I think this was Nash's best debate by far she actually drew blood on Topp with that pointed question about the many drawbacks of his byelection plan while at the same time keeping up the smiling positive persona.
The not very subtle bonhomie between Cullen and Mulcair is something to keep an eye on to see if it's a trend. Cullen was far more pointed with Dewar and Topp in their exchange.
Good cheer.
Good cheer.
Yes, it should be noted with that spelling it's an English word (though obviously derived from a french one).
I am a little surprised some of you think that Cullen was the best in this debate. I thought he wasn't answering clearly some of the others concerns over the join nomination idea and even though he was really good at pointing out the paradoxal side of Topp's approach, I thought it wasn't his best debate. He still has some strong debater skills though.
Ashton had a fantastic debate and was really solid in both her answers and her questions. She adressed fair points to Tom. I thought she was better today than in all the other debates. Her intro has been, IMO, one of the most inspiring thing I've heard so far in the leadership race.
Dewar surprised me today. He never looked so natural in this format and he was precise in his answers.
Mulcair was good. Not his best debate but IMO he was still the most precise and clear in his answers.
Nash is always hit or miss for me. Today, she wasn't that good and was again back to the vague answers Peggy. I thought she was really good in the two previous debates (especially in Halifax) though.
Singh is showing some stenghts when it's time to question another candidate and the more I see of him the more I realised he has some really good debating skills. But again, I still feel Singh is a two-tricks-poney...
I still don't get Brian Topp and I have to agree with Cullen's comment, he is running the most negative and abrasive campaign of the bunch by a mile and try to inspire people and engage them with our vision?
Here is my ranking:
Ashton 9,5
Mulcair 9
Dewar 8
Cullen 7,5
Singh 7
Nash 6
Topp 6
I am back, tanned and rested from my 24 hour vacation which in fact was imposed for 44 hours. I trust the moderators will credit me for the 20 extra hours against my next suspension.
In any event I have seriously considered whether to return to Babble at all. In the last few days it has become little more than an anti-Mulcair scandal sheet. For reasons convincingly outlined by FFK, the moderators have scarely been un-biased. In fact they have themselves hurled some of the more extreme anti-Mulcair diatribes. They have suspended at least 5 Mulcair sympathizers for "sins" they overlook in his detractors. If this trend continues I fear that Babble's credibilty will be severely diminished.
There are many sincere and thoughtful contributors to Babble who in my view have been ill-served by the moderators. In the spirit of thoughtful debate about the leadership I would like to elaborate on one significant recent development in the leadership race. I welcome any input, particularly from our friends in Sakatchewan.
The Mulcair campaignon Friday announced 100 endorsements by prominent New Democrats in Sakatchewn, including 17 former MPs and MLAs. Sakatchewan has always had a special standing in our party. It still has roughly as many members as Quebec and Manitoba, about a tenth of the total.
In the early stages Brian Topp lined up many Saskatchewan heavyweights including Romanow and Calvert, supposedly building on his work in the Sakatchean government. It is increasingly doubtful that Topp is doing as well as first surmised in Saskatchewan.
David Akin recently wrote that Topp might be running fourth in Saskatchewan, hampered by the bridges he burned as Romanow's abrasive chief-of-taff. I heard a couple months ago that Mulcair was doing well in Saskatchewan and that he has been pulling the biggest crowds of any candidate. His recent endorsements certainly suggest momentum.
Another factor of some interest is the demographics of the Sakatchewan membership. It tends to be older than that in other provinces. As such its turnout may well be greater so Saskatchewan may punch above its weight.
In addition, it would appear that in Saskatchewan at least Mulcair is doing well among the old CCFers. They at least do not seem impressed by Topp's line that, "Tom should be in our party a little longer before he seeks to lead it."
Welcome back, Nicky. I look forward to some objective reportage from Tom's camp.Ignore the automaton.
As you've observed, those in opposition to our candidate continue their innuendo in attack mode,(and you'll have observed that the lead violin does not know the meaning of innuendo),and the objective, neutral mods (along with all former mods) are all in active opposition. That's one helluva situation for a Mulcair supporter to confront, and to try to maintain a civil discourse ... but what the hell. When your're in Steve's country, that's the way you play the bully game. Although, one has to admit, Steve doesn't falsely claim to play by the Marquess of Queensbury (rabble)rules.
Tom's performance today will not have changed their position. And there is a name for that.
Good cheer.
Yes, it should be noted with that spelling it's an English word (though obviously derived from a french one).
The spelling is the same in French ("bonhomme", but "bonhomie").
Is it my imagination, or were some candidates sending second-choice signals to their supporters?
Ashton took on Mulcair very directly, in an almost hostile tone.
Singh made a huge issue out of his disagreement with Topp.
I have to agree with Mulcair that we need to move beyond slogans. I've always hated the overuse of "ordinary Canadians" and "working families".
Mulcair's line about having to kick back against the old slogans during the last campaign was new to me. And then he said if the head office had listened to him and copied the Quebec ads we could have won! or at least done a lot better? Never heard that before either. Is that the headline story?
Either that, or Mulcair making it clear that his new politics is a lot newer than Ashton's, calling her stuck in the 1930s or whatever it was he said. I think someone has finally told him her dad was the left-wing candidate for the Manitoba leadership and he's written her off. Fascinating!
And once I thought Mulcair was handing a softball to Cullen. But then his follow-up was less soft. Was that a softball or not?
Is it my imagination, or were some candidates sending second-choice signals to their supporters?
Ashton took on Mulcair very directly, in an almost hostile tone.
Singh made a huge issue out of his disagreement with Topp.
Ashton and Singh definitely needed to push back against any narratives which start with the assumption they'll be off the ballot in the early rounds so swinging at people the media have been speculating their support might go to is a good strategy. Also shows a downside to playing nice as Mulcair did with Ashton in Quebec City. That can be interepretted as as hostile a move as aggressive questioning.
On the Topp/Singh cap gains showdown:
What was interesting about that exchange was that it was a follow up from the exchange that took place in Quebec City. During that exchange, Martin Singh raised the same criticism of Topp's tax plan that he did today: that raising capital gains taxes would negatively impact charitable giving and that Topp's plan did not address that concern. In Quebec City, Topp informed Singh, in a quite dismissive and patronizing tone, that he was completely off base and that CLEARLY he hadn't read the plan.
Then today Singh came back to the same issue, pointing out that his criticism of Topp's plan was actually accurate and that, in reality, Topp's plan did not include measures to prevent the negative impact that raising capital gains taxes would otherwise have on charitable giving.
While Topp tried to pivot to the the issue of capital gains taxes in general, he basically admitted that Singh's criticism was correct. He said something alongs the lines of "well, surely we could mitigate that".
That may be a minor point in isolation (surely no campaign plan could possibly include every detail that would have to be considered when drafting actually legislation), but the way Topp dismissively claimed that Singh had obviously not even read the plan rather than simply saying "of course we would not implement such a change in a way that negatively impacts charities" seems very off to me.
The inability to deal with such problems (either by covering all the bases in your plan, being able to respond effectively when such questions are raised or just not proposing such a detailed plan this far out in advance of an election), seems to be a major failing on Topp's part. And responding in such a dismissive way only to be proven wrong would look like major gaffe had it come up in an exchange with any candidate other than Singh.
A very bad exchange for Topp, I thought.
I feel like Niki Ashton has been getting a bit of a (free) pass in this race. Let's put some thoughtful questions to her here.
On the Topp/Singh cap gains showdown: What was interesting about that exchange was that it was a follow up from the exchange that took place in Quebec City. During that exchange, Martin Singh raised the same criticism of Topp's tax plan that he did today: that raising capital gains taxes would negatively impact charitable giving and that Topp's plan did not address that concern. In Quebec City, Topp informed Singh, in a quite dismissive and patronizing tone, that he was completely off base and that CLEARLY he hadn't read the plan. Then today Singh came back to the same issue, pointing out that his criticism of Topp's plan was actually accurate and that, in reality, Topp's plan did not include measures to prevent the negative impact that raising capital gains taxes would otherwise have on charitable giving. While Topp tried to pivot to the the issue of capital gains taxes in general, he basically admitted that Singh's criticism was correct. He said something alongs the lines of "well, surely we could mitigate that". That may be a minor point in isolation (surely no campaign plan could possibly include every detail that would have to be considered when drafting actually legislation), but the way Topp dismissively claimed that Singh had obviously not even read the plan rather than simply saying "of course we would not implement such a change in a way that negatively impacts charities" seems very off to me. The inability to deal with such problems (either by covering all the bases in your plan, being able to respond effectively when such questions are raised or just not proposing such a detailed plan this far out in advance of an election), seems to be a major failing on Topp's part. And responding in such a dismissive way only to be proven wrong would look like major gaffe had it come up in an exchange with any candidate other than Singh. A very bad exchange for Topp, I thought.
This is the beginning of a lot of backpedaling that Topp would eventually have to do on his tax plan. The simple fact is that it is flawed, it is too simplistic, but it is a good start. Topp's failure to look in to the (gift of stock/capital gains) element of charitable giving also gives the Liberals an opening because the person that introduced that element into the charitable tax deductions was PM Paul Martin and it resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in new charitable giving. Again, a good start with Topp but too narrow-minded in his approach.
I feel like Niki Ashton has been getting a bit of a (free) pass in this race. Let's put some thoughtful questions to her here.
Not surprising that her challenge to Mulcair has his supporters upset. Also note his condescending response and body language.
I haven't seen it, but if she was more pointed with Mulcair, its because she's trying to kill the rumours. Mulcair knows who her dad is and plenty of left wing people have endorsed him.
Not sure it was anyone's best debate but the roomfull of Mulcair supporters I watched it with were all happy. Some disagreement with who did second best. The consensus:
Tom's best moment may have been replying to Nicki about abandoning the traditional jargon. His final statement was quite rousing.
We mostly thought Ashton's challenge to Tom was misplayed - too angry and a strange attack from the "new politics" proponent as others have noted.
Martin and Nathan both bloodied Topp, especially Cullen's sally against negative campaigning. Dewar had his best debate, although that is an improvement from a low standard. Peggy was flat and sometimes evasive. Telling the same joke Tom led with was a bad move.
I think personallly that Wilf is on to something about possible alliances. It had been speculated before that Ashton favoured Tom but there are a number of indications to the contrary including today's harsh challenge to "repudiate.." Then there was the accusation, genuinely baffling to Tom's camp, that it was spreading rumours about her withdrawal. I am told as well that at the Sudbury debate she challenged him to "repudiate" whatever he sid to Ken Neuman about the carve-out. Apparently there was a bitter tone to this.
Perhaps Ashton's eventual choice may be influenced by a link betweeen Neuman, Topp, Steelworkers, and Thompson Manitoba. I am entirely speculating but the dots look like they might be connected.
I also think that the tone of certain recent remarks by Cullen and Singh gives Tom some hope both of them might come on board.
Although there is palpable bitterness from Topp towards Tom I do not detect anything like the same hostility from the Dewar and Nash camps towards Tom. I have spoken with a number of their supporters who are favourably impressed by Tom. So I am not at all sure that their votes can be decisively delivered to Topp. If anything I detect some hotility towards Topp based on what they see as an unnecessarily divisive and negative campaign.
Not surprising that her challenge to Mulcair has his supporters upset. Also note his condescending response and body language.I feel like Niki Ashton has been getting a bit of a (free) pass in this race. Let's put some thoughtful questions to her here.
Lol. All I was asking is that people take her candidacy more seriously and actually pose some questions. She is in the top three for quality of French and has held it together well in the debates/race leading up to now. The fact that she has chosen to mix it up in the last couple of weeks shows that she is taking things seriously, let's return the favour.
I'd happily admit that was one of Niki's best performances. Her joust with Mulcair was more about pushback from their overly friendly back and forth last time then the substance, but she held her own. That said the "ordinary Canadians" slogan is not going to make a comeback and thank goodness.
-
That said the "ordinary Canadians" slogan is not going to make a comeback and thank goodness.
Gee, I hope not. [url=https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=site%3Andp.ca+%22working+f... Google search[/url] produced 1,950 hits for "ordinary Canadians" on the NDP site and candidates' personal sites.
Mind you, [url=https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=site%3Andp.ca+%22working+f..."working families"[/url] yielded 2,940, and it isn't much better. I always thought it discriminated against dysfunctional families, who need even more help.
Well, I am back from the debate. I am not going to really be able to provide any meaningful input.
My feeling is it went Mulcair, Nash and Cullen; I think Cullen showed some real intellect, but I think he needs more time. I'd put Ashton 4th. Topp reminds of a guy who got appointed Vice-Principal, but doesn't really know what he is supposed to do. I didn't see anything in him that makes me think he is a leader. Singh I thought presnted well, but doesn't have it. Dewar, did nothing for me at all.
Nash was really good on some things. I especially liked her idea of expanded mid-wifery service on reserves, and up north. I thought it was a brillant idea. I agree that on some things she seemed vague, but it might have been the format. I liked the framing by her and Tom that we need to take the framing initiative from the Tories once we have a leader and react strongly as issues arise. That was good news.
I went to both Nash's and Mulcari's after debate party's. I asked about Rae with Mulcair. He said basically, so I am relating this as I REMEMBER IT, NOT WHAT HE MAY HAVE ACTUALLY SAID, that he'll simply ignore Rae and take the message to the media. He has the experiennce and I think he can do that. Nash said the same thing to me basically as well. I told Nash, AGAIN AS I RECALL IT, that I thought she was a little vague. She was a bit surprised, and said it was hard because of the format. I am willing to buy that a little. I thought she is pretty impressive, and I don't have anywhere as many doubts of her ablitity to lead either; as a matter of fact, I think she would very likely grow very impressively into the role of leader.
Cullen was a very pleasant surpise. Great intellect, and fast on his feet. Needs more seasoning, but he has real potential. I had a chance to speak with him only briefly, and confirmed his co-op with the Libs policy would not apply in Lib held ridings. I hate the idea of getting stuck with Kevin Lamoureux; everytime I write his name I feel like I need a shower.
So there it is. In terms of leadership potential and the ability to frame, those three struck me as the best. Ashton, sorry, but I think she needs more seasoning.
I have no idea at all if any of this is useful to anyone. I look at what most of you write and feel like a moron most of the time anyway. But there it is. That is my gut feel from a 40 year NDP member.
Cheers!
My various thoughts on the debate: http://progressiveproselytizing.blogspot.com/2012/02/impressions-and-ana...
I have not done this before, but I actually put Topp as winning this debate.
A good analysis.
[url=https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=site%3Andp.ca+%22working+f..."working families"[/url] yielded 2,940, and it isn't much better. I always thought it discriminated against dysfunctional families, who need even more help.
The Progessive Unionist Party, speaking for the East Belfast protestant labour element, are not everyone's favourite leftists, but they did have one good line: they always said they were speaking for the "working and workless families" of East Belfast.
Personally I don't think "ordinary Canadians" even sounds all that good in English (and I understand it's downright insulting in French).
This is a bit of a straw dog...I last remember the NDP using messaging around "ordinary Canadians" in the 80s under Broadbent. It s already been discarded.
Mulcair's line about having to kick back against the old slogans during the last campaign was new to me. And then he said if the head office had listened to him and copied the Quebec ads we could have won! or at least done a lot better? Never heard that before either. Is that the headline story?
So I guess that means that Mulcair believes that thet NDP could have swept the rest of Canada by running ads showing a hamster running in a treadmill and three dogs barking at each other?
My various thoughts on the debate are here
I have not done this before, but I actually put Topp as winning this debate.
Well, I am back from the debate. I am not going to really be able to provide any meaningful input.
My feeling is it went Mulcair, Nash and Cullen; I think Cullen showed some real intellect, but I think he needs more time. I'd put Ashton 4th. Topp reminds of a guy who got appointed Vice-Principal, but doesn't really know what he is supposed to do. I didn't see anything in him that makes me think he is a leader. Singh I thought presnted well, but doesn't have it. Dewar, did nothing for me at all.
Nash was really good on some things. I especially liked her idea of expanded mid-wifery service on reserves, and up north. I thought it was a brillant idea. I agree that on some things she seemed vague, but it might have been the format. I liked the framing by her and Tom that we need to take the framing initiative from the Tories once we have a leader and react strongly as issues arise. That was good news.
I went to both Nash's and Mulcari's after debate party's. I asked about Rae with Mulcair. He said basically, so I am relating this as I REMEMBER IT, NOT WHAT HE MAY HAVE ACTUALLY SAID, that he'll simply ignore Rae and take the message to the media. He has the experiennce and I think he can do that. Nash said the same thing to me basically as well. I told Nash, AGAIN AS I RECALL IT, that I thought she was a little vague. She was a bit surprised, and said it was hard because of the format. I am willing to buy that a little. I thought she is pretty impressive, and I don't have anywhere as many doubts of her ablitity to lead either; as a matter of fact, I think she would very likely grow very impressively into the role of leader.
Cullen was a very pleasant surpise. Great intellect, and fast on his feet. Needs more seasoning, but he has real potential. I had a chance to speak with him only briefly, and confirmed his co-op with the Libs policy would not apply in Lib held ridings. I hate the idea of getting stuck with Kevin Lamoureux; everytime I write his name I feel like I need a shower.
So there it is. In terms of leadership potential and the ability to frame, those three struck me as the best. Ashton, sorry, but I think she needs more seasoning.
I have no idea at all if any of this is useful to anyone. I look at what most of you write and feel like a moron most of the time anyway. But there it is. That is my gut feel from a 40 year NDP member.
Cheers!
I was looking forward to your report on the Winnipeg debate. Excellent post, Arthur.
So I guess that means that Mulcair believes that thet NDP could have swept the rest of Canada by running ads showing a hamster running in a treadmill and three dogs barking at each other?
I thought those were more effective than the English ads. I don't know about winning but they might have helped.
I think this was Nash's best debate by far she actually drew blood on Topp with that pointed question about the many drawbacks of his byelection plan while at the same time keeping up the smiling positive persona.
The not very subtle bonhomie between Cullen and Mulcair is something to keep an eye on to see if it's a trend. Cullen was far more pointed with Dewar and Topp in their exchange.
I have to disagree. This was one of the few parts of the debate I saw and I thought Topp handled it very well. At the time, I commented to my wife that Topp seemed to really up his game. I saw a big improvement over previous performances.
There seems to be some debate over whether Topp was bloodied or teflon.
Saving my comments, waiting for the next thread to start.
Mr. Mulcair talks about roots and trees and says the NDP needs to reach out beyond the base.
As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.
I'd happily admit that was one of Niki's best performances. Her joust with Mulcair was more about pushback from their overly friendly back and forth last time then the substance, but she held her own. That said the "ordinary Canadians" slogan is not going to make a comeback and thank goodness.
Totally Ordinary Canadians Demand a New Face but with the Same Old Fashioned Rhetoric that Made Us Rule the Prairies 50 Years Ago!
On reflection, I think this debate was a turning point: Mulcair staked out his ground clearly.
The old rhetoric and slogans are out of date; even the ads we used in English last year were out of date. The party needs to cast a wider net; every riding is winnable if we open our minds; if we had been narrow-minded and defeatist we would have targetted only six Quebec ridings (and that was indeed the talk a couple of months before the election); we need to copy the Quebec campaign model and appeal to everyone who is tired of Harper. Cullen cannot disagree. Nor can quite a lot of NDP members.
"Mr. Mulcair talks about roots and trees and says the NDP needs to reach out beyond the base" notes Aaron Wherry. "The only way we are going to be able to (form government) is to go beyond our traditional base, refresh our approach to these issues."
Yes, her answer on the tax question was disappointing. And Topp is the only one hammering on the inequality issue.And his tax plan won't solve it. Do you find it funny though that he keeps using the moderate, Third Way Romanow Saskatchewan NDP as a model and in the same breath attacks other candidates for, in his mind, wanting to move the NDP to the centre?
I guess it's not funny... :)
Personally I don't think "ordinary Canadians" even sounds all that good in English (and I understand it's downright insulting in French).
This is a bit of a straw dog...I last remember the NDP using messaging around "ordinary Canadians" in the 80s under Broadbent. It s already been discarded.
Then why did Niki defend it? As would some of this board.
ETA: the official slogan hasn't been used... but the language has been
Then why did Niki defend it? As would some of this board.Personally I don't think "ordinary Canadians" even sounds all that good in English (and I understand it's downright insulting in French).
This is a bit of a straw dog...I last remember the NDP using messaging around "ordinary Canadians" in the 80s under Broadbent. It s already been discarded.
I guess the term "ordinary Canadians" is some sort of sacred cow in the NDP. It is a "social democratic " dog whistle perhaps??
But that doesn't mean that it isn't a stupid relic from a bygone era which does nothing more than characterize anyone who isn't from the "elite class" as being "nothing but a loser". From my point of view, it reinforces the neo-conservative narrative that the world is divided into two classes... "ambitious WINNERS" and "pathetic/lazy LOSERS"...
Tribute to Mulcair (and josh) as we move on through life, which, as we know, is simply a state of mind.
