NDP leadership 73

I didnt think of it.

I guess I took as mostly a gesture.

It is the Leader's prerogative.

At any rate, it wasnt a "price."

To me it is clearly a signal Paul wanted to deliver. [with a numer of messages in the signal]

At any rate, I dont see it as precluding another Deputy Leader.

KenS wrote:

It is the Leader's prerogative.

First we have this gaggle (sorry Wilf) of leadership candidates announcing policy - as if this were a federal election campaign. I've long complained (since about 1970 actually) that policy is set by the leading clique rather than the members, conventions, etc., and everyone now seems intent to prove it.

Now we have leadership candidates handing out positions.

At least it's the members who get to choose the leader.

Oh wait, I forgot... the leadership candidates sell memberships in the leadup to the vote. So the leaders also choose the members.

Why do I feel my youthful disillusionment and cynicism about party politics creeping back? Oh yeah, now I remember. They never left.

First- you are quoting me out of context. It is the Leader's pregogative to choose the Deputy Leader. Not to "choose"" what you put under the quoting of me.

I'll break this to you gently Unionist.

You know that the NDP never functioned that way. Never has.

And that the membership was never able, or willing to make possible, to do more than set SOME policy and vett broad parameters.

Yes, it has gone down that road more in 50 years. But there wasnt a golden age like you posit to leave behind.

Not to mention that it was never an either/or black and white, leaders/leading cliques set policy OR members do.

In practice, yes, very much: most policy has to be INITIATED from the centre. But they sure as heel dont do it in a vacuum and just send it forth.

It is one of the biggest reasons members get engaged in leadership races, and for many of us, the main reason. The person that will lead certainly matters. But a LOT of the engagement is driven by the contention over the future direction the party will take.

But if you just want to vent about the world that didnt happen 40 years ago, dont let me intrude.

Quote:

I agree that Topp has to prove himself. You can bet he is working hard as he can at presentation- like Dewar with his French. We'll see whther he gets there.

FWIW, given his lack of ever having been in the limelight, I had thought it quite possible he could fail miserably when he got out there. He didn't. Which means he gets to keep trying. He started out performing not very well to small audiences- including when I saw him. But he seemed to get that down quickly. So I think he has good prospects for getting the rest of the way- which will show or not in the debates [and if it is possible for a candidate to find another venue where ability with the 30 second clip shows].

Here is my take on the bar he has to clear. The candidate we pick to be Leader does not have to be as good or comfortable on stage as Mulcair or Cullen. The only gravitas Harper has is the fact of being Prime Minister. He had none when he became PM. He still has zero charm. And he is not the only success with just adequate presence. Dexter is another. [He has become very confident looking. But he connected long before he got that.] What Harper and Dexter had was the capacity to convey message that you mentioned Brian has to show on stage.

Frankly, I think the actual negative reactions to Topp [going after Dewar, sounding arrogant?, etc] is prissy inside the NDP stuff. Boring on stage, yes. So far at least. And maybe because of that, the other things loom larger. I think a more apt description of going after Dewar is that it did not work. A lot of that has to do with the insipid format. But its still Brian's responsibility. Bottom line is that he has to present himself in a way that works.

The business of not being in the House is piffle. As Leader of the Opposition he'll be able to get in the media a lot more often and more easily than those clips from the pathetic circus of disrepute we call Question Period. QP is for political junkies only [and not even all of us, I think its just plain stupid]. The junkies matter, but their inclinations are not the drivers of Canadian politics. In fact, I can see developing a permanent 'party agenda presentation method' that leaves much more of the House side of it to others than the Leader. Since Jack was so good at it, there was no reason to go there. But it can have its merits. Public leadership styles should differ.

This is a pretty fair comment.

- Topp has been decent considering he's used to being behind the scenes.

- The attack on Dewar didn't achieve what he wanted, and made them both look awkward.

I also think your comparison to Harper is completely fair, and I won't distort it with some Harper-lite comment. Harper wasn't Mr. Personality, and he still isn't. But he hired coaches and consultants who gave him camera training and dressed him up in sweaters and had him play piano. And it helped. He wasn't even as likeable as Jack Layton, but he was likeable enough to hold his base, and get an extra 500,000 votes over the span of 5 years. (It's depressing when you look at few votes the Conservatives have gained compared to the seats -- a pathetic reflection on our electoral system.)

The point is there are a lot of ways someone could connect with the audience, whether it's Mulcair's delivery, Cullen's easy-going-ness, Dewar's earnesty, Ashton's freshness.

There's a lot of ways for Topp to get it together. It could be something as inane as hiring an acting coach. But since his writing is decent, it could be a matter of putting that same energy into his delivery. If nothing else, he can just learn to smile more naturally, or just stop trying to fake it.

Caissa wrote:

I'm yearning for a primary system akin the USians.

Their primary system takes well over a year to select a nominee for president.

But as to the particular item of naming deputies in advance, you are just barking up the wrong tree. Naming Deputies is the Leader's prerogative. A lot of us who would like to have everyone more fulsomely engaged in policy development, would have no interest in the members electing Deputy Leaders. Or Council, or any other represenative body.

As Wilf points out, there may be something odd about appointing one in advance ['should I become Leader']... but there is no usurpation involved.

Wilf Day wrote:

Quote:

At the announcement, Dewar thanked Angus for his support and named him his Deputy Leader tasked with building the NDP in key regions across the country.

http://pauldewar.ca/content/charlie-angus-backs-paul-dewar-leader

While Charlie's endorsement is a coup, the price was rather high: "his Deputy Leader?" Does the Leader choose the Deputy? Is there to be only one Deputy Leader? Wouldn't there be a Deputy Leader from Quebec?

I'd say Paul has made a strategic blunder.

Whether it's a strategic blunder depends on whether Dewar is hoping to win over Ontarians or the whole country's membership with this move, I suppose. Positioning a potential Dewar-led NDP as the Ontario Party certainly does seem to undermine all the work Dewar has already done on the Prairies, though. And I can't imagine it would make him more appealing to Quebec voters either.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Regardless what political stripe a candidate for Prime Minister is, voters look for certain qualities and a level of gravitas. Mulcair has it. I think Nash has it. I think Dewar has it. I don't think Topp has it.

I couldn't agree more. I've always felt that after Charlie Angus, Nash and Mulcair are our strongest candidates and could easily lead us to a majority in 2015.

Edit: I think Romeo Saganash would surprise a lot of people too if elected leader.

Regardless of who the next leader is, I can't get over the fact of just how strong our NDP team is: Charlie Angus, Megan Leslie, Alexandre Boulerice, Dany Morin, Libby Davies, Peggy Nash, Thomas Mulcair, Paul Dewar, Brian Topp, Niki Ashton, Linda Duncan, Brian Topp, Robert Chisholm, Romeo Saganash, Guy Caron, Jean Rousseau, among so many others! Our campaign in 2015 will be really exciting.  

toaster wrote:

The Northern Ontario NDP Breakthrough in 2008 was largely thanks to Angus who campaigned with many the other NDP candidates in the region, and helped Hughes, Thibeault, Gravelle, and, to a lesser extent, Rafferty and Hyer, win their seats.  I wouldn't be surprised if Thibeault, Hughes and Gravelle followed and endoresed Dewar.  Also, it shows that Angus can have quite the impact when it comes to winning new seats.

There are also a lot of NDP members in Northern Ontario. I think Dewar's campaign manager is from there, but I am really not sure. Anyways, this is a rock solid endorsement and I don't really see the need to read to deeply into the choice of Charlie Angus as deputy leader vs. someone from say, Québec. The reason being, I don't really know what being a deputy leader to a leadership candidate means at this point. If I was going to read anything into Angus' "appointment", it would be that Dewar is trying to underline his point that he will make it a priority organise aggressively in areas where the NDP needs growth. I'm sympathetic to the argument and also Angus. What this appointment doesn't do, is cover up the fact that the French language is Dewar's Achilles heel. Angus' French is not that strong and he comes from bilingual region, just like Dewar.

I thought that would have been a role already well rehearsed by now.  It's been some time since motions carried from the floor meant anything.

Wow. I'm amazed so many people on this board think this was a good announcement for Dewar.

I think it was a really bad day for his campaign. Despite the fact that Angus is a fantastic MP, who's endorsement any candidate would love to have, I think this is a huge strategic blunder for several reasons.

First, Dewar's campaign said this would a "game changer" and "the most important endrosement of the campaign so far". Obviously, Angus would be a very good endorsement under normal circumstances, but that language implied someone on the level of Lewis, Broadbent, Schreyer, a current or former Premier or a member of Jack Layton's family. Kady O'Malley wrote that people were speculating about whether it was Olivia Chow, Stepehen Lewis or Jesus Christ. When you deliberately over promote an endorsement like that, and then don't deliver, it suggests your campaign is swinging wildly to get back in the game, and that suggests you think you're out of the game and need to get back in.

Second, Dewar announcing his intention to make Angus deputy leader strongly suggests that he had to promise Angus the role to secure his endorsement. It's not proof, for sure, but there are reasons candidates almost never announce who they intend to appoint to various positions during a campaign--it looks presumptuous, it forecloses options, it makes you look like you'll reward supporters more than build the best team, it turns off supporters who might want someone else to get that job, it insults other possible endorsers who might want that job themselves. The suggestion that a deal was made always winds up looking more likely than not, so why do it at all? Even if Dewar does intend to make Angus deputy leader, without there be any deal to that effect, what does he gain by annoucing it today? And how can that modest gain ever be enough to squelch the inevitable speculation that this was just a political deal? And if you believe that speculation it inevitably reduces the value of the endorsement to very little, if not a negative.

Finally, and this is the big one, this backs Dewar into an almost impossible corner. In the hypothetical scebario in which Dewar actually wins the leadership, no matter what he does, we wind up with three leaders from central Canada--he can't have no deputy leader from Quebec. On top of that, Dewar now faces a terrible choice: either Dewar chooses three white males all from central Canada, or Dewar--the candidate with the worst French in the race--chooses to demote Mulcair--by far the best known MP we have in Quebec--and does so probably/possibly right after having beaten him on the final ballot at convention. Either of those scenarios are unacceptable to me.

I think this (combined with the spin, whether accurate or not, that the Dewar campaign has been putting out about their organization and his improving French) makes it very clear to me that they feel they are not doing well.

AnonymousMouse wrote:

Wow. I'm amazed so many people on this board think this was a good announcement for Dewar. I think it was a really bad day for his campaign. Despite the fact that Angus is a fantastic MP, who's endorsement any candidate would love to have, I think this is a huge strategic blunder for several reasons. First, Dewar's campaign said this would a "game changer" and "the most important endrosement of the campaign so far". Obviously, Angus would be a very good endorsement under normal circumstances, but that language implied someone on the level of Lewis, Broadbent, Schreyer, a current or former Premier or a member of Jack Layton's family. Kady O'Malley wrote that people were speculating about whether it was Olivia Chow, Stepehen Lewis or Jesus Christ. When you deliberately over promote an endorsement like that, and then don't deliver, it suggests your campaign is swinging wildly to get back in the game, and that suggests you think you're out of the game and need to get back in. Second, Dewar announcing his intention to make Angus deputy leader strongly suggests that he had to promise Angus the role to secure his endorsement. It's not proof, for sure, but there are reasons candidates almost never announce who they intend to appoint to various positions during a campaign--it looks presumptuous, it forecloses options, it makes you look like you'll reward supporters more than build the best team, it turns off supporters who might want someone else to get that job, it insults other possible endorsers who might want that job themselves. The suggestion that a deal was made always winds up looking more likely than not, so why do it at all? Even if Dewar does intend to make Angus deputy leader, without there be any deal to that effect, what does he gain by annoucing it today? And how can that modest gain ever be enough to squelch the inevitable speculation that this was just a political deal? And if you believe that speculation it inevitably reduces the value of the endorsement to very little, if not a negative. Finally, and this is the big one, this backs Dewar into an almost impossible corner. In the hypothetical scebario in which Dewar actually wins the leadership, no matter what he does, we wind up with three leaders from central Canada--he can't have no deputy leader from Quebec. On top of that, Dewar now faces a terrible choice: either Dewar chooses three white males all from central Canada, or Dewar--the candidate with the worst French in the race--chooses to demote Mulcair--by far the best known MP we have in Quebec--and does so probably/possibly right after having beaten him on the final ballot at convention. Either of those scenarios are unacceptable to me. I think this (combined with the spin, whether accurate or not, that the Dewar campaign has been putting out about their organization and his improving French) makes it very clear to me that they feel they are not doing well.

Maybe. Then again maybe Charlie Angus doesn't get the Deputy Leader job if Dewar because NDP leader. As for "game changer," that is always hype. The big name endorsement field is starting to get crowded and soon candidates will have to perform on their own. I think Dewar is doing what all the candidates are doing: trying not to get crowded out in 8 candidate field. It ain't easy.

AnonymousMouse wrote:

Obviously, Angus would be a very good endorsement under normal circumstances, but that language implied someone on the level of Lewis, Broadbent, Schreyer, a current or former Premier or a member of Jack Layton's family.

If Charlie Angus married Olivia Chow, would that help? I'm just thinking of what's best for Dewar.

And Unionist I found that totally funny - thanks for the giggle of the day!

Another labour leader endorsing Mulcair...

Quote:

Today Carl Pursey, current President of the Prince Edward Island Federation of Labour, announced his support for NDP Deputy Leader Thomas Mulcair in his campaign to become the next Leader of the New Democratic Party. Pursey is the latest in a growing list of labour leaders to put their weight behind Mulcair’s NDP leadership campaign.

“I’m supporting Tom because he has the cabinet and parliamentary experience to lead Canada’s New Democrats from official opposition to government,” Pursey said. “Tom has the drive, energy and strength to move our party forward and form our first NDP government.”

“I’m gratified to have Carl’s support in this race,” said Mulcair. “He realizes that in a province like PEI we need a leader who can reach out beyond our traditional base and I hope to do just that.”

Pursey added: “It’s these qualities—drive and energy—that will appeal to new voters in provinces that don’t traditionally vote New Democrat, like PEI. I appreciate Tom’s commitment to invest in Atlantic Canada to help the party grow, so we can be a party with representation in each province from West to East.”

Carl Pursey was elected President of the Prince Edward Island Federation of Labour in 2005.

http://www.thomasmulcair.ca/site/2012/01/12/president-of-the-pei-federat...

Scott reid in the Ottawa Citizen:

SR: Wrongo. 2004 was the only time in decades the Liberals won more seats than a united Conservative party outside of Quebec. The name of the game for the NDP is ending the Liberals. That means winning Off Opp again in 2015. That means winning back Quebec seats. The Liberals either need those seats as their own or for the Bloc to renew and take a good chunk back. Sure, they'd like to win a bigger share of Ontario seats and depending on who the Liberal leader is maybe that's doable. But the imperative for survival is to keep the NDP from sweeping Quebec again. The smart New Democrats know that. That's why they'll pick Mulcair.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/BlackBerry+Roundtable+Marriage+breakups+party+makeups/5993039/story.html#ixzz1jOFfKQEQ

Quote:

If Charlie Angus married Olivia Chow, would that help? I'm just thinking of what's best for Dewar.

My screen is cutting off the left margin where the poster names are.

But I didn't have to scroll over to know who wrote it.

We party in the margins.

Oh, remember this?  

Paul Dewar plan to encourage women's equal participation in politics

Two middle-aged white guys from Ontario, both with French that could be improved, working up this deal together behind closed doors. Now there's a new kind of politics this country has never seen before!

I am from Ontario. I am not impressed. I admire Angus greatly, but am disappointed his endorsement comes with strings attached.

Also, I couldn't agree more strongly with Unionist about the policy stuff. We shouldn't be so eager to forfeit the role of party members. If we are reduced to vote-pulling puppets once a writ is dropped, count me out.

(Picture of Levity)

rolling, no less

Sorry if I was insensitive, BA. But I note that you didn't object to the [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-73#comment-1308... which very seriously stated that the hype preceding Dewar's "game-changer" endorsement would have indicated someone (for example) from Jack's family - like Olivia Chow - rather than a mere Charlie Angus. You didn't find that to be in bad taste, or insensitive? I used irony to express my own distaste at this example of dragging political life and discourse down to the level of some Hollywood set of values. If you want to see it as poking fun at widows, I can't argue with your feelings.

AnonymousMouse wrote:

If you find it distasteful that a family member of Layton's would be considered a particularly prominent endorser in the context of the leadership race following Layton's death, that's fine I suppose, but many, many people apparent considered that to be the case.

I apologize if I didn't make myself clear.

I find it distasteful (no... [b]feudal[/b] is I think the right term) that anyone would seek or accept or place a high value on an endorsement from a [b][i]family member[/i][/b] of a prominent political figure. Jack's sibling saying "I want Paul as the next leader"!? Ed Broadbent's grandchild? Jack's widow? What kind of politics is this??

Hope you get my point better now.

I didn't see it as making fun of Olivia or in anyway trying to be insensitive. It was the silliness of big name endorsement and all that it means. Each to there own.

Unionist wrote:

Sorry if I was insensitive, BA. But I note that you didn't object to the [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-leadership-73#comment-1308... which very seriously stated that the hype preceding Dewar's "game-changer" endorsement would have indicated someone (for example) from Jack's family - like Olivia Chow - rather than a mere Charlie Angus. You didn't find that to be in bad taste, or insensitive? I used irony to express my own distaste at this example of dragging political life and discourse down to the level of some Hollywood set of values. If you want to see it as poking fun at widows, I can't argue with your feelings.

 

There is a huge difference between the two references -one is vapid, the other is offensive.  I feel sad for you that you are so lacking in basic humanity and common decency that you can't see the difference and try to excuse yourself, because it is just so fucking hilarious to use someone recently widowed as the punchline in a joke like that.  Just busts a gut thinking about it.  This place has become nothing but toxic when comments like that are considered so damn funny.  

Anyone who got hyped up about a Dewar's big announcement ahead of time only had themselves to blame. Most people didn't care. (I didn't, and I'm reading practically everything about the race I can find.)

Charlie Angus is a good endorsement to get though. Kind of makes me wish he'd have run for leader himself.