![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The NDP Leadership Race
So, the NDP will be electing a new leader this weekend, and I will be among those voting (once I finally get the voting information). I got a membership for the sake of voting (on the last day one could sign up for it) and have been generally following coverage of the race, though I kind of tuned out partway through December and tuned back in slowly through February. Also, I never watched the debates in full.
This makes me the perfect person to comment on it, right? Right? ...No, but I wrote up my impressions from my somewhat distant view of the proceedings to help anyone who might be voting in it or who might be curious about it. Chances are I could have just e-mailed the one person I know who is doing so, but hey. Posting is easy, too.
Note: I didn't get to proofreading this. Or properly referencing this. Seriously, I wrote 7 pages of Microsoft Word on this, that is enough time set aside for someone who is in no way a pundit!
EDIT:Whoops, halfway through I forgot I was linking short videos of all the candidates. Those will come later for the latter ones! I have to go right now, but I'll be back. Fixed!
Niki Ashton
The youngest candidate at 29, serving her second term in Parliament, Ashton describes herself as a member of the “Jack Layton generation” and calls for New Politics. Previously served as critic for Post-Secondary, Youth, and Rural and Community Development, as well as Chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Before politics, she was an instructor at the University College of the North.
Pros: She has been seen as exceeding expectations. She is considered to have performed well at the debates and people say she has a firm grasp on the issues. She is fluent in four languages and has studied five others, which I believe includes Cree. She represents a largely rural prairie constituency – two traditionally difficult areas for the NDP.
Cons: Based on the little I have seen of her, she is not especially clear on what she means by “New Politics.” It seems to generally be an empty slogan. She has been mostly written off as too young and I will admit that her late entry into the race means that I haven’t paid her much attention. Chances are likely she will be near the bottom of the ballot. On the flipside, it has been suggested she will make a good candidate in the next leadership race due to her growth potential.
Nathan Cullen
Also fairly young at age 39, Cullen is the longest serving MP in the race, having been elected in 2004 by defeating the Conservative incumbent. He was elected by fellow MPs as “Favourite Up-and-Comer Rookie Politician” in his first term and has continued to increase his share of the vote in his riding, taking over half the popular vote of the riding in 2011. He has held several critic positions, notably on the environment and natural resources files. Before politics, he worked in Africa and South America to “build community” before returning to Canada as a private consultant.
Pros: He’s a pragmatic and a cooperator, preferring to set country before party in favour of getting things done – his way of “doing politics differently.” He is open about discussing potentially controversial issues, such as proposing to give riding associations in Conservative-held ridings the option to cooperate with Liberal and Green riding associates to hold joint nominations and bringing up discussion of lowering the voting age to 16 in order to get youth in the habit of voting while they are in the structure of the public school system, unlike the more cautious policies of the other candidates. He has business experience, which might allay some fears that the NDP is anti-business, but he is committed to equality and especially the environment. I hesitate to say this, as charisma is a subjective thing, but I believe he has charisma and a natural tone. Being born in Toronto and living in northern BC, he has a balance between eastern and western Canada.
Cons: His plan for joint nominations has been firmly rejected by many voters who might have otherwise voted for him – though he has noted he is not “wedded to the details,” he wants some kind of cooperation. His French is also not strong, though I have heard several native French speakers say that it’s not bad and his charisma still comes through, which might make it work. We would also run the danger of being lead by a Cullen, which would be weird for people who hate Twilight. A Toronto Star reporter also notes that he has a weakness in foreign affairs, having released no policy and generally not answering questions about possible war in Iran.
Paul Dewar
A former teacher and aid worker in Nicaragua, 49-year-old Dewar was elected in 2006 and served as Foreign Affairs critic.
Pros: He is well-respected and has been noted for a good understanding of the Foreign Affairs file, which will be needed to repair Canada’s foreign reputation if the NDP were to form government. He is noted for a strong grassroots connection, claiming to have rallied support for supplying affordable, life-saving generic drugs to poorer countries. From my point of view, he seems to have run one of the best organized campaigns, though that might partially be due to his decision to take a long view and emphasize the last few weeks of the campaign when I happened to start paying closer attention again.
Cons: His French is quite weak and this has been attacked several times, especially considering the large Québec caucus. Despite working with a travelling French tutor, his spoken French is halting, though he does have support from a couple of Québec MPs.
I am not sure if this is a pro or a con, but it is worth noting, that despite his emphasis on being a positive candidate, he has been fairly tough on the trail, vocally criticizing his opponents when he feels the need for it.
Thomas Mulcair
A former provincial Liberal politician from Québec and the first NDP candidate to be elected in Québec in a general election, Mulcair was elected provincially three times from 1994 to 2007 and, after a federal by-election, was re-elected twice federally. He has held several positions, such as Deputy House Leader of the provincial opposition, Minister of the Environment in provincial government, co-Deputy Leader of the NDP, and Opposition House Leader. Before entering politics, he served in such positions as union delegate, lawyer, and president of the Québec Professions Board.
…Hoo boy. This guy has been noted on The National as having both some of the biggest upsides and some of the biggest downsides of all the candidates, so I’m going to dispense with a pros and cons list and put them all down together.
Mulcair is a very passionate and spirited debater – some say the best debater in the NDP – but he is very aggressive. Québec provincial politics are apparently much more aggressive than Canadian federal politics, in general, and this sometimes shows through. He is well known for his temper, with the National Post censoring one of his quotes from his days in provincial politics. One story that seems to circulate from his federal career is that he responded to Conservative heckling by “climbing over rows of chairs.” It may be noted that this has not been in evidence during the leadership campaign, as he has remained cool and positive, but the candidates have been cautiously mild in general to avoid in-fighting and he seems to have been less open to interviews than many of the candidates.
His aggressive and strong debating skills lead to early rumours that Mulcair is the guy who the Conservatives would be most afraid to face, but later anonymous insiders have suggested that they are prepared for him – likely targeting the downsides I am in the midst of listing. However, it’s unknown if these reports have been released honestly or if they are signs that the Conservatives want to see him not elected as leader of the opposition. A similar deliberate leak from earlier in the campaign, reporting that Mulcair had also been courted by the Conservative Party and seemed to have considered it, has been suggested as being a part of the latter, but the many weaknesses to Mulcair would provide support to the idea that the Conservatives could deal with him through their attack ads. (Attack ads which, by the way, started up again three years in advance of an election by attacking interim Liberal leader Bob Rae in what some journalists are supposing may be a way to shift attention from the leadership race and from the recent accusations of electoral fraud in the previous election.)
Some ammo for such attack ads could come from within. People such as previous leader Ed Broadbent have recently suggested that he might move the party to the centre or that he might not be so great at holding together a team. The former accusation doesn’t seem to hold much ground with Mulcair’s released policies, which appear to be fairly standard NDP fare (though, granted, I have not read through most of them). However, he has talked much about modernizing the language used by the party and reaching out to nonstandard NDP voters, which some have suggested is a signal that he might take the party to the centre (Topp suggests that this would make them into a second Liberal party and that people would be likely to vote for the real one in that case). They often point to his time as a provincial Liberal. On the other hand, broadening the appeal of the party through modernizing the language would be a good thing if taken at face value. Mulcair has said that, due to the lack of a provincial NDP in Québec, Québec politics are split more down the federalist/separatist line and that the provincial Liberal party there is a group of federalists of all political stripes, suggesting that he was still a social democrat at that time. Still, some have suggested his views at the provincial level were centre-right, rather than any degree of left – but at the same time I have trouble determining whether these accusations are based on his own views or the policies of the party (which he might have needed to publically accept).
On the second accusation, that he might not build a team very well, it is important to note that he holds caucus endorsements from more MPs than the rest of the candidates combined. He also has the endorsement of both leadership candidates who withdrew from the race, and he seems to have the most endorsements listed. On the other hand, many are from rookie MPs, particularly from first-term Québec MPs, and he didn’t manage to secure all the Québec MP endorsements like he seemed to plan at the beginning. The average years of experience on his team is the least (not counting Singh, who has none), whereas Cullen’s is the most – but, granted, a lot of it is because he just has so many rookie endorsements. It might be suggested that his temperament may be offputting to some and he will have a bit of an extra challenge uniting the group after the attacks by the more left-leaning candidates and Ed Broadbent. Still, this is not a sure issue.
On another note, there appear to have been rumours prior to Layton’s death of some rift between the two (it was mentioned in the first interview I saw with Mulcair after the 2011 election and a reporter once asked him if he was seeking Layton’s job, but in the former he acted like he had never heard of it before and in the latter he refused to answer unless the reporter could point to anything he said that would suggest that, which the reporter failed to do). While there doesn’t appear to have been any substantiating evidence to this, it would somewhat follow the narrative of Brian Topp’s rapid entrance to the race, backed by some close friends of Layton, which was suggested at the time to be a way of blocking Mulcair from entering the race or at least hobbling his campaign before it began. Topp has even recently sent around a letter from Layton’s mother supporting him. On the other hand, these close friends of Layton were from the party establishment that may have backed Topp for completely different reasons.
Mulcair has claimed much credit (along with Jack) for the breakthrough in Québec and many suggest that he is the only one who can really hold on to the NDP’s performance there (it varies on how much would be expected to be lost if another candidate won). However, there have been scattered claims that Mulcair had less to do with it than he claims and these close ties to Québec could hurt him when there is already a feeling amongst some people that the NDP has come to pander to the province after their huge win there – some would say at the expense of the rest of the nation. [EDIT: However, it is important to emphasize that many have built this up into being the reputation of Québec at stake -- if Mulcair is defeated, it could be viewed as a rejection of Québec, and it might be pretty bad for the party in that province. Or it could not. It's impossible to say.] [EDIT2: I should mention that Mulcair is not the only one suggesting he was a huge driving force in the Québec breakthrough. It also seems to be accepted by many people due to giving the NDP a recognizeable face in Québec. He's also gained quite a bit of support outside of Québec, so don't think he's just a one-province-man -- though some suggest he has been more open to interviews from francophone journalists than anglophones.]
Speaking of his time in Québec, he showed himself to be quite dedicated to the Environment file at the time, securing the right to a clean environment in the Québec charter of rights. He refused to hand over park land while Minister of the Environment (the title also included sustainable development and parks), which was supposed to remain a part of the park, to developers like the leader of the party wanted him to. When the leader overruled him and was going to shift him to another file in a cabinet shuffle, he resigned from cabinet and did not run again once he served out his term. On one hand, this is a very principled stand. On the other, it has been suggested that his resignation was more due to the upcoming cabinet shuffle would have demoted him and he resigned for the sake of his career.
Finally, he has been quoted as unconditionally supporting Israel, rather than the NDP’s generally more balanced look at Israeli-Palestinian relations. When asked, he has stated his desire for a peaceful, two-state solution, but his previous comment has prompted support from Canada’s Israel Lobby group and denouncements from Canada’s Independent Jewish Voices. This has made many people nervous, as that kind of unconditional support of Israel regardless of their actions is usually the terrain of the Conservative Party.
…So, yeah. This guy is high risk, but potentially high reward. The latter part is probably the reason he has become the frontrunner and favourite to win.
Peggy Nash
Former party president Peggy Nash has served as the Opposition finance critic, as well as NDP industry critic in a previous parliament. She is a founding member of Equal Voice, an all-party organization advocating for the election of more women in Canada. Before politics, she was a top executive for Canada’s largest private-sector union and an elections monitor in South Africa and Ukraine. She has won several awards for her work in labour, women’s, and environmental movements.
Pros: She has a lot of grassroots, organizational, and negotiating experience both inside and outside of Parliament, and she has shown herself to be calm and levelheaded. She is also quite grounded in the left wing, holding to traditional NDP policies (for those for whom that is a plus). She was noted as doing a good job on the finance file.
Cons: She has been considered quite risk averse in the campaign and hasn’t really made a big impression during the leadership contest. She has made some mistakes in debates that opponents have used to paint her as flip-flopping on issues. Also, her strong union ties could be a disadvantage in a government attack ad, given some anti-union sentiment that the Conservative party has been fostering. She was also defeated in the 2008 election after serving one term, probably since Toronto is generally quite Liberal, though she regained it in the following election.
Martin Singh
he's hard to find short videos for okay
A pharmacist from Nova Scotia, Singh has entered the race to show that the NDP is pro-business, a characterization more often made of more right-wing parties. He’s the first white convert to become head of a Sikh gurdwara in Canada and has signed up a large number of Sikh members of the NDP.
Pros: Early on, he impressed many people with his comfort in French and many considered him to be unexpectedly good at political debate for his lack of experience. He is reported to have strong policies in business, health care, and the environment.
Cons: He has never been elected and it is reported that he doesn’t have very well-defined policies outside of the above categories. In recent weeks, he has begun attacking opponents of Mulcair vigorously and was fined for calling Topp a liar (though it was not specified before the final debate that unparliamentary language would be penalized, he was given an opportunity to apologize instead of paying the fine, which he refused). This lead to reports that he had come to an agreement with Mulcair to be his “attack dog,” and while both camps denied any formal arrangement, he did not set minds at ease by telling his supporters that he would be marking Mulcair as his second choice and encouraging them to do the same. He is also considered to not have enough support to make it past the first ballot, like Aston.
Brian Topp
The first candidate to declare and long considered the “coronation” frontrunner due to the endorsements of some highly regarded NDP supporters, Topp is a longtime party official from Québec and a former party president. He has directed a number of successful NDP campaigns both federally and provincially, including the 2011 federal campaign. He is the executive director of a film and television actor’s union, as well as sitting on the board of Film Ontario, ROI Fund, and Creative Art Savings and Credit Union.
Pros: He is well-regarded throughout the party as highly intelligent and very skilled in campaign planning. He is well-liked, many considering him to be incredibly charismatic one-on-one, and was a close confidant of Jack Layton. He is well-steeped in the party policy and is firm about remaining committed to social democratic principles.
Cons: These all may serve him better as a backroom organizer. This guy is seriously great at that, but he’s been reported as not as charismatic or skilled in the debate setting, even if he is supposedly improving at that. He’s not an MP and, like Nash, could be targeted for his strong union ties – he wanted to continue the practice of giving unions a separate vote for the leadership race rather than the newly adopted one-member, one-vote preferential ballot system. Also, Ed Broadbent’s recent attack on Mulcair, which would seem to some as sowing some discord in the party, is strongly associated with Topp due to Broadbent’s support. (In fairness, Broadbent was called up and asked his opinion on the issue by a journalist, but after he agreed to interviews with other news groups and continued to attack Mulcair. Many consider it Not Done due to Broadbent’s huge influence as former leader of the party during their previous highest number of seats in Parliament.)
Also:
You will note I don’t make much mention of policy, which should be at least as important as personality. But, honestly, aside from Cullen’s proposal of joint nominations, the candidates have generally been in agreement, so it’s hard to really give a good outline of their policy differences and it’s kind of run together in my mind. And I haven’t gotten around to reading all of the policy statements released over the race. I’m afraid I will resort to lazy journalism and base a brief overview of emphases on a series of Hill Times articles published on the 19th, though if there is anything that has stood out I’ll begin with that.
Ashon’s continued refrain has been for New Politics. In the Hill Times article, she referenced: making politics relevant to young and rural voters, promoting equality (particularly the same-sex marriage issue that got her into politics), dealing with the affordability gap, restoring Canada’s reputation in the world, creating an environmentally sustainable economy, and studying progressive tax reform.
Cullen is known for his proposed joint nominations and his environmental leanings. In the article, he is quoted about: reaching beyond Ottawa, creating a more effective democratic system, changing energy and climate policy, reversing the growing divide between haves and have nots, and restoring civility in politics.
Dewar was noted earlier in the campaign for having the strongest policy statements going into the first debates. In the article, he is quoted about: engaging voters, retooling the economy towards manufacturing/value-added jobs instead of energy export, strengthening the social safety net, and addressing First Nations issues.
Mulcair has made a point to talk about sustainable development from both an economic and environmental viewpoint (including cap-and-trade), as well as modernizing the party message to reach out to other people. In the Hill Times article, he was quoted on: strengthening pension security, opening up immigration, forming regulations for Canadian companies operating overseas, reducing income gaps, and restoring the manufacturing sector.
Nash has emphasized proving to Canadians that the NDP are strong on the economy, which is often not considered to be their strong point. In the article, she emphasizes: grassroots politics, the economy, job creation, environmental sustainability, and proportional representation. She also suggests that she would be willing to entertain the idea of an NDP-lead coalition, unlike, say, Mulcair, who recently was quoted as vetoing the idea entirely due to a mistrust of the Liberals after the last attempt.
Singh launched his campaign focused on the pro-business side of the NDP. The article is very short and mostly concentrates on this and perceived ties with Mulcair.
Topp has been noted for fairly standard NDP principles, which include tax reform. In the aricle, he mentioned: child poverty, fair taxation, climate change, equality, and positive messages.
IF YOU DON'T WANT MY VOTING PREFERENCES TO INFLUENCE YOU, STOP HERE
Though really it's probably too late if this is what you are basing your vote on.
Really, I'm pretty biased here.
For the sake of revealing my biases, I will admit that I have a major political crush on Nathan Cullen and will be voting for him first. I also don’t think much of Topp’s candidacy and will be placing him near the bottom. I have also tended to give in to the media narrative in dismissing Ashton and Singh as very unlikely candidates to win. And I have mostly disregarded Dewar based on his poor French. Currently, I have mixed feelings on Mulcair, but I will likely be placing him second, though I may either put another candidate in front of him or vote only for Cullen and let things go as they will if he is defeated.
But, seriously, vote for who you want.
This makes me the perfect person to comment on it, right? Right? ...No, but I wrote up my impressions from my somewhat distant view of the proceedings to help anyone who might be voting in it or who might be curious about it. Chances are I could have just e-mailed the one person I know who is doing so, but hey. Posting is easy, too.
Note: I didn't get to proofreading this. Or properly referencing this. Seriously, I wrote 7 pages of Microsoft Word on this, that is enough time set aside for someone who is in no way a pundit!
EDIT:
Niki Ashton
The youngest candidate at 29, serving her second term in Parliament, Ashton describes herself as a member of the “Jack Layton generation” and calls for New Politics. Previously served as critic for Post-Secondary, Youth, and Rural and Community Development, as well as Chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Before politics, she was an instructor at the University College of the North.
Pros: She has been seen as exceeding expectations. She is considered to have performed well at the debates and people say she has a firm grasp on the issues. She is fluent in four languages and has studied five others, which I believe includes Cree. She represents a largely rural prairie constituency – two traditionally difficult areas for the NDP.
Cons: Based on the little I have seen of her, she is not especially clear on what she means by “New Politics.” It seems to generally be an empty slogan. She has been mostly written off as too young and I will admit that her late entry into the race means that I haven’t paid her much attention. Chances are likely she will be near the bottom of the ballot. On the flipside, it has been suggested she will make a good candidate in the next leadership race due to her growth potential.
Nathan Cullen
Also fairly young at age 39, Cullen is the longest serving MP in the race, having been elected in 2004 by defeating the Conservative incumbent. He was elected by fellow MPs as “Favourite Up-and-Comer Rookie Politician” in his first term and has continued to increase his share of the vote in his riding, taking over half the popular vote of the riding in 2011. He has held several critic positions, notably on the environment and natural resources files. Before politics, he worked in Africa and South America to “build community” before returning to Canada as a private consultant.
Pros: He’s a pragmatic and a cooperator, preferring to set country before party in favour of getting things done – his way of “doing politics differently.” He is open about discussing potentially controversial issues, such as proposing to give riding associations in Conservative-held ridings the option to cooperate with Liberal and Green riding associates to hold joint nominations and bringing up discussion of lowering the voting age to 16 in order to get youth in the habit of voting while they are in the structure of the public school system, unlike the more cautious policies of the other candidates. He has business experience, which might allay some fears that the NDP is anti-business, but he is committed to equality and especially the environment. I hesitate to say this, as charisma is a subjective thing, but I believe he has charisma and a natural tone. Being born in Toronto and living in northern BC, he has a balance between eastern and western Canada.
Cons: His plan for joint nominations has been firmly rejected by many voters who might have otherwise voted for him – though he has noted he is not “wedded to the details,” he wants some kind of cooperation. His French is also not strong, though I have heard several native French speakers say that it’s not bad and his charisma still comes through, which might make it work. We would also run the danger of being lead by a Cullen, which would be weird for people who hate Twilight. A Toronto Star reporter also notes that he has a weakness in foreign affairs, having released no policy and generally not answering questions about possible war in Iran.
Paul Dewar
A former teacher and aid worker in Nicaragua, 49-year-old Dewar was elected in 2006 and served as Foreign Affairs critic.
Pros: He is well-respected and has been noted for a good understanding of the Foreign Affairs file, which will be needed to repair Canada’s foreign reputation if the NDP were to form government. He is noted for a strong grassroots connection, claiming to have rallied support for supplying affordable, life-saving generic drugs to poorer countries. From my point of view, he seems to have run one of the best organized campaigns, though that might partially be due to his decision to take a long view and emphasize the last few weeks of the campaign when I happened to start paying closer attention again.
Cons: His French is quite weak and this has been attacked several times, especially considering the large Québec caucus. Despite working with a travelling French tutor, his spoken French is halting, though he does have support from a couple of Québec MPs.
I am not sure if this is a pro or a con, but it is worth noting, that despite his emphasis on being a positive candidate, he has been fairly tough on the trail, vocally criticizing his opponents when he feels the need for it.
Thomas Mulcair
A former provincial Liberal politician from Québec and the first NDP candidate to be elected in Québec in a general election, Mulcair was elected provincially three times from 1994 to 2007 and, after a federal by-election, was re-elected twice federally. He has held several positions, such as Deputy House Leader of the provincial opposition, Minister of the Environment in provincial government, co-Deputy Leader of the NDP, and Opposition House Leader. Before entering politics, he served in such positions as union delegate, lawyer, and president of the Québec Professions Board.
…Hoo boy. This guy has been noted on The National as having both some of the biggest upsides and some of the biggest downsides of all the candidates, so I’m going to dispense with a pros and cons list and put them all down together.
Mulcair is a very passionate and spirited debater – some say the best debater in the NDP – but he is very aggressive. Québec provincial politics are apparently much more aggressive than Canadian federal politics, in general, and this sometimes shows through. He is well known for his temper, with the National Post censoring one of his quotes from his days in provincial politics. One story that seems to circulate from his federal career is that he responded to Conservative heckling by “climbing over rows of chairs.” It may be noted that this has not been in evidence during the leadership campaign, as he has remained cool and positive, but the candidates have been cautiously mild in general to avoid in-fighting and he seems to have been less open to interviews than many of the candidates.
His aggressive and strong debating skills lead to early rumours that Mulcair is the guy who the Conservatives would be most afraid to face, but later anonymous insiders have suggested that they are prepared for him – likely targeting the downsides I am in the midst of listing. However, it’s unknown if these reports have been released honestly or if they are signs that the Conservatives want to see him not elected as leader of the opposition. A similar deliberate leak from earlier in the campaign, reporting that Mulcair had also been courted by the Conservative Party and seemed to have considered it, has been suggested as being a part of the latter, but the many weaknesses to Mulcair would provide support to the idea that the Conservatives could deal with him through their attack ads. (Attack ads which, by the way, started up again three years in advance of an election by attacking interim Liberal leader Bob Rae in what some journalists are supposing may be a way to shift attention from the leadership race and from the recent accusations of electoral fraud in the previous election.)
Some ammo for such attack ads could come from within. People such as previous leader Ed Broadbent have recently suggested that he might move the party to the centre or that he might not be so great at holding together a team. The former accusation doesn’t seem to hold much ground with Mulcair’s released policies, which appear to be fairly standard NDP fare (though, granted, I have not read through most of them). However, he has talked much about modernizing the language used by the party and reaching out to nonstandard NDP voters, which some have suggested is a signal that he might take the party to the centre (Topp suggests that this would make them into a second Liberal party and that people would be likely to vote for the real one in that case). They often point to his time as a provincial Liberal. On the other hand, broadening the appeal of the party through modernizing the language would be a good thing if taken at face value. Mulcair has said that, due to the lack of a provincial NDP in Québec, Québec politics are split more down the federalist/separatist line and that the provincial Liberal party there is a group of federalists of all political stripes, suggesting that he was still a social democrat at that time. Still, some have suggested his views at the provincial level were centre-right, rather than any degree of left – but at the same time I have trouble determining whether these accusations are based on his own views or the policies of the party (which he might have needed to publically accept).
On the second accusation, that he might not build a team very well, it is important to note that he holds caucus endorsements from more MPs than the rest of the candidates combined. He also has the endorsement of both leadership candidates who withdrew from the race, and he seems to have the most endorsements listed. On the other hand, many are from rookie MPs, particularly from first-term Québec MPs, and he didn’t manage to secure all the Québec MP endorsements like he seemed to plan at the beginning. The average years of experience on his team is the least (not counting Singh, who has none), whereas Cullen’s is the most – but, granted, a lot of it is because he just has so many rookie endorsements. It might be suggested that his temperament may be offputting to some and he will have a bit of an extra challenge uniting the group after the attacks by the more left-leaning candidates and Ed Broadbent. Still, this is not a sure issue.
On another note, there appear to have been rumours prior to Layton’s death of some rift between the two (it was mentioned in the first interview I saw with Mulcair after the 2011 election and a reporter once asked him if he was seeking Layton’s job, but in the former he acted like he had never heard of it before and in the latter he refused to answer unless the reporter could point to anything he said that would suggest that, which the reporter failed to do). While there doesn’t appear to have been any substantiating evidence to this, it would somewhat follow the narrative of Brian Topp’s rapid entrance to the race, backed by some close friends of Layton, which was suggested at the time to be a way of blocking Mulcair from entering the race or at least hobbling his campaign before it began. Topp has even recently sent around a letter from Layton’s mother supporting him. On the other hand, these close friends of Layton were from the party establishment that may have backed Topp for completely different reasons.
Mulcair has claimed much credit (along with Jack) for the breakthrough in Québec and many suggest that he is the only one who can really hold on to the NDP’s performance there (it varies on how much would be expected to be lost if another candidate won). However, there have been scattered claims that Mulcair had less to do with it than he claims and these close ties to Québec could hurt him when there is already a feeling amongst some people that the NDP has come to pander to the province after their huge win there – some would say at the expense of the rest of the nation. [EDIT: However, it is important to emphasize that many have built this up into being the reputation of Québec at stake -- if Mulcair is defeated, it could be viewed as a rejection of Québec, and it might be pretty bad for the party in that province. Or it could not. It's impossible to say.] [EDIT2: I should mention that Mulcair is not the only one suggesting he was a huge driving force in the Québec breakthrough. It also seems to be accepted by many people due to giving the NDP a recognizeable face in Québec. He's also gained quite a bit of support outside of Québec, so don't think he's just a one-province-man -- though some suggest he has been more open to interviews from francophone journalists than anglophones.]
Speaking of his time in Québec, he showed himself to be quite dedicated to the Environment file at the time, securing the right to a clean environment in the Québec charter of rights. He refused to hand over park land while Minister of the Environment (the title also included sustainable development and parks), which was supposed to remain a part of the park, to developers like the leader of the party wanted him to. When the leader overruled him and was going to shift him to another file in a cabinet shuffle, he resigned from cabinet and did not run again once he served out his term. On one hand, this is a very principled stand. On the other, it has been suggested that his resignation was more due to the upcoming cabinet shuffle would have demoted him and he resigned for the sake of his career.
Finally, he has been quoted as unconditionally supporting Israel, rather than the NDP’s generally more balanced look at Israeli-Palestinian relations. When asked, he has stated his desire for a peaceful, two-state solution, but his previous comment has prompted support from Canada’s Israel Lobby group and denouncements from Canada’s Independent Jewish Voices. This has made many people nervous, as that kind of unconditional support of Israel regardless of their actions is usually the terrain of the Conservative Party.
…So, yeah. This guy is high risk, but potentially high reward. The latter part is probably the reason he has become the frontrunner and favourite to win.
Peggy Nash
Former party president Peggy Nash has served as the Opposition finance critic, as well as NDP industry critic in a previous parliament. She is a founding member of Equal Voice, an all-party organization advocating for the election of more women in Canada. Before politics, she was a top executive for Canada’s largest private-sector union and an elections monitor in South Africa and Ukraine. She has won several awards for her work in labour, women’s, and environmental movements.
Pros: She has a lot of grassroots, organizational, and negotiating experience both inside and outside of Parliament, and she has shown herself to be calm and levelheaded. She is also quite grounded in the left wing, holding to traditional NDP policies (for those for whom that is a plus). She was noted as doing a good job on the finance file.
Cons: She has been considered quite risk averse in the campaign and hasn’t really made a big impression during the leadership contest. She has made some mistakes in debates that opponents have used to paint her as flip-flopping on issues. Also, her strong union ties could be a disadvantage in a government attack ad, given some anti-union sentiment that the Conservative party has been fostering. She was also defeated in the 2008 election after serving one term, probably since Toronto is generally quite Liberal, though she regained it in the following election.
Martin Singh
he's hard to find short videos for okay
A pharmacist from Nova Scotia, Singh has entered the race to show that the NDP is pro-business, a characterization more often made of more right-wing parties. He’s the first white convert to become head of a Sikh gurdwara in Canada and has signed up a large number of Sikh members of the NDP.
Pros: Early on, he impressed many people with his comfort in French and many considered him to be unexpectedly good at political debate for his lack of experience. He is reported to have strong policies in business, health care, and the environment.
Cons: He has never been elected and it is reported that he doesn’t have very well-defined policies outside of the above categories. In recent weeks, he has begun attacking opponents of Mulcair vigorously and was fined for calling Topp a liar (though it was not specified before the final debate that unparliamentary language would be penalized, he was given an opportunity to apologize instead of paying the fine, which he refused). This lead to reports that he had come to an agreement with Mulcair to be his “attack dog,” and while both camps denied any formal arrangement, he did not set minds at ease by telling his supporters that he would be marking Mulcair as his second choice and encouraging them to do the same. He is also considered to not have enough support to make it past the first ballot, like Aston.
Brian Topp
The first candidate to declare and long considered the “coronation” frontrunner due to the endorsements of some highly regarded NDP supporters, Topp is a longtime party official from Québec and a former party president. He has directed a number of successful NDP campaigns both federally and provincially, including the 2011 federal campaign. He is the executive director of a film and television actor’s union, as well as sitting on the board of Film Ontario, ROI Fund, and Creative Art Savings and Credit Union.
Pros: He is well-regarded throughout the party as highly intelligent and very skilled in campaign planning. He is well-liked, many considering him to be incredibly charismatic one-on-one, and was a close confidant of Jack Layton. He is well-steeped in the party policy and is firm about remaining committed to social democratic principles.
Cons: These all may serve him better as a backroom organizer. This guy is seriously great at that, but he’s been reported as not as charismatic or skilled in the debate setting, even if he is supposedly improving at that. He’s not an MP and, like Nash, could be targeted for his strong union ties – he wanted to continue the practice of giving unions a separate vote for the leadership race rather than the newly adopted one-member, one-vote preferential ballot system. Also, Ed Broadbent’s recent attack on Mulcair, which would seem to some as sowing some discord in the party, is strongly associated with Topp due to Broadbent’s support. (In fairness, Broadbent was called up and asked his opinion on the issue by a journalist, but after he agreed to interviews with other news groups and continued to attack Mulcair. Many consider it Not Done due to Broadbent’s huge influence as former leader of the party during their previous highest number of seats in Parliament.)
Also:
You will note I don’t make much mention of policy, which should be at least as important as personality. But, honestly, aside from Cullen’s proposal of joint nominations, the candidates have generally been in agreement, so it’s hard to really give a good outline of their policy differences and it’s kind of run together in my mind. And I haven’t gotten around to reading all of the policy statements released over the race. I’m afraid I will resort to lazy journalism and base a brief overview of emphases on a series of Hill Times articles published on the 19th, though if there is anything that has stood out I’ll begin with that.
Ashon’s continued refrain has been for New Politics. In the Hill Times article, she referenced: making politics relevant to young and rural voters, promoting equality (particularly the same-sex marriage issue that got her into politics), dealing with the affordability gap, restoring Canada’s reputation in the world, creating an environmentally sustainable economy, and studying progressive tax reform.
Cullen is known for his proposed joint nominations and his environmental leanings. In the article, he is quoted about: reaching beyond Ottawa, creating a more effective democratic system, changing energy and climate policy, reversing the growing divide between haves and have nots, and restoring civility in politics.
Dewar was noted earlier in the campaign for having the strongest policy statements going into the first debates. In the article, he is quoted about: engaging voters, retooling the economy towards manufacturing/value-added jobs instead of energy export, strengthening the social safety net, and addressing First Nations issues.
Mulcair has made a point to talk about sustainable development from both an economic and environmental viewpoint (including cap-and-trade), as well as modernizing the party message to reach out to other people. In the Hill Times article, he was quoted on: strengthening pension security, opening up immigration, forming regulations for Canadian companies operating overseas, reducing income gaps, and restoring the manufacturing sector.
Nash has emphasized proving to Canadians that the NDP are strong on the economy, which is often not considered to be their strong point. In the article, she emphasizes: grassroots politics, the economy, job creation, environmental sustainability, and proportional representation. She also suggests that she would be willing to entertain the idea of an NDP-lead coalition, unlike, say, Mulcair, who recently was quoted as vetoing the idea entirely due to a mistrust of the Liberals after the last attempt.
Singh launched his campaign focused on the pro-business side of the NDP. The article is very short and mostly concentrates on this and perceived ties with Mulcair.
Topp has been noted for fairly standard NDP principles, which include tax reform. In the aricle, he mentioned: child poverty, fair taxation, climate change, equality, and positive messages.
IF YOU DON'T WANT MY VOTING PREFERENCES TO INFLUENCE YOU, STOP HERE
Though really it's probably too late if this is what you are basing your vote on.
Really, I'm pretty biased here.
For the sake of revealing my biases, I will admit that I have a major political crush on Nathan Cullen and will be voting for him first. I also don’t think much of Topp’s candidacy and will be placing him near the bottom. I have also tended to give in to the media narrative in dismissing Ashton and Singh as very unlikely candidates to win. And I have mostly disregarded Dewar based on his poor French. Currently, I have mixed feelings on Mulcair, but I will likely be placing him second, though I may either put another candidate in front of him or vote only for Cullen and let things go as they will if he is defeated.
But, seriously, vote for who you want.