Bring Back Tom Mulcair.....

412 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rev Pesky

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
...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.

Well, those examples from China were brought up, and I know for sure it wasn't me who raised them. That leaves you. Please don't tell me you didn't raise those points either. If that's the caes, it means someone hacked your post and put in those comments...

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
...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.

And with that I disagree completely. Examining the truth can never be wrong. The truth will always lead to somewhere productive.

 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
...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.

Then what possesed you to make the comparison?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
...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.

Varoufakis wasn't making a 'thought experiment'. He was commenting on Margaret Thatcher as a politician, and her effectiveness in implememting her program.

Was there a lesson in that comment pertinent to the NDP party in Canada. Absolutely! Principles clearly stated, and vigourously defended! That was his message, and that is the point.

R.E.Wood

cco wrote:

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.

Thanks for sharing this, cco -- it's very informative and important as a counterpoint to those who keep complaining about the convention.

R.E.Wood
Rev Pesky

Notalib wrote:
... the right thing to do was to step down on election night.

I agree with this, but i would qualify it a bit. I think he should have tendered his resignation, to be dealt with at the convenience of the party.

The party could have accepted the resignation, and asked the caucus to elect an interim leader, provided the interim leader would not be in the running for the leadership.

Or the party could have approached Mulcair and asked him to stay on until a new leader was elected. That election to be held within some reasonable time frame.

Unfortunately, as it is the party is essentially leaderless, looking dazed and confused, making it difficult for any aspiring leader to campaign based on what they would have done differently than Mulcair. In other words, the party is exactly like a chicken with it's head cut off, running around, squawking and flapping, yet the outcome is as certain as certain could be. 

They couldn't have done better if they had deliberately set out to convince the electorate they were incapable of organizing a bun toss in a bakery.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

You may as well ask the electorate who their money is on to win gold at the 2020 Olympics.

Folk seem to decry the perpatual campaigning that's apparently the new norm, and apparently a U.S.ian import... and yet here we are, mere months after the last election, acting like it's already too late to win the next one.

Because in 2019, the electorate will be saying "wait, though, what was the NDP doing three and a half years ago??  Can I really vote for a party that was sailing around rudderless instead of naming a lame duck placeholder like Rona Ambrose?"

R.E.Wood

Whether Tom Mulcair stays or goes, the NDP has bigger questions to answer:

Could the NDP manage the feat of dumping the same leader twice in the space of 5 months?

Link:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-mulcair-ndp-interim-1.3753985

 

Unionist

cco wrote:

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.

Thanks for telling it like it is. This is a great reminder, probably belongs in the Babble Hall of Fame.

Notalib
Notalib

Analysis Whether Tom Mulcair stays or goes, the NDP has bigger questions to answer Could the NDP manage the feat of dumping the same leader twice in the space of 5 months?

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wherry-mulcair-ndp-interim-1.3753985

Geoff

If someone is prepared to step up to the plate to sefve as interim leader, she or he should do so. Nathan Cullen comes to mind, as he has counted himself out of the race. If there is no one, then Tom should continue as leader, and the party should be grateful if he agrees.

I won't start worrying about the lack of candidates until around November. If no one is prepared to throw their hat into the ring in time to fundraise for campaign contributions in the current year, leaving only 2017 to raise money, then that will indicate we're in some serious doggy-do. It would be no exaggeration to use the term 'crisis' under such circumstances.

Rev Pesky

I was perusing my Oxford Dictionary of Quotations and ran across this from Seneca the Younger (4 BC - AD65)

Quote:
If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favorable.

 Valuable insight for the NDP.

Notalib

The truth is that Trudeau has annexed most of the NDP’s tone and attitude, and fitted its preoccupations in new dress, giving it that much-wished-for modern edge. And for what it’s worth, he’s done much the same to the boycott, divest and sanctions-infected Green party.

Peter McCabe/The Canadian PressPeter McCabe/The Canadian PressPrime Minister Justin Trudeau takes a selfie with two women at a street festival in Montreal on June 24.

Mulcair has neither the temperament, or, one guesses, the desire, to challenge this style of politics. His party has, effectively left him, not the reverse. And the dynamic elements of it, such as they were, belong now to Trudeau.

Mulcair’s withdrawal from the public eye should thus not come as a surprise. It’s both logical and, from his perspective, justifiable. We could wish for a better exit for a man whose talents are abundant, but who has had the misfortune of living in a time when his bland style was overshadowed by the new-age political artist that is Trudeau. But, alas, it would appear that a graceful exit from the political stage was never in the cards for Mulcair.

 

Read more of Rex Murphy's piece here: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-where-oh-where-has-...

R.E.Wood

Rex plays fast and loose with facts. I stopped reading at this sentence:

Then the Dippers held a convention in Edmonton and adopted the Leap Manifesto — a document with the rigour of early Nostradamus and the appeal of a mass root canal — the brainchild of socialist nomad Avi Lewis and his equally itinerant spouse, Naomi Klein.

Blatantly false. Amongst his biased flurry of insults, he lies. Nothing was "adopted". The NDP agreed to discuss the Leap Manifesto. It's a huge difference between discussing something and adopting it.

Brian Glennie

Tom's looking after Tom.

He's a proud guy, why would he stay on after his party rejected him?

He gets another year's salary as a party leader in the House of Commons, plus the extra year as leader sweetens his pension.

Sorry for the negativity but the NDP spent $10M in the 2015 campaign on salaries and I expect Tom got his share of that and then some.

nicky

This feeding frenzy about Tom Mulcair has become unseemly. The suggestion that he is clinging on for the salary is Something a Donald Trump would say. The NDP, unlike some other parties, has never supplemented its leaders incomes.
Tom could quit tomorrow and with his legal skills triple his income with any number of prominent law firms. Instead he is sticking it out through a difficult transition largely because 41 out of 43 of his fellow caucus members asked him to.

Let's dial back the invective.

Unionist

nicky wrote:
This feeding frenzy about Tom Mulcair has become unseemly. The suggestion that he is clinging on for the salary is Something a Donald Trump would say. The NDP, unlike some other parties, has never supplemented its leaders incomes. Tom could quit tomorrow and with his legal skills triple his income with any number of prominent law firms. Instead he is sticking it out through a difficult transition largely because 41 out of 43 of his fellow caucus members asked him to. Let's dial back the invective.

Nicky speaks for me too.

Unconditional support is too often followed by unconditional hatred. It must be a sobering reflection for any prospective leadership candidates.

R.E.Wood

Mulcair's putting forward his plan for the fall sitting, and projecting confidence and determination he's staying as leader (but it makes me think when have we heard that before?).

Is this all for show, to line up his backers amongst caucus and try to sway MP's who might be tempted to ditch him early?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mulcair-trudeau-leadership-stead-handy-1...

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I agree with Unionist and nicky that Mulcair is staying on as leader only because the caucus has asked him to. nicky is quite correct that there are much higher paying jobs available to Mulcair in the private sector. If that were his motivation, he would have been gone long ago.

brookmere

R.E.Wood wrote:
Blatantly false. Amongst his biased flurry of insults, he lies. Nothing was "adopted". The NDP agreed to discuss the Leap Manifesto. It's a huge difference between discussing something and adopting it.

Well Rex was lying if he understands this. Perhaps he does, perhaps he doesn't, but more importantly I'm sure a great many of the public don't understand. Which is why I think it was stupid for the convention to have a vote to "discuss" Leap. Policy conventions vote on policy. They don't have to take a vote to have members talk about something.

cco

Yeah, I and many others spoke and voted against the manifesto in Edmonton based on this very point. I said something along the lines of "Do you really expect the media to understand the subtle nuances of us voting to send it back to riding associations to be discussed? The headline will be that we adopted it wholesale. This will be an albatross around our necks, and quickly become the big issue when we're choosing our next leader."

The problem with being pessimistic is that even being right seldom brings me any satisfaction.

Notalib

nicky wrote:
Tom could quit tomorrow and with his legal skills triple his income with any number of prominent law firms.

 

This is precisely what Mr Mulcair should have done days following the election. I hope Nicky has his ear.

It is hard to imagine what priorities someone has who continues to cling to an office that offers no future, no respect and no capacity to improve his lot besides the money. So pointing out the obvious scrutiny about the financial circumstances is perfectly fair and even probably accurate, at least in part.

I predicted the day after the election, when Tom did not stand down, that he essentially chose to be the conducter of a slow motion train wreck. I said it would be destructive for both him and the party. Probably unprecedented destruction.

I expressed the view on Social Media, and on Facebook in particular. I was unceremoniusly tossed from at least three major NDP pages for simply pointing out the obvious and clearly prediicting precisely what has onfolded.

Its too late for Tom to do the right thing now, that is why I said whatever he does next is wrong. He has to accept the reality of what has happened to the party under his watch. Its not enough to simply say you accept "full responsbility" and carry on with no consequences. Accepting responsibility means you have to do the right thing as a consequence not simply pay lip service to it and carry on as if the house burning down all around you is ok because its keeping you warm and comfortable.

No leader can survive on legal technicalities and hide under constitutionally based protections his team put in place that made removing a leader impossible and at the same time maintain any credibility whatsoever.

If Tom's mission is to ensure the centre left of the Canadian political spectrum is dead and buried, he could not have executed a better plan than we have seen since at least the election and possibly even before.

The writing has been on the wall since the election, the NDP house has been burning since the election, and the leader's action has done nothing but add more fuel.

His continued hubris and denial is in fulll blossom in this interview:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mulcair-trudeau-leadership-stead-handy-1...

The path forward simply demands he finally accept full responsibility of the state of the party, make way for a interim leader who can right the ship and ensure a fair and balanced leadership process unfolds.

 

 

Unionist

Anyone who screamed for Tom Mulcair's head after the election - but breathed nary a word of criticism before the election - should really never be listened to. And rather than blaming the Leader, they should invest in a mirror. Otherwise - the same tragedy will repeat itself over and over.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

So I heard that caucus asked him to stay on until a leadership election.  Is that true, notalib?

mark_alfred

Quote:

Yeah, I and many others spoke and voted against the manifesto in Edmonton based on this very point. I said something along the lines of "Do you really expect the media to understand the subtle nuances of us voting to send it back to riding associations to be discussed? The headline will be that we adopted it wholesale. This will be an albatross around our necks, and quickly become the big issue when we're choosing our next leader."

In essence, the act of "voting to send it back to riding associations to be discussed" is, given what the Leap Manifesto actually advocates, the same as adopting it.  The Leap itself is primarily a call for discussion. Its main call is summed up as follows:

Leap Manifesto wrote:
We call for town hall meetings across the country where residents can gather to democratically define what a genuine leap to the next economy means in their communities.

Notalib

Unionist wrote:

Anyone who screamed for Tom Mulcair's head after the election - but breathed nary a word of criticism before the election - should really never be listened to. And rather than blaming the Leader, they should invest in a mirror. Otherwise - the same tragedy will repeat itself over and over.

 

Agreed.

If you are implying I did such a thing, you would be wrong.

In fact in real time, I also predicted the destruction of the balance budget move and much of the trajectory the debates put us on, all of which was solid and accurate analysis. I have these comments recorded and documented publicly as they happened and will happily regurgetate them here for you if you wish.

I learned a long time ago that sitting down and shutting up during crucial political times, be they elections or not, is not a good response to the pressure that the party appartachik deploys around messaging and party discipline for precisely the reasons you point out.

But don't listen to me...... ;)

 

 

Notalib

Mr. Magoo wrote:

So I heard that caucus asked him to stay on until a leadership election.  Is that true, notalib?

 

I don't know I am not in Caucus, but if they did their foolish and anyone in the caucus who supported that and thinks they can beome the next leader is delusional.

Viking46

I jump in as a non NDPer.  At the start of the election and into about the third week I was considering an NDP vote.  After the poor showing by Tom during the debates - I started to doubt.  By the last debate - the one where Tom went off on tangents of his own - I decided not to vote NDP (and didn't).  

During the NDP convention in Edmonton I watched and listened to the coverage on TV.  Yes, Tom got his pink slip - as he should because his performance during the elction was awful - caused the loss of my vote!  The mistake the NDP made was to ask him to stay on and prolong the agony of defeat.  Turn the page folks!  Or start a new book!  Don't wallow in the dustbin.

 

The Leap Manifesto ? - something from la-la land to make the wanna be's in the NDP feel good about themselves.  If you want my vote in the next election (and I think my vote is as important as any other in Canada) - get going on creating a new leader as quickly as is possible.  You won't get another Jack, but you may get a better than what you got.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I don't know I am not in Caucus, but if they did their foolish and anyone in the caucus who supported that and thinks they can beome the next leader is delusional.

If it were true, do you think it might be why he stayed on?  Or at least as much of a co-factor as "megalomania" or greed?

Unionist

Notalib wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Anyone who screamed for Tom Mulcair's head after the election - but breathed nary a word of criticism before the election - should really never be listened to. And rather than blaming the Leader, they should invest in a mirror. Otherwise - the same tragedy will repeat itself over and over.

Agreed.

If you are implying I did such a thing, you would be wrong.

I didn't have you in mind at all when I said that.

 

mark_alfred

Quote:

His continued hubris and denial is in fulll blossom in this interview:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mulcair-trudeau-leadership-stead-handy-1...

Uh huh.  So, some criticize Mulcair for not being present enough in the media to advocate for NDP positions on issues surrounding the current government, and then some, when Mulcair does get media coverage and puts forward concerns about government positions on issues such as the environment and health care (see link to interview above), deem it to be "hubris and denial".  The above interview was very impressive, IMO.

He was elected leader, and until a new leader is elected (a process put in place via the last convention's decision on the leadership review), he is the leader.  I gather most of caucus and certainly most of the delegates at the last convention were quite pleased with his willingness to keep a 'steady hand on the tiller' until his successor is chosen (hear the positive reception he received from delegates when he announced he'd be staying on until the next leader was chosen:  link).  He's been clear that he's not running, but certainly there are some who'd like to see him change his mind.  The Bring Back Tom Mulcair page now has over 2000 likes.

Notalib

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I don't know I am not in Caucus, but if they did their foolish and anyone in the caucus who supported that and thinks they can beome the next leader is delusional.

If it were true, do you think it might be why he stayed on?  Or at least as much of a co-factor as "megalomania" or greed?

 

As I understand it, Tom was able to stay on due to a motion moved on convention floor immediately after his loss of the confidence vote. That vote carried and enabled his prolonged leadership.

Shortly thereafter caucus exercised exceptional (to the point of fatal for certain leadership hopefuls) discipline in supporting that notion that the convention upheld in that post confidence defeat vote to extend his leadership despite the loss.

It is probably safe to say that without the caucus discipline supporting the convention motion and the Federal Executives compliance Tom would have not survived.

Regardless, ever since the election only one thing has been certain. Tom's future has been in his hands and his hands only, as clearly even voting him out at convention has not worked.

He should have decided right away to step down on Eday, and it seems his reluctance is only forcing that card to happen, unfortunately far too late and after much damage to him and the party.

 

 

mark_alfred

Quote:

As I understand it, Tom was able to stay on due to a motion moved on convention floor immediately after his loss of the confidence vote. That vote carried and enabled his prolonged leadership.

No.  He still would have been leader regardless of the motion.  He is the leader until a new leader is elected.  The motion you're referring to was to extend the time period to hold a leadership race from 12 months to 24 months.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Shortly thereafter caucus exercised exceptional (to the point of fatal for certain leadership hopefuls) discipline in supporting that notion that the convention upheld in that post confidence defeat vote to extend his leadership despite the loss.

I'm assuming that by "exceptional discipline" you mean that caucus unanimously said "yes, that's how we voted"?

Wouldn't they also say that if that was how they voted?

Or else what, specifically, do you mean by "exceptional discipline"?

Quote:
Regardless, ever since the election only one thing has been certain. Tom's future has been in his hands and his hands only, as clearly even voting him out at convention has not worked.

Would asking him to leave have worked?

Or failing that, just NOT asking him to stay?

I'm suggesting that staying wasn't solely his decision, but you seem to be invested in believing otherwise.  Is it important to you to believe that caucus didn't want him to stay on?  Or that something underhanded must have forced them to pretend they did?

Notalib

mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:

As I understand it, Tom was able to stay on due to a motion moved on convention floor immediately after his loss of the confidence vote. That vote carried and enabled his prolonged leadership.

No.  He still would have been leader regardless of the motion.  He is the leader until a new leader is elected.  The motion you're referring to was to extend the time period to hold a leadership race from 12 months to 24 months.

 

Actually I was accurate and correct if you read what I said.... "Enabled his prolonged leadership"

Just a correction for the record.

Notalib

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Shortly thereafter caucus exercised exceptional (to the point of fatal for certain leadership hopefuls) discipline in supporting that notion that the convention upheld in that post confidence defeat vote to extend his leadership despite the loss.

I'm assuming that by "exceptional discipline" you mean that caucus unanimously said "yes, that's how we voted"?

Wouldn't they also say that if that was how they voted?

Or else what, specifically, do you mean by "exceptional discipline"?

Quote:
Regardless, ever since the election only one thing has been certain. Tom's future has been in his hands and his hands only, as clearly even voting him out at convention has not worked.

Would asking him to leave have worked?

Or failing that, just NOT asking him to stay?

I'm suggesting that staying wasn't solely his decision, but you seem to be invested in believing otherwise.  Is it important to you to believe that caucus didn't want him to stay on?  Or that something underhanded must have forced them to pretend they did?

 

Well if I have to explain caucus dscipline and the practices of the whip, its probable that the rest of the nuance of this conversation is lost.

That being said, I did not infer anything nefarious about this Caucus behaviour, only that it hurt certain people who had reasonable leadership potential.

At one level the fact that caucus rallied around the fatally wounded leader is not necesarilly suprising. The party has been reeling ever since the election with depleted resources and are simply rudderless. Tom exercises pretty stiff discipline and they probably felt comfortable with his approach just to get through this time. But the approach has clearly failed and caucus members are grumbling which means the long knives are out and the next scene will soon unfold.

Staying in the role of leader is and has been entirely Tom's decision, contrary to what you suggest. There is no other mechanism to oust him as has been proven and this is bascially by design. SO I am not invested in anything but the truth of the matter. Tom is there beacuse he continues to choose to be, no other reason. But it is fair to say the apparatchik has supported his decisiion making thus far. However, that now appears to be waivering despite Tom's firm public resolve.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Well if I have to explain caucus dscipline and the practices of the whip

No, you don't, but since you mentioned it, please tell us if this was a "whipped vote" or not.

Quote:
Staying in the role of leader is and has been entirely Tom's decision, contrary to what you suggest.

I've been asking for any evidence of that.  Do you have some now?

ed'd to add:  in case this helps, yes, I totally understand that the FINAL say rested with Tom.  Duh.  That's what it means to be an adult in a reasonably free society.   I hope that's not what you're really talking about here. 

"Sure, caucus asked him to stay, but like an asshole he didn't say no".

Unionist

You know that I don't really care much about who the "Leader" is. But it's pretty clear to me that Mulcair was elected leader by the membership, and he remains leader until a new leader is elected (unless he chooses to quit, but that's true for anyone anytime). All convention did was to say, "let's have another leadership election - in 2017".

So no, Mulcair was not somehow unelected at convention.

And no, Mulcair is not the "interim leader" (as the brain-dead MSM keep repeating). He's the elected leader, full stop. Nycole Turmel was an "interim leader", because she was never elected - she just filled in until an election could be held.

And no, caucus had zero power to name an "interim leader". They apparently asked Mulcair not to quit, and he complied. But had they asked him to quit, he was under no obligation to do so.

It gets annoying when nonsense continues to be repeated in public spaces. You don't have to be a rah-rah partisan to look up the rules, read them, and try to call things by their proper name.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
All convention did was to say, "let's have another leadership election - in 2017".

But notalib implies that this was a WHIPPED VOTE and I asked him about it.

Just on the off chance that he can't or won't clarify that honestly, do you know whether it was or wasn't a whipped vote?

Because if the party whip had to tie a pork chop around Mulcair's neck to get the caucus to play with him, that would be a bit of a game changer.

Notalib

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lbAA9DpLg

 

Should Mulcair step down?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Was it a whipped vote?

Notalib

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
All convention did was to say, "let's have another leadership election - in 2017".

But notalib implies that this was a WHIPPED VOTE and I asked him about it.

Just on the off chance that he can't or won't clarify that honestly, do you know whether it was or wasn't a whipped vote?

Because if the party whip had to tie a pork chop around Mulcair's neck to get the caucus to play with him, that would be a bit of a game changer.

 

I have read some of your stuff in the past and I sense you have a pretty good grip on things.

This stuff your spinning about caucus positioning is mindless, so I can only imagine you are just playing games.

First off its obviously not an officially whipped vote, because the issue at hand is the fate of the leader, therefor the leader can't whip it. However I am sure the discipline caucus exhibited was not without its pressures to conform similar to that of an official whip.

Regardless the fact that you guys keep spinning details about caucus is evidence that your simply avoiding the real issues and distracting from the serious points being discussed here.

No one can answer your questions accurately (and you know this when you pose them, which makes them hardly worthy of response) with the exception of actual caucus members, as part of caucus discipline is not discussing this business publicly.

Recently however, that silence has ceased and that discipline discarded as both existing and former MPs are grumbling, as I stated, and the knives are out.

Continue on bickering and spinning mice nut issues if you wish, but it does not change the reality that the party is listing horribly and the captain is just about to step on the plank for his walk or he will be pushed.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
First off its obviously not an officially whipped vote, because the issue at hand is the fate of the leader, therefor the leader can't whip it.

Then why did you refer to the whip at all?

Please, just tell us.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
First off its obviously not an officially whipped vote, because the issue at hand is the fate of the leader, therefor the leader can't whip it.

Then why did you refer to the whip at all?

Please, just tell us.

To make the perfectly valid point that the caucus wasn't exactly free to remove Mulcair from the interim leadership.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

OK.  Now there's two people who can tell us more.

Sean in Ottawa

My impression as to why Tom stayed on is that he would like to leave on a more postive note than the disaster of the election. I don't think this is about the money. I think he probably thinks he can do something and wants the opportunity. He may harbour a desire to run in that campaign -- this I do not know and maybe he has not even decided.

He has a very brief window to do something positive with the time or get out of the way and I suspect he will do one or the other. The summer is not that big of a deal but the fall will be. When parliament comes back he has to do something significant or leave. I think that while many in the party do not want him to run in the next election they remain open to him staying -- for now -- provided he puts in a considerable effort.

The notion that there is an ultimatum for him to leave is, I think, a misunderstanding. From what we have seen it is just as much an ultimatum to do somehting significant as it is to leave and the support for him if he decides to make something of his current mandate would come just as surely as the demand for him to leave if he were to not be visible.

And I agree with this view and present it as what I believe many others feel -- although I could be wrong.

I would not support him in another election and do not consider his leadership to have been particularly positive as people here know, so I would have opposed him at convention, but I still remain open to timing provided he either go soon or work hard in staying. I don't expect he would try to do anything else. I do not think he is of that character.

Brian Glennie

Unionist wrote:

nicky wrote:
This feeding frenzy about Tom Mulcair has become unseemly. The suggestion that he is clinging on for the salary is Something a Donald Trump would say. The NDP, unlike some other parties, has never supplemented its leaders incomes. Tom could quit tomorrow and with his legal skills triple his income with any number of prominent law firms. Instead he is sticking it out through a difficult transition largely because 41 out of 43 of his fellow caucus members asked him to. Let's dial back the invective.

Nicky speaks for me too.

Unconditional support is too often followed by unconditional hatred. It must be a sobering reflection for any prospective leadership candidates.

It took four ballots in 2012 and Tom only won leadership with 57%. Did he win? Sure, but I don't think he ever won/earned a whole lot of "unconditional support". So, he starts off with 103 MPs and due to a) personality conflicts (Glenn Thibeault) and b) really dismal by election campaigns (Trinity Spadina), Tom heads into the 2015 election having already lost 8 seats.

Remember all the posts on Babble about how Tom was going to rock the debates? I apologize again for the negativity, but he looked fat.

It's TV. Couldn't he have laid off the danishes?

Sean in Ottawa has volunteered and been really active in the NDP since forever and Tom lost Sean. That's how bad Tom stunk it up as leader.

 

JKR

Notalib wrote:

In fact in real time, I also predicted the destruction of the balance budget move....

I think very many people, myself included, also thought at the time that the balanced budget promise was likely an election killer but once Mulcair made that promise I think there was very little to be gained by complaining publicly about it during an election campaign. I think the party is going to be tied to this misguided promise as long as Mulcair is leader. I think maintaining balanced budgets is an official policy of the federal NDP but it's also true that the leader and their election team are free to not include party policies on their election platform that they feel will hinder the party's chances at success. I think the fatal flaw of the balanced budget promise is that it contradicts many of the NDP's other policies and gives the Liberals the ability to win many points against the NDP. I think most people open to voting for the NDP are uninspired by the balanced budget promise and Mulcair and his team should respect this viewpoint. But I think Mulcair still thinks he was right about the correctness of maintaining balanced budgets and that all those on the centre-left who think otherwise are wrong. I think this insensitivity to the opinions of the people who are open to supporting your party is not a trait you want in a party leader and that is why the NDP needs a leader who is much better in tune with the aspirations of people on the centre-left in Canada. Under FPTP I think the basic responsibility of the leader of the NDP is to unite the centre-left in Canada behind the NDP. I think Mulcair is not a suitable leader because he has proven that he is incapable of uniting the centre-left behind the NDP. I think Mulcair's balanced budget promise was actually aimed at poaching centre-right votes from the Conservatives and Liberals who will probably never vote for the NDP federally.

mark_alfred

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201609/...

lapresse article via google translate wrote:
Mulcair also wanted to stop the efforts of some NDP activists who are trying to convince him to be a candidate for his own succession. This is out of the question, he said, although he says he is 'touched' by the approach of the activists.

Stockholm

FYI: At the convention the delegates voted to give the NDP federal council the FLEXIBILITY of scheduling a leadership anytime within a window of up to 24 months rather than it having to happen within 12 months. At the time I thought that was a good idea. I thought why lock the party I to an arbitrary deadline when the next election was still three and a half years away. And there were seemingly valid arguments at the time for possibly waiting until after the 2017 BC election and after the Tories pick their new leader.

Now upon reflection I think that was a mistake. No sane person wants to be the first to declare 14 months in advance of a leadership contest and I think the NDP is gaining nothing but stalling for so long. I think the federal council should have scheduled the vote for this fall 2016 and gotten it over with quickly. I'm skeptical that ANYONE is going to run because the vote is in October 2017 that would not have also run if the contest was in October 2016. The year long delay is just a big waste of time

NorthReport

Well said

Some folks think that the balanced budget approach did the NDP a lot of harm, whereas my hunch is that it was not a ballot box issue. Had the NDP not proposed a balanced budget being the NDP they would have got hammered with that approach as well

Viking46 wrote:

I jump in as a non NDPer.  At the start of the election and into about the third week I was considering an NDP vote.  After the poor showing by Tom during the debates - I started to doubt.  By the last debate - the one where Tom went off on tangents of his own - I decided not to vote NDP (and didn't).  

During the NDP convention in Edmonton I watched and listened to the coverage on TV.  Yes, Tom got his pink slip - as he should because his performance during the elction was awful - caused the loss of my vote!  The mistake the NDP made was to ask him to stay on and prolong the agony of defeat.  Turn the page folks!  Or start a new book!  Don't wallow in the dustbin.

 

The Leap Manifesto ? - something from la-la land to make the wanna be's in the NDP feel good about themselves.  If you want my vote in the next election (and I think my vote is as important as any other in Canada) - get going on creating a new leader as quickly as is possible.  You won't get another Jack, but you may get a better than what you got.

Pages