Why would that hurt Nathan Cullen?
Many progressive voters want to see the parties at least be open to working with one another in some way.
I've seen Peter Julian's name kicked around on various leadership-related posts. What I've read and heard about him suggests he might be the kind of "progressive" alternative who might appeal to those looking for a less centrist leader. Perhaps some babblers from BC who are more familiar with Peter can comment.
Here's a biography of [url=http://www.svendrobinson.com/2.html]my nominee[/url].
Svend Robinson was an important part of the old guard of the NDP.
I'm not sure he fits in with today's NDP, though.
And he's been out of politics for a decade. His comeback attempt against Hedy Fry in Vancouver Centre wasn't successful, and Jack Layton didn't seem that enthused to see him return, either.
Here's a biography of [url=http://www.svendrobinson.com/2.html]my nominee[/url].
I have to disagree. If want to go old school then my nominee is.
How much could Nathan Cullen's past leadership bid where he wanted to cooperate with the Libs and Greens hurt him in the next possible leadership?
I don't think it would matter. That was then and this is now. its a moot point the Liberals are the government and whoever leads the NDP is going to have present a plan to oppose the government...of course depending on what kind of electoral reform we end up with - parties may have to start creating pre-election alliance of one kind or another. If we have a preferential voting system would the NDP and Liberals ever agree to to mutual preference deal whereby they each recommend that their voters second preference each other?
But of the Lower Mainland MP's the best bet is Peter Julian. He was a community activist and worked for the Council of Canadians prior to his first election win. He is a center left politician who was taught how to be an MP by Libby and Svend.
As a bonus he is functional at ASL. When he talks with his hands it means something.
I have been accused of ageism by saying that the party should not choose a leader who is a senior.
It is not just about ageism or politics. There is a practical divison many poeple feel insinctively yet others seem to miss.
Curiously, many of the people who call for better gender parity and more racial inclusion fail to connect that a part of the reason for this is the need to have this representation at the table -- becuase there are meaningful differences in the output.
I am old enough to remember the term generation gap. It was huge when the boomer generation arrived. They did not think, act, operate, or face the exact same challenges as the previous generation. They had different culture and values. They were very angry that the previous generation had screwed things up and made two wars and they wanted and needed peace. It took some time for this generation to take power but they were not giving it back to the previous generation. This feeling came across party lines.
The same exists at the other end. The generations following the boomers feel the same way. They are not thniking of the second world war -- for their part they are thinking about the waste, debt and mismanagement of the boomer generation that left the next generation indebted in every which way -- including a planet that may be unfit for human life. The boomers inherited a move towards greater equality but ever since that generation took over have done everything possible to centralize wealth and power reversing the social progress of the previous generation within a few short years of taking power (1980s-1990s). The Boomer generation wants to live life to the max for them -- even if it leaves nothing left over -- the next generations to have less pension, power, opportunity, environment.
At some point the next generation is extremely unlikely to accept promises from Boomers on these issues -- the promises have been made many times and broken by that generation. And the Boomers, even as the planet is destroyed should have enough comfort that it won't completely tank during their lifetimes.
Like women and visible minorities, the generations following the boomers have come to understand that the older generation does not see things their way and the only way to have their concerns represented is to have a seat at the table.
Instinctively or not, they demand a generational change in leadership and in policies. Once every so often there is a generational change and parties have to recognize it. If they don't they will pay for that.
This is not to say that there are not some from the previous generation who are exceptions but those exceptions shine like a light and they are rare. The last PM to represent a person who seemed a generation ahead was probably Pierre Trudeau. You will notice no leader before the boomers ever again was successful at the federal level. No matter how great a boomer leader may be, given the policy divides that are very much generational (affecting people based on their age), I do not expect that we will ever see a Boomer leader again become PM.
But of the Lower Mainland MP's the best bet is Peter Julian. He was a community activist and worked for the Council of Canadians prior to his first election win. He is a center left politician who was taught how to be an MP by Libby and Svend. As a bonus he is functional at ASL. When he talks with his hands it means something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Julian[/quote]Peter has a very impressive resume, and he is an elected member. I wouldn't want to risk having a leader without a seat.
Given the party's performance in October, I'm not convinced an unelected leader would be successful in winning a seat, regardless of where he or she ran.
But of the Lower Mainland MP's the best bet is Peter Julian. He was a community activist and worked for the Council of Canadians prior to his first election win. He is a center left politician who was taught how to be an MP by Libby and Svend. As a bonus he is functional at ASL. When he talks with his hands it means something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_JulianPeter has a very impressive resume, and he is an elected member. I wouldn't want to risk having a leader without a seat.
Given the party's performance in October, I'm not convinced an unelected leader would be successful in winning a seat, regardless of where he or she ran.
[/quote]
I agree with you about Peter Julian. However I think it could be advantageous to have a leader outside of the HoC. They could be free to do what Trudeau did in the last Parliament without the attack of not doing their job.
But of the Lower Mainland MP's the best bet is Peter Julian. He was a community activist and worked for the Council of Canadians prior to his first election win. He is a center left politician who was taught how to be an MP by Libby and Svend. As a bonus he is functional at ASL. When he talks with his hands it means something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_JulianPeter has a very impressive resume, and he is an elected member. I wouldn't want to risk having a leader without a seat.
Given the party's performance in October, I'm not convinced an unelected leader would be successful in winning a seat, regardless of where he or she ran.
[/quote]
He has an accent but his French is fairly good I would say better than Harper's. He would not be a liability in French.
The day after the election he was very supportive of Mulcair -- and likely had to be. Here he was:
http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2677453668
With him there is lots to like.
This is not to say that there are not some from the previous generation who are exceptions but those exceptions shine like a light and they are rare. The last PM to represent a person who seemed a generation ahead was probably Pierre Trudeau. You will notice no leader before the boomers ever again was successful at the federal level. No matter how great a boomer leader may be, given the policy divides that are very much generational (affecting people based on their age), I do not expect that we will ever see a Boomer leader again become PM.
Yes, that's probably true.
Mark Sutcliffe said the same thing in that Montreal Gazette editorial that was posted here last month -- it's unlikely we will see another Boomer as PM. Now that the PM is someone who was born in the early 1970's and who is in his early 40's, there is a strong likelihood that the next Conservative leader will also by someone in their 40's (early 50's at the oldest). But it is very hard to see someone who is 60+ becoming PM.
This is not to say that there are not some from the previous generation who are exceptions but those exceptions shine like a light and they are rare. The last PM to represent a person who seemed a generation ahead was probably Pierre Trudeau. You will notice no leader before the boomers ever again was successful at the federal level. No matter how great a boomer leader may be, given the policy divides that are very much generational (affecting people based on their age), I do not expect that we will ever see a Boomer leader again become PM.
Yes, that's probably true.
Mark Sutcliffe said the same thing in that Montreal Gazette editorial that was posted here last month -- it's unlikely we will see another Boomer as PM. Now that the PM is someone who was born in the early 1970's and who is in his early 40's, there is a strong likelihood that the next Conservative leader will also by someone in their 40's (early 50's at the oldest). But it is very hard to see someone who is 60+ becoming PM.
Of that generation --
We may see someone of Trudeau's generation 60+ become PM in 20 years though.
We seem to go in waves where some generations are more like the previous and some radically different. And in some cases it is not the people that are different but their interests which is the current situation.
Also we should remember that this is a wide generalization more true in the extremes. Mulcair was born in the early 1950s. This age is gone I think from contention. Later Boomers from the early 1960s may still make it to power.
There are cuspers atthe end of the boomer period and start of gen x. These people depending on the individual will be more like typical gen x or typical boomers.
I just don't see a grandfather age person born in the 1950s being a contender for PM again unless a truly exceptional person comes through and Mulcair is not such a person no matter what other talents he may have.
I honestly don't know what the deal is with Peter Julian. On paper he would make a good leader, but on paper he would have made a good leader in 2012 and on paper he would have made a good BC NDP leader after the 2013 loss. But each time after a flurry of speculation he bowed out of the running. it was particularly odd in 2012 when there were even MPs decalering support for him early on and if the "coven" of insiders from the Layton office who wanted to stop Mulcair were looking to rally behind someone - surely Julian would have made wayyyy more sense than Brian Topp who had no seat and no electoral experience...and yet be bowed out.
I don't know the guy - as i said ON PAPER he seems good - from BC, lived in Quebec for many years, has had many front bench positions in caucus etc...and yet everytime i mention his name as a leadership possibility - the reaction from people from left to right within the party is always either to roll their eyes or to wrinkle their nose. I honestly don't know what ther issue is? is he personally abrasive? is he thought not to possess the "royal jelly" to be able to lead - I dunno. All I'm saying is that there seems to be something about him that people don't like and its doesnt appear to be connected to ideology.
I find Cullen is much better in terms of connecting with people and having a warm personal style...
he looks way older than 43.
he looks way older than 43.
Possibly because he's 53!
I honestly don't know what the deal is with Peter Julian. On paper he would make a good leader, but on paper he would have made a good leader in 2012 and on paper he would have made a good BC NDP leader after the 2013 loss. But each time after a flurry of speculation he bowed out of the running. it was particularly odd in 2012 when there were even MPs decalering support for him early on and if the "coven" of insiders from the Layton office who wanted to stop Mulcair were looking to rally behind someone - surely Julian would have made wayyyy more sense than Brian Topp who had no seat and no electoral experience...and yet be bowed out.
I don't know the guy - as i said ON PAPER he seems good - from BC, lived in Quebec for many years, has had many front bench positions in caucus etc...and yet everytime i mention his name as a leadership possibility - the reaction from people from left to right within the party is always either to roll their eyes or to wrinkle their nose. I honestly don't know what ther issue is? is he personally abrasive? is he thought not to possess the "royal jelly" to be able to lead - I dunno. All I'm saying is that there seems to be something about him that people don't like and its doesnt appear to be connected to ideology.
I find Cullen is much better in terms of connecting with people and having a warm personal style...
I think someone has to have a charismatic campaign for party leadership before people will feel confident that they have the ability to run a charismatic campaign for p.m. Cullen proved he could run a charismatic campaign during the 2011 leadership race. Of all the candidates, he seemed to have the best personality for television. His weaknesses were that his French wasn't as good as Mulcair's and that he supported formal pre-election electoral cooperation with the Liberals and Greens. It is still an open question whether Julian has sufficient charisma to run as leader. This is why Cullen is favoured by some to win the next time around. This is also why Alexandre Boulerice is also favoured by others.
he looks way older than 43.
Possibly because he's 53!
What next... commenting on how fat and ugly people "look"? It's getting harder to ignore the offensive posts.
he looks way older than 43.
Possibly because he's 53!
he is? Jul 13, 1972 (age 43)
he looks way older than 43.Possibly because he's 53!
What next... commenting on how fat and ugly people "look"? It's getting harder to ignore the offensive posts.
you're right unionist it is......
there's not a fking thing wrong with my noting he looks older than what he is.
he looks way older than 43.Possibly because he's 53!
What next... commenting on how fat and ugly people "look"? It's getting harder to ignore the offensive posts.
you're right unionist it is......
there's not a fking thing wrong with my noting he looks older than what he is.
Yeah, quizzical, there's a lot wrong with it, but you're entitled to your opinions about people's age and looks.
Just try to get your story straight with Stockholm. You're talking about Cullen, he's talking about Julian. Read more carefully.
no his last sentence was about Cullen unionist. he was talking about both. you can stop talking down anytime.
and no there isn't except for maybe in your rarified world.
the reality is we ALL look at how people look in the first 30 seconds of seeing them and form our opinions from there, even you. deny it all you want i won't believe you.
I assumed quizzical was referring to Julian who is 53. Cullen is 43 and only looks older because he's bald, but who cares.
it's interesting how people make derogatory comments about the appearance of male public figures all the time (I,e. Mulcair needs to lose 20 pounds, or has a creepy smile etc...) and no one cares, but I seem to recall I was threatened with expulsion from babble once for observing that Elizabeth May has buck teeth.
If we decide that no one is ever allowed to comment on the physical appearance of any human being ever again under any circumstances, I hope the policy will be consistently enforced.
the reality is we ALL look at how people look in the first 30 seconds of seeing them and form our opinions from there, even you. deny it all you want i won't believe you.
I assumed quizzical was referring to Julian who is 53. Cullen is 43 and only looks older because he's bald, but who cares. it's interesting how people make derogatory comments about the appearance of male public figures all the time (I,e. Mulcair needs to lose 20 pounds, or has a creepy smile etc...) and no one cares, but I seem to recall I was threatened with expulsion from babble once for observing that Elizabeth May has buck teeth. If we decide that no one is ever allowed to comment on the physical appearance of any human being ever again under any circumstances, I hope the policy will be consistently enforced.
I agree with quizzical on this. No need for overzealous barring via creating some cover-all policy. Sometimes a comment on appearance is simply a comment, whereas sometimes it may be more malicious in nature. Context is everything, I feel.
Whoa! Just caught a glimpse of myself in the mirror. I look like shit right now. Time for bed. I'm barring myself for the evening.
I was just thinking that Megan Leslie should run for the leadership.
She has seven years of experience in Parliament. She could appoint Mulcair as house leader and wait till the next election. She would be able to go and make herself better known to Canadians.
I think Ken S. said on another thread that Megan Leslie has decided to take a break from politics and is not planning on running in the next Federal election.
Besides, Megan Leslie just took a job with the World Wildlife Federation.
Gerad Butts, who used to run the WWF before becoming Trudeau's Chief Adviser, sent Leslie good wishes last week in her new WWF position.
I'm personally of the opinion that Mulcair should stay; however, if we opted for new leadership, either Megan Leslie or Nathan Cullen would be the best choices (I lean towards Megan Leslie).
Why should Mulcair stay?
The push for a leadership change is mostly coming from two quarters - the Party's Far Left who will never be satisfied until the NDP runs on a semi-Marxist platform of nationalisation (they draw constrasts with Jack Layton now, but when he was leader they hated him too), and the moderate Left who have long had apprehensions about Mulcair, were willing to hold their tongues when Mulcair was doing well, but are understandably disappointed with what happened.
I understand their frustrations and disappointment, and ideologically I probably fit in with them, but I believe that we have to look at the big picture. I too was apprehensive about Mulcair's leadership in 2012, I campaigned for Peggy Nash and later switched my support to Brian Topp, but I was wrong about Tom. He not only demonstrated himself to be a tough parliamentarian, but when faced with a surging Liberal Party he never disappointed on policy. He formulated a plan to establish the most ambitious childcare programme in Canadian history (even the proposals of Jack Layton and Paul Martin were more limited in scope) and took stands against the mission in Iraq and Bill C51 when public opinion was not necessarily on his side.
Is Mulcair a moderate? Of course he is, but so was Jack Layton, Rachel Notley, Roy Romanow, Gary Doer and for his time - Tommy Douglas. Despite their failures, the moderates have a much better track record of getting things done than the radicals.
Mulcair failed during the campaign due to a multitude of factors, and I won't make excuses some of them are entirely his fault (and his advisors). His performance during the first leader's debate was kind of weak (although Mulcair suffered from high expectations and Trudeau benefited from low expectations), and understandably Mulcair adopted a cautious strategy going into the campaign as he did not believe that his party could surge into first place so early. NDP strategists were hoping to overtake the Liberals mid-campaign, their momentum as early as April, before the unexpected NDP win in Alberta, took them off guard.
Protecting an early lead in the polls, during an unusually long campaign, when you lead a party that has never governed, the media is scrutinising you more than ever and the other two parties have their sights set squarely on you would have been no easy task for any leader. Even Jack Layton would have had a tough go of it. Regardless, Mulcair could have taken more chances, and he should not have allowed himself to be caught off guard by the Liberals (they appeared dead in June, but they weren't).
That being said, some of these factors were outside of his control. The niqab debate put him in between a rock and a hard place; it was a desperate attempt by the Conservatives to play on the anxieties of their base and pick off any available NDP support in Quebec. Mulcair, both personally and strategically, could not jump aboard the Islamophobic bandwagon, but at the same time the issue did resonate with nationalist voters. The Bloc used it to crawl back into semi-relevance.
The NDP's fall in Quebec, hurt their numbers nation-wide and destroyed the narrative that we were in a "three way race". The media began running with the "two-way race" narrative. Everytime Trudeau's name was mentioned it accompanied words like "momentum," whereas Mulcair's accompanied words like "trouble". For the 70% or so of voters who wanted to "heave Steve" the writing seemed on the wall. If you look at Nanos polls throughout the campaign, only at the last mintue did Quebekcers jump aboard a Liberal bandwagon. Despite the identical NDP and Liberal positions on the niqab, inadvertantly the issue helped the Liberals as it knocked the NDP out of contention weeks earlier.
Balanced budgets have long been NDP orthodoxy; however, Mulcair's decision to emphasise his party's pledge to maintain balanced budgets allowed possibly the most irritating narrative of the campaign to take hold: that the Liberals were now "running to the Left" of the NDP. The media picked this idiotic Liberal talking point up, and Mulcair had a very difficult time combating it. NDP explanations of how balanced budgets with revenue increases make social spending more sustainable seemed like nuanced arguments, whereas the Liberals sounded "bold" for promising a spending spree on "infrastructure".
Mulcair made the mistake of emphasising the moderate nature of his programme at the beginning of the campaign; only at the end did he draw attention to his plans for pharmacare and opposition to the TPP.
Why should Mulcair stay? Three reasons.
1. Name recognition: It took FOREVER for the media to pay Mulcair any mind in between 2012 and 2014; it got much worse during Trudeau's initial honeymoon. Even when Mulcair was doing a stellar job of tarnishing the Conservatives in the House or touring First Nations communities in Northern Canada, he got second billing to Trudeau showing up at a summer bbq or doing yoga on Parliament Hill. 2013 was a brutal summer. Finally, Mulcair is well known outside of Quebec, he is considered to be moderate and competent and his approval ratings still outstrip his disapproval ratings. He is popular. If we replaced Mulcair with Leslie or Cullen, it would be back to square one. I'm not convinced that either are household names outside of their respective provinces. Canadians didn't reject Mulcair, they voted in an ill-informed "strategy" to heave Steve.
2. The Conservatives are about to enter a divisive leadership race, while Rona Ambrose is associated with the Harper era and doesn't poll that well. There is something to be said for having a tough and seasoned leader at the helm.
3. It takes time to connect. When Justin Trudeau hit the scene, Canadians had a sense that they already knew who he was - largely due to his father's legacy. Quebeckers knew who Tom was because of his past, and it kept the NDP competitive in Quebec, but elsewhere the response was "Tom who? Never heard of him". In 2004 Jack Layton was not the sunny, grandfatherly, tough opposition leader who surged into a respectable second place in 2011. In the run-up to the 2011 election, some pundits were predicting trouble ahead for Layton. Likewise, Ed Broadbent's most popular years, another period when the NDP was competitive, were at the end of his time as leader. Under Mulcair the NDP has polled in first place for two relatively long periods (in 2012 and 2015). His leads were longer and more impressive than Ed Broadbent's in 1987-1988. This time they were not translated into results, but Tom has proven that he can be taken seriously as a candidate for PM.
As last October demonstrated, Canadian politics are unpredictable and party loyalties are not as static as they used to be. Winners can become losers only to become winners again, and vice-versa.
There are legitimate criticisms of Tom; however, he hardly pulled an Andrea Horwath, and the party's results in British Columbia and Quebec would have been considered a smashing success prior to 2011. There are legitimate arguments in favour of younger leadership, I think that Megan Lesiie would be a much stronger leader than Nathan Cullen for a plethora of reasons, but there are equally strong arguments in favour of giving Mulcair a second kick at the can.
This spring I will be voting in favour of his leadership.
I would also add that Leslie's new job with the WWF and her public announcement to have no intentions of running for Parliament n 2019 do not necessarily mean that she wouldn't consider running for the leadership. Leadership races often feature retired candidates who were supposedly out for good before an opportunity opened.
Regardless, I still think that Tom should stay.
Progressive Patriot makes several valuable points about why we should keep Tom.
It is far from clear to me whether he wants to keep the job into the next election. I also have numerous problems with how the recent election was run.
That being said Tom was often magnificent as Opposition Leader. His positive ratings remained high throughout the campaign. The party's universe of first and second choice support remains at about the 50% level.He is an articulate and compelling media performer. These things are too often forgotten in the carnage of Oct. 19.
Also forgotten is that under Tom the party rose from third to first place in the first eight months of 2015. Not all of that was Alberta and much of it was a result of Tom's performance. He is much better regarded by the electorate than he is in some quarters of his own party and certainly by some of the malcontents or Liberal propagandists who post here.
There is an internal democratic mechanism that will play itself out by the April convention. Let's see how Tom does in the intervening months, especially in Parliament, and judge him on the big picture.
I assumed quizzical was referring to Julian who is 53. Cullen is 43 and only looks older because he's bald, but who cares. it's interesting how people make derogatory comments about the appearance of male public figures all the time (I,e. Mulcair needs to lose 20 pounds, or has a creepy smile etc...) and no one cares, but I seem to recall I was threatened with expulsion from babble once for observing that Elizabeth May has buck teeth. If we decide that no one is ever allowed to comment on the physical appearance of any human being ever again under any circumstances, I hope the policy will be consistently enforced.
Sorry Stockholm but to say that saying a person looks older is derogatory, seems derogatory itself. What a statement -- that looking older is derogatory.
Looking older is a fact of aging. When we are talking about impressions the appearance of age may be relevant to how people think they can relate but the impression of age should never be taken as an insult in itself. There are lots of derogatory comments about aging but to say he looks older is not one of them in my view. As a person older than Cullen, I would hate to think that someone looking at me would automatically think a negative thought just becuase I look the age I am -- and Cullen looks younger than me.
There is an internal democratic mechanism that will play itself out by the April convention.
Link?
There are lots of derogatory comments about aging but to say he looks older is not one of them in my view.
Context is important. The whole conversation is about the appeal of a potential leader. You yourself have commented on the difficulty of leaders of a certain age aspiring to be PM (I don't agree by the way, but I understand). Saying "he looks older" in this context is a statement about the same base sentiments of voters as "he looks gay" or "he speaks with a lisp". Neither of them should be derogatory - I totally agree with you. But who is saying it, and why, and for what end, is crucial. Context is everything.
Let me try out a social example. At a party, I introduce you to an old childhood schoolmate. You shake hands and say, "Wow, you look at least 10 years older than Unionist!" You wouldn't do it. So babblers shouldn't do it either when talking about who would best represent the interests of our society.
Unionist, the review mechanism is in the party constitution. If you can't conveniently find it let me know and I will look it up for you after I get home from work tonight.
Unionist, the review mechanism is in the party constitution. If you can't conveniently find it let me know and I will look it up for you after I get home from work tonight.
I'm extremely familiar with the constitution and have cited it frequently in recent weeks - because I dearly wish it were followed on key issues, like policy determination (Convention and National Council - not caucus, not the Leader).
But maybe I misunderstood. You said there was an "internal democratic mechanism" that would "play itself out by the April convention". I understood you to mean that some democratic mechanism was going to be functioning in the leadup to convention. Again, I dearly wish that were the case, and I may be mistaken, but I have no idea what mechanism that might be.
If you meant the proceedings of the convention itself, then yes, I agree. But as you know, delegates come there and many cards have already been dealt - and not by the members.
Delagates will be selected. And in some riding associations there will be some people among the limited number who attend meetings (highly self selected) where Convention business will be discussed.
The forms of democracy are (almost) always observed.
Substance is another story.
Everyone who pays attention to internal party processes, any party, knows that the only meaningful leadership review is one where every member can vote.
That isn't cheap, so its not like anyone(s) can snap their fingers anytime their is a perceived need for an OMOV leadership review.
But pretending that what the NDP has is a substitute is just empty formalism. And since the empty process always reinforces business as usual, it is fair to call it willfully bogus.
By the way, I'm not sure Mulcair intends to stay on until 2019. He may even have decided that he will step down when the 'time is right'.
Wont be the first time an NDP leader who knows she is going does not say so.... giving the party hierarchy time to circle the wagons against potentially effective threats from disgruntled members.
ln this case it would give them time to perfect the what went wrong and why things are actually great narrative. ''And here is what WE are going to do now.''
I agree with what progressive-patriot posted in post #27. I likewise had chosen Topp, but became sold on Mulcair after seeing his performance in the House and after seeing some of the good stuff that he was advocating (child care, MMP, etc).
But pretending that what the NDP has is a substitute is just empty formalism. And since the empty process always reinforces business as usual, it is fair to call it willfully bogus.
Absolutely right. The convention will result in business as usual - nothing will change. If they wanted to know what members really think they should have a OMOV review.
The ongoing support of some people for Mulcair is unsurprising, since I seem to recall the same people being among his strongest supporters around here during the leadership campaign. As lead prosecutor against Harper Mulcair was very effective, but that time has passed. In the actual campaign (when the public might actually pay attention) I think Mulcair did an absolutely terrible job. Period. Full stop.
Back in the leadership campaign I ranked Cullen as my #1 choice. Would I do so again in a new campaign today? Perhaps - I think he's been a very strong performer and is certainly extremely likable. But I am completely open to other potential candidates. I think Megan Leslie could be really excellent, and as others have noted being out of office could permit her to hit the road cross country and get herself more broadly known. I'm not thrilled about Peter Julian - he seems a bit bland to me to be leadership material. Kind of harmless, like beige wallpaper, but not someone who could stir feelings of great excitement in the public at large. I like Alexandre Boulerice very much, but am leaning towards not having the next leader be from Quebec. I like Niki Ashton - although I didn't like her last leadership campaign, I think she truly may be one who could grow the party over the course of Trudeau's time in office and be ready to make the NDP a serious contender again... And of course there are others. The NDP has no shortage of potential leaders, all with their own strengths and faults. But one thing is for sure - I'd like to see a generational shift in the leadership.
Sorry Stockholm but to say that saying a person looks older is derogatory, seems derogatory itself. What a statement -- that looking older is derogatory.
I wasn't reactng to you...it wa someone else who implied it was derogatory. BTW:L Is it derogatory to simply point out tyat someone has buck teeth? isnt it just a statement of fact? Some people think buck teeth are attractive!
I am fascinated in the comments people are making that Mulcair may well just be putting on a show, and could be having serious internal doubt over whether he actually wants to lead the party into the next election. He may be doing this so as not to be perceived as a "lame duck" for the immediate future. Interesting... of course, that would imply that he's a far better actor than I believe he is 
. But if that is what's going on, then it makes me feel more hopeful about the future of the NDP.
Back to other names of potential leadership candidates: as someone else (sorry, I've forgotten who!) in another thread was suggesting, I think Joe Cressy is an interesting option: http://globalnews.ca/video/2286826/federal-election-2015-toronto-council...
I assumed quizzical was referring to Julian who is 53. Cullen is 43 and only looks older because he's bald, but who cares. it's interesting how people make derogatory comments about the appearance of male public figures all the time (I,e. Mulcair needs to lose 20 pounds, or has a creepy smile etc...) and no one cares, but I seem to recall I was threatened with expulsion from babble once for observing that Elizabeth May has buck teeth. If we decide that no one is ever allowed to comment on the physical appearance of any human being ever again under any circumstances, I hope the policy will be consistently enforced.
stockholm i should've noted it was Nathan. baldness is not the reason he looks older than 43, i like the bald look actually. i googled his images and it's his serious looks and the contemplative nature of his gaze when addressing someone. i was actually comparing his intent and focused gaze to Trudeau's (same age) who always looks like he's on his way to the fair without a care in the world.
i was actually comparing his intent and focused gaze to Trudeau's (same age) who always looks like he's on his way to the fair without a care in the world.
There is something kinda vacuous about him. It's odd. The smiling zombie.
Back to other names of potential leadership candidates: as someone else (sorry, I've forgotten who!) in another thread was suggesting, I think Joe Cressy is an interesting option: http://globalnews.ca/video/2286826/federal-election-2015-toronto-council...
Ludicrous suggestion - he speaks no French, is one year into a first term on city council and apparently loving it...he'll be a candidate for mayor of Toronto long before he would ever be federal leadership material
Seriously, Joe Cressy? Why not Jean-François Delisle, then? He's very popular in Thetford Mines!
What, you haven't heard of him? I haven't heard of Joe Cressy either. And they both have the same record in federal poltiics - one loss.
i was actually comparing his intent and focused gaze to Trudeau's (same age) who always looks like he's on his way to the fair without a care in the world.
There is something kinda vacuous about him. It's odd. The smiling zombie.
In fairness I have a good friend who always looked younger and was never taken seriously although he really was thoughtful and experienced. He grew a beard. I have known several women who were extremely qualified and intellegent. I remember one person calling one of these women a lightweight -- but when pressed could provide no evidence. She actually was extremely good at her job but lacked the look. In her case there was heavy sexism unlike my other now-bearded friend who just had a baby face.
I've seen Peter Julian's name kicked around on various leadership-related posts. What I've read and heard about him suggests he might be the kind of "progressive" alternative who might appeal to those looking for a less centrist leader. Perhaps some babblers from BC who are more familiar with Peter can comment.
Julian would be a great choice. Cullen is a hairless Mulcair.
I've seen Peter Julian's name kicked around on various leadership-related posts. What I've read and heard about him suggests he might be the kind of "progressive" alternative who might appeal to those looking for a less centrist leader. Perhaps some babblers from BC who are more familiar with Peter can comment.
Julian would be a great choice. Cullen is a hairless Mulcair.
That's harsh.
Cullen - Mulcair without a smile.
i was actually comparing his intent and focused gaze to Trudeau's (same age) who always looks like he's on his way to the fair without a care in the world.
There is something kinda vacuous about him. It's odd. The smiling zombie.
In fairness I have a good friend who always looked younger and was never taken seriously although he really was thoughtful and experienced. He grew a beard. I have known several women who were extremely qualified and intellegent. I remember one person calling one of these women a lightweight -- but when pressed could provide no evidence. She actually was extremely good at her job but lacked the look. In her case there was heavy sexism unlike my other now-bearded friend who just had a baby face.
This is something that would be said about Ruth Ellen Brosseau I think. That's if she wanted to run for the leadership.
