If Mulcair drops scripted talking points next time & is just his natural self, a win is assured

335 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred
If Mulcair drops scripted talking points next time & is just his natural self, a win is assured

;

Regions: 
mark_alfred

I've been reading with some amusement various people's call for Tom Mulcair to play nice and then resign, allowing some non-threatening nobody to take over so that the Liberal mission of low corporate taxes and P3s for infrastructure and sell out trade deals like the TPP can take place unimpeded.

Hey, to each their own.

The reason the NDP lost is because Mulcair acted like he had a lobotomy, pure and simple.  People were tired of Harper, and leery of Trudeau, and wanted to be dazzled by the ruthless smart lawyer who actually shook Harper in question period.  Instead, due to Mulcair's handlers (and due to worry over the Con attack of "angry Tom"), he flushed this winning aspect of his personality down the toilet.  Angry Tom became Lobotomy Tom.

Sure, all the leaders have talking points.  But for Mulcair, it was just painful to watch.  Harper, in spite of some talking points, still appeared as human.  Trudeau, in spite of some often repeated talking points, came across as both human and likeable.  Mulcair, on the other hand, looked completely out of his skin.

Angry Tom is what's needed.  A relentless unforgiving sneering attacking exposing the bullshit give us universal child care MMP anti-scab laws national cap and trade NOW or suffer my wrath sort of leader is what's needed.  Not some neo-Liberal ass-kissing toady who'll fawn over Trudeau as he divests assets and starves the public service.  We need passion for social democracy, and Mulcair, unrestrained by idiotic handlers, is the man to do it.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

I've been reading with some amusement various people's call for Tom Mulcair to play nice and then resign, allowing some non-threatening nobody to take over so that the Liberal mission of low corporate taxes and P3s for infrastructure and sell out trade deals like the TPP can take place unimpeded.

Hey, to each their own.

The reason the NDP lost is because Mulcair acted like he had a lobotomy, pure and simple.  People were tired of Harper, and leery of Trudeau, and wanted to be dazzled by the ruthless smart lawyer who actually shook Harper in question period.  Instead, due to Mulcair's handlers (and due to worry over the Con attack of "angry Tom"), he flushed this winning aspect of his personality down the toilet.  Angry Tom became Lobotomy Tom.

Sure, all the leaders have talking points.  But for Mulcair, it was just painful to watch.  Harper, in spite of some talking points, still appeared as human.  Trudeau, in spite of some often repeated talking points, came across as both human and likeable.  Mulcair, on the other hand, looked completely out of his skin.

Angry Tom is what's needed.  A relentless unforgiving sneering attacking exposing the bullshit give us universal child care MMP anti-scab laws national cap and trade NOW or suffer my wrath sort of leader is what's needed.  Not some neo-Liberal ass-kissing toady who'll fawn over Trudeau as he divests assets and starves the public service.  We need passion for social democracy, and Mulcair, unrestrained by idiotic handlers, is the man to do it.

Oh well.

I disagree with just about all of this.

I don't think you need to be angry and mean to be competent. I don't think the angry personality will get the NDP or Mulcair anywhere. I don't think that Harper was too "nice" in the last election -- he was ineffective and often petty.

Mulcair showed an inabily to balance priorities in terms of what he chose to present. If he had been more angry it likely would have produced the same result. The problem was Mulcair failed to articulate a reason to vote NDP.

I don't think he will be given any second look just because he turns on a Mr. Nasty. Mulcair is history and if the NDP stays attached to him it might be history too. The NDP is pretty much screwed if it runs Mulcair in the next election.

I can't say right now if the NDP could count on my vote. Sneering is the last thing that would help the NDP right now. If Mulcair is the best we can get -- I am in the market for a new party.

 

wage zombie

I agree that I was not satisfied with Lobotomy Tom.  But I also wasn't satisfied with "we need more studies and to be very careful because today's marijuana is 20 times stronger than 70s marijuana" Tom.  There were a lot of Toms I wasn't satisfied with.  I also didn't like Arrogant Tom, who made quite a few appearances in the campaign.

Seeing the way people have responded to the Trudeau government so far, I don't think Angry Tom has much currency either.  Angry Tom doesn't like the gender parity cabinet because if you add Trudeau, it's not a 15-15 split, it's a 15-16 split, and somehow we're expected to think that's a broken promise by a sexist leader.  Angry Tom also didn't like that the cabinet is 30 people as opposed to 28, much larger than we were previsouly led to believe.

Right now Angry Tom just looks like a jerk.

Unionist

Well, if Tom is staying on, I think he should chop down trees, wear high heels, and go to the lavatory. On Sunday he should go shopping, and have buttered scones for tea.

Then victory will be ours!

Most importantly, the members, the constitution, the party policy, should be ignored. Because all that matters is the touch and feel of the dictator.

What utter contempt for any notion of rank-and-file democracy.

 

mark_alfred

Not only do I not have contempt for rank and file democracy, I too enjoy Monty Python.  If members wish to vote for a leadership review, more power to them.  But, in my opinion, I feel that Mulcair would be good provided he loses the script and speaks more true to his actual self.  Otherwise, yes, I'll be the first to say he should go.  As I said, Lobotomy Tom just didn't work.

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

Most importantly, the members, the constitution, the party policy, should be ignored. Because all that matters is the touch and feel of the dictator.

What utter contempt for any notion of rank-and-file democracy.

Where is the contempt?

nicky

I am unaware that Tom is flouting any of the party's democratic processes. If he chooses to stay on as leader he will subject himself to a confidence vote at the convention in April.

It's pretty offensive to call him a dictator, Unionist.

josh

LOL.

jjuares

Many of his unscripted comments were damaging. His comments about marijuana, F-35, as well as some of his nasty putdowns of Trudeau were problematic to say the least. Time for Tom to go. A little alliteration goes a long way.

brookmere

nicky wrote:
I am unaware that Tom is flouting any of the party's democratic processes.

Well the democratic process that is the most important, except perhaps electing the leader,  is nominating candidates. Those running the party feel they are entitled to dump duly nominated candidates, or prevent members from seeking nomination, without any explanation and without any evidence of contravention of party policy or the party constitution, or of the law.

Pondering

nicky wrote:
I am unaware that Tom is flouting any of the party's democratic processes. If he chooses to stay on as leader he will subject himself to a confidence vote at the convention in April. It's pretty offensive to call him a dictator, Unionist.

He and the executive refused to allow marijuana legalization to come to a vote at a convention (requested by six ridings) instead modifying it to reaffirm decriminalization.

Brachina

 I think it almost doesn't matter what we do at this point, I don't think the NDP has a shot till at least 2023, unless Trudeau does something catostrophic Harper has so lowered the bar, as has past Trudeau goof ups, that it will be laughingly easy for him to at minium keep reasonably high approval rating.

 Unless Trudeau pooches it, the NDP doesn't stand a chance till 2023 at best, no matter who leads the NDP and if Trudeau by some miracle manages to keep most of his promises, admittedly a change of pace for the Liberals, then we don't stand a chance in hell. 

 Petty stuff like gender parity complaints when most people wouldn't include the PM, and or having 30 cabinate ministers instead of 28 won't change that.

 And we can propose all the ideas we want, it might at best change our vote alittle, it won't change who becomes PM in 2019.

 2015 was our shot, we had it, we lost it, that was the election to define which party would lead progressives into the future, its the one we had to win and thanks to the idiots who wrote the platform its the one we lost. 

 There no second chances, the Liberals will do what they think they need to to keep it that way, the the only comfort I take from that is that the fact that the NDP came sooo close might help keep the Liberals honest. Never has the NDP come so close and breathed down the Liberals necks.

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
nicky wrote:
I am unaware that Tom is flouting any of the party's democratic processes. If he chooses to stay on as leader he will subject himself to a confidence vote at the convention in April. It's pretty offensive to call him a dictator, Unionist.

He and the executive refused to allow marijuana legalization to come to a vote at a convention (requested by six ridings) instead modifying it to reaffirm decriminalization.

marijuana legalization was refused under Layton get it right. ffs

JKR

Brachina wrote:

 ... thanks to the idiots who wrote the platform its the one we lost. 

That's it in a nutshell. And Mulcair played a large role in writing up the tone-deaf election platform. Hopefully, the federal NDP and provincial wings of the NDP learn from this. Here in BC they had better come up with an election platform that engages the voters in the 2017 election. That means a platform that inspires hope for the future, one that likely stresses good jobs and social security for everyone. I volunteered something like 24 hours to the NDP this election but from now on I will likely quit mid-campaign whenever they come up with election platform duds. At the doorstep and over the telephone I found it awkward and disingenuous supporting ideas like surplus budgets. Unfortunately the platform delivered far too little hope for the future.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mulcair is a liberal and if he talks like himself that will come through even more. If we let Mulcair be himself he will tell us his own views on pot which mirror his RCMP daughter's views about how its so scary we need to study it to death. Where I live all three US border states have legalized it but Tom Terrific needs to study it. My late twenties son told me many of his politically apathetic friends were going to vote Liberal to get pot legalized. And he hangs with a mix of working people and university students not the doper crowd. On economics Tom will be cheering the Wicked Witch as a prudent stewart and preaching the need to balance the books. On Israel he will do what he has been doing. On trade deals he will tell us he likes them but with some reservations but he won't tell us what those reservations are in advance. Investor rights being part of a deal should be a line not to cross but the NDP voted for agreements with those types of clauses.

I find that the NDP strongholds are most often the seats held by our most left wing and outspoken MP's but the central campaign both federally and in BC provincially keeps trying to tone them down and convince voters they are not the norm in the party and that really the NDP is a safe middle of the road party. When I read threads like this one I wonder did the poster ever work on a winning NDP campaign. Mark_ do you have experience in working on winning election campaigns?  If Mulcair is the leader in the next election I will not vote for the NDP because I don't want to vote for a liberal government. This time I gave them my voter one last time in the hope that they would institute PR.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Pondering wrote:
nicky wrote:
I am unaware that Tom is flouting any of the party's democratic processes. If he chooses to stay on as leader he will subject himself to a confidence vote at the convention in April. It's pretty offensive to call him a dictator, Unionist.

He and the executive refused to allow marijuana legalization to come to a vote at a convention (requested by six ridings) instead modifying it to reaffirm decriminalization.

marijuana legalization was refused under Layton get it right. ffs

It was also refused under Mulcair so you get it right.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/04/10/grassroots_ndp_want_party_...

The six riding associations who want the policy book to be amended to support the legalization of marijuana are Winnipeg Centre, the Toronto riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Halifax, Victoria, Malpeque in Prince Edward Island and Fundy Royal in New Brunswick.

While seven riding associations are asking the party to support the legalization of marijuana, the NDP resolutions committee chose to put a different one, from the B.C. riding of Esquimalt — Juan de Fuca, calling on the party to affirm its support for decriminalization on its priority list.

You just argue with me for the sake of arguing. Even if you were right it would make no difference because the NDP platform under Mulcair supported decriminalization not legalization.

Unionist

wage zombie wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Most importantly, the members, the constitution, the party policy, should be ignored. Because all that matters is the touch and feel of the dictator.

What utter contempt for any notion of rank-and-file democracy.

Where is the contempt?

The contempt is in endlessly raving about the leader, the leader's flaws, gifts, style, substance, real beliefs, pretend beliefs, need to be dumped, etc. - the underlying (and too often overt) presumption being that the leader runs the party, and if we don't like the way the leader runs the party, we should get us a new leader.

Even in this thread, babblers are misunderstanding me by saying, "well, if the members want a different leader, they should change leaders".

So, the members - like Canadian citizens - have their power of control and expression reduced to some vote every few years as to who should "lead".

That's contempt for rank-and-file democracy. It's the negation of democracy. The members' voice and power must be heard and felt every day. Yet the NDP - like the Liberals and Conservatives - are run by cliques that make decisions in secret and say and do whatever they please. They are accountable to no one - as the unilateral deletion of the convention-voted NDP policy book by unknown string-pullers demonstrated in September.

If you believe that Canadians' (apparent) right to vote every four years, resulting in a Prime Minister who makes all the decisions, constitutes respect for rank-and-file democracy in Canadian society - then I'll understand if you believe the same for the NDP and the other parties. Permit me to disagree.

scott16

Brachina wrote:

 I think it almost doesn't matter what we do at this point, I don't think the NDP has a shot till at least 2023, unless Trudeau does something catostrophic Harper has so lowered the bar, as has past Trudeau goof ups, that it will be laughingly easy for him to at minium keep reasonably high approval rating.

 Unless Trudeau pooches it, the NDP doesn't stand a chance till 2023 at best, no matter who leads the NDP and if Trudeau by some miracle manages to keep most of his promises, admittedly a change of pace for the Liberals, then we don't stand a chance in hell. 

 Petty stuff like gender parity complaints when most people wouldn't include the PM, and or having 30 cabinate ministers instead of 28 won't change that.

 And we can propose all the ideas we want, it might at best change our vote alittle, it won't change who becomes PM in 2019.

 2015 was our shot, we had it, we lost it, that was the election to define which party would lead progressives into the future, its the one we had to win and thanks to the idiots who wrote the platform its the one we lost. 

 There no second chances, the Liberals will do what they think they need to to keep it that way, the the only comfort I take from that is that the fact that the NDP came sooo close might help keep the Liberals honest. Never has the NDP come so close and breathed down the Liberals necks.

 

I believe you're just upset right now because of the results. Everyone in the Ndp is upset.

I think Tom Mulcair knows his days are numbered and has already made plans to step down before the next election.

If we pick the right leader he can go left (where we belong) and win in one term. My personal choice would be Ruth Ellen Brosseau or Niki Ashton.

Unionist

So if I say, "stop yapping about how we need a new leader - because that won't change anything", I'm guilty of being content to continue with the current leader.

Got that, wage zombie? It's all about the leader. That's the philosophy and approach and solution that I question.

Sean in Ottawa

wage zombie wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Most importantly, the members, the constitution, the party policy, should be ignored. Because all that matters is the touch and feel of the dictator.

What utter contempt for any notion of rank-and-file democracy.

Where is the contempt?

This is the mantra of those wanting to pretend the leadership does not have a deal-breaking influence over the process the party faces. It is not enough for them to disagree -- they have to make up extra characterizations because their answers are empty.

It is ironic it is to use this kind of language to face critics who say that the process is doomed under current leadership. With rhetoric like this used to suppress the argument that renewal must occur at the top to be successful everywhere else, the point is made that the defence of this leadership is squarely in the way of any unbiased and unloaded examination.

Don't get me wrong -- it is not just Tom but others who should go in order for renewal to occur.

It is true that at the grass roots level you can drive out those who disagree. No problem. Will it rebuild your party? Hell no.

The idea that the leadership of the party is this small thing that we can forget about in a conversation about change and renewal is one incredible fantasy. We get these denials of the role of leadership -- even a suggestion earlier that you do not even need a leader at all. It's all some desperate denial of an essential debate that has urgency. The wrong leader can destroy a party at least in the short term. Dion, Ignatief -- -- according to Unionist we should never have discussed them -- after all they could not harm the Liberal party as they were only leaders and what is the point of leadership? The party can go ahead with Tom Mulcair and try for the next election -- that won't matter: it will only be Tom as the spokesperson; Tom on the signs; Tom that the public will ask if they want to see as PM and Tom in the debates; It will only be Tom leading the party on the inside as well. All that does not matter because in the fantasy we are indulging in the leader has no bearing, everyone listens to the party platform as presented by Tom -- wooops -- no as presented by the "committee."

Sure in a utopian world the leader does not make a difference but we don't live in that world. The value of leadership is not completely negated by democracy either. Leaders are accountable. When they screw up the membership respond. That is part of the process. They may not afford to attend a convention but they raise the issue. And others, falsely pretending to defend democracy may try to shout them down.

I say renewal is a complete nonstarter headed by a leader who brought the party's worst or second worst defeat (depending on criteria) and who has stated he wants to be around for the next election as leader. This leader to be around in 2019 has to argue that his role as leader in this last eleciton was not the problem. A conflict of interest, most certainly. Or perhaps we are being told that defending a leadership, that most certainly will be challenged, is not a conflict of interest in an examination of what happened under that leadership.

Well, I guess in the end you make your own reality -- because contempt is an emotion I can relate to now. And if this is how the people who want to keep Mulcair want to carry on through the review, you can add absolute disrespect and disgust to the pile.

To pretend that leadership is not the first question when you contemplate a review of this kind is a denial of reality. Leadership comes up twice: first at the start to determine if you have confidence in the leader to lead the review (I say I don't and should be free to argue that without being called contemptuous). Then if the leader passes that test you do the review and ask again -- given the conclusion of the review, is this the right leader to carry on? Normally when a leader blows it this badly they get the message and resign and go or they say they will rebuild but will go before the next election. It is almost unheard of in Canadian politics that a leader would lose this badly, take the party on a reversal this great, and even imagine that he/she is the right person to lead in the next election. Normally you move to a caretaker leadership. In this position you have either the outgoing leader -- without ambition for the next election -- guide the renewal or an interim leader. Why is it such a big deal saying this correct? I would love to see a chart of how many leaders pretend to think they have another shot in the next election after losing half their caucus and dropping their party from second to third.Anyone make that work?

But politicians have huge egos. When it is time for them to go sometimes they just don't get it. Then you need the membership to give them a shove. This shove may even be a campaign to make sure they get the message. It includes not letting the discussion of renewal go forward without a reminder that you need this change. This is normal and healthy. When a party is so shit scared that it thinks nobody can do better than the one who just got defeated this badly, you are in trouble. Do we not have good people to lead -- is that really it? Is there a core of people so frightened by the next generation -- so sure that nobody in it is capable? Why is it considered so terrible to contemplate a leader change when you have a party leader who has lost badly and will be 65 before the next election, clearly not at the middle of his career? If leadership is really not the big deal as Unionist says -- then why can't we change leaders and be okay? Why can't we go with a younger leader who could be there for the next decade and rebuild to take the party to power. The road to power is most likely more than one term now. Why the attachment to a leader who blew the election? Why the attachment to a leader who took the party in the wrong direction?

Some like the "attack dog" their words. This is their rationale for wanting to keep Mulcair. So why can't I say that is exactly the wrong style and kind of leader for the party at this stage? And why can't I say this is the wrong style of person to guide the internal renewal process?

But most of all -- talking about the process -- why is it considered off-topic or unreasonable to argue that Mulcair, if he is defending his leadership for the next election is in a conflict of interest when it comes to the renewal and examination process?

 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

So if I say, "stop yapping about how we need a new leader - because that won't change anything", I'm guilty of being content to continue with the current leader.

Got that, wage zombie? It's all about the leader. That's the philosophy and approach and solution that I question.

You can say it, but it is part of the debate to have others say damn right it will change something and it is urgent, necessary and the only way we can have a healthy discussion about renewal. Those who like the "attack dog" persona and think it should be there for the next election ought to not shout down critics but defend the idea that having an "attack dog" (not my words) defending his leadership to run in the next election is the right person to lead the party through this process.

And Unionist, using language like "yapping" to describe arguments you do not like only gets people more pissed off with you. You suggest that you and I had goodwill. You have been burning it and there is almost nothing left now and my reactions to you have been a message about that. It is you that is using this kind of language not me.

I have no idea why you think you can talk to and about people in the way you do and expect them to remember anything nice about you. This has gone on for a long time. Each time you act wounded when I respond in kind.

You tell me how constructive it is to engage with people suggesting they are dogs.

JKR

Unionist wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Most importantly, the members, the constitution, the party policy, should be ignored. Because all that matters is the touch and feel of the dictator.

What utter contempt for any notion of rank-and-file democracy.

Where is the contempt?

The contempt is in endlessly raving about the leader, the leader's flaws, gifts, style, substance, real beliefs, pretend beliefs, need to be dumped, etc. - the underlying (and too often overt) presumption being that the leader runs the party, and if we don't like the way the leader runs the party, we should get us a new leader.

Even in this thread, babblers are misunderstanding me by saying, "well, if the members want a different leader, they should change leaders".

So, the members - like Canadian citizens - have their power of control and expression reduced to some vote every few years as to who should "lead".

That's contempt for rank-and-file democracy. It's the negation of democracy. The members' voice and power must be heard and felt every day. Yet the NDP - like the Liberals and Conservatives - are run by cliques that make decisions in secret and say and do whatever they please. They are accountable to no one - as the unilateral deletion of the convention-voted NDP policy book by unknown string-pullers demonstrated in September.

If you believe that Canadians' (apparent) right to vote every four years, resulting in a Prime Minister who makes all the decisions, constitutes respect for rank-and-file democracy in Canadian society - then I'll understand if you believe the same for the NDP and the other parties. Permit me to disagree.

Paradoxically it would likely take a leader who believes in rank-and-file-democracy to reform the NDP's current structure enough to establish rank-and-file democracy that would limit the leaders domination of the party. As it is, the party leader has the power to limit the ability of the rank and file to determine the party's policies and more importantly its election platform. In any case, Mulcair will likely not support rank-and-file-democracy. Moreover, the current structure of the NDP will not permit the members to institute rank-and-file democracy without Mulcair also supporting it. So paradoxically, the best way to establish rank-and-file democracy may be for people who support rank-and-file democracy to find a leader who supports it and have that person run for leader of the NDP. :b An alternative to this for party members would be to establish a new party but because we have FPTP, most party members likely won't entertain the idea of starting a new party because that would likely just split the vote, win few if any seats, and help the Conservatives win via vote-splitting.

Pondering

Brachina wrote:

 I think it almost doesn't matter what we do at this point, I don't think the NDP has a shot till at least 2023, unless Trudeau does something catostrophic Harper has so lowered the bar, as has past Trudeau goof ups, that it will be laughingly easy for him to at minium keep reasonably high approval rating.

 Unless Trudeau pooches it, the NDP doesn't stand a chance till 2023 at best, no matter who leads the NDP and if Trudeau by some miracle manages to keep most of his promises, admittedly a change of pace for the Liberals, then we don't stand a chance in hell. 

 Petty stuff like gender parity complaints when most people wouldn't include the PM, and or having 30 cabinate ministers instead of 28 won't change that.

 And we can propose all the ideas we want, it might at best change our vote alittle, it won't change who becomes PM in 2019.

 2015 was our shot, we had it, we lost it, that was the election to define which party would lead progressives into the future, its the one we had to win and thanks to the idiots who wrote the platform its the one we lost. 

 There no second chances, the Liberals will do what they think they need to to keep it that way, the the only comfort I take from that is that the fact that the NDP came sooo close might help keep the Liberals honest. Never has the NDP come so close and breathed down the Liberals necks.

I agree to a point but there is another way to look at it. Mulcair's NDP wasn't all that progressive. The move to the centre for the win began long ago. The party under Mulcair was very centrist and had they won they would have stayed centrist to win again. The progressives would be in the same relative position as the social conservatives under Harper.

Now you have at least 2 election cycles to reinvent the party, to figure out what it means to be a progressive party today. In my opinion the two central threats to our well-being are environmental degradation and income inequality. To be progressive a party has to attack those two issues. In my opinion over the next 4 to 10 years that will continue to become self-evident opening up an opportunity for a party that really is progressive and clearly different from the others.

Trudeau Liberals did make both of those issues during the election by using occupy language of the 1% and highlighting lack of action on climate change as the barrier to oil sands development. The Liberals approach to the problems will be to use Keynesian economics and begin to deal with climate change but nothing like "The Leap" we could take that would dramatically improve people's lives.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Brachina wrote:

 I think it almost doesn't matter what we do at this point, I don't think the NDP has a shot till at least 2023, unless Trudeau does something catostrophic Harper has so lowered the bar, as has past Trudeau goof ups, that it will be laughingly easy for him to at minium keep reasonably high approval rating.

 Unless Trudeau pooches it, the NDP doesn't stand a chance till 2023 at best, no matter who leads the NDP and if Trudeau by some miracle manages to keep most of his promises, admittedly a change of pace for the Liberals, then we don't stand a chance in hell. 

 Petty stuff like gender parity complaints when most people wouldn't include the PM, and or having 30 cabinate ministers instead of 28 won't change that.

 And we can propose all the ideas we want, it might at best change our vote alittle, it won't change who becomes PM in 2019.

 2015 was our shot, we had it, we lost it, that was the election to define which party would lead progressives into the future, its the one we had to win and thanks to the idiots who wrote the platform its the one we lost. 

 There no second chances, the Liberals will do what they think they need to to keep it that way, the the only comfort I take from that is that the fact that the NDP came sooo close might help keep the Liberals honest. Never has the NDP come so close and breathed down the Liberals necks.

I agree to a point but there is another way to look at it. Mulcair's NDP wasn't all that progressive. The move to the centre for the win began long ago. The party under Mulcair was very centrist and had they won they would have stayed centrist to win again. The progressives would be in the same relative position as the social conservatives under Harper.

Now you have at least 2 election cycles to reinvent the party, to figure out what it means to be a progressive party today. In my opinion the two central threats to our well-being are environmental degradation and income inequality. To be progressive a party has to attack those two issues. In my opinion over the next 4 to 10 years that will continue to become self-evident opening up an opportunity for a party that really is progressive and clearly different from the others.

Trudeau Liberals did make both of those issues during the election by using occupy language of the 1% and highlighting lack of action on climate change as the barrier to oil sands development. The Liberals approach to the problems will be to use Keynesian economics and begin to deal with climate change but nothing like "The Leap" we could take that would dramatically improve people's lives.

The NDP has moved to the centre because of our FPTP plurality voting system. If the NDP moves strongly leftward, they will likely be condemned to continue losing and being underrepresented in FPTP elections. Under FPTP, the NDP's goal has to be supplanting or merging with the Liberals and maybe also the Greens.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Most importantly, the members, the constitution, the party policy, should be ignored. Because all that matters is the touch and feel of the dictator.

What utter contempt for any notion of rank-and-file democracy.

Where is the contempt?

The contempt is in endlessly raving about the leader, the leader's flaws, gifts, style, substance, real beliefs, pretend beliefs, need to be dumped, etc. - the underlying (and too often overt) presumption being that the leader runs the party, and if we don't like the way the leader runs the party, we should get us a new leader.

Even in this thread, babblers are misunderstanding me by saying, "well, if the members want a different leader, they should change leaders".

So, the members - like Canadian citizens - have their power of control and expression reduced to some vote every few years as to who should "lead".

That's contempt for rank-and-file democracy. It's the negation of democracy. The members' voice and power must be heard and felt every day. Yet the NDP - like the Liberals and Conservatives - are run by cliques that make decisions in secret and say and do whatever they please. They are accountable to no one - as the unilateral deletion of the convention-voted NDP policy book by unknown string-pullers demonstrated in September.

If you believe that Canadians' (apparent) right to vote every four years, resulting in a Prime Minister who makes all the decisions, constitutes respect for rank-and-file democracy in Canadian society - then I'll understand if you believe the same for the NDP and the other parties. Permit me to disagree.

http://www.ndp.ca/

The site has now been stripped. Even the platform is gone. All that is left is "about Tom Mulcair" and the current caucus.

I understand a bit better why the vote for marijuana legalization was blocked. The Liberals had a free vote on it, but the leader is not bound by policy resolutions. I think you mentioned in another post that in the NDP the leadership is bound by policy resolutions.

nicky

Pondering would have us think that the Liberals are "progressive" on Climate change. I dont remeber them saying much about it during the campaign. I do remember Justin calling David Suzuki's position on climate change "sanctimonious crap." 

nicky

Pondering would have us think that the Liberals are "progressive" on Climate change. I dont remeber them saying much about it during the campaign. I do remember Justin calling David Suzuki's position on climate change "sanctimonious crap." 

Pondering

nicky wrote:

Pondering would have us think that the Liberals are "progressive" on Climate change. I dont remeber them saying much about it during the campaign. I do remember Justin calling David Suzuki's position on climate change "sanctimonious crap." 

I agree they are not genuinely progressive on climate change but they will do enough to satisfy most people and to match whatever was in the NDP's platform on climate change targets. They are going to be as serious as they need to be to get instep with the rest of the world especially the U.S. They will be way better than Harper.

That means the NDP is going to have to be more decisively progressive on climate change. I say progressive not left because this issue transcends the boundries of left and right.

mark_alfred

wage zombie wrote:
Tom doesn't like the gender parity cabinet because if you add Trudeau, it's not a 15-15 split, it's a 15-16 split, and somehow we're expected to think that's a broken promise by a sexist leader.

Where has this been said?  From the statement the NDP gave on it I see only this regarding parity,

Quote:
Gender parity in Cabinet is a good first step and should be congratulated, but achieving fairness and equality for all Canadians is a long-term goal that requires hard work.

quizzical

i've been wondering where too. thanks for asking them to prove it.

Unionist

JKR wrote:

Paradoxically it would likely take a leader who believes in rank-and-file-democracy to reform the NDP's current structure enough to establish rank-and-file democracy that would limit the leaders domination of the party.

That would be true only if the members continue to sit back, donate, vote, do nothing, await orders.

But if that sad state continues, which noble individual Leader will say: "The members are happy to have no power, but I, true to my principles, will shatter the party's authoritarian structure and empower them, whether they like it or not!"

No.

And even if she tried - she would get nowhere - without the self-mobilization of the rank and file members themselves.

Conclusion: Unless the members take power, no one will hand it to them.

Quote:
As it is, the party leader has the power to limit the ability of the rank and file to determine the party's policies and more importantly its election platform.

In fact, at the risk of repeating myself, the constitution of the party gives no such powers to the leader. Have you read the constitution? Or is it just a feel-good decorative document that one can point to when some disgruntled member says, "why is no one listening to us?"

Your concluding paragraph - which is essentially "either find a new leader, or a new party", leaves out a third option: Take control of the party. Enforce the constitution. Make it democratic and transparent.

If the members aren't up to that task, they can change leaders, or parties, and still be told to sit down and shut up and donate.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I was just wondering when reading this thread which group of people are more blindly loyal to an organization that takes their money but never provides a suitable team product. Maple Leaf fans or NDP members.

If Mulcair drops the scripted mask he will show that he is a liberal. Prior to getting elected the party seemed to be incapable of independent research on the Middle East, corporate rights agreements or pot. Instead Terrific Tom wanted the people to trust that he would study the issues and come up with the best solution. I think people heard this '70's anthem when they listened to all those promises to study issues.

Of course I could be wrong and the public will in time come to see their mistake in electing a Liberal instead of a NDP/liberal government and rush to the party in a mass movement driven by Mulcair's charisma and progressive promises to study any issue once elected.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYMD_W_r3Fg

Caissa

It is very hard to recover from a lobotomy.

mark_alfred

Interesting article:  Canada Under Trudeau: Liberal Revival or Liberal Obamanation?

Quote:

Eventually, the fog of celebrity will dissipate and Canadians will wake up to a pounding election hangover: Canada’s new prime minister is a callow dilettante who lacks the political, economic or military expertise to think for himself, stand up to intense lobbying or lead the country with any degree of confidence. Such lack of qualification was in plain view throughout the campaign, but his fawning fans could not or would not see it.

Had the NDP run a more assertive, passionate campaign and gone after Trudeau for being a junior, milder version of Harper, Thomas Mulcair might now be at the head of a genuinely reformist government. Instead, the country is saddled with a government that, like Obama’s, is turning out to be little better than the one it replaced.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

As the old saying goes, Liberal Tory same old story. The NDP lost because they didn't offer an alternative just a different liberal vision of the country. One forged at the austerity table of the Quebec Liberal government. A greener version of the Quebec Liberals seemd to be what Tom was trying to offer the voters of Quebec and they didn't buy it. I doubt very much if a Mulcair government would have a different take on the Ukraine and it could be that Trudeau will actually be able to distance himself from Israel more than Tom would even try to.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Mark, I read your post. It is wonderful and bang on. I was afraid of Trudeamania and that is what happened just like it did for Junior's daddy. Canadains are truly immature voters.

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

Your concluding paragraph - which is essentially "either find a new leader, or a new party", leaves out a third option: Take control of the party. Enforce the constitution. Make it democratic and transparent.

Is this something you would participate in?

Debater

That article from Counter Punch is garbage, Mark.

It's the same type of deluded article that "progressive" websites like that often write.

They complain about Obama not being progressive enough and take shots at Trudeau, but they are too naive & foolish to realize that Obama & Trudeau are far more progressive than their Conservative/Republican predecessors and are the best possible options available at this point in time.

It would be nice if we could all live in a progressive utopia, but that's not going to happen anytime in the future except in a science fiction story.

Trudeau is probably the most progressive Prime Minister in a generation (since his father, in fact).  If that's not good enough for websites like that, they are really deluded.

And I guess they would have preferred McCain or Romney instead of Obama?

People who write articles like that are the same ones who gave the world George W. Bush in 2000 because they claimed there was no difference between Bush & Gore.

NDPP

re Krop

With respect to Ukraine, in fact the NDP went further than either the Tories or Liberals in calling for the DNR-LNR E Ukraine oblasts to be listed and declared to be 'terrorist organizations':

Federal Party Leaders Respond To UCC Election Questions

http://www.ucc.ca/2015/09/29/federal-party-leaders-repond-to-ucc-electio...

UCC: Does your party support listing the Luhansk 'People's Republic' and the Donetsk 'People's Republic as terrorist organizations?

NDP: 'We support listing the LPR and the DPR.'

The support of this ugly fascist US-backed criminal oligarchy and the almost total lack of opposition and criticism by Canadian progressives is an outrageous indication of wilful indifference and idiotic subservience to power. On this site far more supported the fascist putsch than bothered to take the trouble to educate themselves as to the true nature of the conflict. Shameful. Unforgiveable. No support for these people from this quarter whatsoever and lots for the Nazis and oligarchs that have now sucked the country almost dry. And the stupidity continues in the Middle East with our collaboration in monstrous geostrategic crimes that stagger the imagination. The NDP is a dungheap. Start something new, honest and hopeful. History demands it.

http://rabble.ca/comment/1542103#comment-1542103

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

That article from Counter Punch is garbage, Mark.

It's the same type of deluded article that "progressive" websites like that often write.

They complain about Obama not being progressive enough and take shots at Trudeau, but they are too naive & foolish to realize that Obama & Trudeau are far more progressive than their Conservative/Republican predecessors and are the best possible options available at this point in time.

It would be nice if we could all live in a progressive utopia, but that's not going to happen anytime in the future except in a science fiction story.

Trudeau is probably the most progressive Prime Minister in a generation (since his father, in fact).  If that's not good enough for websites like that, they are really deluded.

And I guess they would have preferred McCain or Romney instead of Obama?

People who write articles like that are the same ones who gave the world George W. Bush in 2000 because they claimed there was no difference between Bush & Gore.

I thought it was bang on Debater. Because you don't like the truth of the mesaage, doesn't mean the article is garbage. Trudeau is completely unqualifed in any way to  be Prime Minister. If his name was Smtih, he'd be selling used cars. Canadains made a TERRIBLE mistake!

ETA: If Trudeau were TRULY a "progressive', he'd make it clear he will not pass TPP. Its is a  corproate charter of rights. Truly progressive men do not pass trade bills like that. All the harm the TPP will do to Canadians Soverignty, Democracy, and the citizenry will be his legacy. Eventually he will be vilified as a light weiight who sold out Canaidans because he was not up to the job.

wage zombie

wage zombie wrote:
Tom doesn't like the gender parity cabinet because if you add Trudeau, it's not a 15-15 split, it's a 15-16 split, and somehow we're expected to think that's a broken promise by a sexist leader.

mark_alfred wrote:

Where has this been said?  From the statement the NDP gave on it I see only this regarding parity,

Quote:
Gender parity in Cabinet is a good first step and should be congratulated, but achieving fairness and equality for all Canadians is a long-term goal that requires hard work.

You are correct.  I thought Mulcair made a comment about the gender parity not being legitimatebut I guess not.  I have seen this complaint though, here on babble and elsewhere, and I guess I must have mixed up that Tom said it.

wage zombie

Peter Jullian brought up the 15-16 split and mentioned it wasn't true parity here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/peter-julian-on-the-new-liberal-cabinet-1....

quizzical

so you're believing the Liberal propaganda here too then.

wage zombie

No quizzical, I'm believing you, who railed for weeks about how there was no gender parity and five women on cabinet were being screwed.

quizzical

quizzical wrote:
so you're believing the Liberal propaganda here too then.

wage zombie it's a 6 min video clip

wage zombie

So what do you think then?  Is there gender parity?

Unionist

wage zombie wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Your concluding paragraph - which is essentially "either find a new leader, or a new party", leaves out a third option: Take control of the party. Enforce the constitution. Make it democratic and transparent.

Is this something you would participate in?

Absolutely. Of course. It's what I do every day in the union, and in various other movements. I oppose "leaders" who don't lead, but rather dictate policy. I oppose sectarianism ("this union/organization sucks, let's create a new one!"). I oppose the notion that the members must be loyal to the organization, rather than vice versa.

Don't you?

Would you participate?

Do you know anyone else who would?

 

wage zombie

Yeah, I'd definitely like to participate in that.  I know a few other people who would too.  I assume there must be people all over the country who feel that too, but I don't know how to rally these people into a critical mass.

JKR

Unionist wrote:

JKR wrote:

Paradoxically it would likely take a leader who believes in rank-and-file-democracy to reform the NDP's current structure enough to establish rank-and-file democracy that would limit the leaders domination of the party.

That would be true only if the members continue to sit back, donate, vote, do nothing, await orders.

But if that sad state continues, which noble individual Leader will say: "The members are happy to have no power, but I, true to my principles, will shatter the party's authoritarian structure and empower them, whether they like it or not!"

No.

And even if she tried - she would get nowhere - without the self-mobilization of the rank and file members themselves.

Conclusion: Unless the members take power, no one will hand it to them.

Quote:
As it is, the party leader has the power to limit the ability of the rank and file to determine the party's policies and more importantly its election platform.

In fact, at the risk of repeating myself, the constitution of the party gives no such powers to the leader. Have you read the constitution? Or is it just a feel-good decorative document that one can point to when some disgruntled member says, "why is no one listening to us?"

Your concluding paragraph - which is essentially "either find a new leader, or a new party", leaves out a third option: Take control of the party. Enforce the constitution. Make it democratic and transparent.

If the members aren't up to that task, they can change leaders, or parties, and still be told to sit down and shut up and donate.

I guess the question to be asked is: "why haven't NDP party members taken control of the party; enforced its constitution, and made it more democratic and transparent?"

I think part of the answer to this question is that most members of the NDP feel that the membership of the NDP is too far to the left of the general public to be able to establish an election platform that would be popular with the general public. Because of this, many members of the party feel the leadership of the party should have the ability to determine the general direction of the the election platform in order to win over the 37% of the voting public needed to win an FPTP election in today's political configuration. I think the priority for most NDP members is to see the party win power and in order to do that, most members feel the party has to be a "big tent party" because we are operating under FPTP. This is one of the main reasons I and many other members of the NDP support p.r. I think as long as we have FPTP, we will be stuck with two-party, top-down "big-tent" politics. I think we will need electoral reform to create political parties where the memberships have more control over their parties. So maybe the best way to reform the NDP is to support FairVoteCanada and p.r.?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

JKR wrote:

I think the priority for most NDP members is to see the party win power and in order to do that, most members feel the party has to be a "big tent party" because we are operating under FPTP.

 

You may be right and it is a sad state of affairs. It means that the NDP stands for nothing not even its members beliefs. What a joke the party has become. They are commitytred to trying to fool the elctoarate into thinking they are the liberals. I guess the electorate doesn't see the need for a second liberal party.

I don't work for the NDP anymore precisely because they refuse to talk about the issues and educate the voteers. The NDP leadership is afraid of the MSM and that is the fundamental problem. They refuse to engage in real debate and allow all issues to be framed from the pro-NATO, pro corporate trade deals and pro security lens biases of the MSM and other parties that they should be opposing. I've always thought sending people like Libby and Svend and Bill to Ottawa to speak truth to power was better than sending people to Ottawa to try and convince people the NDP is the new big tent liberal party.

Pages