NDP leadership race 2

mark_alfred wrote:

I have no problem with Sid Ryan.  He's passionate and honest, and is willing to admit mistakes he's made in the past.  So, I feel he's a decent guy.  But the current group who advocate for him on social media are the most obnoxious people I've ever had the misfortune of interacting with.

The thing about obnoxious social media people is that they wind up annoying the wrong person. Then this person does everything they can to defeat the leader of the obnoxious social media people. Not because there may be anything wrong with the leader, but because they can, and for the extreme sense of satisfaction felt after they have been defeated.

What would happen if both the NDP & Conservatives both elect leaders for their parties that are NOT Billigual.

With only three recorgnized parties in the House of Commons how would two non-billingual leaders face off against a billingual Justin Trudeau?

Mighty Middle wrote:

Olivia Chow said her lack of french is the reason she is NOT putting her name forward in this leadership race

Well OK, but that's a lot easier than saying that after two recent high-profile drubbings in the polls she's not winning material.

Mighty Middle wrote:

What would happen if both the NDP & Conservatives both elect leaders for their parties that are NOT Billigual.

With only three recorgnized parties in the House of Commons how would two non-billingual leaders face off against a billingual Justin Trudeau?

 

BQ 2.0 ?

Bilingualism of the leader is only part of the picture-- Other parts are:

1) who is speaking for the party in French? Is this a senior person and do they have a connection and ability?

2) what are the policies Francophones and Quebec want to hear and is the leader in tune with understanding them

3) what level of effort and understanding of the importance of French is the leader demonstrating

All these four issues will be seen together. The bilingualism issue will be a bigger deal if the others are not in good shape.

Of course the leader being perfectly bilingual is a tremendous asset and I do not mean to minimize this.

Debater wrote:

Ruth Ellen Brosseau not running for NDP leadership

Wednesday, January 25th, 2017

Quote:

“No, not at all. After a bit of reflection and lots of discussion with my family and friends I have decided to stay on as the member of Parliament for Berthier-Maskinongé,” Brosseau told reporters Wednesday.

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/01/25/ruth-ellen-brosseau-not-running-for-ndp-l...

Good this would only be damaging to her.

She needs some more time as MP before anything like this.

She didn't actually say this was the one and only reason she wouldnt run

The article says:

Lack of bilingualism is what is keeping Olivia Chow, the widow of Mr. Layton who was herself an MP for eight years, from putting her name forward. “Jack spent a lot of time building up the Quebec team and the caucus and the connection with the Québécois,” Ms. Chow said, “so I think it is really important to have someone who is a lot more fluent than what I can do.”

Now perhaps Ms. Chow then added, "Anyway, I wouldn't run even if I spoke French well", but that sounds improbable.

Probably Julian, since he used to be energy and natural resources critic.

Either one would be fine.  And a big improvement.

Jack learnt to speak passable French and his wife while in office at the same time did not. It is obvious she didn't consider it important enough and thus that disqualifies her. If she had worked on her French when Jack did she would be bilingual enough just as he was.

Stockholm wrote:

There was never any reason for her to put a high priority on learning French...and I get the impression that she is not all that proficient at leaning languages.

As the Leader's spouse she attended many events in Quebec. You think that was not a good enough reason to make it a high priority. Apparently you were right since Jack did have a big breakthrough in Quebec. However your logic underscores that the people of Quebec are not as doctrinaire on language as concerned people in Ontario are.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

There was never any reason for her to put a high priority on learning French...and I get the impression that she is not all that proficient at leaning languages.

As the Leader's spouse she attended many events in Quebec. You think that was not a good enough reason to make it a high priority. Apparently you were right since Jack did have a big breakthrough in Quebec. However your logic underscores that the people of Quebec are not as doctrinaire on language as concerned people in Ontario are.

I think it is unfair to compare the ability of an English first language speaker to learn French, one exposed to it early on, with a Cantonese first language speaker. There is a lot more in common between the structure of English vs French. You would think that obvious.

I have known Chinese language speakers who learned French and some who tried and could not. It is a tough thing to do.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I think it is unfair to compare the ability of an English first language speaker to learn French, one exposed to it early on, with a Cantonese first language speaker. There is a lot more in common between the structure of English vs French. You would think that obvious.

I have known Chinese language speakers who learned French and some who tried and could not. It is a tough thing to do.

I know that when I tried to learn Mandarin I was extremely unsuccessful.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Mandarin and Cantonese are two very different languages much like English and French. Sending a Cantonese speaker to speak to Mandarin speakers would be ridiculous.

My apologizes I thought her mother tongue was Mandarin. If it is Cantonese, then my mistake. Thanks for the clarification.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Reading Olivia book she says the party sent her to ridings with a big Chinese community, so they could take advantage of her speaking in her native tongue, Mandarian.

Mandarin and Cantonese are two very different languages much like English and French. Sending a Cantonese speaker to speak to Mandarin speakers would be ridiculous.

Chow comes from Hong Kong, where you would expect her first language to be more likely Cantonese -- and certainly if it were not her first language, that she would speak it. I do not know enough about her family to know for sure. We do know she speaks both and has addressed Canadian Chinese communities in both Cantonese and Mandarin. It is not all that uncommon to speak both.

I certainly struggle in rudamentary Mandarin and I have an appreciation that the difference between Chinese languages and English and French is much greater than the difference between English and French. This is why comparing Chow's ability to speak French with an English native speaker is unfair.

ETA sorry cross posted with the last couple posts

"Second phase" is not the same thing as being in "second place"

Stockholm wrote:

"Second phase" is not the same thing as being in "second place"

Well since there is only one officially declared candidate its hard to say anything.

Angus is asking for support for his campaign.  The $30,000 is a big pile of cash to start the process and thats before you start to campaign. I think that if NDP'ers want a good field they are going to have to send money to more than one candidate in the initial phases.

http://www.charlieangusnpd.ca/

It's very interesting that he's setting out the main theme of his campaign already. Combined with his prior statements about launching said campaign after February 8, it looks like a foregone conclusion that he will indeed be running for leader. 

Wilf Day]</p> <p>Yet <a href="http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201701/28/01-5064172-course-a-la-direction-du-npd-le-grand-saut-de-guy-caron.php" target="_blank">another article</a> on Guy Caron. His steady groundwork is attracting respect.<br />[quote wrote:

(Translated) 

Mr. Caron already has an idea of ​​the main theme he wants to focus on during the race: the development of the social democratic economy.

"One of the big problems we have faced as a party in the last 30 or 40 years is that we have constantly let the Liberals and Conservatives define us on the economy, namely that we are the party of "tax and spend," that we know how to spend taxpayers' money. But it's much more than that, "said Mr. Caron, who is an economist.

"The economy has always been seen as the prerogative of the right and the milieu of finance, whereas this is not the case. Everyone is affected by the economy. "

I am not sure that this has filtered through yet to the public but the NDP I am sure got the message.

It is relevant again and it should not be written of. The leadership is no longer about a caretaker building leader but it is the choice for a leader who can contest the next election.

The NDP is weak but it is not sidelined anymore. Several Liberal decisions have restored the gap between the sapce the Liberals occupy and that of the NDP. The Liberals are also well on their way to restoring the reputation that they had in 2005.

This stuff takes a while to catch up but for experienced observers you can see it. The NDP leadership campaign has changed. This is no longer a race to be leader of a no-hope party wondering why it exists without any hope of that leader ever winning an election. This is a race to lead a party that has a very difficult uphill road to power but does have that road.

Now of course a mistake in the leadership race could send the party back down but you can smell the opportunity.

The people who came out with high ideals to vote Liberal have recieved a message as well. The Liberals will in the next election go back to scaring NDP voters becuase they are no longer a party to vote for but just a vehicle to vote against the Conservatives. This happened quickly.

And with the NDP having proven that it can rise further than people used to think possible, the blackmail of NDP voters, made possible only becuase the Liebrals were full of shit on electoral reform has a real chance of backfiring.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Nathan Cullen is so angry about what happened with Democratic Reform, I wouldn't be surprised if he changes his mind and runs for leader. He seems really worked up over the Liberal betrayal

Hope not.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

josh wrote:

Mighty Middle wrote:

Nathan Cullen is so angry about what happened with Democratic Reform, I wouldn't be surprised if he changes his mind and runs for leader. He seems really worked up over the Liberal betrayal

 

Hope not.

I would not see him running as a bad thing.

Him running might make the race address things that it really ought to address. We might see some distinction between candidates and others may be encouraged to run. I would not choose him for leader but I think the race could be better for him being a part of it. I think some left-right difference would be a good thing for the party to have in a leadership context becuae this is something we should discuss,

Good point, Sean. A clear choice between left and right might force party members to think carefully about where the party should be heading. Do we continue the party's strategy to poach votes from the Liberals to become the party of the centre, or do we put more distance between us and JT's party in order to attract those progressive voters who are looking for something other than more of the same?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The NDP is weak but it is not sidelined anymore. Several Liberal decisions have restored the gap between the sapce the Liberals occupy and that of the NDP. The Liberals are also well on their way to restoring the reputation that they had in 2005.

That statement reminds me of statements made (not by you) when Trudeau's numbers were diving and the NDP soaring before the election. I recall reading about people discovering the "truth" about Trudeau, that he was shallow, and the "truth" about Mulcair, that he was experienced.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Now of course a mistake in the leadership race could send the party back down but you can smell the opportunity.

The people who came out with high ideals to vote Liberal have recieved a message as well. The Liberals will in the next election go back to scaring NDP voters becuase they are no longer a party to vote for but just a vehicle to vote against the Conservatives. This happened quickly.

 

The NDP had the opportunity for the past decade. It is the NDP that tried to use scare tactics in the last election. Trudeau is absolutely not going back there. To say that means you don't understand Trudeau's style at all. This electoral thing is a smaller kerfuffle than C 51 was.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

And with the NDP having proven that it can rise further than people used to think possible, the blackmail of NDP voters, made possible only becuase the Liebrals were full of shit on electoral reform has a real chance of backfiring. 

Dreaming in technicolor. There was no blackmail of NDP voters. NDP voters represent no more than about 15% of voters. Conservatives seem to have about 25%. The Liberals about 10%. Everyone else is a swing voter. If what you are saying were true there would be a surge in NDP popularity right now even with Mulcair still as leader.

Between now and 2019 Trudeau will continue to refuse to go on the defensive. Notice he is ignoring all the attacks even though the press is all excited. He is staying on message because he knows most Canadians don't care about electoral reform. All he personally has said is that Canadians aren't interested and there is no consensus. He is leaving it to "sources" to talk about the risk of the far right rising so his messaging can remain positive. in 2018/19 infrastructure building will be going strong and he will again have a positive message. He will also have a long list of accomplishments to combat naysayers. He won't be put on the defensive. The risk to the NDP and Conservatives is they will come off as negative nellies. He has the immigrant vote sewn up.

Guy Caron sounds very interesting. I like his focus on the economy. It remains to be seen (for me) what he thinks of trade deals, the cornerstone of neoliberalism. If his position is the same as Mulcair's then he's a dud (to me). I doubt Trudeau can be beat in 2019 but if there is any chance at all it will have to be on a single big issue and the NDP would be wiser tactically to use 2019 to set themselves up for 2023.

montrealer58 wrote:

I don't think the electoral reform thing will be a significant issue by April of this year, let alone next election. It is already starting to die down on my Facebook page.

There are people who consider it only when they hear about it and for them it is not an issue now but likely will be later.

There are also people for whom it matters very much. For them it will not die down. We really have no way of knowing how many there are of people like this. A poll cannot tell us unless it is an open ended question of what the important issues are etc. If they only are concerned when prompted then it will not be a big issue until someone makes it one.

All this said there is a very strong chance this can blow up again and be a significant issue. There are three ways this could happen:

1) Strategic voting: if strategic voting sites play a role in the next election, they will certainly remind voters about this broken promise. This entire and significant issue is built around the problem of FPTP. This is a potentially serious one given the clarity of the promise and the difficulty many voters have considering both negative options and preferred support.

2) Opposition party messaging: If the Liberals perform badly this is sure to come up and stick as the tide turns against the. If they perform well there is a greater likelihood that the Green and NDP opposition will pin more on making this an issue. In other words no matter what the situation is at the time opposition parties will want to make this a big deal. If the NDP decided to run campaign ads on the issue to keep their supporters from rewarding the Liberals this will come up significantly. I see no reason why they would not do this. While the Greens do not have as much reach in many parts of the country, I think you can bet on them making this an issue as much as they can. While the CPC are happy with this, it does not mean they will not use it to hurt the Liebrals and remind NDP voters why they should not gang up with the Liberals.

3) Liberal messaging to NDP voters: While it may matter less to voters leaning Liberal it may to those trying to decide and it may stall any effort by the Liberals to ask the NDP to "lend them their vote." In recent years electoral reform has been tied both by the NDP and the Liberals to that message when the Liberals raise it.

4) The media: Journalists from both right and left have been harsh in condemning the Liberals on this. It is likely even if the public forget, the media may remind them. During the election the media is desperate for daily stories and this is too obvious to miss.

It may also be the elephant in the room. The Liberals, in a tight election with the Conservatives, may choose to not go with the strategy to herd NDP voters out of a justified fear that this could attract attention to the issue, as I believe it would. The dynamic and result of the election could be different because of this. It is possible the Liberals have effectively neutralized their weapon of desperation against the NDP.

To that end the party popularity levels could decide. If the Liberals were way ahead then it is less likely to come up. The Liberals would see no need to raise the issue of strategic voting, there would be fewer grass roots strategic voting efforts, and the population would not fear the Conservatives. The NDP levels would determine how much of a threat the NDP actually is -- and the Greens for that matter

The last variable would be how extreme (scary) the Conservative candidate(s) are to centre left voters. If they go with a nasty candidate, as seems likely, they will remind the population of FPTP, false majorities and this broken promise.

All in all, I think there is more of a chance that this will blow up in the next election than it not blowing up. There are too many reasons and ways it can and too many with an interest in making that happen. This genie does not fit back in the bottle.

Liberals might think optimistically that they could avoid this being a significant issue. But for that to happen, two of the opposition parties woldl have to be totally incompetent and the media would have to not do its job. I would not bet on that. In the meantime the issue will die down and people will almost forget. When the campaign gets going they will be reminded.

Well, let's see by April. If it is only NDP partisans who are going on about the issue, we'll know it has gone the way of C-51...

The political leverage of this issue will not be about electoral reform, per se. IMHO. 

However, it will usefully serve as one of the more flagrant examples of Liberal lies and broken promises to be cited and re-cited repeatedly.  So an important part of the re-branding of the Trudeau Gov't prior to the next election, along with the betrayals over marijuana, pipelines, C-51, etc.

Of course, having won on the "Be grateful I am not Stephen Harper!" bandwagon in 2015, one can only reasonably expect Trudeau to run on a "Be really grateful I am not Donald Trump" platform in 2019.  And it may well work.