Tom Mulcair's leadership review 2016

180 posts / 0 new
Last post
Debater

brookmere is stating what the technical rules are, under which Mulcair is allowed to stay according to the party Constitution.

However, obviously in terms of moral authority, when you have lost an election and lost a leadership review by such a large margin, there will be pressure to step down and allow a new Interim leader to take over.

That may happen in due time.

Hunky_Monkey

josh wrote:

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.

 

Like Jack was in his first three elections.  Tom won't lead us into the next election.  And it seems the caucus wants him to say to lead them in Parliament.  Better than a weak performer in the House taking on Trudeau.  

josh

Yeah, something like, the country has lost confidence in you Mr. Trudeau. Well, you don 't have the confidence of your own party Mr. Mulcair.

Unionist

If the party members had any spirit left - if they cherished their connection with the movements they (hopefully) are active in - and if they actually read their constitution - they could have Tom as leader, or not, and it wouldn't make a shred of difference. But as long as they're content to sit back and watch dictatorship run the show (as they did during the last election), and take no measures to return power to the members (which, sadly, they did not do during this convention) - then sadly they will have to hope and pray for good strong benevolent leaders to dictate their way to the Promised Land.

Pardon my cynicism, but why the fuck should one person have so much to do with whether a progressive party succeeds or fails?? And why is no one asking that question (seemingly)?

Cody87

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.

Forgive me for being ignorant of party politics, and in this case specifically NDP party politics. But how exactly would the membership remove him, if it wanted to do so?

I had been under the understanding that, at least in theory, the membership is represented by the delegates who just voted for a leadership review, which is for all intents and purposes the same thing. The membership (through their delegates) just voted to (almost certainly) replace him. Or am I missing something?

Cody87

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

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.

In the unlikely event that Sanders can win the nomination from Clinton, he is quite likely to beat either Trump or Cruz. They are much more vulnerable to attack ads than he is, so his advertising dollars will go further.

You're right about the voter frustration part though. Sanders probably won't beat Clinton, and Sanders probably won't run in 2020. But if both Democratic and Republican voters are so disenfranchised, worried, and frustrated now - after 8 years of Barack Obama - that Sanders and Trump are contenders, how frustrated do you think they are going to be in 2020 after 4 years of Hillary Clinton or Ted Cruz? The fact that an anti-establishment candidate hasn't won yet just shows that things haven't quite gotten bad enough - but the pressure will continue to build. The only candidate who will even possibly make things better and reduce the tension is Sanders (and as we learned from Obama, that's not guaranteed either). If Sanders isn't the next president, it's certain that things will be worse in the U.S. in 2020 compared with now. If there isn't an itty bitty socialist revolution now, there just might be a bigger one four years from now. Of course if NATO "somehow" ends up in a war against BRICS between now and then, then that'll stop any anti-establishment politicians from being relevant in 2020. I digress.

Canada always seems to be a few years behind the U.S, things aren't as bad here yet and voters aren't as frustrated. We laughed at how stupid the U.S. was to elect Bush while we had Chretien and Martin, then we got our own version of Bush while they got Obama. Now we have our version of Obama. After 8 or so years of the rights words but the wrong actions from a Trubama administration that hasn't lived up to it's very high expectations, how frustrated do you think Canadian voters are going to be? Probably enough to be seriously considering our own versions of Sanders and Trump.

Cue an unapologetically socialist NDP.

Debater

NDP MPs react to vote ousting Tom Mulcair as party leader

Quebec MP Matthew Dubé and B.C. MP Don Davies join Tom Clark to discuss Mulcair's loss and whether either of them will run to be the new leader.

VIDEO:

http://globalnews.ca/news/2630063/ndp-mps-react-to-vote-ousting-tom-mulc...

terrytowel

Olivia Chow just told CTV News that New Democrats are united in their desire for change. Meanwhile Adam Giambrone rushed over the CP24 to give his take and he says the NDP lost the election not due to the platform that was offered. But an inability to communicate their policies properly. That it was a communications failure.

R.E.Wood

And in that video, when asked if they would run for the leadership, Matthew Dubé answered "No." But Don Davies said "Never say never."

Interesting.

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

If the party members had any spirit left - if they cherished their connection with the movements they (hopefully) are active in - and if they actually read their constitution - they could have Tom as leader, or not, and it wouldn't make a shred of difference. But as long as they're content to sit back and watch dictatorship run the show (as they did during the last election), and take no measures to return power to the members (which, sadly, they did not do during this convention) - then sadly they will have to hope and pray for good strong benevolent leaders to dictate their way to the Promised Land.

Pardon my cynicism, but why the fuck should one person have so much to do with whether a progressive party succeeds or fails?? And why is no one asking that question (seemingly)?

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/663023683561

cco

Good to run into you (and totally by surprise, no less!) in Edmonton, wage zombie. Hope you were as pleased with the results as I was.

Debater

Although I've never been a fan of Mulcair, I felt a bit sympathetic towards him this weekend.

It was a pretty tough verdict that the NDP delegates rendered on him.

josh

R.E.Wood wrote:

And in that video, when asked if they would run for the leadership, Matthew Dubé answered "No." But Don Davies said "Never say never."

Interesting.


Davies made pretty clear beforehand that he wanted Mulcair to go. Would be a good candidate, assuming he's bilingual.

brookmere

Cody87 wrote:
But how exactly would the membership remove him, if it wanted to do so?

I had been under the understanding that, at least in theory, the membership is represented by the delegates who just voted for a leadership review, which is for all intents and purposes the same thing. The membership (through their delegates) just voted to (almost certainly) replace him. Or am I missing something?

Convention has the power to call a leadership vote. That vote belongs to the membership. A leader who felt that the convention had been stacked and did not reflect the membership could run again.

Convention and the membership are not the same thing, which is why the NDP changed its constitution so that the leader is chosen by the membership. Prior to this, each convention had the power to actually depose a leader and elect a new one.

I know this sounds a bit ironic given that Mulcair didn't show a lot of respect for the constitution, but the process it speciifies should be respected.

terrytowel

On a CPAC call in show yesterday someone called in who is VP of a riding association. He felt the vote to get rid of Tom was not about losing the election. He said during the election there was no communication between the ridings and head office. Calls were not being returned, materials were late, they felt ignored. The grassroots feeling not part of the process. That they could deal with losing. But the grassroots not being part of the process, that is what members were up set about.

Caissa

I really wish Tom had resigned on election night. Yesterday was embarassing for both him and the Party. Whose advice has he been listenin to?

josh

Caissa wrote:

I really wish Tom had resigned on election night. Yesterday was embarassing for both him and the Party. Whose advice has he been listenin to?

Has anyone of any party ever stayed on, even as interim leader, after being rejected by a majority of convention attendees?  In fact, has anyone ever been rejected by a majority of convention attendees?  

terrytowel

josh wrote:

Has anyone of any party ever stayed on, even as interim leader, after being rejected by a majority of convention attendees?  In fact, has anyone ever been rejected by a majority of convention attendees?  

Only Joe Clark, and Mulcair now has the dubious distinction of scoring a lower result than Clark! Which makes Mulcair the leader with the lowest leaadership score in Canadian history. Clark no longer has the record.

brookmere

Clark got majority support but decided himself to call a leadership race. He did turn over interim leadership to Eric Nielson.

The only leader other than Mulcair to be involuntarily dumped by his party was Diefenbaker, who not only remained as leader after convention ordered a leadership race but ran in it.

jjuares

terrytowel wrote:

On a CPAC call in show yesterday someone called in who is VP of a riding association. He felt the vote to get rid of Tom was not about losing the election. He said during the election there was no communication between the ridings and head office. Calls were not being returned, materials were late, they felt ignored. The grassroots feeling not part of the process. That they could deal with losing. But the grassroots not being part of the process, that is what members were up set about.


I heard this lots of stories like this. It was also the experience of our EDA. Rightly or wrongly this hurt Mulcair's chances more than was acknowledged in the press.

terrytowel

But Mulcair holds the record with the lowest score, even beating Ralph Klien number, right?

nicky

Tom was backstage with the entire caucus when they learned about the result and before it was publicly announced. I expect the question of interim leader came up at that point and the caucus requested him to take the position. Nothing ulterior as some suggest.

josh

nicky wrote:

Tom was backstage with the entire caucus when they learned about the result and before it was publicly announced. I expect the question of interim leader came up at that point and the caucus requested him to take the position. Nothing ulterior as some suggest.

Not exactly the right time to make that decision.  Hopefully, upon reflection, either they change their request, or the leader does the right thing.

nicky

And why is it not the right thing?

Tom is still our strongest performer in Parliament. He will not be running for the leadership again so will not exploit the position. Should we chose a wooden mediocrity like Rhona Ambrose instead?

And he still had the support of half the party. Had the convention been in another city with stronger Quebec attendence and lesser Alberta attendence he would probably have gotten a majority though not enough to continue. 

nicky

Does anyone know how many votes Barry weisleder got running for President?

josh

nicky wrote:

And why is it not the right thing?

Tom is still our strongest performer in Parliament. He will not be running for the leadership again so will not exploit the position. Should we chose a wooden mediocrity like Rhona Ambrose instead?

And he still had the support of half the party. Had the convention been in another city with stronger Quebec attendence and lesser Alberta attendence he would probably have gotten a majority though not enough to continue. 

Because he just received a vote of no-confidence.  The right thing to do is step down, and not cling to power. 

Aristotleded24

nicky wrote:
And he still had the support of half the party. Had the convention been in another city with stronger Quebec attendence and lesser Alberta attendence he would probably have gotten a majority though not enough to continue.

Which also means that half the party doesn't support him. And you were counting on Quebeckers to give Mulcair a vote of confidence after that province cut his seat count down to 16, barely ahead of the Conservatives in this province? There were other factors to Tom losing the leadership. Not only is it absurd to suggest that any one province can single-handedly take down a party leader, but the Alberta NDP simply hasn't had the time since their election last year to build up that much of a power base of Albertans, even though that's where the Convention was held.

nicky wrote:
Tom is still our strongest performer in Parliament. He will not be running for the leadership again so will not exploit the position. Should we chose a wooden mediocrity like Rhona Ambrose instead?

If the best argument for keeping a leader who lost half the seats is that there is nobody else, the NDP is basically dead. If that's the case, I say good riddance, let's build up something else to speak on behalf of the working class.

terrytowel

nicky wrote:

Had the convention been in another city with stronger Quebec attendence and lesser Alberta attendence he would probably have gotten a majority though not enough to continue. 

Then he should of made sure he had those Qubeckers in attendence to back him.

Unionist

nicky wrote:

Tom was backstage with the entire caucus when they learned about the result and before it was publicly announced. I expect the question of interim leader came up at that point and the caucus requested him to take the position. Nothing ulterior as some suggest.

Yup, I think that's the most likely scenario - as I guessed yesterday:

Unionist wrote:
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.

Whatever one may think of Tom Mulcair, I think it's pretty clear that he's staying on as leader as a service to the party - not for the extra money or power tripping or because it'll look good on his resumé. If caucus - or convention for that matter - had asked him to leave (and convention did not actually do so), he'd be gone.

josh

He shouldn't have to be asked. 

Caissa

Despite thinking Mulcair should have resigned on election night, I believe that his staying on until the leadership convention is in the best interests of the party.  I do not see a good viable alternative.

Unionist

josh wrote:

He shouldn't have to be asked. 

I understand that, josh - here's what I'm really saying - he offered the caucus his immediate resignation, and they asked him to stay. That's what I think happened. Now in the face of that, he could have said, "Nah, I know what's best for the party and my family - I'm outta here!" But he didn't.

terrytowel

Ed Broadbent, Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough all stayed on as Interim Leader after announcing their departure as leader

josh

Caissa wrote:

Despite thinking Mulcair should have resigned on election night, I believe that his staying on until the leadership convention is in the best interests of the party.  I do not see a good viable alternative.

Just as many said they didn't see a viable alternative to him as leader.

josh

Unionist wrote:

josh wrote:

He shouldn't have to be asked. 

I understand that, josh - here's what I'm really saying - he offered the caucus his immediate resignation, and they asked him to stay. That's what I think happened. Now in the face of that, he could have said, "Nah, I know what's best for the party and my family - I'm outta here!" But he didn't.

If it's short-term, that's one thing.  But if they're talking about one to two years, that's another.

josh

terrytowel wrote:

Ed Broadbent, Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough all stayed on as Interim Leader after announcing their departure as leader

After a no confidence vote, where they couldn't muster a majority?

terrytowel

josh wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Ed Broadbent, Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough all stayed on as Interim Leader after announcing their departure as leader

After a no confidence vote, where they couldn't muster a majority?

In fairness no. They gadged the mood of the party and stepped down before pushed out, Though Alexa got 84% in her leadership vote after 2000 election.

brookmere

terrytowel wrote:
Ed Broadbent, Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough all stayed on as Interim Leader after announcing their departure as leader

More correctly, they stayed on as leader. An interim leader is chosen by the caucus when the leadership becomes vacant and that's only happened once in the federal NDP. Actually you can add every NDP leader to your list except Layton.

It should also be said that an interim leader would be precluded from running from leader (I very much doubt caucus would agree otherwise), which means that weak hands would be on the helm as is the case with the Conservatives.

 

josh

Who could have "weaker hands" than an interim leader who failed to get a majority in a no-confidence vote to remain leader?

brookmere

terrytowel wrote:
But Mulcair holds the record with the lowest score, even beating Ralph Klien number, right?

Lowest in a formal review. It appears the PCs didn't have a forrmal leadership review in 1966 but an executive was elected that was committed to a leadership race.

BC leader Carole James was forced out by caucus without any formal process, perhaps some other provincial leaders have been too.

terrytowel

brookmere wrote:

BC leader Carole James was forced out by caucus without any formal process, perhaps some other provincial leaders have been too.

Yes and newly minted NDP MP Jenny Kwan led the charge to oust Carole James.

brookmere

terrytowel wrote:
Though Alexa got 84% in her leadership vote after 2000 election.

I think she would have received a lot less in a leadership review. In those days someone had to actually run against the sitting leader and nobody of stature ever did. So the only choice the convention could make was between the sitting leader and some nonentity.

 

terrytowel

brookmere wrote:

terrytowel wrote:
Though Alexa got 84% in her leadership vote after 2000 election.

I think she would have received a lot less in a leadership review. In those days someone had to actually run against the sitting leader and nobody of stature ever did. So the only choice the convention could make was between the sitting leader and some nonentity.

The difference is that Alexa has DEEP roots in the party. She had supporters, she wasn't a stranger. She was family.

Mulcair wasn't any of those.

BTW the day after Mulcair is a no-show at QP today

Caissa

Give the man some time to lick his wounds. Being essentially fired publicly must be deeply disturbing.

Debater

Usually it is the Liberals or Conservatives who are this tough on their leaders.  It was surprising to see this from the NDP.

Some journalists are comparing what happened to Mulcair as something out of 'Game of Thrones'.

Michael Den Tandt says Mulcair was treated in a callous fashion.

Even though I wasn't fond of Mulcair myself, I felt some sympathy for him yesterday.

josh

Yeah, I could see where a writer for the National Post would be unhappy.

swallow swallow's picture

I felt sorry for him too. He really should have resigned soon after the election. 

Now that the deed is done, no need to rush him out the door, really. Take the time to work out what the party wants to achieve, rather than letting it all be swept up in a race for who gets to be interim leader. The discussion needs to be about bigger issues than leadership. 

Hunky_Monkey

Caissa wrote:

I really wish Tom had resigned on election night. Yesterday was embarassing for both him and the Party. Whose advice has he been listenin to?

 

Maybe he hoped to do what John Turner did?  Turner lost 95 seats in one election with a result of 40 seats.  He then doubled them in the next election before retiring.  

At least he can take comfort in knowing he did better than Jack Layton in his first three federal elections.  Oh well.

cco

Andrew Thomson was on CBC saying Mulcair "deserved better than he got...from the delegates".

To phrase it as politely as I possibly can: Piss off. The party members, employees, MPs, former staffers like myself, and so forth deserved better than they got from the leader. Perhaps Mulcair and the executive would care to dissolve the membership and elect another. In the meantime, we demonstrated that the "Democratic" in the party name is more than just symbolism. With any luck, that will weigh heavily on the mind of the next person to hold the title of leader.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

josh wrote:
Yeah, I could see where a writer for the National Post would be unhappy.

Laughing

Pages