NDP Leadership Convention 2017

[King of Kensington]

It used to be said that the United Church was "the NDP at prayer" (while the Anglicans were "Tories at prayer"*) but most studies I've shown (albeit few recently since the mainline Protestant denominations have shrunk considerably over the years) didn't show any meaningful difference between them politically or in terms of social class.

I'm guessing the United Church has an urban progressive wing that gets a lot of attention but much of their membership is old and in small towns and rural areas.  Is the typical small town United Chuercher that progressive?

* Today of course evangelical churches are more the place to find "Tories at prayer." 

[Hatman 🍁]

United Church congregations... what is left of them tend to be conservative leaning, yes. I mean, these are the people that still attend church regularly... in 2016. The leadership however is still very progressive, and still preach progressive values. The minister at my church is definitely an NDP supporter, and always preaches the social gospel at church, which is why I never feel alienated at church. Wonder what is going on in the heads of the old people when he does that.

There are also many urban United Church congregations that are very progressive. They are the ones where many LGBT go to.

It is (culturally) unfortunate that the church is dying so quickly. Many progressives don't believe in God, so don't feel the need to go to church, and many conservatives feel the church is too progressive, so have found other denominations.

[King of Kensington]

Yeah, that's what I figured.  A sizable and influential urban progressive wing but with an older, more conservative membership.

I think it's pretty common in liberal and mainline Protestant churches for the clergy to be more progressive than the membership.

[DC Al Fine]

United Church congregations... what is left of them tend to be conservative leaning, yes. I mean, these are the people that still attend church regularly... in 2016. The leadership however is still very progressive, and still preach progressive values. The minister at my church is definitely an NDP supporter, and always preaches the social gospel at church, which is why I never feel alienated at church. Wonder what is going on in the heads of the old people when he does that.

There's two explanations I've heard for what you are describing. I suspect its a bit of both.

1) The history behind the United Church means that very few conservatives joined the denomination when it formed. The old people are certainly conservative to your typical twenty-something "None"'s perception, they aren't that conservative in the church world at large.

2) There's a huge amount of inertia, and a lot of people need a pretty stiff kick in the butt to get them to leave their church.

e.g. When I was working on a Tory campaign a few years ago, I canvassed with a guy who was an Elder at a local United Church. This guy was typical of the small c conservative, church going old person you described. He mentioned that one of the other Elders resigned and left the church when they decided to hire a female minister. The United Church has had female ministers for over 50 years

Earl, how explicit was this minister in Ottawa about the social gospel?

[Hatman 🍁]

Well, he talks about climate change, and helping the disadvantaged and all that (our church does a lot of charity work in the community, as it's smack-dab in the middle of the city's urban core). About what you'd expect. It's been a while since I've gone, so I can't recall anything specific, but I do remember him saying things that I agreed with, but I thought would be cringe-worthy for even a Red Tory. I remember after the 2011 election, he mentioned to the congregation that he was upset that Tony Martin lost his seat in Sault Ste. Marie and that Mike Savage lost his seat (perhaps some partisan balance?) due to their work in poverty. I think he may have been a minister in Nova Scotia for some time.

[DC Al Fine]

Well, he talks about climate change, and helping the disadvantaged and all that (our church does a lot of charity work in the community, as it's smack-dab in the middle of the city's urban core). About what you'd expect. It's been a while since I've gone, so I can't recall anything specific, but I do remember him saying things that I agreed with, but I thought would be cringe-worthy for even a Red Tory.

Oh, that's not too exceptional. The Social Gospel can advocate for reform because Jesus is the Son of God, or it can advocate social reform as an alternative to worshiping Jesus Christ because he he was just a human, didn't exist etc.

In my experience, ministers can get away with a lot as long as they don't explicitly state the latter formula.

[King of Kensington]

It sounds like Sid Ryan might be running (he posted this on his Facebook today):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRBSGBWwcWQ

[DL]

Again not even so much as a perfunctory "bonjour" in French. GONG

[King of Kensington]

Maybe he's just trying to influence the debate?  Doesn't seem wise to hitch himself to the Socialist Caucus/NDP Momentum bandwagon though.  

[MaxQue]

Ah, Justin Trudeau's puppet.

What are the odds he says to vote Liberal to beat Conservatives in 2019?

[DL]

Just posted this in the CPC leadership thread...

Its worth noting that there is a four month lag between when the Conservatives pick their leader and when the NDP pick theirs. Both parties have prospective candidates for the leadership with varying degrees of bilingual ability.

Scenario A: Let's say the Tories pick a unilingual anglo as leader such as O'Leary or Leitch or Raitt...or one of the others who speaks some French but its very laboured. Does that cause the NDP to take the attitude of "well if the Tories can have a leader who speaks no French, maybe we can also get away with a leader whose French is not that good (i.e. Angus)? OR does the NDP take the attitude of "by picking a leader who speaks no French, the Tories are essentially vacating Quebec and that gives the NDP the chance to be the only viable alternative to Trudeau in 2019 - so maybe we should pick someone like Guy Caron as leader who is a francophone Quebecer"

Scenario B: What if the Tories pick a Quebecer such as Bernier (or Blaney) as leader? Does the NDP then figure "we can't be the only party without a leader who speaks perfect French o we better go for Guy Caron" OR does the NDP take the more "realpolitik" view that both the Liberals and the Tories are led by Quebecers and on top of that the new Tory leader speaks English with a heavy French accent and is likely to be a hard sell in English Canada. maybe the NDP can get do well in the rest of Canada by being the only party led by an anglophone who is not from Quebec and we need to bait and switch as far as Quebec is concerned?

[toaster]

Just posted this in the CPC leadership thread...

Its worth noting that there is a four month lag between when the Conservatives pick their leader and when the NDP pick theirs. Both parties have prospective candidates for the leadership with varying degrees of bilingual ability.

Scenario A: Let's say the Tories pick a unilingual anglo as leader such as O'Leary or Leitch or Raitt...or one of the others who speaks some French but its very laboured. Does that cause the NDP to take the attitude of "well if the Tories can have a leader who speaks no French, maybe we can also get away with a leader whose French is not that good (i.e. Angus)? OR does the NDP take the attitude of "by picking a leader who speaks no French, the Tories are essentially vacating Quebec and that gives the NDP the chance to be the only viable alternative to Trudeau in 2019 - so maybe we should pick someone like Guy Caron as leader who is a francophone Quebecer"

Scenario B: What if the Tories pick a Quebecer such as Bernier (or Blaney) as leader? Does the NDP then figure "we can't be the only party without a leader who speaks perfect French o we better go for Guy Caron" OR does the NDP take the more "realpolitik" view that both the Liberals and the Tories are led by Quebecers and on top of that the new Tory leader speaks English with a heavy French accent and is likely to be a hard sell in English Canada. maybe the NDP can get do well in the rest of Canada by being the only party led by an anglophone who is not from Quebec and we need to bait and switch as far as Quebec is concerned?

If the Anglophone is someone like Angus, I could still see much of Quebec going for him.  Many parts of Quebec are much more populist/labour/socialist left than the rest of the country, as opposed to politically correct/latte sipping/elite left(on paper only) Liberals in Downtown Toronto.
Angus comes from rural Northern Ontario.  He can surely attract other rural working class areas while maintaining the true social-democratic left in the urban areas.  If Megan Leslie is still saying no, I really do think Angus is the next best choice to grow the party.

[DL]

Yes but will quebecers warm to Charlie Angus if his French is not good at all? I hear very mixed accounts of his French but what little I've heard is on a par with Lisa Raitt which is awful

[adma]

Yes but will quebecers warm to Charlie Angus if his French is not good at all? I hear very mixed accounts of his French but what little I've heard is on a par with Lisa Raitt which is awful

A lot depends on whether he has the tacit support of current Quebec-caucussers like Boulerice, Caron, or his immediate neighbours Saganash and Moore--they can carry a lot of the linguistic weight on Charlie's behalf.  But let us also consider that the fluke laughing-gas circumstances of 2011 might have *over*-elevated NDP expectations of Quebec.  That is, maybe it's better to henceforth consider a 50-member Quebec contingent as more of a "nice-to-have" than a "must-have", and make up for that in the ROC--but at the same time not to blithely throw away whatever caucus the NDP has remaining in Quebec (half of which won by less than a third of the vote, anyway; so they're like twice-in-a-row "accidents", first through the Orange Crush, and then through FPTP favourable vote splits).  Which is why, at the very least, keeping the Carons and Boulerices on-side is critical...

[DL]

Having support from some Quebec MPs is not going to cut. Just like tere is no way Quebecers are suddenly going to vote for a CPC led by totally unilingual Kevin O'Leary or Lisa Raitt just because a couple of Quebec Tory Mps endorse him.

We now have a very "presidentialized" system in Canada. If (to use an example) Charlie Angus is the next leader of the NDP, he is the one who is going to have to make a good impression 100% in French alone on the panel on Tous le monde en parle. He will also have to do talk radio and TV interviews totally in French and field questions and he will have to make a good impression in a two hour leaders debate that will be totally in French in the next election. You cannot send in a stand-in for these things. only the actual leader will do. I think you are delusional if you think that the NDP could have a leader who cant speak French and send another Quebec MP as an understudy and not expect to be laughed off the stage.

I agree that we should nt expect the next leader to take the NDP back to 50 seats in Quebec. BUT, right now the NDP has 16 seats in Quebec. That is more than in any other province and is 1/3 of the whole federal caucus. A new leader who is fluent in French and who has a personal story that connects to Quebec could have a good chance of holding those 16 seats. A new leader who is a unilingual anglophone would be viewed as an insult to Quebec and the NDP would almost certainly lose all 16 seats. Period.

[MaxQue]

Having a bilingual leader in all parties was a most for the 3 last decades, I don't see why that would change (unless we want to give credibility to Anglophones public servants protesting than bilinguism is fascism and discriminatory).

You want to become Canada PM? Take intensive French courses right now.

[DC Al Fine]

Yes but will quebecers warm to Charlie Angus if his French is not good at all? I hear very mixed accounts of his French but what little I've heard is on a par with Lisa Raitt which is awful

A lot depends on whether he has the tacit support of current Quebec-caucussers like Boulerice, Caron, or his immediate neighbours Saganash and Moore--they can carry a lot of the linguistic weight on Charlie's behalf.  But let us also consider that the fluke laughing-gas circumstances of 2011 might have *over*-elevated NDP expectations of Quebec.  That is, maybe it's better to henceforth consider a 50-member Quebec contingent as more of a "nice-to-have" than a "must-have", and make up for that in the ROC--but at the same time not to blithely throw away whatever caucus the NDP has remaining in Quebec (half of which won by less than a third of the vote, anyway; so they're like twice-in-a-row "accidents", first through the Orange Crush, and then through FPTP favourable vote splits).  Which is why, at the very least, keeping the Carons and Boulerices on-side is critical...

That bit is important. The NDP beat the Liberals by <5% in over half of their Quebec wins in 2015.  The rejection of a unilingual leader wouldn't even have to be that big and they would still lose most of their Quebec caucus.

[adma]

I agree that we should nt expect the next leader to take the NDP back to 50 seats in Quebec. BUT, right now the NDP has 16 seats in Quebec. That is more than in any other province and is 1/3 of the whole federal caucus. A new leader who is fluent in French and who has a personal story that connects to Quebec could have a good chance of holding those 16 seats. A new leader who is a unilingual anglophone would be viewed as an insult to Quebec and the NDP would almost certainly lose all 16 seats. Period.

But you also have to remember that the remaining caucus 16 is, as I indicated, a bit of an "accident two-times running".  Electorally speaking, at least half of that 16 are de facto walking-wounded flukes.  I mean: really, realistically speaking, must the NDP be so tethered to the ghost-of-2011 "Quebec idea"?  I'd almost rather argue that a bit of Moynihan-esque "benign neglect" might be necessary re said "Quebec idea", i.e. don't coddle, let things settle and progress at their own speed, too much growth too fast might lead to a root system undermining the foundation, etc.  And it needn't even mean that the caucus be wiped out, if there's a Boulerician core that lends a touch of "Quebec Solitaire" gravitas.  (Though yeah, I know it didn't prevent the wipeout of the Maritime and Toronto caucuses last election)

I mean: sometimes, DL, it seems like you're overplaying the "unilingual handicap" gambit as a front for deeper personal issues with Charlie Angus (which I can understand, given reports of his snippiness t/w some of the more "no compromise" left-supporters).  But the thing is, he probably has more of that Laytonesque nation-conscious galvanizing "charisma thing" than any other of the present leadership contenders, Franco- or bilingual or no--and besides, being so squarely a Quebec politician didn't help Mulcair except vestigially through caucus survivors.  And I doubt that simple bi/multilingualism is enough for Peter Julian or Niki Ashton to replenish the Quebec stock; even Guy Caron might work out little better than Jean Charest as PC leader in 1997 (esp. if he's facing Trudeau *and* Maxime Bernier as leaders of their respective parties).  So, if we're still looking at single-digit Quebec NDP caucus numbers: symbolism aside, what's the difference btw/ 6-10 seats and 0-4 seats?  Angus might be faulty in his spoken French; but he hardly fits the toxically Franco-phobic stereotype--and regardless of Quebec, he's probably the primary leadership hopeful when it comes to visions of *growing* the caucus *across Canada*...

[DL]

I actually think Jagmeet Singh is the man of the future for the NDP and his French is better than Angus 's

[adma]

I actually think Jagmeet Singh is the man of the future for the NDP and his French is better than Angus 's

Okay, forgot about him.  (Though he's more of a growing-the-caucus "wild card".)

[toaster]

I actually think Jagmeet Singh is the man of the future for the NDP and his French is better than Angus 's

Not sure I agree about that.  What are you going by?  Angus' French is just a bit below where Layton's was.  Choppy but still speaks in terms of Canadian French and slang ("Chui" for Je Suis, "Je vo po" instead of "Je ne vais pas") that Quebeckers identify with.  Singh's French is hyper-formal and seems unnatural, IMO.

[Vega]

"Jesus announces run for NDP Leadership"

.... Does he speak French fluently? No? DISQUALIFIED.

Speaking some amount of French is important, that's clear, but to be completely disqualifying or qualifying candidates as Leader based on that sole attribute, even if it is important, is reckless.

[warandwar]

I actually think Jagmeet Singh is the man of the future for the NDP and his French is better than Angus 's

Not sure I agree about that.  What are you going by?  Angus' French is just a bit below where Layton's was.  Choppy but still speaks in terms of Canadian French and slang ("Chui" for Je Suis, "Je vo po" instead of "Je ne vais pas") that Quebeckers identify with.  Singh's French is hyper-formal and seems unnatural, IMO.

Tbf if you want unnatural, Mulclair's French was tres parisien, if you ask me.

[136or142]

I actually think Jagmeet Singh is the man of the future for the NDP and his French is better than Angus 's

Not sure I agree about that.  What are you going by?  Angus' French is just a bit below where Layton's was.  Choppy but still speaks in terms of Canadian French and slang ("Chui" for Je Suis, "Je vo po" instead of "Je ne vais pas") that Quebeckers identify with.  Singh's French is hyper-formal and seems unnatural, IMO.

Tbf if you want unnatural, Mulclair's French was tres parisien, if you ask me.

how gauche!

[adma]

Mulcair spoke French like Parizeau spoke English? ;-)