Tom Mulcair's leadership review 2016

180 posts / 0 new
Last post
josh

cco wrote:

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.

Well said.

Debater

Peggy Nash was one of the 52% who voted against Tom Mulcair this weekend.

https://twitter.com/TheCurrentCBC/status/719502837726576641

--

The Current's Anna Maria Tremonti spoke with Peggy Nash

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-april-11-2016-1.35297...

Debater

josh wrote:

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

Actually, Michael Den Tandt usually tends to be a much more balanced writer than many of the other right-wing authors at the National Post.

He has written many positive things about Tom Mulcair:

--

The process was inept, curt and callous. It left Mulcair, who drew kudos from all his colleagues when he was winning, without a shred of dignity. 

The former opposition leader’s agonizing, day-long execution, including the keynote address during which he at times seemed overwhelmed and upset, literally smiling through the tears, demonstrates nothing if not that the Dippers really have made it to the big leagues. They can now knife a leader in the back like the best of them, without a backward glance.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-den-tandt-with-its-jac...

NorthReport

Paul Wells said yesterday that Mulcair was not well liked so combine that with the horrific election campaign and he was done. He should have stepped down election nite and he should have bowed out yesterday as well.

Rev Pesky

Debater wrote:
...Actually, Michael Den Tandt usually tends to be a much more balanced writer than many of the other right-wing authors at the National Post...

'Balanced' is not a word that I would have thought would come up when discussing Michael Den Tandt. He is as rabidly right-wing as the rest of his colleagues. There are no 'balanced' writers at the National Post.

josh

NorthReport wrote:

Paul Wells said yesterday that Mulcair was not well liked so combine that with the horrific election campaign and he was done. He should have stepped down election nite and he should have bowed out yesterday as well.


He's like The Man Who Came to Dinner.

nicky

I was upbraided by Aristotled a few posts above for suggesting that Tom was disadvantaged by the location of the convention. I am not the only one to say this. I was there and it was obvious that Alberta delegates were largely voting against him. They comprised 400 out of 1800 delegates. The margin was 4% or about 72 delegates.
On the other hand Tom's support from Quebec seemed quite solid. It should be pointed out that he had the unanimous support of the Quebec MPs.
Unfortunately for him there were relatively few Quebec delegates.
Had the convention been in Quebec I have doubt Tom would have received a majority, though not a big enough one to carry on.

Debater

Rev Pesky wrote:

Debater wrote:
...Actually, Michael Den Tandt usually tends to be a much more balanced writer than many of the other right-wing authors at the National Post...

'Balanced' is not a word that I would have thought would come up when discussing Michael Den Tandt. He is as rabidly right-wing as the rest of his colleagues. There are no 'balanced' writers at the National Post.

What I mean is that Den Tandt examines the positive & negative attributes of each leader and has written many pieces on the strengths of Mulcair (or the strengths of Trudeau).

He doesn't just rant & rave against the NDP & Liberals and call all their leaders losers and idiots like many of the other National Post writers do.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Had the convention been in Quebec I have doubt Tom would have received a majority, though not a big enough one to carry on.

To be fair, though, if the convention had been in Quebec, with a correspondingly different vote, wouldn't Alberta members have enjoyed the same right to say that the outcome was the result of geography rather than genuine consensus?

I say this well aware that if he'd received 50.01% in Quebec, or anywhere else, we wouldn't get to enjoy years of hearing how he was morally obligated to cut and run.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Debater wrote:

He doesn't just rant & rave against the NDP & Liberals and call all their leaders losers and idiots like many of the other National Post writers do.

You may think it is far better to be skewered by a rapier than bludgeoned with a broad axe but I think that the end result is the same.

jjuares

nicky wrote:
I was upbraided by Aristotled a few posts above for suggesting that Tom was disadvantaged by the location of the convention. I am not the only one to say this. I was there and it was obvious that Alberta delegates were largely voting against him. They comprised 400 out of 1800 delegates. The margin was 4% or about 72 delegates.
On the other hand Tom's support from Quebec seemed quite solid. It should be pointed out that he had the unanimous support of the Quebec MPs.
Unfortunately for him there were relatively few Quebec delegates.
Had the convention been in Quebec I have doubt Tom would have received a majority, though not a big enough one to carry on.

Good analysis. He still would have been in the 50's. As an Albertan I can say he did some significant support here. He gave the wrong speech. He should have focussed on party democracy and internal communication. But maybe it just wasn't in him to give thst speech.

josh

Cracks already developing regarding Mulcair staying on.

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/04/11/despite-crushing-leadership-vote-mulcairs...

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Debater wrote:

He doesn't just rant & rave against the NDP & Liberals and call all their leaders losers and idiots like many of the other National Post writers do.

You may think it is far better to be skewered by a rapier than bludgeoned with a broad axe but I think that the end result is the same.


Why on earth would anyone care what the National Post thinks about the leader of a social demecratic party? I would not even for a moment tell anyone who I think would make the best leader of the Cons. Well, okay Torquemada would be the best fit in terms of ideology but maybe not electorally but anyways he died a few centuries ago.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The new divide emerged as shell-shocked MPs returned to the House of Commons, still struggling to absorb the fact that delegates at a weekend convention voted Sunday to send Mulcair packing.

Is that what they voted for?

Or did they vote to have a leadership election at a future date?

No, it's not the same thing.

terrytowel

jjuares wrote:
Why on earth would anyone care what the National Post thinks about the leader of a social demecratic party? I would not even for a moment tell anyone who I think would make the best leader of the Cons. Well, okay Torquemada would be the best fit in terms of ideology but maybe not electorally but anyways he died a few centuries ago.

Conservative columnists seem to be united it their shock and lament that the NDP has thrown Tom Mulcair under the bus. Every Con writer has written that the NDP is making a big mistake.

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/many-conservatives-op-eds-are-...

josh

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The new divide emerged as shell-shocked MPs returned to the House of Commons, still struggling to absorb the fact that delegates at a weekend convention voted Sunday to send Mulcair packing.

Is that what they voted for?

Or did they vote to have a leadership election at a future date?

No, it's not the same thing.


One encompasses the other.

jjuares

terrytowel wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Why on earth would anyone care what the National Post thinks about the leader of a social demecratic party? I would not even for a moment tell anyone who I think would make the best leader of the Cons. Well, okay Torquemada would be the best fit in terms of ideology but maybe not electorally but anyways he died a few centuries ago.

Conservative columnists seem to be united it their shock and lament that the NDP has thrown Tom Mulcair under the bus. Every Con writer has written that the NDP is making a big mistake.

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/many-conservatives-op-eds-are-...


I guess that seals it then. The NDP did the right thing.

Debater

With Mulcair's execution, the NDP graduates to the mainstream

April 11, 2016

James Mennie, Montreal Gazette

Excerpt:

Quote:
Yes, Tom Mulcair ascended the scaffold on Sunday with the dignity of Louis XVI and, a veteran of the Quebec Liberal Party more than he ever was a leader of the NDP, showed a political convention that being able to stare unflinchingly at the oncoming blade is a far more important gauge of character than thrusting one from behind the courage of a secret ballot. But in the end, all this isn’t about Mulcair or Notley or the election result or the Leap Manifesto.

In the end, if it’s remembered at all, yesterday in Edmonton showed that when necessary and much like its mainstream adversaries, the NDP can smile, and murder as it smiles. Canada’s political conscience can lament social inequality and call all it wants for societal change, but it has also developed a taste for winning and, more importantly, winners.

http://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/mennie-with-mulcairs-execu...

Cody87

brookmere wrote:

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.

Right. But sorry, I deleted the context and probably shouldn't have. The context was someone had complained that Mulcair didn't step down immediately and let an interim take over, to which someone else replied that the members could remove him if they wanted to. Since the members just did everything they could do to remove him, I wanted to know if there was anything else they could have done to remove him right now as it was implied they could but I don't understand how.

josh
Debater

Perhaps Mulcair will decide to leave earlier, or perhaps the caucus will persuade him to.

That's what happened to Stéphane Dion.

JKR

jjuares wrote:
nicky wrote:
I was upbraided by Aristotled a few posts above for suggesting that Tom was disadvantaged by the location of the convention. I am not the only one to say this. I was there and it was obvious that Alberta delegates were largely voting against him. They comprised 400 out of 1800 delegates. The margin was 4% or about 72 delegates.
On the other hand Tom's support from Quebec seemed quite solid. It should be pointed out that he had the unanimous support of the Quebec MPs.
Unfortunately for him there were relatively few Quebec delegates.
Had the convention been in Quebec I have doubt Tom would have received a majority, though not a big enough one to carry on.

Good analysis. He still would have been in the 50's. As an Albertan I can say he did some significant support here. He gave the wrong speech. He should have focussed on party democracy and internal communication. But maybe it just wasn't in him to give thst speech.

I also thought he gave the wrong speech. I wonder how many delegates switched their voting intentions after Mulcair's speech?

terrytowel

On At Issue last night Andrew Coyne he felt that Mulcair hardly had any support from delegates. That the vote for Mulcair to go would have been much higher, because some people probably felt they could get rid of him at the next convention in two years.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2686672369

On another segment (The Insiders)some of the strategics blame Mulcair for not rallying enough delegates to his side. Nicky brings up the Quebec support. One of the panelists said Mulcair had the opportunity to bring in an organization rally delegates on his side.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2686673436

Policywonk

terrytowel wrote:

On At Issue last night Andrew Coyne he felt that Mulcair hardly had any support from delegates. That the vote for Mulcair to go would have been much higher, because some people probably felt they could get rid of him at the next convention in two years.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2686672369

On another segment (The Insiders)some of the strategics blame Mulcair for not rallying enough delegates to his side. Nicky brings up the Quebec support. One of the panelists said Mulcair had the opportunity to bring in an organization rally delegates on his side.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2686673436

We would have had another opportunity in two years. That would only be the year before the next election. My understanding is that the opposition within the Party to him staying was widespread including in Quebec. I agree that he didn't do enough between the election and convention to get enough support to choose when he could leave, but the writing has been on the wall since the election. 

NorthReport
NorthReport

A variety of opinions

Mulcair to meet NDP caucus, wants to play caretaker role

Thomas Mulcair returns to the House of Commons, receives standing ovation from MPs after failed bid to remain leader.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04/12/mulcair-to-meet-ndp-caucus...

josh

NorthReport wrote:

A variety of opinions

Mulcair to meet NDP caucus, wants to play caretaker role

Thomas Mulcair returns to the House of Commons, receives standing ovation from MPs after failed bid to remain leader.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04/12/mulcair-to-meet-ndp-caucus...


Even Julian, who's shielded Mulcair at every turn, added "if he wants to." But if going from first to third in less than two months in an election, and being rejected by a convention majority haven't gotten Mulcair leave, I'm not sure subtle hints will.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Maybe you should try not-so-subtle hints.

Conversely, didn't you just say, less than two hours ago, that it's only been two days?

Debater

josh wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

A variety of opinions

Mulcair to meet NDP caucus, wants to play caretaker role

Thomas Mulcair returns to the House of Commons, receives standing ovation from MPs after failed bid to remain leader.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04/12/mulcair-to-meet-ndp-caucus...

Even Julian, who's shielded Mulcair at every turn, added "if he wants to." But if going from first to third in less than two months in an election, and being rejected by a convention majority haven't gotten Mulcair leave, I'm not sure subtle hints will.

Chantal Hébert wrote in her column today that Mulcair seems to be a glutton for punishment.

Pages