NDP leadership race 2

I agree with this as well, but part of the reason they have switched to presenting themselves as the party of the middle class is that very few people self-identify as "poor", even when they are by objective measures.   I prefered when they branded themselves as the party of workers, but that has some baggage too, unfortunately.

I don't think people want Political Idol - it's more that the media landscape is focused that way, by design.   I think there is plenty of appetite for policy discussion and appeals to a Better World.   But mainstream media have little interest in fostering or allowing it, so their focus is elsewhere, and if such a discussion arises organically apart from them, they shout it down or confuse the issue.   If there was a sincere desire on the part of government and media to present political issues in a way that invited rational evaluation, they could easily do it.   All of which is not to say the NDP is faultless in how they've handled their branding - far from it.

Please expand on that, I don't know what you mean.

Guy Caron in English

SBC 2017 -- Guy Caron (NDP): http://youtu.be/s17XN_XyngY

blairz wrote:

Guy Caron in English

SBC 2017 -- Guy Caron (NDP): http://youtu.be/s17XN_XyngY

His English is just fine in that clip. Hard to know what kind of speaker he might make given that clip is the dryest subject matter imaginable. I've heard many accents in BC politics that are heavier than his. Of course they are not French accents but mostly various Asian accents. None of the accents bother me although the words out of some of the right wing speakers with those accents bothers me immensely.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

blairz wrote:

Guy Caron in English

SBC 2017 -- Guy Caron (NDP): http://youtu.be/s17XN_XyngY

His English is just fine in that clip. Hard to know what kind of speaker he might make given that clip is the dryest subject matter imaginable. I've heard many accents in BC politics that are heavier than his. Of course they are not French accents but mostly various Asian accents. None of the accents bother me although the words out of some of the right wing speakers with those accents bothers me immensely.

Is that Joe Clark's daughter who's hosting the show?

Quote:

Instead of saying "I think what people want/don't want" (based on wishful thinking, or even worse, ideology), take a scientific poll based on a completely unloaded question, for example,

"what is your most important concern?"

What if the top three answers are:

1.  fundamentalist terrorism

2.  high gasoline taxes

3.  "unsustainable" public sector wages and pensions

?

We don't really need to plan for that.

But if the electorate's real concerns don't make any sense to progressives, they would need to plan for that.

If the public has the those priorities, Magoo, no possible NDP leader(including what I assume would be your preference of a restored Tom Mulcair) would have any chance of leading the party to a strong showing at a general election, because those priorities are completey incompatoble with any humane, democratic or progressive values.  In that scenario, it would be pointless to nominate NDP candidates outside any ridings the party currently holds.

Even under someone like Domenic Cardy couldn't lead the NDP to anything like gains if the public prioritized those three things.

But on the practical question of what to do if the NDP's priorities and policy are different or opposed to the concerns of the electorate?

Well they have a choice:

1.   change their priorities/policy to be in line with what they think people want

2.   stay true to their beliefs, try to change some minds, and take their lumps when they lose

I would say something here pithy or cutting about how Mulcair's NDP chose #1 and still lost.   But I'd be implicating myself, to my (now) great shame.    Pre-election, when the NDP did their pivot to balance budgets, I supported it.   I thought it was clever, and necessary to get power, and then once they were in they could get the real stuff done.   I totally misread the mood of the electorate, I didn't see Bernie Sanders coming, and looking back on it I feel foolish and that a real progressive opportunity in Canada was missed.  I won't make that mistake again.  

Why not use scientific methods to find out what people want? Surely facts are a better quality of knowledge than beliefs or hopes.

cco wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

We also would have had MMP for 2019, ensuring that future governments would represent a majority of voters.

Counterevidence: Every provincial NDP majority government.

None of those NDP provincial governments had it as a plank in their platform to implement MMP before the next election. The federal NDP in the last campaign did. I feel very confident Tom Mulcair, Craig Scott, and the rest would have come through on this clear committment.

Ken Burch wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

swallow wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..i thought the qs idea of dual leadership you pushed a while back has considerable merit sean. to bad it's not an option.

Why is it not an option?

 

Its not an option because in Canada we have one Prime Minister not two co-PMs - one for English Canada and one for Quebec. If a party tried to get away with having two leaders one to speak English and one to speak French it would be ridiculed and that party would quickly cease to be taken seriously.

You could accomodate dual or multiple leadership in a governing party by having a rotating prime ministership...for example,Niki Ashton for three months, Charlie Angus for three, Ruth Ellen Brousseau for three, Nathan Cullen or somebody else from B.C. for three(with, in each case, the others as a kind of leadership advisory council when it's not their months) .  It could be a direct challenge to the arrogance and distortions of personality-based politics and restore issues and policy ideas to the place they should hold in public debate.

And probably go over like a lead balloon with the electorate.

To clarify, I was being sarcastic when I said that.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Almost three million more people thought Clinton was more sincere than Trump.

Bellieving somone is sincere is not the same as agreeing with them. I'm sure most Clinton voters thought Trump was sincere about his racism, xenophobia, and misogyny.

Clinton would have won easily if she had hung on to all the voters who supported Obama, and I do think her failure to do so is largely because she appeared to lack his sincerity.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

brookmere wrote:

Clinton would have won easily if she had hung on to all the voters who supported Obama, and I do think her failure to do so is largely because she appeared to lack his sincerity.

Yes, and the sincerity gap was also one of the biggest factors that attracted such a surprisingly large number of Democratic primary voters to Sanders rather than Clinton.

Between Sanders and Clinton the sincerity gap was highlighted by their actual actions over the previous decades. IMO Sanders sounded more sincere in the role of change agent because of his career, Clinton just sounded like a political hack.

The NDP needs a seasoned public figure who has always stood for the core values that drive the NDP membership.  

Quote:

It isn’t far-fetched to suggest that Angus has the most unusual resumé of any plausible potential candidate to replace Tom Mulcair as NDP leader. He is fully expected to run for the job, after quitting his positions as NDP caucus chair and Indigenous affairs critic in late November to consider a leadership bid. Perhaps even more tellingly, Angus, whose French is only passable, used the year-end break to attend intensive French classes in Quebec City. “French is certainly going to be, if I run, a huge issue,” he told Maclean’s. “To be able to speak in both languages in Canada is just the bottom line.”

I like his resume and if he can gain a basic proficiency in French he could be a great candidate. 

Basic French?  No.  A national party leader has to be fluently bilingual.  This BASIC requirement shouldn't be thrown out the window because we like the candidate.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

brookmere wrote:

Clinton would have won easily if she had hung on to all the voters who supported Obama, and I do think her failure to do so is largely because she appeared to lack his sincerity.

Yes, and the sincerity gap was also one of the biggest factors that attracted such a surprisingly large number of Democratic primary voters to Sanders rather than Clinton.

Between Sanders and Clinton the sincerity gap was highlighted by their actual actions over the previous decades. IMO Sanders sounded more sincere in the role of change agent because of his career, Clinton just sounded like a political hack.

The NDP needs a seasoned public figure who has always stood for the core values that drive the NDP membership.  

Yes-- I think the issue is as much authenticity as sincerity.

As well Clinton did not express any understanding that people wanted change. Obama after two terms represented more change than she did. People who are suffering are not okay with a candidate who says things are more or less okay as they are. Many of those people seem to have stayed home in key places.

Clinton, while losing did very well -- only because Trump was so loathsome to many. Imagine what a non-loathsome person could have accomplished against her. Imagine what a strong Democrat could have done to Trump.

The Democratic party has been not given enough reason for people to want to come out and support them -- or even for them to see enough contrast with the Republicans.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

To get back to Canada. This came across my Facebook feed this morning.

https://www.facebook.com/tania.cameron/videos/10154771573166341/

Interesting and related -- he may not have French but he is authentic and sincere. Language is a real issue and we cannot minimize that.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

To get back to Canada. This came across my Facebook feed this morning.

https://www.facebook.com/tania.cameron/videos/10154771573166341/

Interesting and related -- he may not have French but he is authentic and sincere. Language is a real issue and we cannot minimize that.

Yes language is an issue but it depends on where you live how much of an issue it is. It is a immense issue where you live in Ottawa. It is a major issue in Quebec and parts of Ontario while most other Canadians are ambivalent because the ones that are bilingual speak other languages not both official languages.  The last thing the NDP needs is a leader that can be fluently glib in both official languages. How many voters are going to chose the NDP based on the linguistic prowess of its leader. I think that except in the Ottawa bubble that is an issue that is well down the list of things that will change a voters preference. I think that Jack Layton won seats in Quebec based on his sincerity not his linguistic skills. He tried hard and improved as he went along in his role as leader. Am I naive to think that the people of Quebec would be accepting of someone else who was both sincere in their policies and their commitment to improve their French language ability?  

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

To get back to Canada. This came across my Facebook feed this morning.

https://www.facebook.com/tania.cameron/videos/10154771573166341/

Interesting and related -- he may not have French but he is authentic and sincere. Language is a real issue and we cannot minimize that.

Yes language is an issue but it depends on where you live how much of an issue it is. It is a immense issue where you live in Ottawa. It is a major issue in Quebec and parts of Ontario while most other Canadians are ambivalent because the ones that are bilingual speak other languages not both official languages.  The last thing the NDP needs is a leader that can be fluently glib in both official languages. How many voters are going to chose the NDP based on the linguistic prowess of its leader. I think that except in the Ottawa bubble that is an issue that is well down the list of things that will change a voters preference. I think that Jack Layton won seats in Quebec based on his sincerity not his linguistic skills. He tried hard and improved as he went along in his role as leader. Am I naive to think that the people of Quebec would be accepting of someone else who was both sincere in their policies and their commitment to improve their French language ability?  

I am fed up with the drive-by attacks on people for living in Ottawa. The same people doing this might get all up in arms if anyone attacks anywhere else but with Ottawa it is open season.

The idea that people in Ottawa are less aware of the rest of the country -- than any part of the country is aware of here -- is something you can file under the category of your personal prejudice. The people in Ottawa are actually quite well educated. We travel. We read, you know. We come from all over and we are no less stupid than any of you.

As for the so called bubble, there may be blindness on the part of the political arm of government. There may be some lacking in awareness who work for the government. But there is more here than government and civil servants. And those people are no more subject to a bubble than any of you. There is as much movement of people in and out of Ottawa as anywhere else. In fact people here are easily as likely to meet people from all parts of the country as anywhere else.

But all of you rude jerks who wish to run down anyone just becuase they live in Ottawa, I suggest you get out of YOUR bubble. This is a diverse community of people who originate from all over Canada with some being ignorant, some open, some more tolerant than others. Like where you come from. I would not doubt that some of you who like to pretend those in Ottawa do not know anything come from a provincial government town and would be sensitive if anyone claimed you knew little about the rest of Canada. I am sure you are not all from the centre of the universe with the biggest appendage. And by the way we get news of the rest of the country -- perhaps unlike those from the shadow of said appendage.

To say language is an issue here but not anywhere else is a sign that you, not me, live in a bubble. Ottawa has a particularly high level of bilingualism. There is also a great deal of contact between people who do not speak the second language well. There is a relatively high tolerance for this. Higher than most of the rest of the country. A similarly high level exists in Montreal. It is the rest of the country for which this is an immense deal. They may not see it that way becuase of their bubbles.

In Ottawa and Montreal people speaking either official language can reach a large proportion of the population directly. In speaking a second language they reach even more, most of whom are used to hearing people speak their language with an accent. In these two cities, the quality of the second language is quite possibly less of a deal than anywhere else.

The next place some people here seem to think language is the biggest deal for is the rest of Quebec. But they are the second to least after Ottawa and Montreal as there is still a familiarity with people speaking French as a second language and listening to heavily accented French is pretty common particularly among national leaders

But the rest of the country -- the place most of the people who say bilingualism is not a big deal --  this is where it matters the most. This is where if you do not speak their language very well, English, you are deemed unelectable by a large number of people. These are the people who snear the most at those of us who say language matters. It does not, to them, matter so long as you are proficient at their language -- the only one they think should be allowed.

Now over top of all that we have several other languages commonly used. They are not official but matter as well and can be assets in different places. But in Non-bilingual English Canada, the part of the country that claims bilingualism is the least relevant, they expect that you speak their language and not to exist if you do not. They will be the first to say that a person does not need French to engage with Quebec and the last to be open to a Francophones struggling in English trying to speak to them.

Here in Ottawa we are fine with both Anglos struggling in French and Francophones struggling in English. Less of a deal than anywhere else in the country.

Sorry to burst your frickin bubble.

And with all that -- I said Language does matter. Becuase it does and everyone open to the existence of a second language knows it does. And the further you are from a bilingual community used to hearing people in their second language the more, not less, it will matter.

I did not say it was the absolute be all and end all. But it matters even if it actually matters less here than where most of you all come from.

I think you completely missed Sean's point, which is that those living in wholly English-speaking communities take it as a given that a major party leader has to be proficient in English, but regard French proficiency as an "issue". That's the real bubble - refusing to look outside your own community.

brookmere wrote:

I think you completely missed Sean's point, which is that those living in wholly English-speaking communities take it as a given that a major party leader has to be proficient in English, but regard French proficiency as an "issue". That's the real bubble - refusing to look outside your own community.

And my point is that the communities where the majority of Canadians live are multilingual and multi-racial and not wholly English speaking. I am looking at my community and my sons friends. They went to French immersion and after ten years of not speaking French at school they are not fluent speakers. Many do speak Mandarin or Cantonese or Tagalog because they have many opportunities to speak their second language and keep your skills up. But to you and Sean that is not really bilingual that is irrelevant to REAL Canadians. The idea that a person needs to also be able to be fluent in French just reduces the pool of potential candidates down to primarily white Canadian born residents of Central Canada. 

brookmere wrote:

"primarily white Canadian born residents of Central Canada."

 You're saying that whites have some inherent aptitude in speaking French?

Way to take a quote out of context. Do you perform any other feats of magic?