I came. I saw. I listened. And what I listened to was a lot of what MP Nathan Cullen characterized as “violent agreement”.
The packed crowd (people had to be turned away) listened to candidates who agree, violently, on what government should do. Grow the economy sustainably, help the downtrodden, ensure equality, and so on.
The disagreements, with one exception, were subtle. They were either about political strategy, or about implementation. Everyone may agree on what to do, everyone does not agree on how to do it. But with only a minute or 30 seconds to answer each question you had to listen sharply to hear the differences.
With that one exception. Cullen proposed open primaries for all non Conservative parties with only the winning candidate running, so that there would be one candidate in each riding to oppose the Conservatives.
The hissing was immediate. A heartbeat later, the clapping began. Because the NDP wants to be government, wants it bad. They’ve been in the wilderness for too long, and they sure don’t trust the Liberals to do the right things. But NDP supporters also understand that Harper is a transformational Prime Minister–in the worst way possible. He is making a Canada which is less equal, less prosperous and far, far meaner. He is undermining medicare, undermining small farms and plans to center Canada’s economy around resource extraction of the kind which leaves behind only a legacy of ruin. (Every resource boom ends. Every single one.) So defeating Harper is important.
That aside, there was so much agreement that I began doing what I prefer not to do in American politics: I started considering electability.
There were only three candidates on that stage, in my opinion, who had the raw charisma and polished speaking skills necessary to lead the NDP to victory. Thomas Mulcair, Nathan Cullen and Peggy Nash. The NDP cannot afford a leader who is not charismatic, and the others simply don’t have the ability to hold attention. Nash and Mulcair are bilingual, Cullen’s french is weaker, but getting better.
Below I’m going to go through my observations on all eight, starting with the three I feel have the charisma for the job.
Mulcair has a reputation as a firebrand, but the man I saw on the stage was calm and in command of the facts. Able to switch easily between rabble rousing and policy, he also showed a clear command of the actual policy levers, as when he commented that the CMHC (the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation) was the key to affordable housing, or when noted areas of provincial jurisdiction. He was also the strongest opposing voice to Cullen’s suggestion of open nominations, making a passionate case that the NDP can win as the NDP. I didn’t go in with a very favorable impression of Mulcair, but I came out with one. He would be vulnerable to attacks on his strong support for Quebec provincial jurisdiction, and I’d like to hear his current views on the role of the federal government in areas on Provincial jurisdiction, but his charisma and command of the issues made a strong impression in the debate. His point about youth engagement being key to victory was also well taken, and I’d like to hear more about how he plans to increase the youth vote.
Nash was the most relentlessly rah-rah of all the candidates. Her answers were much more often pep talks and rally the troop moments than any other candidate. She reliably commanded the crowd. Her rhetoric on issues of social equality was very skillful, making the point that if some people are better off (union workers who have pensions, for example) the solution isn’t to take those pensions away, the solution is to make sure everyone has good pensions. Of the three candidates with charisma Nash left me coldest, but I was in the minority in the crowd. She didn’t demonstrate the same ready command of the nuts and bolts of issues as Mulcair, Cullen and Romeo Saganash but given the format of the debate and her background, I would assume she is just as knowledgeable and she certainly has enough policy proposals out. I like to hear her plans for winning the next election, and holding on the the gains in Quebec.
I should confess first off that Cullen said many of the things I like to think I’d have said were I up on the stage, and said them the way I’d say them. He was the most combative of the candidates, and he was the one to call for specifics, and to call BS. The open primary suggestion was the main point of conflict in the debate, but he also made the point that when it comes to professional associations recognizing immigrant’s qualifications, “dialogue” isn’t going to cut it. He showed a ready understanding of the actual dynamics of power and how parliament works. And he was a smooth and clean speaker with charisma. As with Nash or Muclair, he commands attention. I don’t know his ideas on how the NDP should win, if the Liberals reject his open primary idea (which I’m pretty sure they would), but I’d like to hear them. As with all candidates not from Quebec, I’d like to hear how he plans to maintain the NDP’s success in that province, as well as grow outside it.
Ashton has a tendency towards mushy talk. The solution to too many things is apparently dialogue. We need to “talk” about everything. Certainly right on the issues (but so is everyone) but I didn’t get the impression she was ready for the leadership spot yet. She didn’t demonstrate the ability to make the case in a short, pithy, commanding way, and in our media environment, that’s disqualifying.
Comes across as likeable. The bloke you’d want to have a beer with, which so many political reporters seem to think is important. Good on the issues, like everyone.. Kind of forgettable otherwise. Nothing stands out from him in my mind other than “such a swell guy”. Of course that can go a long way in politics, and if Dewar were fluently bilingual his likeability could pass as charisma. As it is I think he’s a good candidate for the leadership in the next race, if he fixes his french.
Romeo isn’t a good public speaker. I winced when he made his introductory speech. But he grew on me through the debate. He had an excellent grasp not just of the details of how government works but of what is most important. He made the single most important policy point in the entire debate – that the government has almost 200 billion dollars worth of tax loopholes, subsidies and so on. (He gave the exact number, but I didn’t note it down at the time.) The 5 billion in tax cuts for the rich which could be rescinded is just the top of the iceberg. That money means that if the NDP is serious, it can remake Canada. And his record in Quebec, bringing Quebec Hydro to heel and making it work for everyone in Quebec, is impressive. In any NDP government I’d want to see Saganash in a senior ministerial role. He impressed me as a man who could turn good intentions into policy which worked. He wouldn’t make a good leader, because he’s not a man for the soundbite era, or a great giver of speeches. But for the actual work of government, he’d seemed perfect.
I think Singh knows he isn’t going to win. But he kept making the same point and it’s well taken: Canadians trust the NDP on social values, medicare and so on. They know the NDP will do the right thing. The sale which needs to be made is that the NDP can handle and grow the economy. I think that his point, and Nash’s combined, are the argument the NDP should go with: that Canadians don’t have to be mean to each other to grow the economy, but that we can all be prosperous together. Make that case, and the NDP wins. Fail to make the case, and the NDP can only back into power if Canadians hate Harper and see the NDP as the alternative. The other candidates, and the eventual leader, should listen to Singh on this.
Another likeable man, though he doesn’t come across quite as personable as the immensely likeable Dewar. I get his mail, and he or whoever writes his pieces is a great writer, who hits all the right emotive spots. His policy papers are smart. But he came across flat and wasn’t a significant presence in the debate.
Closing Remarks
It’s important for the NDP to elect a leader who can win, and who if he or she becomes Prime Minister will do the right things, and do them effectively. Eight years of a Harper majority will change the country dramatically, and when adding in his years as minority leader, will make him one of the longest serving PMs in our history. Incredible damage will be done to the country as Harper’s policies strip mine resources and largely ignore the rest of the economy, leaving Canada in great danger when the resource boom ends, as they always do.
I don’t know enough about the candidates to make an endorsement, I will simply say that electability and ability to govern are the two things which I believe matter most. The candidates who struck me as having the necessary charisma, administrative chops and sheer bloodymindedness required were (in alphabetical order), Cullen, Mulcair and Nash.
There’s more I’d like to hear, including some big ideas. Instead of “increased sustainable housing” something like “in 10 years, every building in Canada will be energy neutral”. Or “we will roll make university tuition $2k a year, and student aid will be 80% grants.” (Oh, and bankruptcy from student loans will be allowed again). “We will overturn everything Harper has done.” Big things. The vision thing. Not “tax rebate for X”. Ten point plans are all very nice, but they won’t win the election, a clearly different vision for Canada will.
In the era we’re going into Canada has a lot going for it, not the least of which is that we have oil and other resources in a period when resources are scarce and prices will stay high for a while. Offhand I can’t think of a country better positioned to prosper over the next generation. But resources can destroy us, annihilating the other sectors of our economy, including manufacturing, so that we become nothing but hewers of wood and drawers of oil. When the eventual resource crash happens, we can become Argentina north. The grab the money and run strategy of the conservatives is incredibly shortsighted.
So the Conservatives must lose. The NDP must win. And having won, it must govern effectively. For the sake of Canada, may the NDP choose the right man or woman for the job.
(View the Toronto NDP Leadership Debate yourself.)
NB: corrections made. I used the word Sovereigntist sloppily with regards to Mulcair. He has never been for Quebec independence, he does have strong views on the role of the Federal government in Quebec which could be charitably characterized as asymmetrical federalism. Nathan Cullen is not fluently bilingual, but does speak French.
B Lager
Ian, I couldn’t agree with you more on the importance of the NDP picking a charismatic, strong PM-in-waiting, not just a party boss who never even expects to be opposition leader, as has been the trend before Layton took the party to the next level.
The NDP has to face the double-edged sword that was Jack Layton’s unprecedented success as leader: a real shot at power, but also a serious height from which to fall. I am certain that the Harper Party (because it really is all about him) was quite happy with the widespread (and genuine) mourning of Layton. The creation of “Saint Jack” affords them the opportunity, in the next election, to try endless variations on the theme of “the new NDP leader’s OK and all… BUT (HE/SHE’S) NO JACK LAYTON!” Moreover, (and correct me if I’m mistaken) NOBODY was pushing for a state funeral (unprecedented for an Opposition Leader), nor would Harper have taken any flack for not having one. The impetus came solely from the Prime Minister, who made himself look magnanimous (as opposed to his usual nasty), while helping to pile the myth of Saint Jack even higher. Harper is banking on Layton’s sucessor, a mere living mortal, to fail to measure up to the icon.
To capitalize on Layton’s legacy, the NDP needs a torch-bearer (as in firebrand), not a bloodless technocrat, or a party power broker.
So far, I like Mulcair, or Cullen. Given the new Quebec-centric caucus, the leader must be a bilingual Quebecer, of both style and substance.
Steve
Ian, isn’t that the “real” policy of the Conservatives–failure, and then working from that point of failure as policy? For example, letting ownership of housing rise precipitously in Canada, then when the bubble bursts, tap into the,”we can’t afford to help anyone but ourselves” mentality to advance other Conservative issues. Or is this “chess table” I’ve laid out too multidimensional in my mind?
Idealistic Pragmatist
I recognize that a lot of this is simply your opinion, so I won’t address our points of disagreement on those fronts. But there are two important areas where you got the facts wrong, so I’ll speak up on those things at least.
1. Nathan Cullen is not fully bilingual. He has worked very hard at his French, but he’s got a long way to go to reach that level. For what it’s worth, though, I’ve seen marked improvements in his French over the course of this race, so I have no doubt that he will eventually get there. And his pretty good pronunciation and willingness to put himself out there and speak the language no matter how it comes out carries a lot of weight with Quebecers, and the Quebec media has shown signs of being willing to forgive him not being quite there yet.
2. Tom Mulcair does not, not, NOT have a “Quebec sovereigntist past,” and I’m kind of horrified that you put that out there without fact-checking. He was a Quebec Liberal under Charet, for god’s sake, and he has always been a relentless federalist. So a social democrat can accuse him of having all sorts of unpleasant things in his past, but he has never, ever, EVER been a sovereigntist. Please change this in your post; it’s simply incorrect, and potentially damaging.
Ian Welsh
Thanks IP, corrections made, I used sovereigntist sloppily. I was aware that he was a liberal minister however:
Thomas Mulcair will be attacked as a soft sovereigntist hard. In fact, he already has been. I come from out west, this stuff will play: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-real-thomas-mulcair/article2201488/
How can he be for national programs of the sort the NDP wants, but for Quebec not being involved? That ain’t going to go across well in the rest of the country. Doing some of the things the NDP wants done is going to mean playing hard ball with some of the provinces (including yours.)
In terms of Cullen, my own French is weak, so mea culpa, I should have done more research. His own website says he speaks French, but I see elsewhere it is admitted that he is at best “functionally bilingual.”
I have not been following the leadership contest closely at all. I had never heard any of these folks speak before. So these are simply impressions from someone who has almost no investment in any individual candidate beyond a desire for the NDP to win, for the good of the country. As I say, I actually came away impressed by Mulcair.
I see that Cullen is also pushing electoral reform pretty hard and that he didn’t want to scrap the long-gun registry (which, actually, is a stand I disagree with as is his desire to get rid of the Queen, though I have no particular objection to a plebiscite on the issue.)
Ian Welsh
Steve. No, I think that’s the plan. Especially visible in the case of Medicare. In terms of housing, I think that was just desperation to win a majority: if housing prices hadn’t risen, Harper wouldn’t be PM with a majority.
BDBlue
I’m jealous that you have so many people who seem to agree on doing the right things. We have so few down here in the U.S. who even care about trying to do the right thing (it isn’t “pragmatic”, don’t you know?). And this – ” In any NDP government I’d want to see Saganash in a senior ministerial role. He impressed me as a man who could turn good intentions into policy which worked. He wouldn’t make a good leader, because he’s not a man for the soundbite era, or a great giver of speeches. But for the actual work of government, he’d seemed perfect.” I don’t think we have anyone – or at least very, very few – in our national government who are that competent. But then our system is much more corrupt than yours.
LC
I’ve been following only sporadically as well, and I have to admit that Muclair has been growing on me. (I didn’t have a favourable early impression of him.)
I would agree, from what I’ve seen, with your assessment of which three have the charisma.
Morocco Bama
Admittedly, I know very little about Canadian politics, and what I’m about to say may sound superficial, but I believe there is more to it than just that, but I have to say, I like Muclair’s beard. Well, at least he had one in this photo. I don’t know how old the photo is, and whether, or not, he still has the beard, but if he does, I like it….it’s a statement.
http://theutscmessenger.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Mulcair.png
When’s the last time you saw a beard on a U.S. President? You’d have to go back to the 19th century….and here’s where that goes beyond the superficial. Facial hair in U.S. politics these days is anathema, especially beards. Come to think of it, weren’t the Fascists in Germany and Italy clean shaven, for the most part. Yeah, I know, Hitler had the funky mustache, but reviewing photos and film from that era, they were mostly clean shaven, as were their Italian counterparts.
I mention this, because I currently have a beard, and if I was so inclined to return to the Corporate World, which I am trying my damnedest not to do, I would be rejected because of my beard, regardless of how well-kept it is.
I imagine groo will have some valuable insights into the facial hair phobia that seems to be prevalent in Corporations and Government office.
Julien
I’ve been waiting a while for that post. It’s always enjoyable when you turn your eye to Canadian politics.
I’m from Québec and I’ve always been interested in politics. I’ve followed the issues, voted in every election since I could, but I’ve never been a member of a political party. Until a few months ago, that is, when I became a member of the NDP. Strangely enough, it’s my father, the aging baby-boomer, former separatist, Québec Nationalist who prompted me, when he too became a member. His main reason is that, when he looks at the NDP, they look like the only people out there who are doing politics for the right reason. In time, they will get corrupted, sure. Power does that. But for now, they are still driven by the need to do good.
For my part, my vote will go to Thomas Mulcair. I think he has the charisma, the strength and the knowledge to make it work. I think he’ll maintain interest in the NDP in Québec, which they need. And I think he’ll look good in comparison to whoever the Liberals choose as a leader. And as you mentioned, every candidate basically agrees on the goals and I’m not adamant about how we get there, just that we do.
But all that’s the logical reasons for Mulcair. But fundamentally, what drives me is that he is a man of principle. Sure, it sounds cheesy, but in his case, I believe it’s true and it has been tested. He’s willing to pay a heavy price in order to stick to his principle, and in an era of power for power’s sake, that’s worth it’s weight in gold to me.
Thomas Mulcair was basically driven out of the provincial Liberal government because he believed that, as minister of the environment, his job was to protect the environment. He wasn’t afraid to stand up to his own government, and to do so publicly, knowing that there was a price to be paid for doing so. He could have sat back and shut up, toeing the party line. That would have ensured a well-oiled, well-financed electoral team to ensure his perpetual reelection, cushy ministerial assignments and a well-connected retirement. But he didn’t. And he was driven out.
That already would have been worthwhile, in my eyes, but what did he do next? He became candidate for the NDP, in Québec, a province that had only ever elected one, singular, NDP candidate. And more that that, he became candidate in a riding that was considered an impregnable Liberal fortress. He probably could have had his pick of parties, both at the federal and provincial levels. And being a popular guy, he probably could have secured a safe, guaranteed riding. But he didn’t. He chose the hard way. And he made it work.
And once elected, he could have transferred to the Liberals, that at the time were still the Official Opposition and still considered Canada’s natural governing party. Again, that would have netted him a well-oiled political machine. But instead, he chose to soldier on in the wilderness.
So there you go. I believe he’s a man that will do the right thing and he will not shy away because it’s hard to do. And we need that. Badly. Very, very badly.
Ian Welsh
Interesting Julien. Yes, I saw the bit about his resignation, and that impressed me. Few people will do that. I had queasy feelings about Mulcair as the leader when Layton died and Mulcair was anointed by many as the front-runner, but those have passed. If he wins, I won’t be unhappy. He might even be the best person for the job.
Most of the liberal candidates seem somewhat charisma impaired, as well, so that’s good.
Morocco Bama
I like what he has to say about the Tar Sands. I don’t think it goes far enough, but he’s taking it about as far as anyone can take it politically, and still have a voice. Of course, as he gains popularity and power, as we saw with Obama, all that rhetoric can become just that, and the actions eventually belie the rhetoric. However, that’s the gamble, isn’t it? It’s not as if there are many other choices, if any.
http://www.straight.com/article-519946/vancouver/thomas-mulcair-wants-tar-sands-subsidies-stop
Also, he received a little heat over some alleged controversial remark he made in regard to the OBL capture and execution. Per Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Mulcair
He seems to be a pretty bright chap, so I don’t think he would have put his foot in his mouth and implied that the OBL thing was bunk….even if he possibly believes it is. However, it is interesting in the sense that certain questions are litmus tests and if you want to hold office, or be taken seriously at all, you must affirm your faith in events as officially described, otherwise you run the risk of being ostracized and cast off as a pariah.
eastendleo
Ian, you have hit the nail right where it needs to be hit: electability.
I think the NDP often suffers from a surplus of earnestness and whining. I remember hearing recordings of (I think) Tommy Douglas and his were speeches that left me feeling inspired to be and do better, not feeling that I’d better eat my broccoli. And perhaps whining is a perfectly natural reaction to being powerless for too long, but it is really unattractive. (Love you Libby, and I will always donate!)
And I think this also needs to be said: thank you Jack Layton! but I always had the uneasy feeling that he was a bit out classed for the federal arena and got by a bit too much on having been elected Miss Congeniality. This leadership decision comes at the ideal time to continue our contrasting of Canadian values with Conservative policies, and with a Prime Minister quality leader.
Morocco Bama
This article is highly critical of Mulcair, and paints him very much as someone who is pushing the Overton Window further right.
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/10/24/NDP-Leadership-Race/
NAFTA is a piece of Corporatist shit. Sorry, but if there are babies in that bathwater, they were stillborn and deserve a proper burial….or a resurrection in another context.
The Oil Sands are like a Pandora’s Box. That bastard has been opened and the beguiling genie has been loosed. Trying to get that whirlwind back in the bottle is like fighting entropy…..meaning it will be damn near impossible. Once again, lesson not learned. Leave Pandora’s Box undisturbed.
Potassium
I’d say open primaries are an absolutely terrible idea in general, from what I’ve seen in the U.S. They increase the influence of money in politics dramatically, since one must raise campaign money just to appear on the ballot in the first place. They diminish the party leadership’s power to select candidates hardly at all, provided that the party leadership itself is flush with campaign cash. If the NDP had open primaries they’d very rapidly be forced to become a clone of the Liberals, and there’d be no point in having an NDP in the first place.
someofparts
Thanks for the post. Hard to believe something like the NDP exists within hailing distance of the U.S.
How far off are the elections? How well would the respective parties do if elections were held next week?
What kind of damage does it look like Harper will do in the time that remains to him in office?
Did not realize FTA and NAFTA wrecked you guys the same way it did us. Sorry to hear it.
Mandos
The elections in Canada are at least 3.5 years off unless Harper decides to blow the whistle earlier. (Elections are somewhat variable in Canada.) There’s enormous time to do damage, especially since with a majority in the House of Commons, it’s impossible to filibuster anything. Imagine if someone directly elected a US Heritage Foundation/AEI ideologue to government in Canada. Harper is a longtime neocon pundit, not just some Gingrich-esque grifter, someone who resents the Canadian welfare state to the marrow in his bones, not because it killed any of his puppies, but because he really believes it is evil to use taxes to reduce the chances of poor people dying in agony in the gutter without health care. His history and belief system are all out in the open if someone cares to look.
In recent times he has learned patience and an unwillingness to upside the apple cart. He is keeping his eyes on the prize now, which is to induce a Western oil boom that drives a stake through the heart of skilled, organized labour in Ontario and Quebec particularly.
Luckily it is also easier to *undo* things in Canada than in the USA, so Canada may survive one Harper term.
Mandos
While visiting Canada recently, I talked to at least two people with NDP inside connections who were NOT at all in favour of Mulcair, to put it mildly.
And yet, despite the fact that I strongly sympathize with their objections, Mulcair is the closest approximation to what the party needs right now: an experienced administrator who is also a strong rhetorical pugilist.
At the moment the mainstream Canadian media is simply assuming two Harper majorities, because that’s how long (minimum time) it will take for the “credible” opposition party (the Liberals) to recover, since an NDP government is completely unthinkable to mainstream pundits.
Celsius 233
Ian, I’d love to contribute to this thread; but the truth is; I don’t know diddly about Canadian politics except that they seem to be emulating the U.S.; very bad! Bad dog, bad dog, NO!
I’m (not always) blissfully 12,000 kilometers from that cluster-fuck!
Good luck with that…
S Brennan
Meanwhile in France:
In a jibe directed at his main rival for the Elysée, President Nicholas Sarkozy, Hollande said his real opponent was not the current president but the “world of finance”.
“In the battle about to begin, I will tell you who my real enemy is. My principle adversary has no name, it has no face and does not belong to a political party. It has never presented its candidature and has never been elected, but it still governs. This adversary is the world of finance.”
http://www.france24.com/en/20120122-francois-hollande-president-france-socialist
Morocco Bama
Sorry, off topic, but I can’t help myself. I adore this yearly event, and I am saddened I wasn’t able to make it this year. I missed polo in the snow. Oh well, maybe next year.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/super-rich-play-snow-polo-as-igloo-agitators-heckle-davos-elite.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cKoLo_EagY