Tom Mulcair's leadership review 2016

180 posts / 0 new
Last post
Debater

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Debater wrote:
So Mulcair only got 48% in favour of his leadership?

Surprising.

Thought he would be higher.

Yeah, given how hard it is to organize against an incumbent leader, often people may feel the need for a review but won't back it with their vote. That's why many leaders often step down with over 50% approval even though they have the math to stay on.

But an approval rating less than 50%? Wow. The NDP must have been really unhappy with Mulcair for that to happen. Is there any precedent in Canadian politics where a party leader earns less than a 50% approval rating?

Good point.

A political analyst said on Twitter this afternoon that this may be the lowest level of support a Canadian leader has received during a review.

Apparently the next-worst was Ralph Klein's 55% which caused him to step down.

Aristotleded24

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Unionist wrote:

pookie wrote:

Unionist wrote:
I wonder why he decided to stay on as leader? Any opinions?

Either he's in shock and made a snap decision, or he can't believe the party would survive him in the interim.

I think it's very ill-advised and I would be surprised if he actually stays in the role for long.

 

He met with his caucus for a few minutes after the vote was announced and before he spoke to convention. I'm guessing there was a consensus (whether real or feigned) that they didn't want to deal with an unknown interim leader for what is now (after the emergency resolution) potentially two years until a leadership race. But this is just speculation.

 

If we are speculating then I suggest that maybe the NDP is bad financial position and there is not enough money put together something credible.  I heard that donations a down, but I have no idea how far down.

On top of that, the NDP can't rely on the public vote subsidy any more as Jack was able to.

Unionist

Sorry, I missed something: What's the cost of Mulcair quitting today and naming an interim leader?

terrytowel

No joke. Former NDP MP Ryan Cleary just said he would be open to running for leader "I got nothing better to do"

https://twitter.com/edhollett/status/719243103631187970

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Curious question:  is Tom eligible to run for leader again?

Unionist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Curious question:  is Tom eligible to run for leader again?

Of course he is.

Debater

terrytowel wrote:

No joke. Former NDP MP Ryan Cleary just said he would be open to running for leader "I got nothing better to do"

https://twitter.com/edhollett/status/719243103631187970

Perhaps Cleary is joking.

He knows most NDP voters would not be happy with him after he converted to the PC's the day after the October election.

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Curious question:  is Tom eligible to run for leader again?

I think he would have to change his name first :b

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Unionist wrote:
I wonder why he decided to stay on as leader? Any opinions?

If we are speculating then I suggest that maybe the NDP is bad financial position and there is not enough money put together something credible.  I heard that donations a down, but I have no idea how far down.

On top of that, the NDP can't rely on the public vote subsidy any more as Jack was able to.

Just to reiterate:

If Mulcair steps down, there's no cost I can imagine to just naming an interim leader.

Bob Rae was interim leader of the Liberal Party for almost two years.

How do finances figure in this decision??

SeekingAPolitic...

Unionist wrote:

Sorry, I missed something: What's the cost of Mulcair quitting today and naming an interim leader?

I was thinking more about 2 year wait rather the interim leader thing. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think he would have to change his name first :b

"Vote Jack Mulcair in 2018!"

Unionist

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sorry, I missed something: What's the cost of Mulcair quitting today and naming an interim leader?

I was thinking more about 2 year wait rather the interim leader thing. 

I don't understand your answer. Whether Mulcair remains or an interim leader is named, how does that affect the "2 year wait"? (Actually, it's a 2-year maximum.)

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I think he would have to change his name first :b

"Vote Jack Mulcair in 2018!"

LOL

josh

Unionist wrote:
I wonder why he decided to stay on as leader? Any opinions?

May not be the final word

NorthReport

Unionist
How will this non-confidence vote in Mulcair's leadership be perceived in Quebec?

SeekingAPolitic...

I think that the decision to wait 24 months can be based in some part of the money issues.  I retract my comment about money issues are part of the reason for the interm leader vs mulcair. 

terrytowel

Unionist wrote:

Just to reiterate:

If Mulcair steps down, there's no cost I can imagine to just naming an interim leader.

Bob Rae was interim leader of the Liberal Party for almost two years.

How do finances figure in this decision??

The cost is only to Mulcair which may explain why he wants to stay as leader. As leader of a recognized party in the HOC he receives the same pay as a cabinet minister makes. He gets an extra $78,300 on top of his MP salary. Plus a car and driver.

If he steps down he only gets the MP salary and no car and driver.

As leader of the Green Party Elizabeth May doesn't get the salary to-up because the Green Party doesn't have official party status in HOC.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

In a weird way, I was kind of happy to see that, if the delegates didn't support Mulcair, they did so with a very unambiguous vote.  If he'd received exactly 70.0% support I wouldn't looking forward to as many as two full years of debate over whether 70% is enough, or "real" support actually begins at 71%.

On the other hand, now I kind of wish he'd stepped down, because now we're going to enjoy as many as two full years of debate over whether he should have or should not have.

Anyhoo, members who intend to tear up their membership card are reminded that the pieces can go in the blue bin -- please think of the planet.

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:
Unionist How will this non-confidence vote in Mulcair's leadership be perceived in Quebec?

I don't really know. Tom Mulcair is well-liked in Québec, but that doesn't translate into votes when people here have bigger fish to fry (like, getting rid of Harper). I think some troublemakers here (like, hardened Bloc supporters) might try to suggest that the 48% vote represents the victory of Alberta over Québec. But rather than speculate, I'll wait and see.

How do you think this will play in B.C.?

Debater

Tom Mulcair's biggest weakness also his greatest strength: bringing NDP to mainstream

Quest for power may have alienated traditional left-wing core of party

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-leadership-mulcair-politics-1.3527224

NorthReport

There may be a bit of excitment because of the Nathan Cullen leadership possibility but I think it is irrelevant as I don't see much of a future for the BC NDP. My hunch is that the BC NDP will probably lose about 10 more seats than they presently have in the 2017 election. Unfortunately they are a spent force both federally and provincally.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/site+labour+problem/11842037/story.html

Aristotleded24

Mulcair staying on right now is a moot point anyways. The members have spoken, there will be a leadership review, whether months or years from now. It's not like what we saw in Manitoba where the NDP brass had the capability to block a fair challenge to Selinger's leadership every step of the way.

Aristotleded24

NorthReport wrote:
I don't see much of a future for the BC NDP. My hunch is that the BC NDP will probably lose about 10 more seats than they presently have in the 2017 election. Unfortunately they are a spent force both federally and provincally.

I'm starting to feel that malaise about the NDP in my home province of Manitoba. Kind of ironic since many in the party wanted to look to the successes in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan to see how a party should be run. Now look at where the NDP either is or is currently heading in all 4 provinces.

Debater

NorthReport wrote:

There may be a bit of excitment because of the Nathan Cullen leadership possibility but I think it is irrelevant as I don't see much of a future for the BC NDP. My hunch is that the BC NDP will probably lose about 10 more seats than they presently have in the 2017 election. Unfortunately they are a spent force both federally and provincally.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/site+labour+problem/11842037/story.html

The NDP is still strong in BC federally.

The NDP finished 2nd in seats in BC to the Liberals last October with 14 seats.

Perhaps that will change in the next Federal election, but for now it appears the NDP has strong representation from BC.

quizzical

Unionist wrote:
NorthReport wrote:
Unionist How will this non-confidence vote in Mulcair's leadership be perceived in Quebec?

I don't really know. Tom Mulcair is well-liked in Québec, but that doesn't translate into votes when people here have bigger fish to fry (like, getting rid of Harper). I think some troublemakers here (like, hardened Bloc supporters) might try to suggest that the 48% vote represents the victory of Alberta over Québec. But rather than speculate, I'll wait and see.

How do you think this will play in B.C.?

not well.

jjuares

Debater wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

The other day when they had the election review part of the convention. Where delegates got to vent their frustration at party officials about what went wrong. Only half the delegates showed up. The hall was half empty.

What the hell are you talking about?

Terry Towel is correct about this.

There was a lacklustre response to the NDP Election Review panel at the Convention on Friday.

John Geddes wrote about it in Maclean's.

I'll try to find the piece.


Again more media bullshit. First there were other very heated party affairs forums where things got very heated. These were in addition to Friday night. Secondly there have been electronic townhall about this and meetings with Mulcair etc before the convention. To imply that people were apathetic about this because for one forum on one night people were apathetic is such a distortion of reality. Shameful really that you vomit such inaccurate nonsense onto this site.

terrytowel

jjuares wrote:
Again more media bullshit. First there were other very heated party affairs forums where things got very heated. These were in addition to Friday night. Secondly there have been electronic townhall about this and meetings with Mulcair etc before the convention. To imply that people were apathetic about this because for one forum on one night people were apathetic is such a distortion of reality. Shameful really that you vomit such inaccurate nonsense onto this site.

jjuares Peter Van Dusen of CPAC was reporting LIVE from the hall and he himself said the room he was in was only half-filled.

jjuares

Althia Raj asked me how the vote was going to go. She seemed to be surprised when I said he wasn't going to make it. But I did tell her I had been asking people for weeks before and during the convention. The thing that kept coming up again was the disconnect between central and local campaigns. Some of it was pretty straight forward, unanswered calls and no replies to emails.

jjuares

terrytowel wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Again more media bullshit. First there were other very heated party affairs forums where things got very heated. These were in addition to Friday night. Secondly there have been electronic townhall about this and meetings with Mulcair etc before the convention. To imply that people were apathetic about this because for one forum on one night people were apathetic is such a distortion of reality. Shameful really that you vomit such inaccurate nonsense onto this site.

jjuares Peter Van Dusen of CPAC was reporting LIVE from the hall and he himself said the room he was in was only half-filled.


Did you read my post. . I was in the room too. The point I was making was that the election was discussed many many many times in different forums. It wasn't simp,y the election debrief where this was discussed. It was also discussed during the Party Affairs segment as well as in some of the caucuses and again in electronic townhalls before the campaign. Before the convention I was in two different events with Mulcair in person in which the election was discussed. You see just because the media attends one evening and reports gee, it wasn't discussed much doesn't mean it wasn't discussed much. I have heard so much discussion about the election and our strategy it is positively numbing.

Debater

jjuares wrote:
Debater wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

The other day when they had the election review part of the convention. Where delegates got to vent their frustration at party officials about what went wrong. Only half the delegates showed up. The hall was half empty.

What the hell are you talking about?

Terry Towel is correct about this.

There was a lacklustre response to the NDP Election Review panel at the Convention on Friday.

John Geddes wrote about it in Maclean's.

I'll try to find the piece.

Again more media bullshit. First there were other very heated party affairs forums where things got very heated. These were in addition to Friday night. Secondly there have been electronic townhall about this and meetings with Mulcair etc before the convention. To imply that people were apathetic about this because for one forum on one night people were apathetic is such a distortion of reality. Shameful really that you vomit such inaccurate nonsense onto this site.

Oh, for goodness sakes.

Talk about an overreaction on your part.

All I did was back up what someone else said -- that it had been reported that there was a very tame, low-key response by NDP Members to the Election Post-Mortem debrief.

If you have a different view, you just need to share it, or send a correction to John Geddes at Maclean's.

http://www.macleans.ca/authors/keep-building-keep-dreaming/

Debater

Eleven signs that Tom Mulcair wasn’t going to survive

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/eleven-signs-that-tom-mulcair-was...

terrytowel

jjuares would you concede that some might have decided not to attend the post-mortuem because their minds were made up about Mulcair?

Rev Pesky

NorthReport wrote:
...I don't see much of a future for the BC NDP. My hunch is that the BC NDP will probably lose about 10 more seats than they presently have in the 2017 election. Unfortunately they are a spent force both federally and provincally. 

Unfortunately I have to agree with you. For those of you who don't live in BC, you have to understand how bad it really is. The current goverrnment is the worst that has ever hit this province. Pigs at the trough look positively genteel compared to this group. And yet the NDP is apparently unable to make a dent. To me that is just an unbelieveable level of incompetence.

As far as Mulcair, well now the vote is over, and given the result I think the party hierarchy will have to make him an offer he can't refuse.
They are going to have to publicly ask for his resignation, and ask the parliamentary caucus to decide on a new house leader. With a clear majority of the convention delegates voting for a leadership race it's beyond my comprehension how he can stay on.

At the same time, I agree with those who point to party policy as the real culprit. The party has to do some soul searching, or just resign on masse and join the Liberal party.

Right now, there is no left party in Canada.

jjuares

Debater wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Debater wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

The other day when they had the election review part of the convention. Where delegates got to vent their frustration at party officials about what went wrong. Only half the delegates showed up. The hall was half empty.

What the hell are you talking about?

Terry Towel is correct about this.

There was a lacklustre response to the NDP Election Review panel at the Convention on Friday.

John Geddes wrote about it in Maclean's.

I'll try to find the piece.

Again more media bullshit. First there were other very heated party affairs forums where things got very heated. These were in addition to Friday night. Secondly there have been electronic townhall about this and meetings with Mulcair etc before the convention. To imply that people were apathetic about this because for one forum on one night people were apathetic is such a distortion of reality. Shameful really that you vomit such inaccurate nonsense onto this site.

Oh, for goodness sakes.

Talk about an overreaction on your part.

All I did was back up what someone else said -- that it had been reported that there was a very tame, low-key response by NDP Members to the Election Post-Mortem debrief.

If you have a different view, you just need to share it, or send a correction to John Geddes at Maclean's.

http://www.macleans.ca/authors/keep-building-keep-dreaming/


Read the post below to see my reaction to this unadulterated bullshit. I know I have written to you before about simply naievly taking what someone has said as pure gospel. However, on a totally unrelated note you sound like someone who would like to buy a bridge that I own in Brooklyn.

jjuares

terrytowel wrote:

jjuares would you concede that some might have decided not to attend the post-mortuem because their minds were made up about Mulcair?


Maybe but many like myself and my aquaintances at the convention had simply said all we needed to say on this issue. But yes many minds were made up about Mulcair. But a surprising number of people told me that they didnt blame him but were voting for the review.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Right now, there is no left party in Canada.

Comrade, please.

Debater

jjuares wrote:
Debater wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Debater wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

The other day when they had the election review part of the convention. Where delegates got to vent their frustration at party officials about what went wrong. Only half the delegates showed up. The hall was half empty.

What the hell are you talking about?

Terry Towel is correct about this.

There was a lacklustre response to the NDP Election Review panel at the Convention on Friday.

John Geddes wrote about it in Maclean's.

I'll try to find the piece.

Again more media bullshit. First there were other very heated party affairs forums where things got very heated. These were in addition to Friday night. Secondly there have been electronic townhall about this and meetings with Mulcair etc before the convention. To imply that people were apathetic about this because for one forum on one night people were apathetic is such a distortion of reality. Shameful really that you vomit such inaccurate nonsense onto this site.

Oh, for goodness sakes.

Talk about an overreaction on your part.

All I did was back up what someone else said -- that it had been reported that there was a very tame, low-key response by NDP Members to the Election Post-Mortem debrief.

If you have a different view, you just need to share it, or send a correction to John Geddes at Maclean's.

http://www.macleans.ca/authors/keep-building-keep-dreaming/

Read the post below to see my reaction to this unadulterated bullshit. I know I have written to you before about simply naievly taking what someone has said as pure gospel. However, on a totally unrelated note you sound like someone who would like to buy a bridge that I own in Brooklyn.

I get what you are saying, jjuares.

You're saying that the report of John Geddes of Maclean's on the NDP Post-Mortem election panel did not accurately reflect what actually happened at the event.

You're also saying that a lot of discussion took place elswhere that may have been missed by the media.

You may be right about that.  Or you may just have a different perception than the journalist in question.

I accept what you say, and am happy to move on to another topic now.

Hunky_Monkey

Left Turn wrote:

Here's part of what a young-ish female delegate from Toronto who was just interviewed on CPAC has to say about the results of the leadership review:

Quote:
I think that Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders are proving that bold socialist politics are electable, that's actually what pepople are looking for; and the election result, and the defeat that the NDP experienced actually proved that moderation is not the way to get elected. It's not just about winning though, it is actually about offering a real alternative to be the vehicle of struggle for workers, oiur most vulnerable people; however, to win, I think we actually have to stand on those ideas.

 

Did Jeremy Corbyn win a British general election yet?  Did Bernie Sanders even win the Democratic primary yet?  

To say bold socialist politics are electable using those two as example is plain foolish. 

Aristotleded24

jjuares wrote:
Debater wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

The other day when they had the election review part of the convention. Where delegates got to vent their frustration at party officials about what went wrong. Only half the delegates showed up. The hall was half empty.

What the hell are you talking about?

Terry Towel is correct about this.

There was a lacklustre response to the NDP Election Review panel at the Convention on Friday.

John Geddes wrote about it in Maclean's.

I'll try to find the piece.

Again more media bullshit. First there were other very heated party affairs forums where things got very heated. These were in addition to Friday night. Secondly there have been electronic townhall about this and meetings with Mulcair etc before the convention. To imply that people were apathetic about this because for one forum on one night people were apathetic is such a distortion of reality. Shameful really that you vomit such inaccurate nonsense onto this site.

Jjuares, how do you feel about the media scapegoating Notley as the reason Mulcair lost the leadership review? That's another thing I've noticed that I think is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
To say bold socialist politics are electable using those two as example is plain foolish.

It also totally ignores the popular mantra that "the game is rigged" and "moneyed interests would never allow that" and "if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal".

That said it's nice to see naive hope springing eternal.  But thanks to the "real" powers, a centrist government is the best compromise we can reasonably hope for, and it's time we made our peace with that.

jjuares

Aristotleded24 wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Debater wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

The other day when they had the election review part of the convention. Where delegates got to vent their frustration at party officials about what went wrong. Only half the delegates showed up. The hall was half empty.

What the hell are you talking about?

Terry Towel is correct about this.

There was a lacklustre response to the NDP Election Review panel at the Convention on Friday.

John Geddes wrote about it in Maclean's.

I'll try to find the piece.

Again more media bullshit. First there were other very heated party affairs forums where things got very heated. These were in addition to Friday night. Secondly there have been electronic townhall about this and meetings with Mulcair etc before the convention. To imply that people were apathetic about this because for one forum on one night people were apathetic is such a distortion of reality. Shameful really that you vomit such inaccurate nonsense onto this site.

Jjuares, how do you feel about the media scapegoating Notley as the reason Mulcair lost the leadership review? That's another thing I've noticed that I think is absolute nonsense.


Yeah, it wasn't Notley but the LEAP document hurt. One of the things about his speech hurt also. It was a promise to change but he didn't give one specific example.

Hunky_Monkey

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
To say bold socialist politics are electable using those two as example is plain foolish.

It also totally ignores the popular mantra that "the game is rigged" and "moneyed interests would never allow that" and "if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal".

That said it's nice to see naive hope springing eternal.  But thanks to the "real" powers, a centrist government is the best compromise we can reasonably hope for, and it's time we made our peace with that.

And just maybe the general electorate isn't that left or right.  Interesting to note when parties of the right go too far to the right, we cheer and say they're unelectable.  But when a party of the left moves too far to the left, it tickles our fancy and we think voters will come rushing... 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quizzical wrote:

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Unionist How will this non-confidence vote in Mulcair's leadership be perceived in Quebec?

I don't really know. Tom Mulcair is well-liked in Québec, but that doesn't translate into votes when people here have bigger fish to fry (like, getting rid of Harper). I think some troublemakers here (like, hardened Bloc supporters) might try to suggest that the 48% vote represents the victory of Alberta over Québec. But rather than speculate, I'll wait and see.

How do you think this will play in B.C.?

not well.

The MP's on the Island came out as a group to support Mulcair but I know lots of NDP activists and most were not happy with Mulcair. I don't know who went to the convention but I suspect many delegates from this region did not vote the way their MP's recommended.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But when a party of the left moves too far to the left, it tickles our fancy and we think voters will come rushing...

Just look at Bernie Sanders.  When he promotes single-payer health care, voters get onside.  If only any Canadian politician had the courage to support single-payer health care!

Debater

Writing was on the wall for Mulcair

Even before they summarily terminated Mulcair’s tenure by a 52-per-cent margin it was clear that scores of New Democrats had travelled to Edmonton to do just that.

Sun Apr 10 2016

Chantal Hébert

Quote:
EDMONTON—The fix was in for outgoing NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair before the convention that led to Sunday’s vote even opened.

The writing was on the wall when twice as many delegates than had originally been expected showed up.

Even before they summarily terminated Mulcair’s tenure by a 52-per-cent margin, it was clear that scores of New Democrats had travelled to Edmonton to do just that.

Most declined to pick up Mulcair buttons at the registration desk.

In casual conversation, few were interested in discussing the merits of the leader and even fewer were inclined to defend him.

It was a striking paradox of this NDP convention that the name of the man whose fate was on everyone’s mind was so rarely on anyone’s lips.

-

Full column:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04/10/writing-was-on-the-wall-fo...

brookmere

Rev Pesky wrote:
As far as Mulcair, well now the vote is over, and given the result I think the party hierarchy will have to make him an offer he can't refuse.
They are going to have to publicly ask for his resignation, and ask the parliamentary caucus to decide on a new house leader. With a clear majority of the convention delegates voting for a leadership race it's beyond my comprehension how he can stay on.

Mulcair was elected leader by the membership and nobody but the membership has the authority to remove him. He has every right to remain as leader until a new leader is chosen. The party brass have no authority to ask him to go. All concerned should respect the party constitution - it might set a good example.

And I say that as someone who thought Mulcair did a lousy job.

 

Hunky_Monkey

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But when a party of the left moves too far to the left, it tickles our fancy and we think voters will come rushing...

Just look at Bernie Sanders.  When he promotes single-payer health care, voters get onside.  If only any Canadian politician had the courage to support single-payer health care!

Yes, if only!  And if they would propose banning big money in federal politics.  And regulation of Bay Street.  Oh, wait... 

Sanders is tapping into voter frustration more than anything else.  Certainly not a socialist revolution.  And again, he hasn't gone through a national election faced with a half billion in attack ads.

Get a laugh out of Canadians saying we need a Bernie Sanders.  Most of what Bernie is running on is a done deal in Canada with the exception of PSE tuition (provincial jurisdiction too btw).  And other aspects we ran on in 2015 such as childcare and $15/hour federal minimum wage.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

True, but he's also seen Halley's Comet twice.  What Canadian politican can claim those chops?

josh

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But when a party of the left moves too far to the left, it tickles our fancy and we think voters will come rushing...

Just look at Bernie Sanders.  When he promotes single-payer health care, voters get onside.  If only any Canadian politician had the courage to support single-payer health care!

Yes, if only!  And if they would propose banning big money in federal politics.  And regulation of Bay Street.  Oh, wait... 

Sanders is tapping into voter frustration more than anything else.  Certainly not a socialist revolution.  And again, he hasn't gone through a national election faced with a half billion in attack ads.

Get a laugh out of Canadians saying we need a Bernie Sanders.  Most of what Bernie is running on is a done deal in Canada with the exception of PSE tuition (provincial jurisdiction too btw).  And other aspects we ran on in 2015 such as childcare and $15/hour federal minimum wage.

Yeah, his call for large tax increases for the upper class, large spending increases for public works and keeping and strengthening the inheritance tax would have fit comfortably into last year's NDP platform.

josh

brookmere wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:
As far as Mulcair, well now the vote is over, and given the result I think the party hierarchy will have to make him an offer he can't refuse.
They are going to have to publicly ask for his resignation, and ask the parliamentary caucus to decide on a new house leader. With a clear majority of the convention delegates voting for a leadership race it's beyond my comprehension how he can stay on.

Mulcair was elected leader by the membership and nobody but the membership has the authority to remove him. He has every right to remain as leader until a new leader is chosen. The party brass have no authority to ask him to go. All concerned should respect the party constitution - it might set a good example.

And I say that as someone who thought Mulcair did a lousy job.

 


For Pete sake, the man was first resoundly rejected by the electorate and then by a majority of the convention of his own party. He has no right to anything. If he had any concern about the party he'd make way for an interim leader ASAP.

Pages