NDP Leadership

Evening Star · February 27, 2012

I don't know. The fact that he tried to get a job in Harper's PMO

Did he try or was he approached? My understanding is the latter, that he was courted by all parties and chose the NDP.

http://blogs.canada.com/2011/07/28/mulcairtory-ties-resurrected-ndp-chaos/

Smallc · February 27, 2012

He's a decent speaker and has a good sense of humour but, as I said about Singh, I certainly don't think he has the experience or accomplishments of Mulcair, Topp, or Nash.

Topp, I think, is far too bland. Sure, Harper is bland, but Harper is very different.

Evening Star · February 27, 2012

According to members of the NDP they are a grassroots party and the members make the policy, if the membership don't like Cullen's idea can't they say so at a policy convention and look at his other attributes at the leadership race?

I just don't think his other attributes are as impressive as you seem to.

Evening Star · February 27, 2012

Topp, I think, is far too bland. Sure, Harper is bland, but Harper is very different.

As a personality and speaker? I agree there. And I can't stand Nash personally. I'm just saying that Cullen never occurs to me as a serious contender in the same way that they do because of their experience.

Newfoundlander · February 27, 2012

Did he try or was he approached? My understanding is the latter, that he was courted by all parties and chose the NDP.

http://blogs.canada.com/2011/07/28/mulcairtory-ties-resurrected-ndp-chaos/

He still supposedly tried to negotiate a job with the PMO. I believe Topp called him out on this as well.

cybercoma · February 27, 2012

What kills me is that Singh has some of the best policies for attracting new voters with his fiscal-mindedness, but you know damn well, and it's a shame, the turban and beard counters that.

Evening Star · February 27, 2012

He still supposedly tried to negotiate a job with the PMO. I believe Topp called him out on this as well.

This is the key sentence from the article I cited: "He apparently turned them down when he discovered they had no interest in his ideas but rather wanted him to simply back their own."

Edit: I suppose for a hardcore partisan, the fact that he even thought about it would stain him. For me, it shows that he's open-minded, cares about the environment, and was trying to implement some progressive change.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Evening Star

Newfoundlander · February 27, 2012

I just don't think his other attributes are as impressive as you seem to.

He is by far the best in debates, he's young, more moderate, has better French then most, has a sense of humour and appears to have little to no baggage. He's also represents a rural riding is western Canada, that is now a safe seat for him. His background outside of politics isn't overly great but I don't think it's a big deal. I think he would appeal most to Canadians and is the one who is probably most like Layton.

Smallc · February 27, 2012

As a personality and speaker? I agree there. And I can't stand Nash personally.

Nash is all bluster, IMO.

mentalfloss · February 27, 2012

The CPC shouldn't want to face Mulcair. He's a real threat to them.

Right now Rae is mopping up in the house, while Turmel is just reading the script. While I think Topp is competent, he would be greatly overshadowed by Rae's passion and growing charisma.

Mulcair is the showstopper the NDP need to gain control during QP.

Newfoundlander · February 27, 2012

This is the key sentence from the article I cited: "He apparently turned them down when he discovered they had no interest in his ideas but rather wanted him to simply back their own."

Edit: I suppose for a hardcore partisan, the fact that he even thought about it would stain him. For me, it shows that he's open-minded, cares about the environment, and was trying to implement some progressive change.

I think many in the NDP would have rather seen him as a member of the PQ then the Liberal Party of Quebec, seeing the Quebec Liberals are such a staunch right-wing party. :rolleyes:

Evening Star · February 27, 2012

He is by far the best in debates, he's young, more moderate, has better French then most, has a sense of humour and appears to have little to no baggage. He's also represents a rural riding is western Canada, that is now a safe seat for him. His background outside of politics isn't overly great but I don't think it's a big deal. I think he would appeal most to Canadians and is the one who is probably most like Layton.

I disagree that he's "by far the best in debates" but he's good. Otherwise, those are all fair points, actually. I don't think I'd mind him, as long as he doesn't try to push his joint nomination BS too hard.

I guess I'm just not sure what substance he brings to the table. Policy is determined by the party but the leader does put his or her slant on things, has his or her own focus and areas of specialization. I know what those are with Mulcair and I feel that I do with Dewar and Topp. I'm not sure what those are with Cullen.

Evening Star · February 27, 2012

I think many in the NDP would have rather seen him as a member of the PQ then the Liberal Party of Quebec, seeing the Quebec Liberals are such a staunch right-wing party.

Yeah, I may well not be a 'typical' voter in this race.

Newfoundlander · February 27, 2012

I don't think any of the NDP leadership candidates are at Rae's level. Rae is pretty much in his own league when it comes to performing in the house, scrumming, and being interviewed.

capricorn · February 27, 2012

I don't think any of the NDP leadership candidates are at Rae's level. Rae is pretty much in his own league when it comes to performing in the house, scrumming, and being interviewed.

True. But with the Liberals at 35 seats, Rae should not consume much of the NDP leader's time. It is Harper he/she has to go after. It boils down to a contest for best leader between the two top parties. That's where the NDP has to focus their choice.

Newfoundlander · February 27, 2012

True. But with the Liberals at 35 seats, Rae should not consume much of the NDP leader's time. It is Harper he/she has to go after. It boils down to a contest for best leader between the two top parties. That's where the NDP has to focus their choice.

Chantel Hebert wrote an interesting article last week about how she spoke to people within the Liberal Party last year when they were planning to defeat Harper. They told her that the Liberals were looking to make big gains in Quebec as the federalist option, she asked them how the NDP factored in and they never considered them to be a threat in the province. Look how that worked out. At this moment the NDP and Liberals are closer in polling then the Conservatives and NDP.

j44 · February 27, 2012

I've said it before, Mulcair is the guy that the Conservatives want to win. He's got a temper, and he's easy to bait into saying things that even he doesn't believe.

What I find curious, is the opposition's penchant for wanting the guy they know that the CPC wants to face, and their tendency to laugh when it's pointed out. The NDP should learn a lesson from the LPC and their leaders from the last 7 yrs; The CPC knows who they want to face and exactly how they will beat him/her.

Cullen is the only guy I see who might actually be seen as a threat by the Conservatives. He could actually make gains west of Quebec. That many NDPers are writing him off is giving most CPC people a bit of relief. He's really the only one that CPC doesn't look at and say "Yes, Please!".

I think Mulcair has clearly become better at holding his anger back and I'm sure he will continue to improve and if he wins he can let it loose in QP as therapy.

I don't get all this 'the Conservatives want Mulcair to win.' Where is this coming from? who in the party is saying it? and couldn't it just be spin? I can't see them wanting to face Mulcair instead of Nash or Topp etc. Can anyone really say that the Conservatives would rather face Mulcair instead of Topp or Nash? No way. Or Dewar? He hasn't even preformed well in the English part of the debates.

As much as I like Cullen I see Mulcair as a better leader. I liked Cullen from the start but he missed a few chances in the Winnipeg debate to hit back when (I forget who) attacked about the co-operation with the Liberals. They were calling him out when he said the NDP worked with the Liberals in the house and in the coalition attempt by saying that that was different because his plan would involve co-operation on the ground. He had a few chances to say that the party shouldn't work in that top-down manner or something along those lines and he didn't say it. It thought it was a missed opportunity.

I also think the Conservatives would be a little concerned with a NDP from Quebec bringing their numbers back up in the province. It would seem to me that with Mulcair in there that would help hold the fort in Quebec and allow them to win in other parts of the country. Although I obviously could be wrong I really can't see Mulcair being the top choice for the conservatives. I dont doubt that they think he is beatable but that is different from him being their first choice.

I would also like some more thoughts on his vulnerabilities other than his temper and the fact that he was a Quebec Liberal.

As much as people may disagree with Cullen's proposal he has used that and his performances to be a top name in the party now. Not many knew who he was before all this proposal talk.

Newfoundlander · February 27, 2012

Harper made some comment about if Mulcair wins he wins and if he loses he wins.

Evening Star · February 27, 2012

I don't get all this 'the Conservatives want Mulcair to win.' Where is this coming from? who in the party is saying it? and couldn't it just be spin? I can't see them wanting to face Mulcair instead of Nash or Topp etc. Can anyone really say that the Conservatives would rather face Mulcair instead of Topp or Nash? No way. Or Dewar? He hasn't even preformed well in the English part of the debates.

I don't buy it either, especially when people start saying that Nathan Cullen, whom no one had even heard of before this race, would be the real threat to the Tories. Somehow, I don't think listening to card-carrying Conservatives would be our best move here.

Newfoundlander · February 27, 2012

I don't buy it either, especially when people start saying that Nathan Cullen, whom no one had even heard of before this race, would be the real threat to the Tories. Somehow, I don't think listening to card-carrying Conservatives would be our best move here.

Why does it matter if he was well known or not? I think that can be a legitimate asset, Layton wasn't well known when he became leader.

TheNewTeddy · February 27, 2012

Chantel Hebert wrote an interesting article last week about how she spoke to people within the Liberal Party last year when they were planning to defeat Harper. They told her that the Liberals were looking to make big gains in Quebec as the federalist option, she asked them how the NDP factored in and they never considered them to be a threat in the province. Look how that worked out. At this moment the NDP and Liberals are closer in polling then the Conservatives and NDP.

The NDP has always been a potential threat in Quebec, but has never before been able to realize that.

The Liberals however are a potential threat in the West - if they can ever realize that potential that is.

olpfan1 · February 27, 2012

The bloc will take back Quebec to become 4th party, , Liberals will win minority government, conservatives opposition, ndp 3rd party

Evening Star · February 27, 2012

The NDP has always been a potential threat in Quebec, but has never before been able to realize that.

The Liberals however are a potential threat in the West - if they can ever realize that potential that is.

The Liberals haven't been a dominant force in the Prairies since the Diefenbaker era. They've barely amounted to anything in the Prairies from 1972 onwards. In the last election, the NDP came second (if a distant second) in most Prairie ridings. How do you see the Liberals becoming a potential threat in the West?

Edited February 27, 2012 by Evening Star

Newfoundlander · February 27, 2012

The Liberals haven't been a dominant force in the Prairies since the Diefenbaker era. They've barely amounted to anything in the Prairies from 1972 onwards. In the last election, the NDP came second (if a distant second) in most Prairie ridings. How do you see the Liberals becoming a potential threat in the West?

The NDP were a distant fourth is almost every riding in Quebec in 2008.

The Librals have had some strong showings in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and BC over the last decade. I think they could definitely do well in western Canada with the right policies and didn't ignor the region. There's a chance that some CPC supporters will look for another option in 2015, if they feel Harper hasn't done a great job, and there's no reason why the Liberals couldn't be that option.

Evening Star · February 27, 2012

The NDP were a distant fourth is almost every riding in Quebec in 2008.

The Librals have had some strong showings in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and BC over the last decade. I think they could definitely do well in western Canada with the right policies and didn't ignor the region. There's a chance that some CPC supporters will look for another option in 2015, if they feel Harper hasn't done a great job, and there's no reason why the Liberals couldn't be that option.

Fair point. Anything's possible, especially considering no one expected the NDP to become Official Opposition.