NDP leadership race 2

Quote:

When the Liberals were dying, from the Martin loss on, moving to the centre was a good strategy. It almost worked. I recall when Trudeau first decided to run for the leadership it was said that he had wanted to wait four more years but decided he couldn't wait. He was right. Had he waited I think there is a good chance the NDP would have won under Mulcair and the Liberals would be on life support. But Trudeau didn't wait, and that was then and this is now. The chance to win power by replacing the Liberal party is gone. Surely you see that? Playing it safe to win power is the exact way not to win. There has never been a better time for the left to take a risk by being true to what it genuinely believes needs to happen to secure the future of Canadians.

Why would this apply to the NDP, but not to the Liberals?  Just lower expectations??

Quote:

It's the members who need to know if there is a strategy behind the silence.

There's seeming silence right now because the House is not in session and it's summer.  Certainly back when the House was in session there was quite a bit of coverage that the NDP was getting.

ETA:  My riding association has received good assistance from the NDP.  We'll be having a day of action tomorrow on the subject of electoral reform (IE, going door to door to talk to people and get petitions signed).  Last time it was income inequality.

Stockholm wrote:

Three points:

1. OF COURSE no one is in the race for leader yet. Any serious candidate would have to be nuts to declare for the NDP leadership this early in the middle of summer when no one is paying any attention. First of all if you are a federal MP the moment you officially declare that you are running to be leader you have to give up your critic portfolio etc... and second of all any provincial or municipal elected offocial would be in a Jason Kenney-like situation of having to constantly justify not resigning their current job. Why would anyone declare 15 month in advance?? The Tories are picking their new leader in may 2017 - and they still don't have any top tier candidates.

2. There is a mechanism for repalcing Mulcair as interim leader - the federal caucis could take a vote or the federal council could take a vote - quite frankly - who cares? The last NDP interim leader was Nycole Turmel - did she lead to any great party renaissance and rake in donations? MAYBE it wouid be slightly better if someone like Cullen or Julian took over as interim leader for this interregnum - but I honestly doubt if it would make any difference.

3. Personally I would have preferred to pick a new leader faster - like November 2016! but October 2017 is still two whole years before the next election and leaves lots of time to get that person established and develop a message. The federal Liberal wandered around like chickens with their heads cut off for two years after the 2011 election and only picked Trudeau in April 2013 - they managed to recover needless to say 

Good points, all. One can only hope that, when we hold our leadership convention, there's money in the kitty to pay for it.

On the second point, if Megan Leslie is committed to staying out of the race, she would make an excellent interim leader. I know it's summer, so folks are not focused on party politics (on this side of the border, at least), but it would be nice to present a fresh face to Canadians, even on an interim basis, by the time the leaves start falling.

There is absolutely no way that a party would ever choose an interim leader that had no seat! The main role of an interim leader is to lead the party in parliament so that would be a total non-starter

The Hill Times has an article speculating on the NDP leadership race:

http://www.hilltimes.com/2016/08/15/charlie-would-make-an-incredible-lea...

Speculation includes Charlie Angus, Olivia Chow, Alexandre Boulerice, and others.

R.E.Wood wrote:

The Hill Times has an article speculating on the NDP leadership race:

http://www.hilltimes.com/2016/08/15/charlie-would-make-an-incredible-lea...

Speculation includes Charlie Angus, Olivia Chow, Alexandre Boulerice, and others.

Angus is good, but isn't his French pretty poor?

josh wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

The Hill Times has an article speculating on the NDP leadership race:

http://www.hilltimes.com/2016/08/15/charlie-would-make-an-incredible-lea...

Speculation includes Charlie Angus, Olivia Chow, Alexandre Boulerice, and others.

Angus is good, but isn't his French pretty poor?

The article does reference his French:

Ian Capstick, founder of communications firm MediaStyle and a former NDP staffer, said in an email: “Charlie would make an incredible leader of the NDP. He’ll need to work on mastering his French colloquialisms and obtain major support from MPs and activists in the province of Quebec.”

And I also was amused it referenced Boulerice's English (since we're always hearing people question the French of potential leadership candidates):

Mr. Cullen also spoke highly of Mr. Boulerice. “Clearly, he’s one of our strongest MPs from Quebec. He’s worked hard on his English. … He’s just very, very hard working and personable and smart. I’ve encouraged him to really give [the party leadership] a look, and I hope he does, because I think he would be great. He’d just bring a lot to the race.”

I'm not even sure if Chow speaks French.  Boulerice's English is fine IMO (though sure, there's some room for improvement).  Here's a video of him discussing a government proposal of back to work legislation:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irrkxhQDkSU

I suspected so regarding Chow. 

I'd be surprised if anyone entered before January 2017. 

Yes, true.  Didn't think of that.  Perhaps by October we may see some begin to enter.  I still think those who are the most serious (IE, who have the capacity to raise funds from the greatest number of donors) won't enter until after the new year.

Former NDP National Director Gerry Caplan makes the case for Elizabeth May as the next NDP leader

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-case-for-elizabeth-may-...

For anyone who didn't bother to read the article, Caplan is clearly having us on. You can almost see the mischievous twinkle in his eye.

oh my....think of the children....after a leader got stabbed in the back.

I would have thought Hébèrt would have been able to see why the NDP's position is unlike either the Conservatives or the BQ when it comes to leadership and as much about the time as it is the party. I speak of this problem with a sense of urgency as I think only awareness of the problem can lead to solutions and a better strategy.

The problem is related to party history and numbers.

Leaders, for the most part, unless they come by way of a political family, most often develop in a party over time. Usually age 45-55 a time when most people are peaking in their careers. This is the time when they have had the time to make connections, the time to learn their craft and when they have the ambition to place their human energy into the project. It is the same with politics – this is the leadership generation.

Let's look at the leadership generation which is typically age 45-55.

Most people go into politics in their 20s or 30s.

So let's look at how these parties were doing when the new blood was to come in given the above we are talking 15-35 years ago. The period of interest is therefore 1980-2001.

The PQ gained 9 seats in 1981; 7 in 1989; 48 in 1994. While there is more turnover than the net increase in seats this is a lot of new blood coming into the party. They should have no trouble finding people of the leadership generation. In each of these increases there were plenty of younger people.

Now let's look at the Conservatives: In 1984 the Conservatives swept in. There were a few who were younger. Due to Conservative politics little is left of this cohort. However with the Reform party you had 52 people coming in in 1993, all new and many young; a further increase of 8 more in 1997 plus 12 more on the PC side; You had a handful more in the year 2000.

Both parties have a relatively full generation of people coming into their parties at the time the leadership generation would typically enter politics.

Now let's look at he NDP:

In 1993, he NDP was almost wiped out and lost most of the previous generation. The remainder tended to be older experienced survivors. They gained 12 seats in 1997, but most in Atlantic Canada and every single one of those seats are gone now with many losing the very next election. The 1980-2000 period was a wasteland for the NDP in terms of bringing blood into the party -- the gains made in this period were wiped out. Many of the survivors were older and are no longer interested in leadership.

Since 2000 the NDP has gained new blood. Had Layton been able to lead for another ten years the people he brought in would have succeeded him but he was gone when the party did not have many choices for leader. The party chose Mulcair from a rather shallow pool (by this I do not mean the number of candidates but the size of pool of potential candidates).

The NDP therefore is not comparable in terms of leadership with other parties who have deep pools of candidates who came in the party years ago.

The NDP has practically nobody who came in the party a generation ago and has been groomed to lead. The party has to do what other parties do not. It must choose from:

1)      Younger MPs who are not ready to be PM or even mature leaders, who have less parliamentary or political experience but who may grow into the job.

2)      A tiny pool of leadership age former MPs who are no longer in politics but who may come back to contest – a problem given that many would not want to and would be coming back unable to have held their seats.

3)      Older MPs who otherwise probably would not want to take on this type of job and would be reluctant to see it as a decade or more long gig as leadership of a small party often is.

4)      Provincial politicians who typically do not do well federally and often include those who are not bilingual or people who have been associated due to their provincial work with issues that at the national level are divisive

5)      Going out of the party to bring in people who have little to no political experience and who are unknown at that level and may have associations that may be unhelpful in some contexts (labour leaders for example)

To compound this, while other parties tend to have outsiders come from business which has been a good starting point, the NDP non-political source would be labour more than anywhere else.

So looking at the potential sources of people I listed above each group is thin. This explains the NDP problem which is unique to them and unique to this time.

I think a decade from now the NDP would have no problem finding a leader but right now it is going to have to make a selection from a limited pool including people who otherwise might not have been considered for and might otherwise not consider the job. Unfortunately for the party it is facing a second leadership race within the time of the missing generation.

While I have written about this a few times I have not seen any article in the media acknowledge this situation, which to me seems obvious.

Yes, I always can give advice and this is it:

The party not go with a leader who is not likely to stay a while lest we do this again too soon. I would not given this thin pool want to select an older candidate unless the person were simply amazing. I would encourage the party to seek out leadership candidates outside the pool of elected MPs and I would encourage the party to consider a candidate who might be younger than would otherwise have been considered. These last two in order to increase the choice. With this we would hope that we can find the right candidate with the necessary communications talent, vision, commitment, ideals, character, and compatibility with the party.

If you want the kind of leader who is going to be a good representative for the movement, it is time to accept one who may not be as well known, as politically experienced or even as old as we might in an ideal world have. This is an opening for someone but the party has to be open to that person.

In this context we can name a number of people who do not fit the mold who should be considered.

Yeah.  Good post.  Though it does further enhance my thoughts that the NDP delegates were idiots for dumping Mulcair.  I recall speaking with the President of my riding association who said, "there being no one else is not a good enough reason to keep the leader."  Respectfully, I disagreed (and when I say respectfully, I do mean that -- she's great -- but I do still think her decision at the convention was wrong-minded and idiotic -- but, well, parties are more than just the leader, I figure.)

Or perhaps a 'never-beginning' leadership campaign.  

JKR wrote:

Geoff wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Yeah.  Good post.  Though it does further enhance my thoughts that the NDP delegates were idiots for dumping Mulcair.  I recall speaking with the President of my riding association who said, "there being no one else is not a good enough reason to keep the leader."  Respectfully, I disagreed (and when I say respectfully, I do mean that -- she's great -- but I do still think her decision at the convention was wrong-minded and idiotic -- but, well, parties are more than just the leader, I figure.)

I don't think delegates were idiots for dumping Mulcair. However, the decision to wait until the fall of 2017 did not turn out to be a brilliant one. That's a long time for the party to limp along with a lame duck leader. No offence to Tom; that's just the inevitable outcome of approving a 'never-ending' leadership campaign.

As leader of the NDP why isn't Mulcair attending events this summer? Will this happen again next summer too?

On the news they just mentioned that Trudeau will be attending the Tragically Hip's final concert in Kington that will be televised on tv and theatres across the country. Letting Trudeau monopolize these kinds of events is probably going to help the Liberals continue their honeymoon for a very long time.

A couple things --

First as strategy this, I think, is wise.

The NDP are doing badly for cash and the prospect of a funding drive to fix it is dim. The Trudeau popularity is unstoppable right now and throwing money at it for travel and events makes little sense.

This is a majority government and an election is not for years.

The NDP should be working on policy options, legislation and in their ridings. Once the Liberals start to have difficulties as all governments do, the NDP can use those resources to pitch alternatives. Having a lame duck unpopular leader on a popularity cruise will do nothing. The NDP cannot improve by having the leader they dumped get liked a bit more. They ahve to have policies that people prefer to the government. They better be working on that. Shots at Trudeau can be left for the time being with the Conservative leadership contenders.

***

I wanted Mulcair gone -- I did so knowing a replacement would be difficult. The theory I laid out of the NDP missing generation, I came up with during Mulcair's leadership race. It is hard to get a good leader but it does not mean you settle for a person who is wrong. I was not delighted with the field last time. I thought Topp would be a disaster -- perhaps I was wrong but I was turned off by some things. I supported Saganash but when he pulled out I went to Mulcair feeling there was nobody else credible and I bought the need for Frnech language -- I still think that a unilingual leader is a bad idea. Now I want people to see the challenge and open the party and themselves further as it will be hard to find a leader this decade due to the missing generation. The party may have to do something very unusual to deal with its current position.

I think even a creative approach like a co-leadership position like Québec Solidaire might be an option -- provided the two were tight and certain not to split the party in two. We could do worse than have two leaders: one Francophone, one Anglophone, one Aboriginal and one not perhaps one younger and one older. The representation of leadership like this might cause a public conversation and even some healing and unity. The next gerneration of leaders might produce a single leader that is ideal. I am not saying we create an affirmative action test for leadership but if we have only Francophones who do not do well in English and Anglophones who do not do well in French this could be the basis for a co-leadership.

So a ticket like :

Wab Kinew and Dr. Joanne Liu (present head of Médecins Sans Frontières https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Liu)

or

Romeo Saganash and Linda McQuaig

might offer what each of them on their own may not have.

The party will have to do something interesting to get a good leadership.

Quote:

The NDP cannot improve by having the leader they dumped get liked a bit more.

Agreed.  Opening up the focus for the eventual leadership candidates is best.  And while the House was in session the NDP were making good strides on issues, and Mulcair still does speak up on policy issues occasionally (IE, there was an article in the Globe a short while ago critical of Canada's increasing military commitments/excursions overseas).  But yeah, him doing the hot dog circuit in the summer makes no sense whatsoever.

When you have two parties competing with one another how can it ever be anything other than destructive for one of them or the other. The NDP and the Liberals are two separate parties running candidates in all ridings - someone has to win and someone has to lose. So i don't see the point of saying that there is anything self-destructive' about the NDP and Liberals contesting the same ridings - how could it be otherwise unless the two parties merged - in which case instead of Chrystia Freeland and jennifer Hollett competing in a general election - they would be competing for the "Liberal Democratic" nomination in the same riding

Stockholm wrote:

When you have two parties competing with one another how can it ever be anything other than destructive for one of them or the other. The NDP and the Liberals are two separate parties running candidates in all ridings - someone has to win and someone has to lose. So i don't see the point of saying that there is anything self-destructive' about the NDP and Liberals contesting the same ridings - how could it be otherwise unless the two parties merged - in which case instead of Chrystia Freeland and jennifer Hollett competing in a general election - they would be competing for the "Liberal Democratic" nomination in the same riding

I think the point was that they did not need to run their stars head to head and could have spread them to take down more conservatives or allowed them both a chance to come through.

However, my point is that the leadership lack of stars is not becuase of losses in 2015 but the losses of the 1990s when the leaders of today would ahve been expected to first get elected.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

I think the point was that they did not need to run their stars head to head and could have spread them to take down more conservatives or allowed them both a chance to come through.

Personally, I hope politics never gets to where parties strategically parachute "star" candidates into ridings where they'll face mediocre competition, nor mediocre candidates into ridings where they can be cannon fodder against another party's stars.

Agreed.

Debater wrote:

I think what Chantal Hébert was saying is that it's unfortuante that the NDP & the Liberals engaged in so many high-profile battles in which many talented stars (mainly NDPers last year) lost out on the chance to go to Parliament.

What drivel. If you want the "stars" of each party to be elected, then go for a closed list PR system. Works great at making sure "stars" get elected, but it isn't what most Canadians seem to want.

Ok.  But you said:

Quote:

A lot of new blood was also shed in the war between the NDP and the Liberals as promising candidates for one party defeated equally promising ones for another.

And then said:

Quote:

But then several low-profile Liberals took out big NDP stars

So was it star vs. star, or star vs. low-profile benchwarmer?

And what should the NDP have said?  "Nobody can defeat Dzerowicz!!!  Nominate Gordie from the mailroom, and get Cash on a plane to Elmwood-Transcona!"

Quote:

I think there is a middle ground here. This is not all about idealism but also the practical reality that you need to get your best candidates elected. Politics is already where parties think carefully where they run the people they absolutely need to get elected. It has always been that way. Nothing illegitimate about this.

Except this just leads to a star candidate from Toronto ending up in Saskatchewan.

If "regionality" is important -- and I've heard that it is -- then parties shouldn't be running their "star" candidates much further than a long bike ride from where they're from.  Or their sacrificial candidates either.  If the goal is good, responsible, and regional representation then this shouldn't be chess.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Ok.  But you said:

Quote:

A lot of new blood was also shed in the war between the NDP and the Liberals as promising candidates for one party defeated equally promising ones for another.

I was quoting Chantal hebert

Mr. Magoo wrote:

And then said:

Quote:

But then several low-profile Liberals took out big NDP stars

So was it star vs. star, or star vs. low-profile benchwarmer?

And what should the NDP have said?  "Nobody can defeat Dzerowicz!!!  Nominate Gordie from the mailroom, and get Cash on a plane to Elmwood-Transcona!"

Which is why I said I could be wrong. I don't do know what she (Chantal Hebert) was referring to.

star vs. star, or star vs. low-profile benchwarmer?

Because she could have talked about both examples when she said

"The NDP has just sacrificed its most talented slate of candidates ever to a self-destructive battle against the Liberals."