has shown that he is a winner.  Lots to like about Mulcair.

But, I don't feel that he has really offered us much beyond that.  Mulcair supporters might be shocked to hear that conclusion.  Hasn't offered us much beyond that?  What more could we possibly want?

I want a leader with a vision for a better country.  I want a leader that inspires me.  I'm open to being inspired by any of the candidates.  I'd love to be inspired by Mulcair--but I am inspired more by imagination and vision than competence.  Sure the competence is a required qualification, as is the French--but the competence isn't what will excite me.

So that's the thing--the other candidates that I see as top-tier/credible, that is Ashton, Nash, Topp, Cullen, and Saganash, I see them having different inspiring strengths.  If any of them can show they have the competence down, well, they'll jump ahead of Mulcair.

Currently I have Ashton first.  I view her youth as a major strength rather than a minor weakness.  I think a younger leader has the most potential to think outside of the box.  I think she has political smarts, is a great speaker, articulate, and can reach out to many diverse demographics.  I understand that she's definitely a riskier choice than Mulcair, in some significant ways, but she's offering me something.

The drawback with Ashton of course is that I think many will not even consider her due to her age.  I hope she can win, and I will donate to her campaign.  Hopefully she will continue to impress in the debates, but she will need to do more than that to win (and I'm not sure what it will take).

From what I see Mulcair is playing a default choice, run out the clock kind of campaign.  And his strength is that he is the "winningest" candidate.  And if nobody else does anything, well sure, he'll be my second choice.

But if Nash can show herself as dynamic and exciting, and sparky, then she'd jump above Mulcair (on my ballot).  In order to do this, she will have to directly challenge Mulcair.

If Topp can show that he's ready for prime time, he'll jump ahead of Mulcair (on my ballot).

If Saganash can show that he's comfortable and confident in an English debate setting, then he could jump above Mulcair (on my ballot).

If Cullen can satisfy Quebeckers with his French, and he can figure out a way to molify concerns about his joint nominations proposal, he could jump above Mulcair (on my ballot).

If the vote were tomorrow, I'd vote Ashton then Mulcair.  Because the rest of the candidates have not demonstrated to me that they have what it takes.  If nobody does, then Mulcair will win.

I think in order to win, the other candidates will have to directly challenge Mulcair as the front runner.  It remains to be seen if anyone is willing to do this.  I don't see that as a strategy that Cullen or Ashton will take, as they are rumoured to support Mulcair on later ballots.  Topp and Saganash need to demonstrate retail skills more than anything, and until they do it's hard to see how they could directly challenge Mulcair.  Nash is the candidate that I think most needs to directly challenge Mulcair.  And I agree with KenS that she's best positioned to do so, as it will also address one of her perceived weaknesses.

So what does Mulcair have to offer other than electability?  And the flip side is, if the rest of the candidates are going to give Mulcair a free ride, does he need to offer anything more?

Gaian wrote:

December 29, 2011 - 3:40am (new)
#97 (permalink).

OO :The other aspect is that that definition of progressive tends to be very very urban, without its proponents apparently realizing how urban it is (or else actively eschewing the legitimacy of a rural perspective).

Back to the concern about Mulcair and centrism - I don't even think it's even the centrism per se that's the sticking point. I think it's that he seems to accept the mainstream frame, promulgated through the MSM and especially CBC and the Toronto Star, about what public perceptions are of the NDP and how we need to defend against them, be afraid of them, fight against them, prove them wrong.

-----------------------

Gosh, OO, I thought that with this opening, your post was going to be the first one to mention "economy", but sadly, it never got past associating centrist with Stephen Harper and Liberals. Just as your discussion of Nash never got past associating her economics with work for a trade union and the historical demand of New Democrats that economics only be associated with the distribution of Capitalist surpluses, either in the earnings of corporations or the balanced budgets of government. That way was the safe way for unions, for instance, that, as we've seen in Oshawa (and elsewhere) economic policy cannot comfortably be seen to diverge too much from the teachings (balanced budget, lower corporate taxe) of wee Jimmy Flaherty.

We can see now, under Harper, how that is working out for the working community, or the community that is unable to find work and will be expected to live out their old age, more and more, while unable to find work.

Any mention of economics that I have seen where an attempt is being made to break this vicious cycle of handout-dependency, has come from the Mulcair camp. But post after post, thread after thread, such meaningful discussion of economics, based on analysis of the bifurcated nature of our economy, exacerbated by the acceptance of globalism by the Cons (not by that old-line Liberal (gasp) Eric Kerans in his 1983 Massey lecture, nothing "economic" is presented. It's personalities and sexual preference, and loyalty to an economics that will meet the same fate as social democracy aqcross Europe.

Einstein was correct in defining insanity as the practise of repeating actions, time after time, while expecting a different outcome.

wz:"So what does Mulcair have to offer other than electability?"

And of course by avoiding the subject of economy, one is driven to ask that question. :)

Been Entering that here from the time he entered the race, and his videos have stressed that. If you have depended on the MSM you will come up short of information, because his position embarrasses the hell out of Cons and Libs and the market. It actually introduces the idea that we have two economies,and an exchange rate with the greenback that has come to be non-competitive for our manufactured goods (in the east) because of it. But don't feel alone in your studious avoidance of the economic differences between Mulcair and others. You won't find rabble any more informative than the MSM.

And if you can find any discussion of economics of any kind in this thread/forum, please let me know.

Yes, no good suggesting that you look over the many instances in which his economic proposals have been mention for some weeks now. And my responses to OO have meant noting. And of corse you haven't bothered to look in on economic discussion in the Nation News thread under Naionalism's virtues over Globalism in the Canadian case, ;put forward by Kierans (and others0 in 1983:

December 27, 2011 - 9:09am
#56 (permalink).

The discussion dates back to the 1970s, and in 1983, when Ronnie Raygun was threatening the "evil empire" and all the rest of us, Eric Kierans came out with a thoughtful work, Globalism and the Nation State, for the CBC Massey Lectures: "Canadian economist and former Liberal cabinet minister Eric Kierans examines the uncertain future facing constitutionally governed nation states whose sovereignty and independence is being threatened by new global military security measures and the ever increasing drive towards global economic integration and interdependence."

People will recall from the days of more integrated Canadian politics in the time of Cold War when Peter Gzowski brought together Kierans, Stephen Lewis and Dalton Camp to ruminate on Canadian and world affairs.

Just about to dial up cbc ideas and the lectures to listen to Kierans deliver this, pre-dating the work of latecomer, J.R.Saul.

December 27, 2011 - 12:26pm
#57 (permalink).

The first hour is a marvelous recapping of events. Kierans spells out the move by the U.S.for hegemony after retiring to lick its wounds from Vietnam in the 60s and 70s.

And he details the Williamsburg agreement in which the G7 had just agreed to move toward inegration of both defence and economies. Globalism = Specialization said Kierans.
Gone is balanced growth. Enter Lyin' Brian the following year.

Canadians can't say they weren't warned."

Not about to regurgitate it all for your benefit here, wz. Doubt it would help much if I did. You have to beyond the rubric of social justice, find interest in the components of social justice, to be interested in economics.

KenS wrote:

On a more general topic...

The reason we can see so little ideological differention among the candidates, is because Dippers are chronically content to take "policy" as the candidates telling us what they like. 

Big surprise: they all tell us that they like all the right things. Wow.

I've had my fill of that.

There are only so many things the NDP can aspire to actually DO- whether we are talking about opposition or governing. We have to priorize and focus among choices. [Or focus on nothing except incremental marginal gains, and get even less.]

So I want to see the candidates tell us what they are commiting to lead us to DO. And some idea of how we are going to do it. No detailed roadmaps required, not even outlines of that. If a candidate can communicate a vision, it will be in there.

And Mulcair has promised to tell us in the New Year about the problem of a bifurcaated Canadian economy, West and East. that he has presented for the attention ofanyone sho gives a fiddler's fart about distinctions in economic policy.

Knock, knock, knock.

Everybody else can summarize without making generalized reference to some big body of work- or what you tell us is that anyway.

ETA: and without referenece to something that is promised later, for which you cannot point out the existing skeleton/outline version.

But if you think it comes down to Mulcair has idenified problems that need looking at, and no one else has.... that is concrete.

Hollowness does represent the full import of your response, Ken. Forunately, Canadians who are better read in the business pages will not have to be led, sentence by sentence, to an an understanding of the above. Mulcair points to the history of the Canadian problem of a bifurcated economy, and the difficulty now for the east with a government in power that refuses to act on monetary policy, the others do not.

Knock, knock, knock. Need help with that? Someone from the east should recognized it as a problem.

The reason we can see so little ideological differentiation among the candidates, is because Dippers are chronically content to take "policy" as the candidates telling us what they like.

Big surprise: they all tell us that they like all the right things. Wow.

I've had my fill of that.

There are only so many things the NDP can aspire to actually DO- whether we are talking about opposition or governing. We have to priorize and focus among choices. [Or focus on nothing except incremental marginal gains, and get even less.]

So I want to see the candidates tell us what they are commiting to lead us to DO. And some idea of how we are going to do it. No detailed roadmaps required, not even outlines of that. If a candidate can communicate a vision, it will be in there.

wage zombie wrote:

There was much discussion in the last thread of Nash's leftist credentials.  I agree with some others that Nash does have this to a greater extent than most of the other candidates, and people are aware of it.  Nash has more front line work with social movements than most of the other candidates, and I'm surprised really that people would argue that.  I think Saganash has a lot of this experience too, certainly approaching Nash, but because the bulk of his work has been in Quebec with First Nations issues people aren't quite as familiar with it as they are with Nash.

Actually, I think we need to take a critical look at this whole "leftist credentials" issue.

Ottawa Observer made a particularly insightful comment in the last thread (copied earlier here by someone else):

Quote:

The other aspect is that that definition of progressive tends to be very very urban, without its proponents apparently realizing how urban it is (or else actively eschewing the legitimacy of a rural perspective).

Frankly, I think there's no small part of urbancentric (maybe even Torontocentric) arrogance to argue that Peggy "obviously" has the strongest "movement" credentials.

The very claim effectively writes off Saganash's entire career simply because his life has been spent dealing with the issues of his people and not with issues (or in ways) that have caught the imagination of latte-sipping leftists in the Annex. 

Ashton and Cullen are criticized for departing from the urban orthodoxy on the long gun registry - an issue where most urban activists clearly have no interest in discovering why even leftist rural folk have had problems with the regulatory regime.  After all we're just dumb hicks out here in Saskatchewan and none of our concerns could possibly be valid in the face of urban unanimity.

(Jack was a rare exception - someone from a large urban area who managed to grasp that the registry was far from perfect and that rural folk had legitimate grievances.)

Gaian wrote:

...but coming to grips with the new capitalism that is controlled by finance capital...making use of worker's own savings to further control them. You wanna retire with some kind of pension buddy? Expect less than you've been getting, etc. etc.

These sort of things constitute issues.  I don't know why you've brought them here to a place where Kim Campbell's golden rule seems to have been applied in both letter and spirit.  By now we'd have to figure with some precision that there will be no answer except for one crafted in consultation with trading partners, business community sponsors and the banks.  It'll likely resemble the same one fingered answer people have been getting everywhere it seems.

Who's George?

FWIW, I personaly am not looking for differentiation between the candidates to be 'ideologicaly based'. And I'm probably no where near alone.

And as a 'subset' of that, I dont give a fig about Nash's lefty creds [or not]. Or anyone elses.

NDP hosts cross-partisan forum Wednesday

Quote:

Penticton's favourite slam poet will join federal political figures in a discussion on cross-partisan co-operation set for next week.

On Wednesday, Jan. 4, NDP leadership candidate Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley) will host Re-think Politics: Bridging the partisan divide to change and build a sustainable economy, a free forum that will cover climate action, electoral reform and cross-partisan co-operation.

Be nice if we could hear some reporting on this.

Malcolm wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

There was much discussion in the last thread of Nash's leftist credentials.  I agree with some others that Nash does have this to a greater extent than most of the other candidates, and people are aware of it.  Nash has more front line work with social movements than most of the other candidates, and I'm surprised really that people would argue that.  I think Saganash has a lot of this experience too, certainly approaching Nash, but because the bulk of his work has been in Quebec with First Nations issues people aren't quite as familiar with it as they are with Nash.

 

Actually, I think we need to take a critical look at this whole "leftist credentials" issue.

Ottawa Observer made a particularly insightful comment in the last thread (copied earlier here by someone else):

Quote:

The other aspect is that that definition of progressive tends to be very very urban, without its proponents apparently realizing how urban it is (or else actively eschewing the legitimacy of a rural perspective).

Frankly, I think there's no small part of urbancentric (maybe even Torontocentric) arrogance to argue that Peggy "obviously" has the strongest "movement" credentials.

The very claim effectively writes off Saganash's entire career simply because his life has been spent dealing with the issues of his people and not with issues (or in ways) that have caught the imagination of latte-sipping leftists in the Annex. 

Ashton and Cullen are criticized for departing from the urban orthodoxy on the long gun registry - an issue where most urban activists clearly have no interest in discovering why even leftist rural folk have had problems with the regulatory regime.  After all we're just dumb hicks out here in Saskatchewan and none of our concerns could possibly be valid in the face of urban unanimity.

(Jack was a rare exception - someone from a large urban area who managed to grasp that the registry was far from perfect and that rural folk had legitimate grievances.)

Thank you Malcolm and OO for the quote I missed in some other thread somewhere.

I like Peggy, a lot- easily top 2 choice for me at this point.  However, I have to say, the 2nd dumbest response to something so far in this race goes to her response on a question about reaching out to rural voters (please someone do the math on the path to government) and she responded by talking about bringing the gun registry back.  It was a slap the forhead time for both of the rural New Democrats in our household. 

I am also given to understand that she was way off the mark in an phone town hall meeting around green energy issues and their impact on rural communities. 

I have worked hard and long to try to educate my more urban brothers and sisters in the NDP in Ontario.  There are days though when I wonder if anyone has been listening.  (Although given the great friends I have made through that process I do in my heart of hearts know that some are).  Far too often our party has talked to rural folks about what we should want from their urban perspective and done very little about asking what it is we actually want.   But I will stop here or there will be a three page rant come on. 

As a side bar I had the pleasure to sit with Jack in a room of rural municipal leaders when the topic of the registry came up.  His lets work this out, instead of not listening approach was successful and they came away with a deeper understanding of each others views in a half hour real conversation than in all the rhetoric I have seen since the day the thing was announced.  Lord I miss him some days.

We all know people who are refusing to support Cullen because of his plan for pre-election cooperation with the Liberals and Greens. We also have at least read about people who are supporting him precisely because of that plan. What I haven't heard, interestingly enough, is people who disagree with him about the plan but are choosing to support him anyway. Does anyone know of anyone who fits into that category (prominent or no)?

Do you mean an understanding of how wealth is created (where the Cons and Libs say they shine) and also how wealth is distributed in the name of social justice, the NDP thing?

Could it be that that is the limit of her knowledge of "rural issues ?"

An interesting question I would like to ask all the leadership candidates:

"Seven of the eight candidates will not be Leader of the Official Opposition at the end of this year. If you do not win the race, what do you believe could be your greatest contribution to the NDP leading into the next election?"