NDP Youth Wing says Mulcair Has To Go

195 posts / 0 new
Last post
terrytowel

pookie why would make fun of me?

swallow swallow's picture

Debater wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

I don't think Althia Raj is deliberately lying, but I do think she's making a faulty leap of logic by claiming that Paula Krasiun-Winsel (Co-chair of the NDP youth caucus) is speaking on behalf of the entire youth caucus when she says that mulcair needs to go.

Perhaps the Youth Wing should have been more clear in their original statements?

It's kind of confusing for journalists when these NDP delegates, former MPs, etc. keep calling for a change in leadership but then say they are undecided.

Rosemary Barton originally assumed the Youth Wing wanted Mulcair gone, too.

The problem here is in how the media addresses news, I'd say. 

The main media story on the NDP is who should be leader. Into this, a number of people, including the NDP youth, make the argument that what is really needed is to rethink how we understand leadership, to build a new style of leadership, less top-down and more democratic. 

Some reporters see this and, unable to look beyond the easy interpretation, interpret a call for rethinking leadership style into a call for a new leader. This happens, sure. Unconscious shaping of stories is common. Chomsky writes about it, for instance. It does not mean the reporters are bad or stupid, it means the media tends to reproduce existing thought and reinforce it with each repitition. 

These things happen. But should we then blame the NDP youth for not being clear enough? I read the media coverage, then, curious looked at the letter itself. The letter seemed clear to me in what it was saying. So where does the error lie? To me, only with those who insist on repeating the inaccurate interpretation once the original source, the NDP youth, clarified its intent. 

We need better media studies and better education of reporters and readers on how to read. We need better education about the difference between a primary source (the NDP youth, in this case) and a secondary source (the media reports, in this case). In moving towards greater media literacy and reading for meaning, we'd be moving towards more informed political debate - and against the dumbing-down and kneejerk sloganeering of the Harper years, and indeed of the past century of North American political party tactics. 

Unionist

swallow wrote:

The main media story on the NDP is who should be leader.

Correct. That's one problem. Most people in the media are not noted for their analytical acumen (Rosemary Barton, Althia Raj) - and I'm naming them only because they've been cited above and they got this story totally wrong. Their job is more commercial in nature. Combined with their inability to analyze politics is a powerful inducement to create sensationalist scandals with little basis in reality - such as:

The Daily Scandal Sheet wrote:
BREAKING NEWS: The NDP's very own Official Youth Wing has publicly proclaimed that Mulcair must go!!! Can you even believe that!!!???

It's factually false, always was. And how embarrassing to see terrytowel and Debater - each of whom is more knowledgeable and interested in political conversation than the Bartons and the Rajes and their ilk - resorting to: "Well listen, maybe you're technically right about the Youth Wing, but hey, even Barton and Raj believed this, so why shouldn't we??" It's not an argument worth engaging in. It's childish.

However, to tell the "whole truth": "who should be the leader?" seems to be the main preoccupation of many NDP members and supporters, including some in this thread.

And to tell the even wholer truth: same goes for many opponents of the NDP (including some in this thread).

"Who the leader is" should be of very little importance to those who want the party to return and stick to principles, support the movement, be a fertile ground for activism and debate, etc.

Québec solidaire has no "LEADER". It has two spokespersons. Neither one "runs" anything, neither one sets policy. And in fact, they don't necessarily get more press than others. Amir Khadir gets interviewed and quoted all the time, and he is no longer even an official "spokesperson". But he is, in a much more real sense, a leader - as is Françoise David (who also happens to be a spokesperson), and there are many others.

And one more thing: Calling terrytowel and Debater and Pondering "trolls" (which seems to be becoming an "accepted" insult around here) is offensive and unworthy and very likely false. I support their presence on this board. When they engage in subjects, or express opinions, that I find not worth answering, I don't answer. Try it.

And one final thing: Calling babblers "rabid NDP partisans" is offensive and dehumanizing. If you don't like someone's behaviour, that's fine, object to it, mildly, loudly, officially, whatever. But please don't paint members of our family as something other than people whose opinions you happen not to share.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Rabid NDP supporter, a wonderful quote from a person who is asking for less insults.

2. (of an animal) affected with rabies.synonyms:rabies-infected, mad, hydrophobic "a rabid dog"

I can't figure out why people insult Terry the Terrific since really all he wants is to do is poke his fingers in people's eyes for shits and giggles. Its not like he insults people when he compares them to a mad dog that is merely a term of endearment. Given that some of the posters he refers too are female so his words mean a mad female dog.

I actually think it is hilarious that you consider me an NDP partisan. Nicky and I often disagree about policy and politics and I certainly post a lot of posts that show disdain for the NDP not praise.

josh

Unionist, that begs the question, if there has to be a leader, who should that leader be. Apparently, today, the question is, should Mulcair be leader. Saying that there should be no leaders, or that leadership is overemphasized, doesn't answer that question.

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I actually think it is hilarious that you consider me an NDP partisan. Nicky and I often disagree about policy and politics and I certainly post a lot of posts that show disdain for the NDP not praise.

Are you referring to me? I never intended you in that list for one instant. I know very well what your political leanings are, and I consider you as much of an NDP "partisan" as I am. And you know how much I respect (and generally share) your stands.

If I misread your reference to "you", then I apologize.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist wrote:

And one more thing: Calling terrytowel and Debater and Pondering "trolls" (which seems to be becoming an "accepted" insult around here) is offensive and unworthy and very likely false. I support their presence on this board. When they engage in subjects, or express opinions, that I find not worth answering, I don't answer. Try it.

I think that Debater is a positive presence on this board while I think Terry Terrific deliberately engages in mischievous antagonism. If you look back at his posts it seems clear he comes here to poke at NDP supporters for shits and giggles so I will admit to giving him a rough ride because frankly there are very few places on the internet that are not dominated by Liberal partisans like Terry Terrific. I want to be able to engage the NDP partisans on this board over progressive issues not debate how the assholes in the MSM portray the NDP. The threads TTerrific opens almost allways try to use the worst of our sycophantic pundits as truthsayers when in fact anyone on the left sees them clearly for what they are.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I actually think it is hilarious that you consider me an NDP partisan. Nicky and I often disagree about policy and politics and I certainly post a lot of posts that show disdain for the NDP not praise.

Are you referring to me? I never intended you in that list for one instant. I know very well what your political leanings are, and I consider you as much of an NDP "partisan" as I am. And you know how much I respect (and generally share) your stands.

If I misread your reference to "you", then I apologize.

Sorry for the confusion. I was not referring to you I was referring to TTerrific's post that named me personally in his post that included the term rabid NDP partisan.

Unionist

josh wrote:
Unionist, that begs the question, if there has to be a leader, who should that leader be. Apparently, today, the question is, should Mulcair be leader. Saying that there should be no leaders, or that leadership is overemphasized, doesn't answer that question.

I'll try to be respectful. That's sophistry, josh. The debate over "who should be leader" didn't start on the Sunday when the leadership review issue is being debated. The noise has been going on forever.

My view, expressed for years, is that the leadership issue is "overemphasized", and the fact that we have a few dozen threads dealing more or less directly with it should be given some weight as evidence for that. And my main view is that overemphasizing the Leader issue disenfranchises the members and supporters, turns the organization into a dictatorship and a marketing/branding agency, and is toxic to progressive politics. I don't mean there shouldn't be leaders. There are leaders (see my example of Khadir above). I mean that this equation must be consciously, carefully, and deliberately erased:

THE PARTY = ITS LEADER

So let me take a stab at a hypothetical analogy:

For months before a convention, social media and MSM media outlets are buzzing with this question: "WHAT SHOULD BE THE NEW NAME OF THE PARTY??" Almost all other discussion gets squeezed out.

A few lone voices say, "Isn't it at best diversionary, and at worst toxic, to have this question monopolize the conversation?"

And the reply comes: "Ok, I understand - but we need a name, so what do you think it should be??"

Ok, josh. If I need to pick a "leader" (and I don't want to feed this diversion, but I will for one moment), I pick Svend Robinson.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I agree with you Unionist. When I was actively involved in the federal NDP our riding and its sitting MP opposed Jack's move to the cult of the leader. We insisted on no more than one or two pictures of Jack in the campaign office and we never put up signs that said Jack Layton in our riding. We received boxes and boxes of that kind of shit and we recycled it all. We were trying to elect an MP to parliament not a trained seal.

I was extremely impressed with the caliber of left wing voices elected in 2011 in Quebec and became increasingly disillusioned as I realized that they would not be allowed to speak about the issues that prior to being elected had been their focus. I believe more than anything else this is why they lost their seats. If they had been true to their principles and allowed to speak about them they would have provided a reason to vote for them. Instead the choice was between Liberal hacks and NDP hacks whose leader sounded like the Quebec Liberal that he was.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist wrote:

Ok, josh. If I need to pick a "leader" (and I don't want to feed this diversion, but I will for one moment), I pick Svend Robinson.

I would not agree although I would support Bill Siksay in a heartbeat. Bill is not a great speaker but he demonstrated his worth when he alone stood against Charter breaching Criminal Code amendments. He is also a very humble man so he would never run.

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I agree with you Unionist. When I was actively involved in the federal NDP our riding and its sitting MP opposed Jack's move to the cult of the leader. We insisted on no more than one or two pictures of Jack in the campaign office and we never put up signs that said Jack Layton in our riding. We received boxes and boxes of that kind of shit and we recycled it all. We were trying to elect an MP to parliament not a trained seal.

I was extremely impressed with the caliber of left wing voices elected in 2011 in Quebec and became increasingly disillusioned as I realized that they would not be allowed to speak about the issues that prior to being elected had been their focus. I believe more than anything else this is why they lost their seats. If they had been true to their principles and allowed to speak about them they would have provided a reason to vote for them. Instead the choice was between Liberal hacks and NDP hacks whose leader sounded like the Quebec Liberal that he was.

I agree with all of the above - except that we shouldn't overlook the "strategic" aspect that caused many Québecers who had voted NDP in 2011 to shift this time. But you're very right - if some of these young newbies had been "allowed" to publicly participate and speak about the social tidal waves sweeping Québec from 2012 on (the student movement, anti-austerity, etc.), we might well have seen more of them re-elected.

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Ok, josh. If I need to pick a "leader" (and I don't want to feed this diversion, but I will for one moment), I pick Svend Robinson.

I would not agree although I would support Bill Siksay in a heartbeat. Bill is not a great speaker but he demonstrated his worth when he alone stood against Charter breaching Criminal Code amendments. He is also a very humble man so he would never run.

Actually, I'll support your choice of Siksay as well, although I obviously don't know him as well as you do. One of the reasons I picked Svend (who, like Bill, was victimized by the party for not abandoning principle) is that I know damn well he'll never run!

SeekingAPolitic...

I listened to the speech WOW.  I totally understand the beef the youth wing has with Mulcair.  He no is Bernie their was nothing about a the youth expect a couple throw away lines.  I hope I am not attacked as being guilty of ageism but the speech was centered to middle age and seniors issues.  I was wishing for a more generational balance in the speech. You would think he would say something about of subsatance in regards to the youth but very little came out.  I think the most promising thing he said was the party will opened to the public.  Vice nice but followup in regards to what that means again was not forthcoming.

terrytowel

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I will admit to giving him a rough ride because frankly there are very few places on the internet that are not dominated by Liberal partisans like Terry Terrific.

OK I'll give you a gift, If you want me to leave just say the word. Say Go and never come back. And I will leave this board forever.

No questions, no debates, no whining. Just say the word and I will never come back and post here again.

You have all the power to decide my fate here at rabble. Just say the word.

It is all in your hands kropotkin1951

terrytowel

==

Debater

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I agree with you Unionist. When I was actively involved in the federal NDP our riding and its sitting MP opposed Jack's move to the cult of the leader. We insisted on no more than one or two pictures of Jack in the campaign office and we never put up signs that said Jack Layton in our riding. We received boxes and boxes of that kind of shit and we recycled it all. We were trying to elect an MP to parliament not a trained seal.

I was extremely impressed with the caliber of left wing voices elected in 2011 in Quebec and became increasingly disillusioned as I realized that they would not be allowed to speak about the issues that prior to being elected had been their focus. I believe more than anything else this is why they lost their seats. If they had been true to their principles and allowed to speak about them they would have provided a reason to vote for them. Instead the choice was between Liberal hacks and NDP hacks whose leader sounded like the Quebec Liberal that he was.

I agree with all of the above - except that we shouldn't overlook the "strategic" aspect that caused many Québecers who had voted NDP in 2011 to shift this time. But you're very right - if some of these young newbies had been "allowed" to publicly participate and speak about the social tidal waves sweeping Québec from 2012 on (the student movement, anti-austerity, etc.), we might well have seen more of them re-elected.

Good point.

Chantal Hébert made this same point recently.

She said that under Mulcair's leadership, the Québec NDP MP's were not really allowed to participate in the debates taking place in Québec over the past several years, such as the student protests and other demonstrations and movements taking place.

terrytowel

Debater I think I shoudl banish myself from rabble because of kropotkin1951 comments http://rabble.ca/comment/1564088#comment-1564088

What do you think?

Unionist

terrytowel wrote:

You have all the power to decide my fate here at rabble. Just say the word.

It is all in your hands kropotkin1951

Sorry, terrytowel. I get a vote too. I've encouraged you before to stay here. You're a member of this community and an active participant. Even if you (like everyone) gets stepped on from time to time, and frustrates others at other times.

So just stay, and let's get back to the substantive issues.

Please.

 

terrytowel

Unionist wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

You have all the power to decide my fate here at rabble. Just say the word.

It is all in your hands kropotkin1951

Sorry, terrytowel. I get a vote too. I've encouraged you before to stay here. You're a member of this community and an active participant. Even if you (like everyone) gets stepped on from time to time, and frustrates others at other times.

So just stay, and let's get back to the substantive issues.

Please.

 

Yes but if you read the comments by kropotkin1951 he says he DELIBERATELY gives me a hard ride. Why should I be a scapegoat for kropotkin1951? Seems like he feels life would be better on this board without me.

I thought we are here to talk and debate policy, not  take things out on other people like kropotkin1951 has admitted he does to me.

Unionist

Ok, I'm repeating my reply to josh, as part of trying to get back to more substantive discussion. And I've snipped out my last line about Svend, because that inadvertently became the focus of discussion.

Unionist wrote:

josh wrote:
Unionist, that begs the question, if there has to be a leader, who should that leader be. Apparently, today, the question is, should Mulcair be leader. Saying that there should be no leaders, or that leadership is overemphasized, doesn't answer that question.

I'll try to be respectful. That's sophistry, josh. The debate over "who should be leader" didn't start on the Sunday when the leadership review issue is being debated. The noise has been going on forever.

My view, expressed for years, is that the leadership issue is "overemphasized", and the fact that we have a few dozen threads dealing more or less directly with it should be given some weight as evidence for that. And my main view is that overemphasizing the Leader issue disenfranchises the members and supporters, turns the organization into a dictatorship and a marketing/branding agency, and is toxic to progressive politics. I don't mean there shouldn't be leaders. There are leaders (see my example of Khadir above). I mean that this equation must be consciously, carefully, and deliberately erased:

THE PARTY = ITS LEADER

So let me take a stab at a hypothetical analogy:

For months before a convention, social media and MSM media outlets are buzzing with this question: "WHAT SHOULD BE THE NEW NAME OF THE PARTY??" Almost all other discussion gets squeezed out.

A few lone voices say, "Isn't it at best diversionary, and at worst toxic, to have this question monopolize the conversation?"

And the reply comes: "Ok, I understand - but we need a name, so what do you think it should be??"

<SNIP>

Debater

terrytowel wrote:

Debater I think I shoudl banish myself from rabble because of kropotkin1951 comments http://rabble.ca/comment/1564088#comment-1564088

What do you think?

I think you can be a little mischevious sometimes. Wink

But I would probably miss you if you didn't come back. Frown

terrytowel

Debater wrote:

I think you can be a little mischevious sometimes. Wink

But I would probably miss you if you didn't come back. Frown

Well I'm not trying to be mischevious. However I am very eccentric in my real-life, so maybe that comes across the wrong way here. But I will let kropotkin1951 decide.

Debater

terrytowel wrote:

Debater wrote:

I think you can be a little mischevious sometimes. Wink

But I would probably miss you if you didn't come back. Frown

Well I'm not trying to be mischevious. However I am very eccentric in my real-life, so maybe that comes across the wrong way here. But I will let kropotkin1951 decide.

You're probably not the only eccentric person here.

I can be rather eccentric myself sometimes.

Why leave your decision up to one poster?

Debater

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I agree with you Unionist. When I was actively involved in the federal NDP our riding and its sitting MP opposed Jack's move to the cult of the leader. We insisted on no more than one or two pictures of Jack in the campaign office and we never put up signs that said Jack Layton in our riding. We received boxes and boxes of that kind of shit and we recycled it all. We were trying to elect an MP to parliament not a trained seal.

I was extremely impressed with the caliber of left wing voices elected in 2011 in Quebec and became increasingly disillusioned as I realized that they would not be allowed to speak about the issues that prior to being elected had been their focus. I believe more than anything else this is why they lost their seats. If they had been true to their principles and allowed to speak about them they would have provided a reason to vote for them. Instead the choice was between Liberal hacks and NDP hacks whose leader sounded like the Quebec Liberal that he was.

I agree with all of the above - except that we shouldn't overlook the "strategic" aspect that caused many Québecers who had voted NDP in 2011 to shift this time. But you're very right - if some of these young newbies had been "allowed" to publicly participate and speak about the social tidal waves sweeping Québec from 2012 on (the student movement, anti-austerity, etc.), we might well have seen more of them re-elected.

Here's what Chantal Hébert wrote about Québec earlier this year:

-

For all of Mulcair’s strengths, the NDP — on his watch — has remained a bit player in his home province. Justin Trudeau’s current post-election honeymoon is an aggravating factor but not the root cause of the situation.

The party’s self-imposed discretion in the face of most of the debates that have been central to Quebec politics over the past five years is largely responsible for its low profile.

Under Mulcair, the NDP steered clear of the 2012 Maple Spring and the social unrest that attended it.

The party kept as much distance as possible from the debate over the Parti Québécois’ controversial securalism charter.

The New Democrats contributed little to the prolonged conversation that led to the introduction of medically assisted suicide in the province’s end-of-life care protocol, and it remained on the sidelines of the pipeline issue.

Even as the party was making a national child-care plan modelled on the Quebec example a central plank of its federal platform, it looked the other way as Philippe Couillard’s government clipped the wings of the popular program.

-

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1334981-h%C3%A9bert-no-compelling-c...

terrytowel

Debater wrote:

Why leave your decision up to one poster?

Because as kropotkin1951 says

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I will admit to giving him a rough ride because frankly there are very few places on the internet that are not dominated by Liberal partisans like Terry Terrific. I want to be able to engage the NDP partisans on this board over progressive issues not debate how the assholes in the MSM portray the NDP. The threads TTerrific opens almost allways try to use the worst of our sycophantic pundits as truthsayers when in fact anyone on the left sees them clearly for what they are.

So if he doesn't want that, all he has to do is say the word I'll be gone forever.

SeekingAPolitic...

I think there is enough room for multi points of view on rabble.  All this talk for banishment is counterproductive, we are all adults here so I assume we can take some flak from others(Some people take more flak than others).  I don't have the time to go through every post to keep up on all the personal fueds. Lets be civil to each other, we are already small minority in the population.  We care about politics and we want to discuss the issues in intellgent and thoughtful way.  We want to encourage this discussion rather than personally destroy each other. 

terrytowel

With only 48% approval of Tom remaining as leader, it is clear the title of this thread is correct.

I expect nothing less than an apology from quizzical, nicky and swallow for calling me a liar

I expect a full apology from kropotkin1951 for calling me both a troll and a liar,

At 48% it is clear and there is NO dispute that the Youth Wing wanted Mulcair out.

nicky

Im not in the habit of apologizing to whiny mendacious trolls.
After you look up mendacious in the dictionary you can flag me again

terrytowel

nicky wrote:
Im not in the habit of apologizing to whiny mendacious trolls. After you look up mendacious in the dictionary you can flag me again

Above post flagged as a personal attack and using oppresive language

pookie

terrytowel wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I will admit to giving him a rough ride because frankly there are very few places on the internet that are not dominated by Liberal partisans like Terry Terrific.

OK I'll give you a gift, If you want me to leave just say the word. Say Go and never come back. And I will leave this board forever.

No questions, no debates, no whining. Just say the word and I will never come back and post here again.

You have all the power to decide my fate here at rabble. Just say the word.

It is all in your hands kropotkin1951

What a piece of work.

You are embarrassingly transparent, TT.

terrytowel

pookie wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I will admit to giving him a rough ride because frankly there are very few places on the internet that are not dominated by Liberal partisans like Terry Terrific.

OK I'll give you a gift, If you want me to leave just say the word. Say Go and never come back. And I will leave this board forever.

No questions, no debates, no whining. Just say the word and I will never come back and post here again.

You have all the power to decide my fate here at rabble. Just say the word.

It is all in your hands kropotkin1951

What a piece of work.

You are embarrassingly transparent, TT.

So do you want me to leave pookie?

swallow swallow's picture

Terry: you shoudl do what you want, honestly. I'd like you to stay, but stop trying to make things all about yourself. 

So, with Mulcair gone, I wonder if there's more chance for a "new style of leadership" - a far more important issue than who gets to wear the special Leader hat. 

terrytowel

swallow wrote:

Terry: you shoudl do what you want, honestly. I'd like you to stay, but stop trying to make things all about yourself. 

With only 48% approval of Tom remaining as leader, it is clear the title of this thread is correct.

I expect nothing less than an apology from swallow for calling me a liar

swallow swallow's picture

You can read past posts from me and many others on that above, Terry. The thread title would be incorrect even if Muclair had received 0% support, as you were told by many people starting in post #4. and for reasons we have all wasted too much time on already. I post here only to say I will not respond to any more posts from you on this thread. Happy to continue speaking with others, of course, and especially on how political parties might seek to move away from the leader cult and towards the sort of new styles and understandings of "leadership" that the NDP youth letter referenced. 

terrytowel

Well at least you are consistent swallow. Accuse someone of lying, then don't apologize for being proven wrong.

Debater

It does appear as if the Youth Wing voted against Mulcair, although it's hard to know what their exact position was, because they didn't make it very clear.

terrytowel

Debater wrote:

It does appear as if the Youth Wing voted against Mulcair, although it's hard to know what their exact position was, because they didn't make it very clear.

Exactly which is why this title thread is quite accurate. 52% means Mulcair is out, so once and for all the title of thsi thread is accurate. There is no dispute.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Debater wrote:

It does appear as if the Youth Wing voted against Mulcair, although it's hard to know what their exact position was, because they didn't make it very clear.

Is that deduction based simply on the fact that if more than half the delegates rejected his leadership then that would have to include the majority of the youth at convention? I would agree it is highly improbable that Mulcair got a higher percentage of the youth vote than he got of the overall vote.

terrytowel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Is that deduction based simply on the fact that if more than half the delegates rejected his leadership then that would have to include the majority of the youth at convention? I would agree it is highly improbable that Mulcair got a higher percentage of the youth vote than he got of the overall vote.

Which means the title of this thread is correct. End of story

Unionist

swallow wrote:

So, with Mulcair gone, I wonder if there's more chance for a "new style of leadership" - a far more important issue than who gets to wear the special Leader hat. 

I've suggested a conversation [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-should-consider-collective... about a "new style of leadership" - a collective style. I'm sick and tired of the one-person dictator model. And I'm sick and tired of the infantile mudslinging in this thread. Let's leave, shall we?

swallow swallow's picture

Good idea.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Allow me to present the next Prime Ministers of Canada:

[IMG]http://i63.tinypic.com/2zgyr1g.jpg[/IMG]

MegB

I too am fed up with the partisan mudslinging in this thread, so I'm closing it.

Pages

Topic locked