NDP Youth Wing says Mulcair Has To Go

195 posts / 0 new
Last post
terrytowel
NDP Youth Wing says Mulcair Has To Go

===

Regions: 
terrytowel

NDP youth wing issues pre-convention anti-Mulcair letter

Ahead of the convention, the youth wing of the NDP is urging all young New Democrats to support “a new direction, and a new style of leadership.”

“One that starts from the bottom up, that reflects the concerns, and priorities of our membership and that includes youth at the centre of our party once again.”

“We argued against the legalization of marijuana, against the inclusion of other parties in debates, against our leader’s participation in a debate on women’s issues, and defended our non-position on hydraulic fracturing,” states the letter.

“Simply put, given what we were selling it’s no surprise that our peers were just not buying it. By the time thanksgiving had rolled around we were gasping for something inspiring, but nothing came, we were abandoned and forgotten,” it continued.

The young New Democrats wrote that they weren’t consulted or brought into the discussion when it came to the NDP’s platform or “the out-of-touch materials that we were asked to distribute on campuses.”

After campaigning for the youth vote on campuses and at other events, the letter says frustration grew on October 19th when their peers chose to vote for a different party.

“We feel the responsibility for a failure to inspire our generation to the polls rests squarely with the uninspired, and problematic platform that many of us were asked to champion.

For two years, the young NDP were tasked with drumming up support for “dropping interest on credit card fees” while other parties campaigned directly on issues that mattered to youth, the letter states.

“That’s why we think in the light of such a disastrous central campaign, that we need to take a hard look at renewing not only the campaign team, but the way which we run campaigns.”

The organization asserts that it’s time for the NDP to “boldly and unapologetically stake our ground as the party of the left.”

Finally, the youth said they are “too experienced, driven, and passionate about realizing a progressive future for Canada to be simply used as window dressing for promotional materials.”

“Our generation is about to inherit incredible political, environmental, and logistical challenges and we know we can’t bet our future on Liberal or Conservative governments to get it right.”

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/04/06/ndp-youth-wing-issues-pre-convention-anti...

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Ricochet has published an open letter from two young-ish NDP members arguing in favour of calling a leadership convention to replace Mulcair. Both Geoff Krauter, 30, and Miles Krauter, 28, have been involved in the NDP as students, riding association executive members, and candidates.

[url=https://ricochet.media/en/1066/ndp-renewal-should-include-a-change-at-th... renewal should include a change at the top]NDP renewal should include a change at the top[/url]

Quote:
"In advance of our biennial convention in Edmonton, NDP President Rebecca Blaikie has completed her report on the 2015 election. The report certainly contains a number of useful recommendations for our party on internal democracy and election strategy, which will be received and debated by the incoming party executive.

If the NDP is to remain relevant, however, and the disastrous result of 2015 not repeated, a wholesale change in our culture of leadership is necessary. Thus, we add our voices to those New Democrats urging a leadership convention as soon as possible."

...

As social democrats, we refuse to believe that incremental change and genuine socialism are mutually exclusive.

In the words of Tommy Douglas, “We should never, never be afraid or ashamed about dreams. The dreams won’t all come true; we won’t always make it; but where there is no vision a people perish. Where people have no dreams and no hopes and aspirations, life becomes dull and a meaningless wilderness.”

Although he campaigned on “Building the Canada of Our Dreams,” Mulcair's aspiration for the party to become “good economic managers” was hardly visionary.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I read the whole post, and it seemed well thought out, so I'm not trying to be a shitlord when I say that I'm wondering if this is actually what they meant to say:

Quote:
As social democrats, we refuse to believe that incremental change and genuine socialism are mutually exclusive.

Very small shifts from the status quo aren't exclusive of genuine socialism?  And then they go on to talk about dreams.  Typo?  Braino?  Or would a %1 increase in the capital gains tax be enough?

Unionist

terrytowel wrote:

NDP youth wing issues pre-convention anti-Mulcair letter

I actually see nothing particularly "anti-Mulcair" in the story other than the headline. Did the youth letter (which isn't reprinted for some strange reason) actually call for Mulcair to be replaced? Did it even mention Mulcair?

Quote:
For two years, the young NDP were tasked with drumming up support for “dropping interest on credit card fees” while other parties campaigned directly on issues that mattered to youth, the letter states.

Even stranger. The stupid "bank fees and credit card" campaign began [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/layton-says-canada-ndp-%E2%80%... Jack Layton[/url] - years before Mulcair became leader.

Looks to me as if the youth letter (if we are ever privileged to actually read the whole thing) attacks the entire discourse of the NDP over a period of years. Not Tom Mulcair. Unless they're just confused and think that this platform, which they wisely oppose, just came into being in the past "two years".

Something very strange going on here.

 

terrytowel

Youth wing co-chair Paula Krasiun-Winsel was on Power & Politics today and she said both their group (the Youth wing of the NDP) and ridings across the country did not get any resources whatsoever. That there was no youth or University/College campus strategy for the election. They were completely ignored.

Contrast that with the Liberals (Paula mentioned them specifically) and they had a strategy to engage as many young people as possible. Justin Trudeau two years before the election toured Universities and Colleges campuses across the country to engage students.

It's quite surpising the NDP chose to ignore the youth vote, which the Liberals and Trudeau saw as an untapped electorate.

But then again Young People traditionally don't vote, and has declined over the years. Maybe the NDP felt it would be a waste of time, and just focused on the electorate that did vote.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

You're literally the embodiment of the old criticism "what's his greatest fault?  That he cares.  He cares too much".

Unionist

Terrytowel.

You opened and named this thread.

Do you have any actual, like, indication that the "NDP youth wing says Mulcair has to go"??

If yes, please share it with us.

 

terrytowel

Unionist wrote:

Do you have any actual, like, indication that the "NDP youth wing says Mulcair has to go"??

The youth wing of the NDP is urging all young New Democrats to support “a new direction, and a new style of leadership.” To me they are saying he has to go.

Unionist

terrytowel wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Do you have any actual, like, indication that the "NDP youth wing says Mulcair has to go"??

The youth wing of the NDP is urging all young New Democrats to support “a new direction, and a new style of leadership.” To me they are saying he has to go.

Ok, that's what I thought. You do, of course, realize that they are attacking Jack Layton's 2011 election platform, right (see page 6 re credit card rates and bank fees)? So contrary to your theory, as is shared by most of the media and too many babblers, it's not all about the leader. Their entire letter calls for profound political and structural change for the NDP - and says nothing about who the leader should or shouldn't be. I like their approach far more than the "give us a new person to follow" call of Peggy Nash and some others.

Debater

According to Rosemary Barton & Althia Raj on Power & Politics today, the NDP Youth Wing is very critical of Tom Mulcair, and particularly didn't like the way the last NDP Campaign was run.

One of the co-chairs of the NDP Youth Wing was interviewed, but didn't give a definitive answer as to whether Mulcair should stay or go.

Peter Mansbridge comes on at about the 20 minute mark, and the NDP Youth Co-Chair comes on at around 24 Minutes.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2686412524

 

terrytowel

Quote:
For two years, the young NDP were tasked with drumming up support for “dropping interest on credit card fees” while other parties campaigned directly on issues that mattered to youth, the letter states.

To me they were referring to Mulcair, as he was leader at the time, when discussing the credit card fee issue

As early as 2013 Mulcair was asking questions in the House about high credit card fees

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2013/3/20/thomas-mulcair-2/

And in 2014 he went on a 'affordablity tour' to discuss “dropping interest on credit card fees”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-banks-high-credit-...

Unionist

terrytowel wrote:

To me they were referring to Mulcair, as he was leader at the time, when discussing the credit card fee issue

Are you absorbing what I said? This was a big election plank under Layton, and discussed and critiqued here on babble for years before Mulcair became leader. How about reacting to that fact. And how about reacting to the fact that they never mentioned Mulcair by name. Shy youth wing?

Unionist

Debater wrote:

According to Rosemary Barton & Althia Raj on Power & Politics today, the NDP Youth Wing is very critical of Tom Mulcair, and particularly didn't like the way the last NDP Campaign was run.

That's nice. But is there a quote from the youth wing saying they want Mulcair out?

Quote:
One of the co-chairs of the NDP Youth Wing was interviewed, but didn't give a definitive answer as to whether Mulcair should stay or go.

I see. So why is their call for an overhaul of many aspects of party functioning being vulgarized, trivialized, and reduced into an apparently false claim that they want Mulcair gone?

Let me suggest an answer.

Because people (like Peggy Nash and many others) who don't profoundly believe in a party being run by its members tend to adopt a cult of the Leader. All problems are created, or resolved, by changing the Leader. I don't believe this for one second. If the youth wing were to reduce the scope of their critique to "dump Mulcair", I will encourage them to grow up. So far, no need for that.

 

terrytowel

Unionist wrote:

Are you absorbing what I said? This was a big election plank under Layton, and discussed and critiqued here on babble for years before Mulcair became leader. How about reacting to that fact. And how about reacting to the fact that they never mentioned Mulcair by name. Shy youth wing?

Youth Wing said they had to promote the credit card fee for two years. If they were referring to Layton's time, 2009 - 2011 was Jack last two years as leader. I doubt any of the current youth wing members were in University at the time! Unless they were doing it in Junior High.

Unionist

terrytowel wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Are you absorbing what I said? This was a big election plank under Layton, and discussed and critiqued here on babble for years before Mulcair became leader. How about reacting to that fact. And how about reacting to the fact that they never mentioned Mulcair by name. Shy youth wing?

Youth Wing said they had to promote the credit card fee for two years. If they were referring to Layton's time, 2009 - 2011 was Jack last two years as leader. I doubt any of the current youth wing members were in University at the time! Unless they were doing it in Junior High.

Your thread title is factually false. Why do have a difficult time admitting that?

terrytowel

Unionist wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Are you absorbing what I said? This was a big election plank under Layton, and discussed and critiqued here on babble for years before Mulcair became leader. How about reacting to that fact. And how about reacting to the fact that they never mentioned Mulcair by name. Shy youth wing?

 

Youth Wing said they had to promote the credit card fee for two years. If they were referring to Layton's time, 2009 - 2011 was Jack last two years as leader. I doubt any of the current youth wing members were in University at the time! Unless they were doing it in Junior High.

Your thread title is factually false. Why do have a difficult time admitting that?

Answered at this post here

http://rabble.ca/comment/1563402#comment-1563402

You are deflecting from above Do you really think Jack would ask Junior High Scoolers to promote reducing credit card fees? It is quiite clear they are referring to Mulcair time as leader. As some of the Youth Wing members were probably not even members during Layton last two years as leader.

Unionist

terrytowel wrote:

Unionist wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Are you absorbing what I said? This was a big election plank under Layton, and discussed and critiqued here on babble for years before Mulcair became leader. How about reacting to that fact. And how about reacting to the fact that they never mentioned Mulcair by name. Shy youth wing?

Youth Wing said they had to promote the credit card fee for two years. If they were referring to Layton's time, 2009 - 2011 was Jack last two years as leader. I doubt any of the current youth wing members were in University at the time! Unless they were doing it in Junior High.

Your thread title is factually false. Why do have a difficult time admitting that?

You are deflecting from above Do you really think Jack would ask Junior High Scoolers to promote reducing credit card fees? It is quiite clear they are referring to Mulcair time as leader. As some of the Youth Wing members were probably not even members during Layton last two years as leader.

I haven't read their letter. Have you? Do you have a link please to their letter? Their actual letter?

Please don't make jokes about "deflecting". You said: "NDP Youth Wing says Mulcair has to go". That is false. They have not said that. Or at least, you haven't seen or heard them say that. So why not be more careful with the truth, and at least wait until the NDP Youth Wing, like, you know, says, "Mulcair has to go".

 

terrytowel

Unionist wrote:

Please don't make jokes about "deflecting". You said: "NDP Youth Wing says Mulcair has to go". That is false. They have not said that. Or at least, you haven't seen or heard them say that. So why not be more careful with the truth, and at least wait until the NDP Youth Wing, like, you know, says, "Mulcair has to go".

OK fair enough.

But I did make my points above. I truly think they were referring to Mulcair and not Layton in the letter. As most of the Youth Wing would of still been in Junior High when Layton was leader.

Debater

Here's what Rosemary Barton says in the show's introduction:

"The Youth Wing comes out against his leadership"

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2686412524

So, it appears that Rosemary Barton & Terry Towel both took this to mean the NDP Youth Wing came out against Mulcair.

Perhaps those exact words weren't used by the Youth Wing, but that is what people are reading from it.

(It's similar to the way people are reading Peggy Nash's piece).

quizzical

you're are stealing their voices terry towel. shame.

terrytowel

quizzical wrote:

you're are stealing their voices terry towel. shame.

Nothing to steal, they started it first.

quizzical

shame shame shame

Unionist

Debater wrote:

So, it appears that Rosemary Barton & Terry Towel both took this to mean the NDP Youth Wing came out against Mulcair.

Yes, it appears they both see Leaders - not movements, not members, not people, not grass roots. Leaders. And if it's not about the Leader, then it becomes too hard to analyze.

I spent many many posts during the NDP Beauty Contest 2011 Edition warning against and mocking the horrendous totalitarian notion that a Party is about its Leader, that the Leader decides policy, the Leader leads and the rabble follows.

Even the NDP Constitution is not so utterly shameless as to accord such a role to the "leader". I have no respect for those who willingly and gratuitously transform themselves into "followers". They will never change the world.

Quote:
Perhaps those exact words weren't used by the Youth Wing, but that is what people are reading from it.

"People" are reading? See above. I'm people. I'm paying attention to what they say, before putting words into their mouths.

wage zombie
Unionist

Thanks, wage zombie - and bravo to the Youth Wing for dealing with real concerns of the movement, rather than another useless diversionary exercise of "let's find a new Hero to lead us to salvation".

Debater

But a leader is necessary to help lead the movement, yes?

Where would the Sanders campaign in the United States be right now without Bernie Sanders?

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

I see. So why is their call for an overhaul of many aspects of party functioning being vulgarized, trivialized, and reduced into an apparently false claim that they want Mulcair gone?

Let me suggest an answer.

Because people (like Peggy Nash and many others) who don't profoundly believe in a party being run by its members tend to adopt a cult of the Leader. All problems are created, or resolved, by changing the Leader. I don't believe this for one second. If the youth wing were to reduce the scope of their critique to "dump Mulcair", I will encourage them to grow up. So far, no need for that.

The NDP is not run by its members. They do not decide policy under this leader. Those calling for Mulcair are not suggesting he is the sole problem. They are associating him with the move to the centre and saying he isn't the man to lead the NDP back to the left.

Everything Mulcair says proves them right. I saw him interviewed tonight. He is still channeling kindly old grandfather. He is still defending the platform. He is refusing to deal with the meat of the criticism. Instead of acknowledging that the party moved too far to the centre and neglected members he is pretending it never happened. That's the same as saying it's going to be business as usual and don't worry grandpa knows best. Everyone just has to calm down and grin all the time. He keeps smiling reassuringly no matter what the topic.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Unionist wrote:
Because people (like Peggy Nash and many others) who don't profoundly believe in a party being run by its members tend to adopt a cult of the Leader. All problems are created, or resolved, by changing the Leader. I don't believe this for one second. If the youth wing were to reduce the scope of their critique to "dump Mulcair", I will encourage them to grow up. So far, no need for that.

Mulcair is an authoritarian leader who has run the NDP as his own private fiefdom, despite having no authority to do so under the party's constitution. How do you propose that the membership would go about changing this state of affairs while Mulcair remains the leader?

I'm not saying that changing the leader fixes the problem. What i am saying is that keeping mulcair ensures that NOTHING changes.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I read the whole post, and it seemed well thought out, so I'm not trying to be a shitlord when I say that I'm wondering if this is actually what they meant to say:

Quote:
As social democrats, we refuse to believe that incremental change and genuine socialism are mutually exclusive.

Very small shifts from the status quo aren't exclusive of genuine socialism?  And then they go on to talk about dreams.  Typo?  Braino?  Or would a %1 increase in the capital gains tax be enough?

Incremental change is not the same as very small shifts from the status quo. For example, increasing corporate taxes 1% a year for 15 years would be incremental change but it would not be small.

terrytowel

wage zombie wrote:

The text does not reference Mulcair by name.

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/04/06/were-young-new-democrats-and-we-want-our-party-back/

Unionist wrote:

Thanks, wage zombie - and bravo to the Youth Wing for dealing with real concerns of the movement, rather than another useless diversionary exercise of "let's find a new Hero to lead us to salvation".

But again you are IGNORING the obvious. If they were speaking about Layton they would have been in Junoir High School at the time. If they were even members of the Youth Wing at all. Do you really think Layton would ask Junior High Schoolers to promote credit card fee?

terrytowel

Left Turn wrote:

Mulcair is an authoritarian leader who has run the NDP as his own private fiefdom, despite having no authority to do so under the party's constitution. How do you propose that the membership would go about changing this state of affairs while Mulcair remains the leader?

I'm not saying that changing the leader fixes the problem. What i am saying is that keeping mulcair ensures that NOTHING changes.

I remember during the election when we discusses several ex-NDP MPs who decided not to run or left the part and slammed Mulcair as a "authoritarian leader who has run the NDP as his own private fiefdom". Almost every single pro-NDPers DEFENDED him saying there was no evidence that he was an "authoritarian leader". Where are all those posters now saying that after this election?

quizzical

shame shame shame tt

josh

Youth shall be served.

R.E.Wood

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-youth-wing-expected-to-...

Quote:

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair appears poised to lose the support of the youth wing of his party whose members are being urged to vote for “a new style of leadership.”

Stefan Avlijas, secretary and acting policy director of the Young New Democrats, told The Globe and Mail he will be voting in favour of a leadership review at the party’s convention in Edmonton this weekend.

“I don’t have faith that Tom is able to carry out the sort of renewal that we actually need in order to be a viable, credible left-wing alternative going into 2019,” Mr. Avlijas said in an interview.

“I’m just not hearing it from our membership and from the youth that I talk to, there’s no one fired up.”

The youth wing, which includes NDP members 25 and under, will have about 50 delegates in Edmonton, Mr. Avlijas said. The organization will decide at its own convention on Thursday whether its members will vote in favour of a leadership review as a group.

 

 

terrytowel

Your bullying says more about you than moi. But keep it up as it affects your credibility on babble than mine.

terrytowel

quizzical wrote:

shame shame shame

Exactly, shame you like you stir up trouble on these boards. Your bullying says more about you than moi. But keep it up as it affects your credibility on babble than mine.

Slumberjack

I'm not in favour of a re-energized farce that could position itself around a new 'cult of the leader' in order to make another attempt to bamboozle the unsuspecting, in addition to those who prefer to be bamboozled.  So, down with the 'youth wing' of 30 year olds and their attempts to beguile progressive voters in this country with a new facade.  It is in this vein that Tom and the party fully deserve to have him stay on at the helm for another sailing.

terrytowel

But isn't part of the political process engaging young people by getting them civically engaged in the political process? The Liberals did just that and the results speak for themselves.

josh

terrytowel wrote:

But isn't part of the political process engaging young people by getting them civically engaged in the political process? The Liberals did just that and the results speak for themselves.

Apparently some only want young people who will sit down and not rock the boat.

Slumberjack

Seen but not heard?  Or is it, "that particular herd should not be seen, nor heard from?"

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

terrytowel wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

The text does not reference Mulcair by name.

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/04/06/were-young-new-democrats-and-we-want-our-party-back/

Unionist wrote:

Thanks, wage zombie - and bravo to the Youth Wing for dealing with real concerns of the movement, rather than another useless diversionary exercise of "let's find a new Hero to lead us to salvation".

But again you are IGNORING the obvious. If they were speaking about Layton they would have been in Junoir High School at the time. If they were even members of the Youth Wing at all. Do you really think Layton would ask Junior High Schoolers to promote credit card fee?

The age to belong to the NDP youth is 25 and under. But don't let a little thing like the facts get in the way of one of your illogical arguments. In 2011 the NDP youth who could vote in 2016 were between 14 and 21 and that is the main demographic of the youth wing. Junior high school students are between 14 and 16. Did you just forget about the 16 to 21 year olds or what?

 

terrytowel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 In 2011 the NDP youth who could vote in 2016 were between 14 and 21 and that is the main demographic of the youth wing. Junior high school students are between 14 and 16. Did you just forget about the 16 to 21 year olds or what?

So according to your own words do you really think Jack Layton would ask 14 to 16 (or even students at 17 yrs of age) year olds to advocate reducing credit cards fees in thier high schools? If you are talking about 21 year olds, they would have aged out of the Youth Wing by now. 

Debater

I wonder if we are seeing the impact of Bernie Sanders on the NDP?

Even Peter Mansbridge asked Tom Mulcair about Bernie Sanders in his CBC interview last night.

jjuares

Debater wrote:

I wonder if we are seeing the impact of Bernie Sanders on the NDP?

Even Peter Mansbridge asked Tom Mulcair about Bernie Sanders in his CBC interview last night.


Yup

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Health care must be recognized as a right, not a privilege. Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the health care they need regardless of their income. The only long-term solution to America's health care crisis is a single-payer national health care program.

Mulcair opposes this kind of straightforward wisdom at his own peril.

Support single-payer health care for Canadians, Tom!!!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

terrytowel wrote:

So according to your own words do you really think Jack Layton would ask 14 to 16 (or even students at 17 yrs of age) year olds to advocate reducing credit cards fees in thier high schools? If you are talking about 21 year olds, they would have aged out of the Youth Wing by now. 

That was my point the age is 25 and less. Youth who were 18 to 21 in 2011 were still 25 or under during the last election. 18 or 19 is the age of first year university students not junior high students and that would be the cohort that would be involved with Jack's campaign.  It is also when most youth first get involved in politics if they are so inclined.

I don't really know what Jack would have thought and I am absolutely sure that you don't either so lets just stick to the facts and the fact is that many of the young people who are still in the NDP youth would have been seniors in high school or done with school or going to university or college when Jack was alive and going on and on and on about the stupid credit card issue.

Brian Glennie

If we want to replace Mulcair, I see three options.

Hire from within (Ashton, Cullen, Julian)

Hire from without (Nash, Dewar, Leslie)

Or go off the board with somebody new to Federal politics (like Jack was when he was elected leader)

If we want a new leader who currently holds a seat, we're getting someone who shares a very similar ideological profile with Tom. Like Jack before him (Libby Davis), Mulcair is a take-no-prisoners type guy (Tyrone Benskin)and what's the point in getting publically vilified for stepping out of line.

Nathan Cullen has been an NDP Member of Parliament since 2004. I say if we're going to roll the dice and move on from Tom, why not see what Nathan can do.

Debater

Nathan Cullen says he is focused on his family and isn't interested in running for the leadership again.

Paul Dewar told The Ottawa Citizen a few months ago that he isn't planning to go back into politics.

Peggy Nash & Megan Leslie are possibilities, but they would have to figure out how to run without a seat.  It's been done before, but it does make it a bit more awkward.

The idea of bringing in someone who has never been in the Federal Parliament is an interesting one.  Jack came from the Municipal scene and provided a different perspective.

To some extent that is what the Kevin O'Leary talk is about on the Conservative side.  Someone from outside the box.  I guess the NDP equivalent to O'Leary would be Avi Lewis or Naomi Klein.

Cody87

Our generation is about to inherit incredible political, environmental, and logistical challenges and we know we can’t bet our future on Liberal or Conservative governments to get it right.

 

Pondering - permalink this post and save it. Every time someone asks you why you care about the NDP despite supporting Trudeau/criticising the NDP, just link this. I know I will.

Brian Glennie

Nathan has a beautiful family. He wanted to lead us into the 2015 election and we chose Tom instead. Nathan could've taken a little of the shine off of Trudeau during the leader's debates. I think Cullen's available and he'll give you Liberals fits in 2019.

Pages

Topic locked