Election 2015

[RangerRay]

I'm Stateside quite often and I find quite the opposite. Bush hardly rates mention anymore. He's almost relegated to a footnote. Most don't perceive of him as having left a mess.

When politics, or just the general state of the country, state, city, housing, jobs, things in general, etc, gets mentioned, almost invariably the first words spoken are "That f***ing Obama".

His 'jesus' status has definitely worn off over there.

Sorry, I should have clarified that I talked to non-political Canadians.  They still think it's all Dubya's fault, and that Obama walks on water and $%!ts daisies.  :facepalm:

 

[Rifleman62]

Its the media stupid!

Some of the TV commentators even have dribbles down their legs ( let alone the corner of their mouths) at the mere thought of Obama. Some get regular invites to Dinners at the White House.

Last winter in Texas there were lots of bumper stickers consisting of a photo of Pres Bush with the caption: "Do You Miss Me Yet!"

 

[a_majoor]

Sorry, I should have clarified that I talked to non-political Canadians.  They still think it's all Dubya's fault, and that Obama walks on water and $%!ts daisies.  :facepalm:

I'll keep that in mind in 2012 when I vote.....

I'm sure people in Canada, Micronesia and Middle Earth may still believe that everything can be blamed on [insert name here], but from any practical perspective, the only thing that matters is what American voters believe.

 

[RangerRay]

I'll keep that in mind in 2012 when I vote.....

I'm sure people in Canada, Micronesia and Middle Earth may still believe that everything can be blamed on [insert name here], but from any practical perspective, the only thing that matters is what American voters believe.

Unfortunately, most un-interested Canadians are not exposed to knowledge that many Americans are exposed to, so feel that Obama's NDP-lite policies are not to blame for their current situation.  They still believe what the Canadian MSM tells them, that it was rampant un-regulated capitalism that caused the crash, and their inability to climb out of the Obama-hole.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And Jean Chrétien enters the lists, in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-ndp-merger-could-come-very-quickly-chrtien-predicts/article2155542/

Liberal-NDP merger could 'come very quickly,’ Chrétien predicts

BILL CURRY
Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update

Posted on Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien is fanning the flames of merger talk, predicting a union of the Liberals and NDP could happen just as suddenly as Stephen Harper’s successful bid to form a new Conservative Party in 2003.

Mr. Chrétien, 77, suggests protests from politicians currently denouncing the idea should be taken with a grain of salt, pointing to the example of Peter MacKay. As the last leader of the Progressive Conservative party, Mr. MacKay rejected the idea of a unite-the-right merger just months before he ultimately approved one.

“It will be done one day. And it will come very quickly or not happen,” Mr. Chrétien said Tuesday in an interview with CBC’s Power and Politics. “Look at the way that Harper did that. Harper had MacKay there, [who] made a solemn promise in writing that never he would talk merger with the Reform. He’s now the Minister of Defence. Things happen and they happen sometimes at moments unexpected.”

Mr. Chrétien was referencing the scribbled letter Mr. MacKay offered behind closed doors at a PC convention in the spring of 2003 to win the support of rival leadership candidate David Orchard. The deal was described as a “gentlemen’s agreement” not to merge the two parties. It was attacked at the time by leading Canadian Alliance members such as Jason Kenney as a “deal with the devil” and Mr. Harper quickly urged the new PC leader to shelve the pledge, saying “Peter MacKay made a mistake with the Orchard deal.”

Mr. Chrétien, who was prime minister from 1993 to 2003, also drew on his own party’s history to show that Liberals and New Democrats aren’t all that different.

“You have to keep in mind that it’s not [new],” he said, before recalling a 1956 quote from then-Liberal prime minister Louis St. Laurent.

“Talking about the NDP, who were the CCF in those days, [St. Laurent said:] ‘They are Liberals in a hurry.’ ... It’s a long time. Almost 56 years ago. And now the financing of the political parties, it’s not the same. They [the NDP] are not financed by the unions any more. It was a problem in my book. I don’t like any political party representing only one group in society. We’re there to govern for everybody in society,” he said.

New financing rules limiting union and corporate donations – brought in by Mr. Chrétien near the end of his time as prime minister – also put a major dent in the amount of money available to the Liberal Party, which was heavily dependent on corporate donations. In power, Mr. Harper’s Conservatives eliminated union and corporate donations entirely and are also phasing out taxpayer subsidies, which Mr. Chrétien’s government introduced as a partial replacement for corporate and union funds.

Meanwhile, deputy NDP leader Libby Davies moved Tuesday to put a lid on all the merger talk, advising her colleagues that such discussions don’t fit with what late party leader Jack Layton was advocating.

“Talking mergers (as they do in the corporate world) is not a way to realize this vision – and is not something I'm in favour of,” she wrote for the website rabble.ca.

Pushing for a merger is nothing new for Mr. Chrétien. He caused a stir during the last Parliament with behind the scenes talks with NDP veterans exploring the possibility of a merger.

“If they had done it,” Mr. Chrétien said, “a lot of people think, and I think too, they would have been the government today.”

While I would be loathe to question 'tit Jean's political judgement, and while I note that he has talked out of both sides of his mouth (comme d'habitude) by saying "it will come very quickly or"  [it will] "not happen" [at all], I do dispute his assertion that a merger would have changed the results of the last election. My take is that Canadians will accept a merger IF it is done well before and election - as a matter of principle (such as those ever exist in Canadian politics), but they would have punished such a merged party if they concluded the merger was just to win the forthcoming election.

 

[GAP]

They had better frame their ideology pretty quickly then, if they do merge....honestly, I have difficulty reconciling the two together and coming up with a logical mandate.....other than getting elected....

 

[Edward Campbell]

IF they merge we will, in my opinion, end up with three new parties:

Left wing rump of the NDP - cannot abide Liberals  ---  New Merged Party - more centrist than left  ---  Right wing rump of the Liberals - cannot abide Dippers

Eventually the Left wing rump will grow and prosper, so will the New Merged Party, but they will continue to split the "left," to the Conservatives' advantage; the  Right wing rump will join the real Conservatives, leaving three 'national' parties, as we have now, plus the Greens plus, in my guesstimation two Québec nationalist parties.

Bring it on!

 

[a_majoor]

I am reading 4 parties in the future:

CPC
Socialist Alliance Party (Liberal-NDP Merger)
Greens (too far removed from the mainstream to incorporate or be incorporated into the other parties: the "new" NDP for this era)
Quebec Nationalist Party (limited and declining value nationally, but a never ending protest vote from Quebec. Tactically aligned with the Socialist Alliance Party)

Now the Socialist Alliance Party and Quebec Nationalist Party might not have these names, but for now this will act as a useful marker for discussion.

Incidentally, there are at least 19 registered parties Federally, although I think they most are fighting over @ 2%-5% of the electorate. This might become significant is any form of PR voting is enacted in the future.

 

[RangerRay]

Further to what I was talking about earlier, here is something from today's Globe and Mail that reflect Canadians' attitudes to Obama.  This backs up what I'm hearing from non-political Canadians, even ones who voted Conservative.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/america-as-a-trading-partner-yes-economic-model-no/article2155332/

Canadians do not blame Barack Obama for his country’s problems. In the Globe/Nanos survey, an overwhelming majority of Canadians believe he is doing the “best job possible.” Inferentially, they’re saying the U.S. political system is a mess – which, of course, it is, although he isn’t responsible.

  :facepalm:

If Canadians do not equate Obama's policies to economic meltdown, they will not equate Liberal/NDP policies to meltdown.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And the knives are out in the Liberal Party of Canada too, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/seeking-liberal-presidency-sheila-copps-vows-to-fight-merger/article2156921/

Seeking Liberal presidency, Sheila Copps vows to fight merger

Montreal— The Canadian Press

Published Wednesday, Sep. 07, 2011

Former cabinet minister Sheila Copps has announced she will run for the presidency of the federal Liberals and fight any plans to have the party merge with the NDP.

Ms. Copps said she disagrees with former prime minister Jean Chrétien’s prediction that it is only a matter of time before the Liberals and the NDP become one entity.

She believes the party should instead unite internally so it can return to being a strong centrist option.

“I think we need to do some internal merging. ... So I don't agree with my colleague and friend Mr. Chrétien that the only solution is merging the Liberals and the NDP,” she told The Canadian Press on Wednesday.

Ms. Copps, 58, said it is important that the Liberals resurrect themselves to help counter Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

“If [Mr. Harper] wants to get rid of the Liberal Party, it is not to help the NDP,” Ms. Copps said.

“He wants to get rid of the Liberal Party because he feels if there is a vacated centre and the country goes into two polar opposites, there's a good chance he could stay in power in perpetuity.”

As for why she wants to become Liberal Party president, Ms. Copps said: “I've got the seven-year itch and it needs scratching.”

And the former deputy prime minister appears to be under no illusions about the challenges she would face, saying she would like to bring in “money, memberships and morale – and not necessarily in that order.”

Ms. Copps said she wants to modernize the party, make it more accessible and have one million voters cast ballots in the leadership race.

“I'm hoping there are enough people across the country who have been out who believe in Liberal values and keeping the country's values at the centre.”

One-time diplomat Ron Hartling and recently defeated MP Alexandra Mendes have already declared their intentions to run for the presidency as well.

The party's next president will be decided at a convention in Ottawa in January.

I think, I actually hope that both the LPC and NDP will have principled discussions about a merger: pro and con. It will help both parties, and all Canadians, to examine and profess their core values and to expose their political DNA to public scrutiny.

I'm guessing that both parties will, over the next few years, lose members, maybe even including sitting MPs, to the others.

 

[ModlrMike]

I think, I actually hope that both the LPC and NDP will have principled discussions about a merger: pro and con. It will help both parties, and all Canadians, to examine and profess their core values and to expose their political DNA to public scrutiny.

Except that thus far neither party has been particularly pubic with their political DNA. What makes you think they'll involve the public in any navel gazing exercise?

 

[Edward Campbell]

But NDP insider Jamey Heath makes a cogent case for the merge in another article in the Globe and Mail. He notes, for starters, that the "interim Liberal leader is a former New Democrat" and a "leading contender for the NDP leadership is a former Liberal," which is both true and too cute by half. Heath disputes the "different species" argument proposed by many opponents and neutral observers. He notes than, in a merged party, "John Manley, say, probably wouldn’t enjoy joint caucus meetings. But Sheila Copps probably would," and he goes on to suggest that is "Mr. Manley or other rightward Liberals find co-operation unpalatable, they should do us all a favour and join the Tories to rebuild their left flank."

It should be an interesting debate.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Except that thus far neither party has been particularly pubic with their political DNA. What makes you think they'll involve the public in any navel gazing exercise?

I doubt either party will be able, even with a generally lazy compliant media, to keep it all under wraps. The advocates will have to conscript the media to reach their own members and supporters.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'll repeat my earlier guess: the leftward portion of the Liberals will join the NDP and the resulting party will drift left, the rightward portion of the Liberals will join the CPC and it will gravitate to the centre, and eventually the rightmost portion of the CPC will break off over disagreement with the centrists.  We will be back to 3 parties: one firmly left, one left centre/centre, and one centre/centre right.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the National Post, is some good stuff and a persistent LIE that the Liberals and NDP continue to tell:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/merger+agenda+Topp+says/5367840/story.html

NDP merger not on the agenda, Topp says

Tobi Cohen, Postmedia News

Sept. 8, 2011

OTTAWA . The backroom New Democrat behind the 2008 coalition wouldn't hesitate to strike another deal with the Liberals should the Conservatives win a minority in the next election.

In an interview, NDP president Brian Topp said on Wednesday that a merger of the two parties is not on the agenda but that a coalition remains a "perfectly legitimate" option.

"If Canadians elect a minority Parliament, in which there's a progressive and centrist majority that finds a way to work together, then we should [work together] because that's what the majority of the public have elected," he said. "We don't have to become Liberals to win."

His comments come after the Canadian Autoworkers union expressed support for an NDP-Liberal merger and MP Pat Martin proclaimed he would run for the leadership if no other candidates promoted the idea. Although former prime minister Jean Chrétien has been pushing for it among Liberals, current interim Liberal leader Bob Rae has said the merger option is not on the table.

While nobody has officially entered the race to replace Jack Layton, who lost his battle with cancer last month - the rules of which will be set by the party's federal council on Friday - Mr. Topp is among the supposed frontrunners contemplating a bid.

He's also the author of How We Almost Gave the Tories the Boot: The Inside Story Behind the Coalition, which offers an in-depth look at the 2008 partnership from his standpoint as one of the lead negotiators. The coalition ultimately fell apart when Parliament was prorogued.

Mr. Topp suggested the idea of working together with other parties actually resonated with voters who chose the NDP in unprecedented numbers, especially in Quebec, where a record 59 New Democrats were elected.

"A key element of our success, in my opinion, is the way we played our cards in the last Parliament," he said.

"It was a mixed success in public opinion in English Canada, but the idea of replacing the Harper government with a progressive coalition was very popular in Quebec and it caused Quebecers to think about politics in new ways.... It caused them to get out of the idea that they needed to vote defensively in federal politics."

Mr. Topp, who will announce in short order whether he intends to enter the race, remains a relative unknown among Canadian voters who, pundits suggest, elected the party based largely on its popular and charismatic late leader.

That said, the fluently bilingual, Quebec-born Topp is well-known in party circles, having served as national campaign director in the 2006 and 2008 elections. He co-ordinated the campaign war room in 1997 and 2004 and was deputy chief of staff to Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow in the 1990s. In the last campaign, Mr. Topp co-chaired the committee responsible for the party's platform and he co-ordinated the leaders debate.

While deputy leader Thomas Mulcair, another likely top contender for the leadership, is viewed as both the party's face and key promoter in Quebec, Mr. Topp has been helping mobilize the NDP in the province since he began working for the party in Montreal in the mid1980s, under Ed Broadbent.

In fact, he organized the campaign that got Phil Edmonston elected in Chambly in a 1990 byelection - the NDP's first-ever seat in Quebec.

"I haven't run as an MP and I'm not an MP, but I have attended more NDP caucus meetings than any of the likely leadership candidates," Mr. Topp said, adding many of his suggestions during those meetings were adopted.

"I haven't stood up in Parliament and read a question, but I've written many of them and I've also spent seven years co-ordinating the responses of a government to Question Period, so I'm quite familiar with parliamentary work." Mr. Topp said the party's next leader must focus on "bulking up" the party to ensure it wins a majority of seats in the next election and building a plan for its first mandate.

The "good stuff" is that, of course, "a coalition remains a "perfectly legitimate" option." That's 100% true.

The lie then follows, in Topp's own words: "If Canadians elect a minority Parliament, in which there's a progressive and centrist majority that finds a way to work together, then we should [work together] because that's what the majority of the public have elected ..."

That's arrant nonsense and it is a lie, but it is a lie that the anti-Harper folks love to tell. The "majority of the public" did not, in e.g. 2006 or 2008, elect a "progressive and centrist majority." A plurality of the public voted for the Conservatives, smaller groups voted for an array of parties other than the Conservatives but none, not one single Canadian voted for a "progressive and centrist majority" or anything else, except for n MPs from four different parties (plus an Independent or two).

Now Brian Topp, like most "progressive and centrist" commentators, is a smart guy; because he's a smart guy he must know that what he's spouting is incorrect. People who, knowingly, spout incorrect information are liars ... Topp is in 'good,' ""progressive and centrist" company, many of them lie with practiced ease.

 

[Edward Campbell]

One thing you gotta love is the eternal, albeit clueless, optimism of the loony left. Here,  reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen, is a column by a charter member of that group:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/solution/5374463/story.html

The Rae solution

By Susan Riley, Ottawa Citizen

September 9, 2011

The immediate solution to the leadership vacuum on the Canadian left is blindingly obvious: Bob Rae either rejoins his former party, or leads an NDP-Liberal coalition to victory over Stephen Harper.

It makes perfect sense. The Liberals are a tired, waning party led by one of the most articulate, engaging and experienced politicians in Ottawa. The New Democrats are bursting with new recruits and renewed vigour, but in desperate need of a seasoned, bilingual, likable leader.

And Rae, while thin-skinned at times, can be likable. His mid-day speech to his diminished Liberal caucus a few weeks ago, while missed by the larger world, was a masterpiece. It was delivered with brio, humour, passion and an urgent call for change. And, refreshingly, not from a printed text.

While he made repeated appeals to Liberal ideas - and called for reform of the party "from the roots" - his underlying message was centrist, pragmatic and unlikely to cause alarm among NDP voters.

When he called the Liberal party "a movement", rather than "a family," he was even speaking their language.

His strategy, he told the Liberal gathering, is to challenge Conservatives on their chosen turf, the economy, calling for a focus on growth instead of Harper's "forced march to austerity." Rae would counter Conservative calls for "cuts, cuts, cuts" - particularly dangerous at a time when global economies are contracting - with "jobs, jobs, jobs", he said.

If you closed your eyes, it could have been Layton speaking, minus the self-deprecating humour.

Both leaders were more democrats than socialists - businessfriendly, deficit-wary, respectful of Quebec's nationalist anxieties and driven by a moral compunction to serve the larger good.

They disagreed on the Afghan mission, but it is hard to find other significant differences. As Toronto Star columnist Tom Walkom has written: "Layton played guitar; Rae plays piano." Not an unbridgeable divide.

But, fortunately, Canadian politics has an army of cynics, insiders, anonymous sources and academics quick to point out obstacles to any sensible, innovative proposal. They have already buried the idea of a united, Rae-led left. Of a united left, period.

First, everyone agrees, the idea is preposterous because the two parties have different roots, histories, traditions and favourite bars.

Longtime party loyalists, in both camps, would lose their titles and their jobs - not a trivial concern (to them). A united party would have to decide on a new name, constitution and colour: orange, red, or a purplish blend. Egos would be bruised; sacrifices required.

And everyone knows that political parties don't just disappear, or spring up, overnight - well, except for the federal Progressive Conservatives, the Reform Party, the Greens, the ADQ in Quebec, Wildrose Alliance in Alberta, the Saskatchewan Party and a few others.

Second, Rae, at 63, is too old for the job - a full two years older than the robust Layton was when he died. In fact, it's a wonder the old gent can make it up the stairs of Centre Block, much less tangle with a frisky 50-something like Harper (52) across the Commons aisle.

The NDP would clearly be better off with a relative youngster like Tom Mulcair (57), or Brian Topp (51), at the helm. As for the Liberals, they are again shopping for some still unknown, youthful genius, unencumbered by family responsibilities, or too much actual experience.

Some overnight success, like Harper, or Layton, or Jean Chrétien, or Michael what's-his-name.

Rae, of course, has a mixed reputation as former NDP Ontario premier, but so does Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, as Mike Harris's sidekick, and it hasn't proved careerlimiting for the Irish imp. Besides, that was a long time ago in a different land.

Finally, there is Rae's vow to serve only as interim leader and not contest the permanent Liberal leadership two years hence. Even if he performs brilliantly, even if he moves into the void left by Layton and Gilles Duceppe, even if he restores his (current) party to contention in the polls - well, he made a promise, and the consistency police will be unrelenting.

Yet Sheila Copps, (also unacceptably old, apparently, at 58) doesn't seem too fussed about Rae changing his mind. She's running to be party president after a sevenyear political hiatus. In her view, if Rae can sell his change of heart to Liberals - which shouldn't be hard if he is leading them towards victory - why not?

The punditry would be shocked, of course; we have barely recovered from the scandalous prospect of a coalition government. And who, among us, predicted that the perennial third wheel of Canadian politics, Layton, would become Opposition leader and sweep Quebec?

Undeterred, the guardians of the status quo are speaking again. No Liberal/NDP merger, no career change for Bob Rae. He'll just have to become leader of the united left organically.

Susan Riley writes on national politics. E-mail: sriley.work@gmail.com.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Well, as Alexander Pope said: "Hope springs eternal in the human breast," even for the loony left. But: could it happen? Yes, Rae, I'm guessing, salivates or wet dreams (pick your desired image) at the idea. I wouldn't be surprised if the Rae machine didn't plant the idea ~ it seems at little 'advanced' for Riley.

 

[ModlrMike]

Bob Rae as leader of any merged left wing party will likely guarantee the Torries all remaining seats in Ontario. There's still considerable anger about his last time at the helm that it's unlikely voters there will give him another chance.

 

[dapaterson]

There's a much more significacnt leadership issue in Canadian federal politics:  How long will Stephen Harper hang on?

He runs a tight ship, and though there is minor background activity going on, there are no open challengers.  But when will he hang up his hat, and what will that mean to the party?  There are still strong Reform/ Progressive Conservative rifts that a leadership contest could worsen.  Similarly, I'm at a bit of a loss to identify the last successful leadership transition in federal politics for an incumbent government.  Trudeau to Turner?  Mulroney to Campbell?  Chretien to Martin?

All to say that while the Grits and Dippers have leadership woes, the Tories are not immune to the same, and need to start thinking on their longer term succession plan.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The gloves are coming off in the NDP leadership race according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-firebrand-toots-his-own-horn/article2152741/

I guess it will be obligatory, for a year or so, to give Saint Jack credit for everything, even making the tide come in ... but Mulcair can, fairly safely, snipe at Topp and the NDP officials who want a January leadership race that, procedurally, would be dominated by the party establishment that represents pretty much every vested, special interest except Québec.

My guess is that Mulcair wins this one and the leadership convention is in the spring.

It looks like I guessed wrong. The media tells us that the NDP leadership convention will be held on 24 Mar 12 in Toronto. That's in the spring, but just barely; Mulcair et al wanted late April, May or even June - to give them adequate time to sell many tens of thousands of memberships in Québec and, thereby, have more delegate votes at the convention.

At a guess: Québec sees this as yet another humiliation and it strengthens the nationalist hand and, therefore, weakens the Dippers - holy shot in the foot, Batman. (Mind you, the Québec nationalists are in such dire straits that a nice sunny day would strengthen their hand.)

 

[a_majoor]

More on the NDP leadership race:

http://www.atory01.com/blog/2011/9/16/the-ndp-and-the-stephane-dion-factor.html

The NDP and the Stephane Dion Factor
DateFriday, September 16, 2011 at 11:13AM

It seems that every day we are treated to another relatively unknown NDP MP declaring that they are thinking about running for the NDP leadership position.

The list grows because they all want their name in lights and it is a great ego boost to see the media plaster your name coast to coast. The sad part is that in most cases all it will ever amount to is an ego boost.

So far we have Brian Topp in the race and Romeo Saganesh and then a long string of those thinking about it including Thomas Mulcair, Libby Davies, Megan Leslie, Paul Dewar, Nathan Cullen, Niki Ashton, Peter Julian.

Topp has been quick out of the gate and most give him the lead at this time. While he is a formidable contender, there are others who have not yet declared they are running and it is to early to assume that he will be the eventual winner.

Assuming Thomas Mulcair does decide to contest the leadership it will boil down to a knock down vicious fight between him and Brian Topp.  Muclair’s personality is such that he will fight a take no prisoners’ battle. If he wins, and don’t count him out, there will be a significant number of angry and disappointed NDPers from coast to coast that will require a lot of the new leader’s time patching up the wounds.

Mulcair got a significant boost this past week when the leadership rules allowed him to remain as Deputy Leader throughout the leadership race. With everyone else having to give up their critic portfolios after they announce that that they will be running, Mulcair will be the only candidate (assuming Libby Davies does not run) with the opportunity to maintain a high media profile and the only one able to use the daily Question Period to keep his profile in front of the NDP membership. Between now and the date of the leadership vote, as Deputy Leader, Mulcair can be up in front of the cameras on some 95 days (the  number of days Question Period will be held prior to the leadership vote) which gives him a significant advantage.  He is a very good performer in Question Period and he should easily overshadow Nycole Turmel’s performance. As Deputy Leader he gets to ask questions in the highly valued number two spot when Turmel is in the House and he is the lead off questioner when she isn’t. Even Topp can’t get that type of guaranteed daily media exposure, especially in the fertile recruitment area of the province of Quebec. This is a serious flaw in the NDP leadership rules that needs to be corrected.

In addition, Mulcair is a veteran provincial politician and provincial minister who served as a member of the National Assembly from 1994-2007. He has collected plenty of IOU’s along the way and when you add in his organizational skills, he is a major threat. If he runs, he has the potential to win.

Much has been made of Ed Broadbent’s endorsement of Topp and while it certainly counts, it will be but one of many deciding factors in this contest. While Broadbent was an NDP star from 1975 to 1989, many of the younger NDP recruits were not even born then and for many others, Broadbent is but a name in the history books they studied in high school.

We are now at the stage where various potential leadership contenders will be trotting out MPs, party officials or union officials to endorse their candidacy. It will be interesting to see which leadership candidate members of the caucus throw their support behind and it will provide some insight into the impending leadership battle and its potential to divide the party into two main camps.

Any time a leadership race becomes a contest of two heavy weights slugging it out there is the risk that each side and their supporters will refuse to admit defeat and drag out the vote to a bitter conclusion. When that happens there is room for the Stephane Dion factor to come into play and a third person comes up the middle to take the prize. Unfortunately that is about the only chance any of those “thinking about running” have to win.