NDP leadership 81

Stockholm wrote:

doofy wrote:

As it is,  she would have the worst French of any PM (apart from Stephen Harper) since Joe Clark. Between them, they never won more than 10 seats in QC. Something to consider...

I have to disagree there. Let's compare her French to all the post-Joe Clark PM: Trudeau (OK i agree his French is better), John Turner (his French was the pits - Nash's is better), Mulroney (I agree his French is better), Kim Campbell (her French was highly over-rated, Nash's is better), Chretien (I agree his French was better - though he was so incoherent in both languages that it is debatable), Paul Martin (his French was highly over-rated and it is debatable how it compared to Nash's).

If memory serves, Campbell, Turner and Martin faired pretty poorly in Quebec while Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien did very well.

Well for starters the article tries to pretend that the amount Mulcair gave to his riding association doesn't "count" but it's in the exact amount that was legally allowable for the maximum yearly donation. I'm not an expert in campaign finance law but I assume you can't get around it just by giving to riding associations instead of the Party proper.  Kudos to the candidates that gave more but Mulcair has  only been in the NDP since 2007 and a 1106 (plus a possible other extra $400) is probably in line with the lower tier of givers there. 

AnonymousMouse wrote:

If memory serves, Campbell, Turner and Martin faired pretty poorly in Quebec while Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien did very well.

Duceppe's French was far better than Layton's yet the NDP took 59 seats in Quebec and the BQ just 4.

Stockholm wrote:

Duceppe's French was far better than Layton's yet the NDP took 59 seats in Quebec and the BQ just 4.

Meh, maybe I shouldn't have signed up... :(

BWD.

HA!

Cullen's French may require some assistance but what he definitely has is confidence. He may well brutalize la langue française on his journey towards trying to say what he wants, but he smashes his way through it nonetheless and manages to sound endearing doing so. Perhaps sort of like Chrétien's English. Don't tell me there wasn't some part of you that grinned every time he addressed the "pipples of Canada" ;)

DSloth wrote:

Well for starters the article tries to pretend that the amount Mulcair gave to his riding association doesn't "count" but it's in the exact amount that was legally allowable for the maximum yearly donation. I'm not an expert in campaign finance law but I assume you can't get around it just by giving to riding associations instead of the Party proper.  Kudos to the candidates that gave more but Mulcair has  only been in the NDP since 2007 and a 1106 (plus a possible other extra $400) is probably in line with the lower tier of givers there.

You've got this all wrong.

You can give the annual max [$1,100 now] to the party, AND to riding association(s), AND to a leadership campaign. In fact, The Conservatives systematically organize the max givers to the party, also giving another $1100 to a riding association that then distributes the funds to other campaigns [in lieu of the central campaign doing that].

And the amounts given by Mulcair even to his own campaign not only were not the maximum- they were pretty paltry in their own right: a few hundred bucks per campaign. There are people on this board who probably gave more to his campaigns than that- and literally dozens of other people.

None of the leadership candidates have given the maximum amount possible for the range they are counting, especially if you're right and they can give at least 2200 a year (and obviously more before 2006).  

Comparing the records of leaders and ex-leaders to prominent MPs is no more comparing apples to apples than comparing Brian Topp's record since 2004 to Mulcair's record since 2007.  There are obviously different expectations for a Party leader, what was Jack's record in the four years before he became leader? 

Wilf Day wrote:

Also,[the article] only partly counts donations to local associations and campaigns, which is confusing. However, it seems to be taken from a "review of political contributions to the party, its riding associations and election campaigns" so I'd like to have seen the whole picture.

Peggy Nash $7,241, amounts to riding not listed.

Paul Dewar $6,628, amounts to riding not listed.

Nathan Cullen $5,245, amounts to riding not listed.

Martin Singh $3,295, amounts to riding not listed.

Niki Ashton $2,655 plus unstated amounts to riding making total over $10,000.

Brian Topp $2,114 plus $500 to riding.

Thomas Mulcair $0 plus $1,106 to riding and $unstated in non-monetary contributions

Romeo Saganash $0, amounts to riding not listed.

The author only systematically reviewed donations to the party. [And his list does not have those added qualifiers of other amounts- which were culled from the text of the article.]

Two main reasons for sticking to the party contributions:

Since other contributions are mostly to your own campaigns, the contrubutions to the party are more about the 'collective spirit'.

Tracking down contributions to riding associations and riding campaigns can get confusing, and its questionable what is being compared.

A note about Ashton. Her figure for donations to the party are lower for the years she was making massive contributions to her own campaigns- a fair bit before she was succesfully elected. [And chances are there are a lot in addition from family members]. Her campaigns would have had a harder time raising money locally.

Bingo!

http://www.straight.com/article-593976/vancouver/stop-presses-new-poll-s...

I expect right-wing columnists (are you listening, Rex Murphy?) will point to these numbers and suggest that there are a bunch of political dwarfs vying to fill the shoes of former leader Jack Layton.

But why aren't these leadership candidates very well-known across the country? I would suggest it's because mainstream-media outlets have gone to considerable lengths to marginalize the federal NDP after the party gained Official Opposition status in last year's election.

NDP MPs often pepper the government with challenging inquiries during question period. The newspapers and television stations follow this up by giving inordinate attention to the federal Liberals and their leader, Bob Rae.

Never before has a third party in Parliament been the beneficiary of so much positive media attention immediately after an election. It's almost as if the columnists and editors resent the NDP for doing so well in the last campaign.

The NDP leadership race is also not getting much attention. That stands in sharp contrast to the mainstream media's previous focus on the most recent federal leadership races in the Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservative party, the united Conservative party, and the Liberal party—even though none of them were in government at the time.

The federal New Democrats just might be choosing the next prime minister of Canada. And if you don't know the candidates' names, don't sweat it. You'll be aware of the winner by the time the next federal election rolls around.

Gaian wrote:

And since he hasn't explained this lacuna to your satisfaction, he clearly can't be leadership material, right Ken> :)

I read the article before it was posted here, and it barely registered what was in it.

But then people were making a mess of looking at, and its a geek interest of mine. And others were trying to spin what was in it because it didnt put their candidate in a favourable light.

Its not the sort of thing I would bring up. But I have a visceral reaction to people trying to wave it off as inaccurate.

JC, we're off. :)