12.05.2011 09:43 AM

NDP leadership gabfest, summarized in Tweets (updated)

I was at my daughter’s swim meet, and leaving her to watch the Dippers debate would have been a bit weird.  So I asked Twitter followers to give me their assessment.  Here are some of the best ones.

In this batch, I particularly like Bumstead’s:

And in this batch, I think the winner is Adam, I think:

But the topp (ahem) winner was the irrepressible Stephen Taylor!

UPDATE: Kady’s a kopy-kat.

28 Comments

  1. Jack Layton sold out Canada to Steve Harper

    Prime Minister Martin had promised to call the election within thirty days of the release of retired justice John Gomery’s final report on the Liberal sponsorship scandal, which was delivered as planned on February 1, 2006.

    Either way, therefore, a trip to the polls was imminent. But NDP strategists thought it dangerous to allow the government to set the terms of debate, and were concerned that on the key issue of political ethics the party would be caught in a squeeze between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

    They believed the Liberals would accept virtually all of Justice Gomery’s recommendations and that a chastened Liberal Party could win a majority government.

    http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2006.05-politics-jack-layton-ndp-fake-left-go-right/

    • Pete says:

      Jack Layton wanted into the power circle so badly he sold his soul to anyone who would give him hope. First it was the Dion Liberals with the coalition government and then Harper who played him like a fiddle. He also ran the last campaign knowing hs cancer was terminal.

    • Dan says:

      Paul Martin and Michael Ignatieff sold out with far more impact and far more often. Slashing public services. Defending torture. Wasting our time in Afghanistan.

      Remember when the Liberal party promised to reconsider Free Trade, repeal the GST, and give us Child Care?

  2. Marc says:

    To be fair, 20% of Canadians chose the CPC. Actually, less than that because I suspect a big chunk of them still think they are voting for the PC party and not this abomination that has stolen their name.

    • The Doctor says:

      Ahh, a new theory: Conservative voters aren’t even really Conservative voters. They actually think they’re voting for another party. Fascinating.

    • lance says:

      As I saisd below, can we stop with the 20% this the 30% that, if people want to complain about numbers and election results then get out and vote. In the system we have today the voices that vote are the voices that are heard, it has always been this way, ask Warren, Cretien won this way. The non-voters are irrelevant, they chose not to participate! Therefore we are left with those people who have voted, they decide the results. If you want to speak to proportional representation that is another argument, along with its own issues, i.e. where do you stop using this type of system, do you take right down to the riding level? If so people like E. May could not have won her seat without help from another political party throwing their support behind her, but only after the initial run off vote. Man want to talk about a way to get less people to vote, lets make them do it over and over in run off elections. The system is what it is and all parties use it to their advantage, just ask Elizabeth M.

      Reply

  3. m5slin says:

    I must say, regrettably, that I’m less open to a merger after wathing this “debate”. I was on the fence, and I still kind of am, but way less so after listening to these vacuous amateurs. I think we can rebuild to dismiss these people. I hope I don’t sound arrogant because there’s no arrogance to be had in third place, but we can be way better than this. We owe it to our country to come up with something better than this gong show. The only one who came off remotely ready to be in government was Mulcair, and I guess that makes sense. I had small hopes for Dewar and Cullen, but Dewar was a dud. Cullen was entertaining, but he didn’t come off serious enough. Topp was forgettable. He actually reminded me of a poor man’s Paul Martin – mostly in appearance and speaking style (maybe undeserving coronation as well).

    What hurts the most is that we were annihilated by these people. Smh.

  4. TheSilentObserver says:

    Nash, Topp, Chisholm: polished, thoughtful, seemed to have leadership qualities

    Mulcair, Ashton, Saganash: overall, not very strong, but were able to speak with authority on at least some areas

    Cullen, Singh, Dewar: inarticulate, awkward, stumbling

    Those are my two cents worth, though it’s hard to read into these things this early. I really want to see big things happen in the foreign policy debate, and would be curious as to opinion on the debate from those who hadn’t previously decided that they hate the NDP and would never give it the time of day

    • TK says:

      I got the sense they were all testing the waters, and weren’t really prepared to ‘debate.’ Still, I was impressed with Cullen and Mulcair’s showings, and Topp did a fairly good job of introducing himself and displaying a level of policy depth. Dewar and Saganash, who are second tier candidates with a chance at the first tier, unfortunately failed to stand out and I was particularly disappointed with Saganash, who I had hopes for, but failed to really communicate at all (in the English debate anyways). He later attributed this to bronchitis so we will have to see in further debates.

      Nash did a good job presenting herself well, but I would like to see her stray more from talking points and prepared statements. She needs to show some of the fire and versatility that really made Mulcair and Cullen stand out for me. Ashton = ‘new politics’ and Singh = ‘I owned a business’ can nicely sum up their contribution to the debate.

      But all in all, it was not a bad debate, however there was much mutual admiration and little policy specifics. I attribute this to it being early in the campaign, the sense that they were limited by the nine-person-debate format, and the fact that the NDP caucus collectively determines most of the policy so much of the policy is already decided, and there is not much room for an individual to take a stand or drastically change policy. It is unfortunate, then, that the ‘economic’ debate had to happen first. Hopefully they will get much more into it next time, and that a few candidates will drop off so as to allow the candidates with a better shot at actually presenting themselves. Unfortunately, Chisolm’s total lack of french virtually excludes him at this point. If this was ten years ago, he would definitely be a compelling option, but his lack of french in this context is a campaign killer.

  5. lance says:

    Can we stop with the 20% this the 30% that, if people want to complain about numbers and election results then get out and vote. In the system we have today the voices that vote are the voices that are heard, it has always been this way, ask Warren, Cretien won this way. The non-voters are irrelevant, they chose not to participate! Therefore we are left with those people who have voted, they decide the results. If you want to speak to proportional representation that is another argument, along with its own issues, i.e. where do you stop using this type of system, do you take right down to the riding level? If so people like E. May could not have won her seat without help from another political party throwing their support behind her, but only after the initial run off vote. Man want to talk about a way to get less people to vote, lets make them do it over and over in run off elections. The system is what it is and all parties use it to their advantage, just ask Elizabeth M.

  6. Michael S says:

    Peggy Nash will win this, mostly because she’s doing a very good job of campaigning as None Of The Above. It’s early, and she’s playing a smart game of STFU while building on her CAW base.

    As the woman that ended the political career of one Gerard Kennedy, she might find she has fans amongst certain parts of the Liberal party as well.

  7. Michael S says:

    Then again, Nikki Ashton’s smartest move might well be maintaining herself as everyone else’s favorite second choice. She’s no dummy, she won a hard race, and she got the attention of Michael Moore when she took on the mine giant Vale and by proxy the Harper government. The NDP won’t be ready to govern in the next election. The one after that? Depends.

  8. Pat says:

    Small correction – under 40% of Canadians chose the CPC to govern, the other 60% expect them to respect their views as well. They are doing okay with the first part, but not the second…

  9. The Doctor says:

    Loved Andrew Coyne’s tweet: “This is just a festival of economic illiteracy. Every single line.”

  10. Sean says:

    mostly embarrassing backslapping slop…. these guys are slowly breathing hope back into the Liberal Party.

    • The Doctor says:

      I think Peggy Nash could be very good for the Liberal Party, at least if the LPC wants to stake its claim to the political centre.

  11. AmandaM says:

    No comment other than I love that you went to her swim meet. My dad came to all of mine and it’s the memories of him cheering me on that are my most cherished. She’ll remember it!

  12. TK says:

    Yes, the debate may have been a bit boring and self-congratulatory, but I don’t see the point of sniping at the Dippers given the current political situation. The fact of the matter is, right now, the NDP has the best shot at breaking the Conservatives in the West and defeating the Harper Government. And their economic record is not as the nay-sayers would have you believe. It is largely due to the record of Bob Rae in Ontario (who yes, is the current leader of the Liberals) that the NDP is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be economic illiterates. Gary Doer and Roy Romanow ran responsible governments with balanced budgets that achieved social policy goals. Peggy Nash has been endorsed by a number of progressive economists:

    http://peggynash.ca/2012/progressive-economists-endorse-peggy-nash/

    And furthermore, the Harper Government has overseen the largest increase in the country’s debt in history. So the equation ‘left=economic suicide’ is an ungrounded slogan in this context. Furthermore, the liberals are a mess, and though I hope it not to be true, many are proclaiming their death. Strong competition from the left and the right will force them to develop compelling policy alternatives or perish. Either way, we need an alternative

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*