mentalfloss Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I only really watched the first debate but then, Singh seemed very much to be a single-issue candidate who was fixated on small businesses, especially his own. Has he shown more depth? I have no issue with his turban and beard. (Mulcair has a beard too!) I saw the one on the 27th, and while he did make a couple of references to his experience in pharmacy he was commenting on major issues of debate like the other candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I have no problem with his appearance, personally.. but the head dress and beard are why he is being overlooked. This is the sad, unfortunate truth. He's an intelligent and articulate candidate. However, Canadian racism makes it difficult to make him the leader of the opposition and the face of the party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I saw the one on the 27th, and while he did make a couple of references to his experience in pharmacy he was commenting on major issues of debate like the other candidates. Cullen was hilarious on the 27th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 The only one who seems to have a personality in a debate is Nathan Cullen, and he's doesn't stand a chance of winning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 This is the sad, unfortunate truth. He's an intelligent and articulate candidate. However, Canadian racism makes it difficult to make him the leader of the opposition and the face of the party. Afaik, he's a white guy from a Protestant family who converted to Sikhism. I'm willing to believe that he has grown since the first debate. It still seems rash to assume that it is only racism that makes him a less likely candidate than people with the experience and accomplishments that Mulcair, Topp, Nash, and Dewar have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) Cullen was hilarious on the 27th. Yea, I'm not on board his campaign of "Beating Harper is our #1 priority so we need to join the Liberals." I would rather have the option to choose from a few parties. Edited February 10, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Saganash will withdraw. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/09/romeo-saganash-ndp-leadership-race.html Wow I am dissapointed that this strong leader is not going to be more vocal in one of Canadas most important leadership races in recent memory! But it sounds like he has some important family issues to attend too so I wish him and his family the best of luck! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I have not been following this story. Who won the NDP leadership? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewTeddy Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I have not been following this story. Who won the NDP leadership? You They'll be at your door in 5 mins Hope you are ready :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Afaik, he's a white guy from a Protestant family who converted to Sikhism. I'm willing to believe that he has grown since the first debate. It still seems rash to assume that it is only racism that makes him a less likely candidate than people with the experience and accomplishments that Mulcair, Topp, Nash, and Dewar have. Racism's the wrong word, but there would definitely be a backlash against a Sikh as the leader of a party, regardless of whether he was originally as Sikh or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Afaik, he's a white guy from a Protestant family who converted to Sikhism. I'm willing to believe that he has grown since the first debate. It still seems rash to assume that it is only racism that makes him a less likely candidate than people with the experience and accomplishments that Mulcair, Topp, Nash, and Dewar have. I am genuinely curious as to what exactly are the accomplishments and achievements. Outside of getting elected and running political machines, what have each done that you find to be of merit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewTeddy Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I am genuinely curious as to what exactly are the accomplishments and achievements. Outside of getting elected and running political machines, what have each done that you find to be of merit? Why would you want to vote for anyone who has done anything else? And yes that is a serious question. A leader needs to be first and foremost, electable, everything else is just a bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 NDP Leadership Oxymoron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 I am genuinely curious as to what exactly are the accomplishments and achievements. Outside of getting elected and running political machines, what have each done that you find to be of merit? Why do I suspect that no answer will satisfy you? Getting elected (repeatedly) and running political machines seem like pretty relevant qualifications to be leader of a political party, don't you think? And in those areas, other candidates seem far more experienced than Martin Singh. I could point to things Mulcair's experience in Charest's cabinet with environmental policy and with the 1995 referendum, to Topp's experience as Romanow's deputy chief of staff and NDP campaign director and with directing ACTRA, to Dewar's and Nash's work in Parliament and Nash's with CAW but these things are widely known already and can be easily looked up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 12, 2012 Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 Why do I suspect that no answer will satisfy you? Getting elected (repeatedly) and running political machines seem like pretty relevant qualifications to be leader of a political party, don't you think? And in those areas, other candidates seem far more experienced than Martin Singh. I could point to things Mulcair's experience in Charest's cabinet with environmental policy and with the 1995 referendum, to Topp's experience as Romanow's deputy chief of staff and NDP campaign director and with directing ACTRA, to Dewar's and Nash's work in Parliament and Nash's with CAW but these things are widely known already and can be easily looked up. No, I am curious as to what qualifies each or any of these persons to lead the country. Is that not a consideration for the NDP electorate? Doesn't the NDP have aspirations to win an election, not just have a leader? I thought I'd ask the question, it will certainly be asked by Canadians before the next federal election. Or is that too partisan and confrontational for your sensitivities? And no, I don't think just getting elected is enough qualification. I'm wondering who has the most experience managing large budgets, large numbers of people, understands foreign and domestic issues through actual experience, education in something practical, somebody who has had a real job at some point in their life, - that sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 No, I am curious as to what qualifies each or any of these persons to lead the country. Is that not a consideration for the NDP electorate? Doesn't the NDP have aspirations to win an election, not just have a leader? I thought I'd ask the question, it will certainly be asked by Canadians before the next federal election. Or is that too partisan and confrontational for your sensitivities? And no, I don't think just getting elected is enough qualification. I'm wondering who has the most experience managing large budgets, large numbers of people, understands foreign and domestic issues through actual experience, education in something practical, somebody who has had a real job at some point in their life, - that sort of thing. I gave you some answers in my post. Mulcair has experience with being a prominent member in a major provincial cabinet. I don't know what you consider a 'real job' but he has significant accomplishments as a lawyer and public servant and has taught university. Topp was deputy chief of staff to the premier of Saskatchewan. He has an insider's perspective on Romanow's battle with the deficit. Nash was in charge of major labour negotiations on behalf of CAW. Want to tell me what experience Stephen Harper had with the sorts of things you're asking about prior to becoming PM? I'm especially interested in hearing about his 'real jobs'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Paul Dewar was a teacher and Nikki Ashton went to university! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Without the Bloc Quebecois the left split vote will allow the conservatives to win every time the Bloc either need to take Quebec back or the left will have to join together or 4 more years of Harper That is the reality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Huh? If anything, wouldn't the BQ only further split the left vote, especially seeing as how they're an actual left-wing party? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Huh? If anything, wouldn't the BQ only further split the left vote, especially seeing as how they're an actual left-wing party? maybe, yes, i don't know anymore, when the bloc died so did Canada they were the only party keeping cpc from majority Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfoundlander Posted February 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 maybe, yes, i don't know anymore, when the bloc died so did Canada they were the only party keeping cpc from majority How were they the only party keeping the Conservatives from a majority? The Conservstives won a majority regardless of Quebec, and they won more seats in the province in 2006 and 2008 when the Bloc Québécois were strong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 maybe, yes, i don't know anymore, when the bloc died so did Canada they were the only party keeping cpc from majority This makes no sense to me at all. The CPC won exactly 5 seats in Quebec in the last election. The collapse of the BQ was not what gave the CPC a majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 I gave you some answers in my post. Mulcair has experience with being a prominent member in a major provincial cabinet. I don't know what you consider a 'real job' but he has significant accomplishments as a lawyer and public servant and has taught university. Topp was deputy chief of staff to the premier of Saskatchewan. He has an insider's perspective on Romanow's battle with the deficit. Nash was in charge of major labour negotiations on behalf of CAW. Want to tell me what experience Stephen Harper had with the sorts of things you're asking about prior to becoming PM? I'm especially interested in hearing about his 'real jobs'. Now you are getting the idea, sort of. What were Mulcairs significant accomplishments as a lawyer, civil servant and teacher?Is that all Topp has as work experience, been an operative within the NDP? What have the others done for a living, other than be politcians. I understand your obsession with Prime Minister Harper, but could you try and stay on topic for a couple of posts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 This makes no sense to me at all. The CPC won exactly 5 seats in Quebec in the last election. The collapse of the BQ was not what gave the CPC a majority. It was what kept the cpc as a minority government for 5 years though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) It was what kept the cpc as a minority government for 5 years though Was it? The fact that they won a majority without winning almost any seats in Quebec suggests otherwise. Vote-splitting was not much of a factor in Quebec either: the NDP won the vast majority of seats there. edit: Maybe if you said that the collapse of the LPC or 'vote-splitting' between the LPC and NDP allowed a CPC majority, I could see where you were coming from. Edited February 13, 2012 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.