Her husband gets veto’d from the running, so the wife goes in as a candidate. Sorry, the optics on that alone looks really bad for neutral voters. She wasn’t the movements first choice of leader, it was her husband, and it’s reasonable to think that even if she’s now in the running, she’s overtly a puppet for other interests that are obscured. Add in a seemingly staunch adherence to what appears to be the tired old left-leaning minority demographic approach – where they target different minority groups with perks/benefits/funding promises that benefit those minorities exclusively, while ignoring and throwing shit at the majority interests of the voters – isn’t a winning strategy overall. One of the keys to the appeal of a leader like Jack Layton, was that he appealed to the interests of most people.
Just because Canadians rejected PP last time, doesn’t mean they want to go to the complete opposite side of that spectrum. Electing this lady would likely end as tragically as the Green party electing Annamie Paul.
If someone comes forward as a leader of a movement, and gets quashed, and the organiser’s of that movement’s response is to then put forward the spouse as the candidate – it’s not a stretch to say many folks will be suspicious of the integrity, intentions and autonomy of the new person. Chances are she’ll march to the drum of her husband/whatever group of people control that movements interests. It’s also fairly clear that she wouldnt’ve run, if it weren’t for her husbands disqualification – which makes her commitment to the role a bit dubious.
In theory, the NDP caucus / membership should be the ones unquestionably in control of the party’s future and direction – not a small subset of unknown people/groups controlling a candidate. It’s not that different in scope to the issues on the right-wing – where a smaller contingent of extreme right-wing nuts have essentially managed to assume authority over the whole party, and steer its direction to their whims. Like if PP were turfed from the cons leadership, and the hard right faction then just stuck in the wife as a candidate/leader, it’d raise questions as to who’s actually leading that party/movement – cause clearly the leader is totally disposable, and there’s some more opaque group with significant sway / control. The voting process would help to eventually normalise/mitigate some of the optics, in that you could argue she has the support of most of the party if she does end up winning – but there’d still be some questions about a smaller subset group of unelected folks influencing her decisions.
And yes, I know, I’ve already been told recently that we shouldn’t hold politicians to higher standards than normal folks. But I say fuck that, if someone wants me to follow them, they gotta actually lead/inspire. I’m way too lazy to deviate from my norm for more of the same old shit in politics.
You have it completely backward. The scenario you describe (small unaccountable groups controlling who can lead) is exactly what this candidate objects to. Yves Engler was prevented from running for NDP leader (“quashed”) by a 3-person, unelected group of party officials. I find those people’s motivations much more questionable.
Her husband gets veto’d from the running, so the wife goes in as a candidate. Sorry, the optics on that alone looks really bad for neutral voters. She wasn’t the movements first choice of leader, it was her husband, and it’s reasonable to think that even if she’s now in the running, she’s overtly a puppet for other interests that are obscured. Add in a seemingly staunch adherence to what appears to be the tired old left-leaning minority demographic approach – where they target different minority groups with perks/benefits/funding promises that benefit those minorities exclusively, while ignoring and throwing shit at the majority interests of the voters – isn’t a winning strategy overall. One of the keys to the appeal of a leader like Jack Layton, was that he appealed to the interests of most people.
Just because Canadians rejected PP last time, doesn’t mean they want to go to the complete opposite side of that spectrum. Electing this lady would likely end as tragically as the Green party electing Annamie Paul.
What kind of “interests” do you imagine she is a “puppet” for, and what led you to that conclusion?
If someone comes forward as a leader of a movement, and gets quashed, and the organiser’s of that movement’s response is to then put forward the spouse as the candidate – it’s not a stretch to say many folks will be suspicious of the integrity, intentions and autonomy of the new person. Chances are she’ll march to the drum of her husband/whatever group of people control that movements interests. It’s also fairly clear that she wouldnt’ve run, if it weren’t for her husbands disqualification – which makes her commitment to the role a bit dubious.
In theory, the NDP caucus / membership should be the ones unquestionably in control of the party’s future and direction – not a small subset of unknown people/groups controlling a candidate. It’s not that different in scope to the issues on the right-wing – where a smaller contingent of extreme right-wing nuts have essentially managed to assume authority over the whole party, and steer its direction to their whims. Like if PP were turfed from the cons leadership, and the hard right faction then just stuck in the wife as a candidate/leader, it’d raise questions as to who’s actually leading that party/movement – cause clearly the leader is totally disposable, and there’s some more opaque group with significant sway / control. The voting process would help to eventually normalise/mitigate some of the optics, in that you could argue she has the support of most of the party if she does end up winning – but there’d still be some questions about a smaller subset group of unelected folks influencing her decisions.
And yes, I know, I’ve already been told recently that we shouldn’t hold politicians to higher standards than normal folks. But I say fuck that, if someone wants me to follow them, they gotta actually lead/inspire. I’m way too lazy to deviate from my norm for more of the same old shit in politics.
You have it completely backward. The scenario you describe (small unaccountable groups controlling who can lead) is exactly what this candidate objects to. Yves Engler was prevented from running for NDP leader (“quashed”) by a 3-person, unelected group of party officials. I find those people’s motivations much more questionable.