Bring Back Tom Mulcair.....

412 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Not only is it out of ideas but out of leadership potential.

Did I not just suggest a potato?

Is there any way that even a potato could emit LESS light than a burned out bulb?

The potato has my vote!  What say you?

Geoff

If the old guard is successful in "bringing back Tom Mulcair", it will send a message to the public that the NDP has nothing new to offer Canadians, especially young Canadians.

It will devolve into a 'Social Credit of the left', a shrinking clique of apparatchiks and old-stock 'die-hards' who are largely irrelevant to the needs of Canadian workers.

In short, it would be a disaster for the party and for the left, in general.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Now, if Muiclair had expressed his thoughts as this person did, I would have some respect for him.

So the fact that Varoufakis is the first human in the history of logic who could suck and blow at the same time is the game-changer?

I guess, from my point of view, he could have talked about anything at all on "blog day", and chose to jump out of a cake for Thatcher.

Was the awesome part when he sucked while blowing, or blew while sucking?

And I'm only asking this because I remember when babblers fapped over the idea of such a lefty as him being our Finance Minister.  Or really, even just the nodding approval of his tie-less self flipping the bird to those awful Germans, defiantly and proudly!  Strangely, no mention whatsoever of his crush.

Sean in Ottawa

It is interesting to hear people say we should bring back Mulcair becuase he was popular enough or not that unpopular or whatever.

He failed to communicate the values of the NDP even though he was given a fairly progressive platform to work with. Some of us could not care less how popular he is or is not.

The reason many New Democrats want Mulcair gone is becuase the NDP did not appear to go down fighting for what it believed in. The party was defeated because when the chips were down its leader could not quite locate and communicate convictions compatible with the party's supporters.

Many New Democrats can accept a drubbing based on a courageous campaign standing up for what we believe. We lay down and bleed and rise to fight again, we say. But to throw away principles and fight for a balanced budget above all else -- and still lose -- is something that will not be forgiven.

Had he won on a sad gutless campaign, many would be at least grateful for the opportunity to make a difference and would push him to do the right things. Having lost on such a gutless campaign, the same people want to push him overboard.

He gambled and sold the party's principles and in return got a loss. If we are to lose let's do it with a leader proud, confident and hopeful about our core beliefs.

It matters not at all to me if Mulcair is a secret right wing Thatcher supporter or if he is a real socialist too gutless to sound like one in a national political debate. In the end the distinction has no value.

 

swallow swallow's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Better that the burned out lightbulb be replaced with a potato.  A good, honest, working class potato that's working very hard on its French.

What a terrible thing to say about Charlie Angus. But I'm afraid that the Trudeau Liberals have even stolen the honest potato vote from the NDP. 

[url=http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadian-busi... businesses are hoping to take advantage of Justin Trudeau’s popularity in China, where he’s become known as “Little Potato.”[/url]

 

mark_alfred

Whether or not he's "stolen the honest potato vote", Trudeau still has his selfie work cut out for him.  He scored a zero on Family Feud when the topic of "famous Justins" came up.

http://news.nationalpost.com/arts/television/alan-thicke-puts-trudeau-on...

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The real questions the "Bring Back Tom Mulcair" movement needs to answer are

1)When you say "Bring Back Tom Mulcair", what ALL do you want to bring back?  

   a)The balanced-budget obsession?

   b)The complete absence of internal party democracy and grassroots influence over what the party stands for?

   c)The total and absolute anathemazation of any real criticism of the Israeli government's barbaric treatment of Palestinians and of Arab citizens of Israel(including the removal of exemplary parliamentary candidates who dare to commit truth on that issue)?

   d)The belief that the NDP can ONLY win over left-leaning Liberal supporters by treating the activist left as the enemy?

 

2)If you do want to bring back all of that...well, why?

 

3)What possible reason is there to think that any leader who led his party from second to third place in 2015 can EVER lead the same party to any better showing than that in 2019?

Brian Glennie

Since we're playing "what if history", I don't think anybody was ever crazy about Tom. He only became leader after the fourth ballot with 57.2% support. 

Suppose Nathan had won. Would we have done worse? Tom ducked the opportunity to answer questions after his campaingn kick-off speech and Nathan Cullen would've nailed that moment, I believe.

 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I have always wished that Romeo Saganash had been able to overcome his personal issues and been elected leader.  A FN MP from Quebec with excellent French and a strong connection to the social movements would have been a formidable candidate.

nicky

It is not the "old guard" that wants TOM back, as is suggested above. In fact the party establishment largely worked against him at the convention in Edmonton. One of the unique features of Tom winning the leadership in 2012 was that he did so over the opposition of both the party's establishment and its left wing. In fact he is the only person to have won the leadership who was not the establishment candidate. Ultimately it was the opposition of both these factions that did him in in Edmonton.

Unionist

Geoff wrote:

PS: How about a 'bring back Ed Broadbent' campaign?Laughing

Didn't he throw his support elsewhere?

Can't recall this dude's name:

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Now, if Muiclair had expressed his thoughts as this person did, I would have some respect for him.

So the fact that Varoufakis is the first human in the history of logic who could suck and blow at the same time is the game-changer?

I guess, from my point of view, he could have talked about anything at all on "blog day", and chose to jump out of a cake for Thatcher.

Was the awesome part when he sucked while blowing, or blew while sucking?

And I'm only asking this because I remember when babblers fapped over the idea of such a lefty as him being our Finance Minister.  Or really, even just the nodding approval of his tie-less self flipping the bird to those awful Germans, defiantly and proudly!  Strangely, no mention whatsoever of his crush.

You tried to make a point by cherry-picking a portion of a long comment by Varoufakis. You got caught. Too bad for you.

I suppose you could defend yourself by saying at least you weren't as bad as the World Socialist Web Site, who published the same quote (out of context), but erased the part of the quote wherein Varoufakis says "...which was, in my estimation, that much more impressive given that both her government and her philosophy were indefensible...". A part of the quote that you too apparently missed.

Read the whole comment and you'll learn something, maybe.

What Varoufakis has learned, and what the latest crop of NDPer's has to learn, is that reading polls, like some ancient prognosticator reading chicken entrails, does nothing. If you have no convictions, no principles, you'll never achieve anything. Thatcher achieved what she did (as indefensible as it was) by ignoring polls and pundits.

That is what the NDP has to learn. Without principles, without convictions, they are dead in the water. That's at least part of the reason Mulcair looked good in the Commons, where he was able to attack the prime minister from a principled standpoint, but then looked so awful on the campaign trail, where he had to defend principles he didn't really own. As he found out, it's easier to disparage other's ideas than it is to defend your own.

jjuares

nicky wrote:
It is not the "old guard" that wants TOM back, as is suggested above. In fact the party establishment largely worked against him at the convention in Edmonton. One of the unique features of Tom winning the leadership in 2012 was that he did so over the opposition of both the party's establishment and its left wing. In fact he is the only person to have won the leadership who was not the establishment candidate. Ultimately it was the opposition of both these factions that did him in in Edmonton.

I have met Tom a couple of times and even had lunch with him. On these occasions I found him to be a graciuos and interesting guy. However, what happened in Edmonton was too typical of his lack in judgement. As an Alberta delegate I talked to many delegates from my province. One meeting they even took a survey. His supporters were in there but most of the group was undecided. He made two mistakes that weekend that I believe cost him dearly. First, he was rarely at the tables mixing with others. I believe a little personal contact would have been huge. Second, his speech was totally off key. He should have talked about the party and the problems with candidate selection and the general top down nature of what went on. He only made one comment about opening the party up. The rest was boiler plate campaign speech. Finally in the months leading up to the convention he took responsibility for the loss and the mistakes of the dampaign but he need to be specific about whathe regarded as to what the mistakes were. And he should have been very clear about these mistakes and what would be done differently next time. In other words he needed to give people a reason to vote for him.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You tried to make a point by cherry-picking a portion of a long comment by Varoufakis. You got caught. Too bad for you.

I guess I'll just pull my shirt over my head and do the perp-walk past the press.

Quote:
Thatcher achieved what she did (as indefensible as it was) by ignoring polls and pundits.

That's just hilarious.  He could never defend it, but he'll piously golf-clap it.  A million things wrong in the world, and he chose to tell the dead Margaret Thatcher that "you are being missed already".   Where's the blog post where he talks about how Auguste Pinochet was a brutal and repressive dictator who, nonetheless, displayed the courage of his convictions?  "I cannot and will not defend the torture, but nor could I deny being moved by how he got the job done!!!"

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

"Sucking while blowing"?  "Being fapped"?

C'mon, Magoo, you're better than that.

Show some respect to the thread and to those posting in it, please.  That's not too much to ask.

The real argument against keeping Mulcair in the leadership is that it is nearly impossible to believe that a guy who led his party from second place to third place in one election(losing more than half of its seats in the process) could POSSIBLY lead that same party to any sort of recovery in the next election.

Why would giving Mulcair another chance make any more sense than, say keeping David Lewis on as leader AFTER the 1974 election, or Audrey McLaughlin after the "perfect storm" of 1993(mind you, it was clearly a massive mistake to choose Alexa McDonough rather than Svend Robinson as Audrey's successor, but something else WAS needed)?

When you lose more than half your seats, it means nothing your party did strategically in the campaign where that happened should ever be done again, that an utterly new approach is needed.  The NDP's current doldrums aren't caused by Mulcair having been rejected...they are caused solely by the pointless delay in choosing a new leader.  Nothing would be better if Mulcair had been reaffirmed in Edmonton. 

Sean in Ottawa

nicky wrote:
It is not the "old guard" that wants TOM back, as is suggested above. In fact the party establishment largely worked against him at the convention in Edmonton. One of the unique features of Tom winning the leadership in 2012 was that he did so over the opposition of both the party's establishment and its left wing. In fact he is the only person to have won the leadership who was not the establishment candidate. Ultimately it was the opposition of both these factions that did him in in Edmonton.

That is very charitable of you. I would say he did himself in.

JKR

I think it would be better if leadership elections were open to all members of the party with the requirement that the leader receive over 75% support to avoid a leadership race.

JKR

nicky wrote:

He was at a considerable disadvantage because the convention was in Edmonton, which minimized Quebec attendance and maximized Alberta attendance.

I think holding the convention in a place a place situated far away from most members allowed for an unrepresentative vote. But what should be the remedy for this? Should all of the NDP's conventions be held in central Canadian metropolitan cities like Ottawa, Toronto, or Montreal or should leadership votes be open to all members and be done over the Internet? Usually leadership votes are a formality because relatively unpopular leaders usually resign but this situation does seem to show that a more democratic process should be established for the future.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

I think it would be better if leadership elections were open to all members of the party with the requirement that the leader receive over 75% support to avoid a leadership race.

I agree.

I am sure you mean leadership reviews as well.

I do not think that the vote in Edmonton would have been much different and the result would have been the same but with the available technology and the fact that a leader is elected by memebrs -- that leader should only be turfed or confirmed by members.

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

I think it would be better if leadership elections were open to all members of the party with the requirement that the leader receive over 75% support to avoid a leadership race.

I agree.

I am sure you mean leadership reviews as well.

I do not think that the vote in Edmonton would have been much different and the result would have been the same but with the available technology and the fact that a leader is elected by memebrs -- that leader should only be turfed or confirmed by members.

I agree.

Pondering

Gonzaga wrote:

Sure, Tom Mulcair has weaknesses and all, but I think a lot of people are succumbing to outcome biases and focusing effects. But when the campaign took place, no one knew that the NDP would lose.

The party decided to join the "balanced-budget" charade because it would make them appear more mainstream, but failed to anticipate that the Liberals would outflank them by promising deficits. The niqab issue caused more problems for the NDP because it had more effect in Quebec. Showing a lack of respect for Trudeau backfired. Someone thought making Mulcair's showing up for the women's issues debate conditional on Harper's would highlight the Conservatives' refusal to show up , but many potential NDP supporters read it as a sign of NDP arrogance. A lot of people wanted to get rid of Harper and were going to pick the winner, and others just want to pick the winner.

The most comforting position on Tom Mulcair after he lost was that it all made sense--that he had flaws that made him unelectable somehow. There are good reasons to be suspicious of such conclusions.

You write as though Mulcair had nothing to do with the strategy. Are you saying his handlers made all the decisions? Mulcair and the executive are responsible for the strategy. The approach the Liberals were taking was obvious. The NDP executive and Mulcair had the examples of BC and Ontario to consider. They made obvious mistakes like the jaw-dropping arrogance of refusing debates if Harper didn't attend which killed the women's debate. Sure let me know the importance the NDP placed on speaking to women.

Tom Mulcair alone is not responsible for the loss. The entire executive is responsible for it.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

JKR wrote:
nicky wrote:
He was at a considerable disadvantage because the convention was in Edmonton, which minimized Quebec attendance and maximized Alberta attendance.

I think holding the convention in a place a place situated far away from most members allowed for an unrepresentative vote. But what should be the remedy for this? Should all of the NDP's conventions be held in central Canadian metropolitan cities like Ottawa, Toronto, or Montreal or should leadership votes be open to all members and be done over the Internet? Usually leadership votes are a formality because relatively unpopular leaders usually resign but this situation does seem to show that a more democratic process should be established for the future.

It might be an option to hold regional conventions linked by various cyber & video technologies, rather than a single national convention:

Region 1 would be the Maritimes

Region 2 would be Quebec

Region 3, Ontario

Region 4, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta

Region 5, B.C.

Region 6, Yukon, NWT, Nunavut.

This way, no one would have to travel that far to participate(It could be arranged for the Region 6 delegates to participate through home computers or at sub-regional teleconference or videoconference centers, since even in this proposal they would have to travel farther than anyone else).

Sean in Ottawa

Ken Burch wrote:

JKR wrote:
nicky wrote:
He was at a considerable disadvantage because the convention was in Edmonton, which minimized Quebec attendance and maximized Alberta attendance.

I think holding the convention in a place a place situated far away from most members allowed for an unrepresentative vote. But what should be the remedy for this? Should all of the NDP's conventions be held in central Canadian metropolitan cities like Ottawa, Toronto, or Montreal or should leadership votes be open to all members and be done over the Internet? Usually leadership votes are a formality because relatively unpopular leaders usually resign but this situation does seem to show that a more democratic process should be established for the future.

It might be an option to hold regional conventions linked by various cyber & video technologies, rather than a single national convention:

Region 1 would be the Maritimes

Region 2 would be Quebec

Region 3, Ontario

Region 4, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta

Region 5, B.C.

Region 6, Yukon, NWT, Nunavut.

This way, no one would have to travel that far to participate(It could be arranged for the Region 6 delegates to participate through home computers or at sub-regional teleconference or videoconference centers, since even in this proposal they would have to travel farther than anyone else).

the cost of travel between provinces is less than within them when you consider the north of each (Ontario, Quebec, etc.)

I don't see why we can't have video conference options with much smaller groups of people physically there and everyone being able to vote.

R.E.Wood

Absolutely agree with the discussion about some form of online convention participation. There's no reason why not. We have the technology to elect the party leader vie e-vote, why not hold convention voting and leadership review votes that way also? For a party with the word "democratic" in our name, it would be appropriate. I'd love to see this championed by a candidate for leadership.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I hate to always be the party pooper, but we definitely do not have the technology to securely conduct online votes for conventions or anything else. If the 2012 leadership vote wasn't hacked, that is only because nobody with sufficient resources wanted to hack it. Here is a very comprehensive, technical report on the exact ways that current technology fails to provide what is necessary for secure online voting.

I agree that wider participation in NDP decision making would be a good thing, but internet voting from home is not anywhere near secure yet. There are a few lower tech options. For example, meetings could be organized at the riding level, with votes taking place in each riding by conventional means, and the results being reported to a central site by a dedicated, encrypted internet connection using a non-web protocol, with custom software running on both ends, rather than a browser and a web server. This could be made quite secure, and would be easy to program.

R.E.Wood

Mulcair has hit a new low, with only 7.9% of Canadians chosing him as "preferred PM". 

Relevant to earlier discussion with nicky in this thread, the fact he still has the second highest score on "qualities of a good political leader" obviously does not translate into people selecting him for the job of PM. There's a major disconnect between Mulcair and voters, who may or may not respect or like him, but certainly don't want to vote for him. He did terribly in the election, would do much worse if the election was today, and as others have said, there's no reason to think he could do better in 2019.

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/09/06/mulcair-hits-another-low-on-...

 

swallow swallow's picture

There's no reason to expect Mulcair or Ambrose to poll well in any "best PM" category: people know they are on their way out and won't lead their parties into the next election. I'm no fan of Tom Mulcair, but I'm sure he'd be scoring higher if he was expected to remain as permanent leader. But he ain't, so he ain't. 

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:
...Q:  How many "old stock" NDP stalwarts does it take to finally convince the lightbulb to get the fuck out of the socket?

A:  All of them.  Better that the burned out lightbulb be replaced with a potato.  A good, honest, working class potato that's working very hard on its French.

What did the head potato say to Mulcair when he came around?

We're rootin' for you, Tom.

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
You tried to make a point by cherry-picking a portion of a long comment by Varoufakis. You got caught. Too bad for you.

I guess I'll just pull my shirt over my head and do the perp-walk past the press.

Quote:
Thatcher achieved what she did (as indefensible as it was) by ignoring polls and pundits.

That's just hilarious.  He could never defend it, but he'll piously golf-clap it.  A million things wrong in the world, and he chose to tell the dead Margaret Thatcher that "you are being missed already".   Where's the blog post where he talks about how Auguste Pinochet was a brutal and repressive dictator who, nonetheless, displayed the courage of his convictions?  "I cannot and will not defend the torture, but nor could I deny being moved by how he got the job done!!!"

You've completely missed the point Varoufakis was trying to make, which I've already pointed out. Therefore, it doesn't seem to me that pointing it out again will make any difference. What I will do is post a link to his blog, and encourage people to read it themselves and see what they think.

Varoufakis on Margaret Thatcher

Quote:
So, why is someone who kept screaming at ‘her’ “Out! Out! Out!” (when in government) is missing her after her final exit? The reason is simple and has to do with a combination of two attributes: First, she was the last British politician to have meant what she said. A ‘conviction politician’ as those rare birds were once called. Secondly, she had a sense of history that informed her actions. While I abhorred both her convictions and her historical take of the past, at least she had convictions and did base her thinking on an historical take that extended beyond the past week of events.

In a sense, politics is like science. Science, by itself doesn't make moral choices. The same science that discovers the way the universe works discovers the means to destroy the earth and all it's inhabitants. It is the people who choose how the science is used. Do we make nuclear medicine or do we make nuclear weapons. The science to create both is the same.

What Varoufakis is pointiing out here is that Thatcher got things done. They were all the wrong things, but the methods that worked for her can work just as well for anyone else. The science that made nuclear weapons can also make nuclear medicine and nuclear power. The problem isn't with the science, the problem is with the the choices we make. 

The politicians that are constantly consultiing their polls, and adjusting their message accordingly will never achieve anything. They may get elected, But they will never use their electoral succss to achieve any of the programs, or institute any of the principles, they supposedly uphold.

In order to shift the balance, in order to redirect the politics of the country, you have to have principles, and you have to defend them.

What are the priniples of today's NDP? Who knows? What programs to they espouse to fulfill their rather vague principles. Again, who knows?

When you set out to be all things to all people, you end up being nobody to anybody.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
You tried to make a point by cherry-picking a portion of a long comment by Varoufakis. You got caught. Too bad for you.

I guess I'll just pull my shirt over my head and do the perp-walk past the press.

Quote:
Thatcher achieved what she did (as indefensible as it was) by ignoring polls and pundits.

That's just hilarious.  He could never defend it, but he'll piously golf-clap it.  A million things wrong in the world, and he chose to tell the dead Margaret Thatcher that "you are being missed already".   Where's the blog post where he talks about how Auguste Pinochet was a brutal and repressive dictator who, nonetheless, displayed the courage of his convictions?  "I cannot and will not defend the torture, but nor could I deny being moved by how he got the job done!!!"

You've completely missed the point Varoufakis was trying to make, which I've already pointed out. Therefore, it doesn't seem to me that pointing it out again will make any difference. What I will do is post a link to his blog, and encourage people to read it themselves and see what they think.

Varoufakis on Margaret Thatcher

Quote:
So, why is someone who kept screaming at ‘her’ “Out! Out! Out!” (when in government) is missing her after her final exit? The reason is simple and has to do with a combination of two attributes: First, she was the last British politician to have meant what she said. A ‘conviction politician’ as those rare birds were once called. Secondly, she had a sense of history that informed her actions. While I abhorred both her convictions and her historical take of the past, at least she had convictions and did base her thinking on an historical take that extended beyond the past week of events.

In a sense, politics is like science. Science, by itself doesn't make moral choices. The same science that discovers the way the universe works discovers the means to destroy the earth and all it's inhabitants. It is the people who choose how the science is used. Do we make nuclear medicine or do we make nuclear weapons. The science to create both is the same.

What Varoufakis is pointiing out here is that Thatcher got things done. They were all the wrong things, but the methods that worked for her can work just as well for anyone else. The science that made nuclear weapons can also make nuclear medicine and nuclear power. The problem isn't with the science, the problem is with the the choices we make. 

The politicians that are constantly consultiing their polls, and adjusting their message accordingly will never achieve anything. They may get elected, But they will never use their electoral succss to achieve any of the programs, or institute any of the principles, they supposedly uphold.

In order to shift the balance, in order to redirect the politics of the country, you have to have principles, and you have to defend them.

What are the priniples of today's NDP? Who knows? What programs to they espouse to fulfill their rather vague principles. Again, who knows?

When you set out to be all things to all people, you end up being nobody to anybody.

 

Good questions and points here. It is also clear that people who oppose another person have to evaluate them and it is not completely impossible to see something that is effective abnout them. Thatcher was effective even though she was a nightmare.

Of course people have to be careful of how they acknowledge these things or you get taken out of context or something that is technically true is inappropriate to say -- Like Mulcair on Thatcher and Trudeau on dictatorships. And merely being effective is hardly the kind of thing that one might want to single out -- the Chinese were effective as a dictatorship in creating the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution things that certainly made a difference but not a positive one. You can make something happen but how likely is it to be the right thing? -- as defined by what the people want which is also a mixed virtue.

Sometimes public people should just think their thought experiments rather than actually saying them out loud.

Notalib

Mulcair redux? Online effort aims to keep rejected leader where he is Former candidate says Mulcair the right fit in opposition  Written by BJ Siekierski

Published

Wednesday, September 7th, 2016  iPolitics Updated

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Disgusted by how Tom Mulcair was treated at the NDP’s last convention and convinced he’s the party’s most capable leader, Dale Jackaman — a three-time federal candidate — is leading a new grassroots movement to bring Mulcair back as the party’s leader on a permanent basis.

    “I was sickened and angered at the treatment Tom Mulcair got at the convention in Edmonton and I remain angry to this day — it never went away — and there are a lot of other people who are angry too. The convention was a sham — it was a disaster — and we just decided we want him back,” Jackaman told iPolitics Wednesday.

    On August 26, Jackaman launched the “Bring Back Tom Mulcair Campaign” Facebook group with a post that explained what they were up to.

    “The realists in this party know full well that the federal NDP is going to be sitting in opposition for a good long time. And, thanks to the total disaster that was Edmonton, we just hung our best and brightest political gunslinger out to dry!” that first post said.

    “We need to convince Tom to hang in there for the good of the party and the country. We need Tom. Canada needs Tom. Case closed.”

     

    Continue reading: http://ipolitics.ca/2016/09/07/mulcair-redux-online-effort-aims-to-keep-...

    NorthReport

    All 3 potential interim leaders from BC? Why is that?
    Is this a trap being set by other potential leadership candidates?

    Hard to believe Mulcair is still being discussed Politically speaking he has been dead and buried for some time now

    http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/canadian-politics/blog.html...

    Notalib

    Tom Mulcair unlikely to return to parliament as NDP leader after low profile during summer Republish
    Reprint

    John Ivison and Jen Gerson | September 7, 2016 6:55 PM ET

     

    Mulcair announced at the NDP’s national convention in Edmonton last April that he would resign, after 52 per cent of delegates voted for a change in leadership. But he said he would remain in the top job on an interim basis until a replacement was chosen next October.

    However, multiple party sources have expressed disquiet at the low profile Mulcair kept over the summer, avoiding public appearances on Canada Day, St-Jean-Baptiste Day and at Pride Toronto.

    A number of current and former NDP MPs confirmed that discussion about giving Mulcair “an ultimatum” has carried on throughout the summer at senior party levels, and laid out a scenario that would see an attempt to force a resolution when the NDP caucus convenes next week in Montreal. (None were willing to speak on the record because of the sensitivity of the matter.) 

    “This thing is coming to a head,” one MP said. “We will give the guy the honourable way out, if he wants to stay on in the House as a senior statesman. But the captain has to show up, especially when the ship is taking on water.”

     

    Continue reading: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/tom-mulcair-u...

    Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

    They should have called the leadership convention for six months later.  There was no good reason for a delay on that of more than a year.

    And there was nothing unjust done to Mulcair in Edmonton.  He had his chance, he was treated with full respect, it's just that

    A) It was cleat Mulcair had never listened to or processed in any way at all any of the critiques New Democrats had of his tenure as leader or the way he ran the 2015 campaign;

    B) He didn't address any of the issues people had with his leadership in his speech";

    C) He didn't give people any reason to think he would change in any way at all. 

     

    Because of all that, Mulcair lost, fair and square.  He'd have lost if the convention was in Montreal, too(I doubt THAT many Quebec delegates were unable to show up, and we can't assume the man's support IN the Quebec delegation was unanimous-And it's likely that a lot of people there would blame him for the loss of more than half of the Quebec caucus in 2015).

    There simply can't ever be a good reason to give a guy who led the party to a loss or more than half its seats and a fall from second to third place another chance in a general election.

    If retained, Mulcair wouldn't change anything.

    -He'd still remove excellent candidates for committing truth about the Israel/Palestine situation(and he would still insist, as he did in 2015, on imposing an official position on that issue indistinguishable from Likud, and possibly indistinguishable from that of the West Bank settlers-something the electorate was not demanding of the NDP);

    -He'd still keep internal party democracy nonexistent(AGAIN, something no one out there in the wider electorate was insisting on in exchange for their votes);

    -He'd still keep the demoralizing and useless balanced-budget pledge(a pledge that made it impossible for an NDP government to BE an NDP government, as the recent provincial experiences in Nova Scotia proved);

    -He'd still treat the social movements as enemies rather than sources of support and energy;

    -He'd still be a horrible campaigner(yes the guy is good in question period, but the 2015 results prove that the voters don't CARE about question period);

    You've simply not shown any reason why the NDP should stay with what just failed diastrously.

    R.E.Wood

    Absolutely, Ken Burch! 

    And re: the National Post piece, it's good to hear that there are MP's unhappy with Mulcair, too, and that with any luck the remaining days of his leadership are coming to a swift close. Any interim leader will be fine until a replacement is chosen by members (Cullen would be an excellent choice, considering he's not going to run for the leadership. He's great with the media, is very sharp, likeable, and can raise our profile in the short term.)

    R.E.Wood

    Here's another piece on Mulcair's invisibility (again from the Nat. Post):

    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-the-disappeara...

     

    Sean in Ottawa

    R.E.Wood wrote:

    Absolutely, Ken Burch! 

    And re: the National Post piece, it's good to hear that there are MP's unhappy with Mulcair, too, and that with any luck the remaining days of his leadership are coming to a swift close. Any interim leader will be fine until a replacement is chosen by members (Cullen would be an excellent choice, considering he's not going to run for the leadership. He's great with the media, is very sharp, likeable, and can raise our profile in the short term.)

    This is what should have happened in the first place. I would not have been in favour of a quick race due to all I said about the difficulty with the missing generation. An interim leader was the solution. Lame duck positions are difficult for the leader as well as the party.

    wage zombie

    I was at the convention, voted for the leadership convention, and voted to extend the deadline to two years.  I preferred to wait a long while to select a leader.

    I don't have a preference either way between having Mulcair stay on or picking someone else as interim leader.  I'm happy to leave this to caucus to decide.

    I can understand completely why Tom took personal time this summer.  He deserved the break and his attendance (or absence) at public events this summer will not have any effect on party rebuilding or any upcoming elections.

    It has been suggested that having the convention in Edmonton was unfavourable to Mulcair.  I don't believe this to be the case, and I think the greater gap is generational.  Mulcair appeals much more to older members.

    This cultural gap is clear in the language used on the BBTM page.  I certainly am not looking for the next leader to fulfill any kind of "gunslinger" role.

    I suppose it's possible that a gunslinger was the best foil against Harper but against Trudeau, a gunslinger will not be effective. 

    Notalib

    Mulcair doubles down on interim leadership amid pressure to step aside

    By The Canadian Press — Sep 8 2016

     

    OTTAWA — Tom Mulcair is doubling down on his commitment to stay on as interim federal NDP leader despite mounting pressure for him to step aside ahead of a caucus retreat next week in Montreal.

    Cont....http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/09/08/mulcair-doubles-down-on-inte...

    Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

    Quote:
    In a statement, Mulcair says he is committed to staying because the caucus voted last spring to keep him in place until a new leader is selected.

    He stays:  "what an arrogant, entitled asshole who thinks he never has to go!"

    He leaves:  "what a cowardly opportunist who can't even keep a commitment!"

    Notalib

     The NDP’s poisoned chalice Sep 8 2016 — Michael Den TandtNational PostShould Thomas Mulcair immediately step down as leader of the federal NDP? Certainly.....

     

     

    Notalib

    Mr. Magoo wrote:

    Quote:
    In a statement, Mulcair says he is committed to staying because the caucus voted last spring to keep him in place until a new leader is selected.

    He stays:  "what an arrogant, entitled asshole who thinks he never has to go!"

    He leaves:  "what a cowardly opportunist who can't even keep a commitment!"

     

    Yup,  its still a case of whatever he does next is wrong, largely because the right thing to do was to step down on election night.

    Rev Pesky

    Sean in Ottawa wrote:
    ...Of course people have to be careful of how they acknowledge these things or you get taken out of context or something that is technically true is inappropriate to say -- Like Mulcair on Thatcher and Trudeau on dictatorships. And merely being effective is hardly the kind of thing that one might want to single out -- the Chinese were effective as a dictatorship in creating the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution things that certainly made a difference but not a positive one. You can make something happen but how likely is it to be the right thing? -- as defined by what the people want which is also a mixed virtue.

    Sometimes public people should just think their thought experiments rather than actually saying them out loud.

    Two significant errors here. One, Mulcair on Thatcher was not to praise her political astuteness, but to extol a part of her program. There is a big difference between the two.

    Two, comparing what Thatcher did with the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward ignores the fact that what Thatcher did was within the context of a democratic system. People could have removed her had they wanted to. As bad as Thatcher was, she continued to win elections, and that largely as a result of the perception of her as one who had principles and defended them.

    And the last sentence of your post indicates exactly what the problem is. If one acted according to that maxim, you could have principles, but you wouldn't be allowed to defend them. That is precisely the blind alley the NDP find themselves in now.  

    Sound principles, clearly stated, and defended with vigour may not necessarily win elections, but they will ensure that those principles, and the programs and practices based on them, will get discussed during elections. That's never a bad thing.

    Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

    Quote:
    largely because the right thing to do was to step down on election night.

    But do Canadian politicians HAVE TO obey the Bushido Code?

    Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

    As far as I know, nobody wants Mulcair to disembowel himself with a ritual sword.

    Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

    Mr. Magoo wrote:

    Quote:
    largely because the right thing to do was to step down on election night.

    But do Canadian politicians HAVE TO obey the Bushido Code?

    I'm sure you meant this in a highly metaphorical sense, and in that sense, I would say yes, a party leader who suffers the sort of defeat Mulcair did in 2015 should resign his leadership. Not necessarily the same day, but within a week or so.

    Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

    Quote:
    As far as I know, nobody wants Mulcair to disembowel himself with a ritual sword.

    Do they want him to cleanse his dishonour with sacrifice?

    Quote:
    I'm sure you meant this in a highly metaphorical sense

    Yes.  But how shall we explain that to Ken?

    Quote:
    I would say yes, a party leader who suffers the sort of defeat Mulcair did in 2015 should resign his leadership. Not necessarily the same day, but within a week or so.

    Why should a man who has shamed his ancestors have a week of grace?  To do what?

    Sean in Ottawa

    Rev Pesky wrote:

    Sean in Ottawa wrote:
    ...Of course people have to be careful of how they acknowledge these things or you get taken out of context or something that is technically true is inappropriate to say -- Like Mulcair on Thatcher and Trudeau on dictatorships. And merely being effective is hardly the kind of thing that one might want to single out -- the Chinese were effective as a dictatorship in creating the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution things that certainly made a difference but not a positive one. You can make something happen but how likely is it to be the right thing? -- as defined by what the people want which is also a mixed virtue.

    Sometimes public people should just think their thought experiments rather than actually saying them out loud.

    Two significant errors here. One, Mulcair on Thatcher was not to praise her political astuteness, but to extol a part of her program. There is a big difference between the two.

    Two, comparing what Thatcher did with the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward ignores the fact that what Thatcher did was within the context of a democratic system. People could have removed her had they wanted to. As bad as Thatcher was, she continued to win elections, and that largely as a result of the perception of her as one who had principles and defended them.

    And the last sentence of your post indicates exactly what the problem is. If one acted according to that maxim, you could have principles, but you wouldn't be allowed to defend them. That is precisely the blind alley the NDP find themselves in now.  

    Sound principles, clearly stated, and defended with vigour may not necessarily win elections, but they will ensure that those principles, and the programs and practices based on them, will get discussed during elections. That's never a bad thing.

    What? Perhaps you need reread what I said since you have made so many errors interpreting it.

    I did not compare the cultural revolution to Thatcher. I compared praising one element of an overall negative thing in two cases.

    You missed the point of what I said completely.

    What I was getting at is that some things are bad enough that a political person finding the good in them and expressing that is a mistake no matter how true that may be.

    When it comes to politics in particular praising smaller elements of negative things may be technically correct but it is a thought experiment that will not gain anything.

    Let the university profs with classes of students work out what were the positive things in negative events like Trains running on time under the fascists etc.

    The purpose of my point does not require measuring how bad Thatcher was compared to Communist China. The are both things that are not going to get you anything but trouble praising in a progressive context. And the good things about either are rather minor points.

    And Trudeau's comments about China were clumsy but the point he made was that this dictatorship managed to get resources to achieve things and  in many respects this is true -- I don't think Trudeau meant to say he liked the dictatorship -- he just observed that democracy really is messy in this one respect. Trudeau's observation has been made by many very astute observers -- except they are less clumsy about the language and they are not political leaders having to account politically for such observations.

    So back to what I said -- public people (by this I mean political) -- are better off not indulging in saying such thought experiements becuase as communciation -- it will be misinterpreted.

    NorthReport

    Thanks Michael.

    Sad that it has needed to take so long for Mulcair to do the right thing. For a guy who spoke so much about principles..............

    Michael Moriarity wrote:

    Mr. Magoo wrote:

    Quote:
    largely because the right thing to do was to step down on election night.

    But do Canadian politicians HAVE TO obey the Bushido Code?

    I'm sure you meant this in a highly metaphorical sense, and in that sense, I would say yes, a party leader who suffers the sort of defeat Mulcair did in 2015 should resign his leadership. Not necessarily the same day, but within a week or so.

    cco

    Ken Burch wrote:

    (I doubt THAT many Quebec delegates were unable to show up, and we can't assume the man's support IN the Quebec delegation was unanimous-And it's likely that a lot of people there would blame him for the loss of more than half of the Quebec caucus in 2015).

    As part of the Quebec delegation who spent a fair bit of money, time, and effort to get out to Edmonton with the express goal of ousting Tom, I've found the speculation along those lines fairly amusing. Especially when my own conspiracy theory was that the convention was held in Alberta so the delegate composition would be as right-wing as possible, and therefore most likely to vote to keep him on.

    In a broader sense, I always find the analysis of Quebec political opinion by people who don't live in Quebec to be hilariously akin to 1950s-era "Kremlinology". Because clearly, Mulcair served in a right-wing Quebec government, and represents a Quebec riding, and therefore Quebecers must be deeply wounded that he's been ejected, right?

    We're not a mysterious inscrutable monolith loyal only to our own over here. And if we were, why would we have lined up behind a conservative anglo? Mulcair was legal director for Alliance Quebec, for fuck's sake. What's the English expression for vendu, again? Oh right. Uncle Tom.

    Pages