Seven things we learned from the first NDP leadership debate
Dec 4, 2011 – 6:34 PM ET | Last Updated: Dec 5, 2011 10:23 AM ET
Blair Gable / Reuters
Don't be surprised if Peggy Nash emerges from the NDP leadership race victorious, John Ivison says.
What did we learn from the first NDP leadership debate on the economy held Sunday in Ottawa?
One: Brian Topp has some research that suggests Paul Dewar is outpolling him among NDP members. Mr. Topp attacked Mr. Dewar’s dearth of revenue raising plans and ignored Thomas Mulcair, who is supposed to be his closest rival. These affairs are usually fought with kid gloves — the leading candidates are all conscious that they need to win the endorsement of those who drop off the ballot paper early, come the convention. Mr. Topp’s decision to put some lead in his gloves suggests the received wisdom that he is in the lead is wrong, as usual. He was strongest of the bunch on policy — unsurprising since he co-wrote the party platform — and he has taken a bold position in advocating tax increases for top earners. He was the only candidate who addressed the rather crucial question of how to raise the billions he plans to spend. But will even NDP policy wonks vote for him?
Two: Mr. Dewar’s French may not be good enough to lead a party in which one-third of the caucus doesn’t speak English. The Ottawa MP was competent — one francophone colleague said she was surprised by how good he was — but never comfortable. He was particularly wooden as he read his closing French comments. It will be up to the membership to decide whether fluency is a pre-requisite, if the party is to re-create its electoral success in Quebec.
Three: This contest is a sea of troubles for corporate Canada but by far the most worrisome outcome would be a Peggy Nash win. Ms. Nash claims that the countries that have truly succeeded “haven’t handed over all decision-making power to corporations.” By the sound of her plan, under a Nash government those decisions would be made by the unions, which she considers to be an extension of the party, and the government. Ms. Nash put in a solid performance and nobody should be at all surprised if she ends up winning next March.
Four: Mr. Mulcair has been much maligned as someone who would, as Lloyd George said of Churchill, make a drum out of the skin of his own mother in order to sound his own praises. But during the debate, he was the epitome of collegiality and good humour. He makes a reasonable case that he is the candidate most able to take the party to the next level by reaching out beyond its traditional base. But first he has to persuade the traditional base to vote for him. The number of votes available in his home province suggest this will be tough.
Five: Robert Chisholm should drop out of the race. An ability to read a pre-written text in French is a pretty low bar but the former Nova Scotia provincial party leader balked at it. “I will learn to speak French but it’s tough,” he said, to guffaws from the audience. Get back on the front bench, Robert. Your party needs you.
Six: Nathan Cullen is a wild-card in this contest. He realizes he needs to stand out from the pack and used humour — “I am in violent agreement with my colleagues” — to emerge as a more three-dimensional character than most of his fellow contenders. His idea of co-operation with the Liberal Party at riding association level has been controversial but he was unrepentant and likely did his chances a power of good.
Seven: The three remaining candidates are able but also-rans. Niki Ashton performed well, in both English and French, but one suspects she lacks the support and experience to triumph. Romeo Saganash is the first native leader to run for top job of a federal party. He did not look out of place and, however the contest ends, will emerge with his reputation enhanced. Martin Singh was surprisingly strong but sounded like a local, small-businessman interested in local small business, most specifically the small business local to him.
jivison@nationalpost.com
One: Brian Topp has some research that suggests Paul Dewar is outpolling him among NDP members. Mr. Topp attacked Mr. Dewar’s dearth of revenue raising plans and ignored Thomas Mulcair, who is supposed to be his closest rival. These affairs are usually fought with kid gloves — the leading candidates are all conscious that they need to win the endorsement of those who drop off the ballot paper early, come the convention. Mr. Topp’s decision to put some lead in his gloves suggests the received wisdom that he is in the lead is wrong, as usual. He was strongest of the bunch on policy — unsurprising since he co-wrote the party platform — and he has taken a bold position in advocating tax increases for top earners. He was the only candidate who addressed the rather crucial question of how to raise the billions he plans to spend. But will even NDP policy wonks vote for him?
Two: Mr. Dewar’s French may not be good enough to lead a party in which one-third of the caucus doesn’t speak English. The Ottawa MP was competent — one francophone colleague said she was surprised by how good he was — but never comfortable. He was particularly wooden as he read his closing French comments. It will be up to the membership to decide whether fluency is a pre-requisite, if the party is to re-create its electoral success in Quebec.
Three: This contest is a sea of troubles for corporate Canada but by far the most worrisome outcome would be a Peggy Nash win. Ms. Nash claims that the countries that have truly succeeded “haven’t handed over all decision-making power to corporations.” By the sound of her plan, under a Nash government those decisions would be made by the unions, which she considers to be an extension of the party, and the government. Ms. Nash put in a solid performance and nobody should be at all surprised if she ends up winning next March.
Four: Mr. Mulcair has been much maligned as someone who would, as Lloyd George said of Churchill, make a drum out of the skin of his own mother in order to sound his own praises. But during the debate, he was the epitome of collegiality and good humour. He makes a reasonable case that he is the candidate most able to take the party to the next level by reaching out beyond its traditional base. But first he has to persuade the traditional base to vote for him. The number of votes available in his home province suggest this will be tough.
Five: Robert Chisholm should drop out of the race. An ability to read a pre-written text in French is a pretty low bar but the former Nova Scotia provincial party leader balked at it. “I will learn to speak French but it’s tough,” he said, to guffaws from the audience. Get back on the front bench, Robert. Your party needs you.
Six: Nathan Cullen is a wild-card in this contest. He realizes he needs to stand out from the pack and used humour — “I am in violent agreement with my colleagues” — to emerge as a more three-dimensional character than most of his fellow contenders. His idea of co-operation with the Liberal Party at riding association level has been controversial but he was unrepentant and likely did his chances a power of good.
Seven: The three remaining candidates are able but also-rans. Niki Ashton performed well, in both English and French, but one suspects she lacks the support and experience to triumph. Romeo Saganash is the first native leader to run for top job of a federal party. He did not look out of place and, however the contest ends, will emerge with his reputation enhanced. Martin Singh was surprisingly strong but sounded like a local, small-businessman interested in local small business, most specifically the small business local to him.
jivison@nationalpost.com
Posted in: Canada, Full Comment Tags: Brian Topp, Martin Singh, Nathan Cullen, NDP, NDP leadership debate, NDP leadership race, Niki Ashton, Paul Dewar, Peggy Nash, Robert Chisholm, Romeo Saganash, Thomas Mulcair
This is an article posted in the NATIONAL POST by writer John Ivison
