Why is Thomas Mulcair trying to undermine Jagmeet Singh?

158 posts / 0 new
Last post
WWWTT

Sean in Ottawa wrote

There are a considerable number of people here with a public profile of knowledge and achievement. Others, with substantial expertise and achievements are here under assumed names.

Boring! Or bullshit?

Really doesn’t matter which it is does it. I’ve read a lots of stuff here, for the exeption  of a few posters whom I won’t mention , nothing stands out, for me anyways. Maybe for you? Making a grandiose claim that some posters here are some kind of big shots so we better be on our best behaviour is a huge load of garbage. Canada is still an imperialist country and anyone well known in such knows which side the breads buttered on ;)

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

WWWTT wrote:

kropotkin wrote

I hadn't imagined you would be mining my rectum.

Thats real funny shyt!

But really now, all of you posters replying to montgomery should be trying to ignore more. I’m guilty lots of times of engaging instead of ignoring so I shouldn’t b preaching to anyone. Just a reminder 

Thanks for the reminder. I'm sorry I should know better but sometimes it is just too much fun to play with a mouse.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

(to clarify, this was meant to be in response to post #101, not to the post directly above it).

I'm not sure I want to talk to you in private right now.  You have ideas about my role on the board-such as the belief that I am somehow part of a diabolical conspiracy against you-that are far to disturbing to even try to unpack.

I tried, in what I communicated to you in private, simply to give you a handful of respectful thoughts on how you might better communicate with people on this board if you simply wished to present your ideas and get a fair hearing.  There was nothing in any of that that was an attack on you, or that would have in any way thwarted anything you were trying to do or say.  You started lashing out at me there for no comprehensible reason and I was actually relieved that you blocked me.

I'll just ask this:  Why have you chosen to immediately take such a confrontational approach towards people who were posting on this board at the time you came to it, when the normal thing for a newcomer is to observe how we communicate with each other?  Why have you repeatedly acted as though everybody is obligated to defer to your ideas and to defer to you as "the new face of the NDP"?  Why was it not enough simply to speak as one equal human being among others?

You have the right to present your ideas.  Others have the equal right to present and defend their ideas.  Everyone has a right to respond, respectfully, to each others' ideas.  It appears that you feel you should be above treating everybody else here as an equal mind.  If that is how you feel, why do you feel that way?  Also, why do you keep referencing MLW, when what happens on that board has no real connection to this board and when it's never appropriate for anyone even on the "center-left"-the identification I suspect you give yourself-to engage in redbaiting, and when, in a time when what you would think of as "red" essentially no longer exists in North Americal political discourse?

montgomery

Ken Burch wrote:

(to clarify, this was meant to be in response to post #101, not to the post directly above it).

I'm not sure I want to talk to you in private right now.  You have ideas about my role on the board-such as the belief that I am somehow part of a diabolical conspiracy against you-that are far to disturbing to even try to unpack.

I tried, in what I communicated to you in private, simply to give you a handful of respectful thoughts on how you might better communicate with people on this board if you simply wished to present your ideas and get a fair hearing.  There was nothing in any of that that was an attack on you, or that would have in any way thwarted anything you were trying to do or say.  You started lashing out at me there for no comprehensible reason and I was actually relieved that you blocked me.

I'll just ask this:  Why have you chosen to immediately take such a confrontational approach towards people who were posting on this board at the time you came to it, when the normal thing for a newcomer is to observe how we communicate with each other?  Why have you repeatedly acted as though everybody is obligated to defer to your ideas and to defer to you as "the new face of the NDP"?  Why was it not enough simply to speak as one equal human being among others?

You have the right to present your ideas.  Others have the equal right to present and defend their ideas.  Everyone has a right to respond, respectfully, to each others' ideas.  It appears that you feel you should be above treating everybody else here as an equal mind.  If that is how you feel, why do you feel that way?  Also, why do you keep referencing MLW, when what happens on that board has no real connection to this board and when it's never appropriate for anyone even on the "center-left"-the identification I suspect you give yourself-to engage in redbaiting, and when, in a time when what you would think of as "red" essentially no longer exists in North Americal political discourse?

Ken, thanks for the support and the advice! But Ken, when you became so presumptious that you thought you could psychoanalze me, that's when I got my back up and decided to stop you by blocking you.

As to the issue at hand for Shine and Kropotkin, we'll work through this too. First with the silent treatment, and then when they get really nasty with the attempts to silence those who they find are a challenge to their status as being longtime members here. 

You will probably be pleased to hear that I'll just let them stew in their own juices for a while by ignoring them too. 

Accepting newcomers to this board is very difficult for some people Ken, as you may know. So I'll take it easy in my knowledge that I'm more NDP than they are. And I'll post some stuff that they will know is a challenge to them to try to out NDP me. For example Ken, there are a couple of posters on this board that are right in tune with international politics, and it ain't them. Read along in the international threads yourself, and express your views there too. I'm very interested to hear from everybody in order to determine if NDP'ers are ahead of the curve or they're back trying to catch up to the curve with the huge majority of the Canadian people.

Then of course, if it's not too presumptious of me to say, I'll really start trying to 'catch all the footdraggers up'!

That's my main mission here on babble Ken. Imparting some much needed international politics onto the board. I hope that's consistent with the aims of the NDP? I really don't think we can afford to waste more time now, with Trump moving the world ever closer to a nuclear war.

Quote:
 It appears that you feel you should be above treating everybody else here as an equal mind.  If that is how you feel, why do you feel that way?

I really don't feel that way Ken, but I'll spell it out very succinctly. I won't take a backseat to anybody I've met so far on this board when it comes to international politics!

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

montgomery wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

(to clarify, this was meant to be in response to post #101, not to the post directly above it).

I'm not sure I want to talk to you in private right now.  You have ideas about my role on the board-such as the belief that I am somehow part of a diabolical conspiracy against you-that are far to disturbing to even try to unpack.

I tried, in what I communicated to you in private, simply to give you a handful of respectful thoughts on how you might better communicate with people on this board if you simply wished to present your ideas and get a fair hearing.  There was nothing in any of that that was an attack on you, or that would have in any way thwarted anything you were trying to do or say.  You started lashing out at me there for no comprehensible reason and I was actually relieved that you blocked me.

I'll just ask this:  Why have you chosen to immediately take such a confrontational approach towards people who were posting on this board at the time you came to it, when the normal thing for a newcomer is to observe how we communicate with each other?  Why have you repeatedly acted as though everybody is obligated to defer to your ideas and to defer to you as "the new face of the NDP"?  Why was it not enough simply to speak as one equal human being among others?

You have the right to present your ideas.  Others have the equal right to present and defend their ideas.  Everyone has a right to respond, respectfully, to each others' ideas.  It appears that you feel you should be above treating everybody else here as an equal mind.  If that is how you feel, why do you feel that way?  Also, why do you keep referencing MLW, when what happens on that board has no real connection to this board and when it's never appropriate for anyone even on the "center-left"-the identification I suspect you give yourself-to engage in redbaiting, and when, in a time when what you would think of as "red" essentially no longer exists in North Americal political discourse?

Ken, thanks for the support and the advice! But Ken, when you became so presumptious that you thought you could psychoanalze me, that's when I got my back up and decided to stop you by blocking you.

As to the issue at hand for Shine and Kropotkin, we'll work through this too. First with the silent treatment, and then when they get really nasty with the attempts to silence those who they find are a challenge to their status as being longtime members here. 

You will probably be pleased to hear that I'll just let them stew in their own juices for a while by ignoring them too. 

Accepting newcomers to this board is very difficult for some people Ken, as you may know. So I'll take it easy in my knowledge that I'm more NDP than they are. And I'll post some stuff that they will know is a challenge to them to try to out NDP me. For example Ken, there are a couple of posters on this board that are right in tune with international politics, and it ain't them. Read along in the international threads yourself, and express your views there too. I'm very interested to hear from everybody in order to determine if NDP'ers are ahead of the curve or they're back trying to catch up to the curve with the huge majority of the Canadian people.

Then of course, if it's not too presumptious of me to say, I'll really start trying to 'catch all the footdraggers up'!

That's my main mission here on babble Ken. Imparting some much needed international politics onto the board. I hope that's consistent with the aims of the NDP? I really don't think we can afford to waste more time now, with Trump moving the world ever closer to a nuclear war.

Quote:
 It appears that you feel you should be above treating everybody else here as an equal mind.  If that is how you feel, why do you feel that way?

I really don't feel that way Ken, but I'll spell it out very succinctly. I won't take a backseat to anybody I've met so far on this board when it comes to international politics!

If you had read this board for any significant period of time before beginnign to post on, you would have found a LOT of critical comments about NATO being posted here, including a lot that were and are outright calls to get out of NATO.  There has also been a long tradition of critique of US and Canadian foreign policy and the ways the foreign policy of both countries-there is essentially no difference between Trump's foreign policy outlook and Justin's-and the ways that policy is shading into outright imperialism.  It's not as though you are the first person here who has ever questioned NATO or otherwise expressed dissenting views against the North American imperialist hegemon.

montgomery

Ken Burch wrote:

[

If you had read this board for any significant period of time before beginnign to post on, you would have found a LOT of critical comments about NATO being posted here, including a lot that were and are outright calls to get out of NATO.  There has also been a long tradition of critique of US and Canadian foreign policy and the ways the foreign policy of both countries-there is essentially no difference between Trump's foreign policy outlook and Justin's-and the ways that policy is shading into outright imperialism.  It's not as though you are the first person here who has ever questioned NATO or otherwise expressed dissenting views against the North American imperialist hegemon.

No Ken, that doesn't work, and here's why. I don't need to read this board for longer than I have to know that there is dissention against Nato, and also just who dissents, and to what degree, and the reasons why they do.

I also know very well that there is some definitive support for Nato, and some of the ones who are the supporters. You're way behind the curve with me on this issue Ken. 

Face the facts Ken, the problem with  what I've said has been taken to be a challenge of a couple of the oldtimers, and that's the reason why we'll play the mutual ignore game for a while. And now Ken, in the interest of finding a peaceful way forward, can we leave all discussion on the disagreement between me and those two, aside for a while? Stop trying to lay blame on me for failing to kowtow to bullshit.

R.E.Wood

Mulcair is at it again, suggesting NDP voters will be looking to the Green Party...

Former NDP leader predicts NDP voters might look to Green Party in 2019

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/former-ndp-leader-predicts-ndp-voters-mi...

Aristotleded24

R.E.Wood wrote:
Mulcair is at it again, suggesting NDP voters will be looking to the Green Party...

Former NDP leader predicts NDP voters might look to Green Party in 2019

">https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/former-ndp-leader-predicts-ndp-voters-mi...

Disgusting. Even though many of us were unsettled by Mulcair for a long time. There was an understanding. We would overlook these misunderstandings, while Mulcair would go on to win us the election. I also asked him a question about an issue very important to me in the lead-up to 2012 and he completely dismissed what I had to say. Before that evening, I could only support 3 candidates. After that evening, I made a point to fill out my ballot specifically to stop him. Not only did he fail to hold up his end of the deal, now he's going even further and still undermining the party whose philosophy and vision he never agreed with in the first place?

Debater

This was posted on Twitter today:

Mighty Middle

Charlie Angus just tweeted

I've known Tom Mulcair for a long time. I know he was really bitter about losing the support of the members at the convention. I think the bitterness is getting the better of him.

https://twitter.com/CharlieAngusNDP/status/1092184280091029506

robbie_dee

Mulcair should have read the writing on the wall and resigned promptly after losing the confidence vote at convention. However the other caucus members share responsibility for letting him stay on for so long afterward. Erin Weir and Brian Masse were among the few caucus members to speak up in favour of ousting Mulcair as leader and replacing him with Nathan Cullen in 2016. Charlie Angus appears to have kept quiet. The CLC organizer, James Pratt, referenced in the piece below went on to work for Jagmeet Singh's leadership campaign.

Stephen Maher, "Canadian Labour Congress linked to failed attempt to oust Mulcair," iPolitics, June 16, 2017

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

robbie_dee wrote:

Mulcair should have read the writing on the wall and resigned promptly after losing the confidence vote at convention. However the caucus members share responsibility for letting him stay on for so long afterward. Erin Weir and Brian Masse were among the few caucus members to speak up in favour of ousting Mulcair as leader and replacing him with Nathan Cullen in 2016. Charlie Angus appears to have kept quiet. The CLC organizer, James Pratt, referenced in the piece below went on to work for Jagmeet Singh's leadership campaign.

Stephen Maher, "Canadian Labour Congress linked to failed attempt to oust Mulcair," iPolitics, June 16, 2017

It truly looks as though Mulcair deliberately stayed on until it was too late for anyone succeeding him as leader to have any real chance at making an impression with the voters.  What other possible excuse could there be for the man hanging onto the leadership for over a year after the party made it clear they wanted him out?  It's not as though he was owed the chance to stay on as lame-duck for as long as he wanted.

Debater

It's unusual for the NDP to have these kind of internal arguments in public for everyone to see.

The Liberals have a history of infighting, as do the Conservative parties.  eg. PC vs. Reform/Canadian Alliance, and now Conservative vs. Bernier & his People's Party.

But historically the NDP avoided this kind of infighting until the Mulcair-Singh era.

Debater

Chantal Hebert's new column today deals with the Mulcair issue:

Mulcair’s Green party musing exposes the NDP’s troubles

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/02/04/mulcairs-g...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
What other possible excuse could there be for the man hanging onto the leadership for over a year after the party made it clear they wanted him out?

Didn't caucus ask him to stay until a new leader was elected?

Unionist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
What other possible excuse could there be for the man hanging onto the leadership for over a year after the party made it clear they wanted him out?

Didn't caucus ask him to stay until a new leader was elected?

Good memory. That's exactly right.

Mighty Middle

Unionist wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
What other possible excuse could there be for the man hanging onto the leadership for over a year after the party made it clear they wanted him out?

Didn't caucus ask him to stay until a new leader was elected?

Good memory. That's exactly right.

No quite the opposite, most of the caucus wanted him to step down. And told him so in a meeting. But Mulcair held firm - he said he wasn't going anywhere until a new leader is chosen and he was willing to fight to keep his job as leader until then. So the caucus backed down.

Unionist

Mighty Middle wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
What other possible excuse could there be for the man hanging onto the leadership for over a year after the party made it clear they wanted him out?

Didn't caucus ask him to stay until a new leader was elected?

Good memory. That's exactly right.

No quite the opposite, most of the caucus wanted him to step down. And told him so in a meeting. But Mulcair held firm - he said he wasn't going anywhere until a new leader is chosen and he was willing to fight to keep his job as leader until then. So the caucus backed down.

Well on second thought - you might be right. I may be confusing my speculation of the time with fact. Out of curiosity, is there any reliable source for what actually happened with caucus? Not that it matters much today.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
What other possible excuse could there be for the man hanging onto the leadership for over a year after the party made it clear they wanted him out?

Didn't caucus ask him to stay until a new leader was elected?

Good memory. That's exactly right.

No quite the opposite, most of the caucus wanted him to step down. And told him so in a meeting. But Mulcair held firm - he said he wasn't going anywhere until a new leader is chosen and he was willing to fight to keep his job as leader until then. So the caucus backed down.

So he did hang on against the will of the caucus.  No justification for such arrogance, and nothing done by him in that year of hanging on which did the party any actual good.  If he had left immediately after the convention which deposed him, or if he had done what he really should have done and resigned immediately on Election Night 2015,  other voices could have had a chance to show what they could do and the party might have been in full renewal for years by now.   And even if an earlier Mulcair departure had led to his seat being lost in a by-election then(which wasn't a certainty and isn't even a certainty now), it would not have been held against any possible successor, it would have been seen simply as a result of the interim, and would have forgotten by everyone by now.

robbie_dee

If you guys click on the link in my post #112 (and quoted in full by Ken in the next post #113) you’ll see an article that explains how a minority of the NDP caucus tried to push Mulcair out in the months following the negative vote at convention, but they could not get a majority because Mulcair held the backing of the vast majority of the Quebec MPs and others stayed on the fence, ultimately convincing the “Mulcair must go” crew to back off. 

Debater

What's ironic about that is that it's now the Quebec MPs who are most in danger of losing their seats.

robbie_dee

Debater wrote:

What's ironic about that is that it's now the Quebec MPs who are most in danger of losing their seats.

I predict that after the fall election there will still be more NDP MPs from Quebec than from Saskatchewan.

Debater

You may be right.  The NDP may lose the Erin Weir seat to the Cons, but hold the other 2 SK seats.

But according to Eric Grenier and other analysts who looked at the QC numbers today, the NDP is now at risk of falling into single digits in QC based on the Leger poll today.

Debater

Former NDP MP Dan Harris:

This is more or less what I've been saying for the past couple of weeks, bit partisans are too angry at Mulcair to see/heed the warnings.

What I see is that Tom has learned the lessons that brought him down (not heeding internal advice, mixed messages on pipelines etc..).

https://twitter.com/danharrisndp/status/1092555965143109632

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Debater wrote:

You may be right.  The NDP may lose the Erin Weir seat to the Cons, but hold the other 2 SK seats.

But according to Eric Grenier and other analysts who looked at the QC numbers today, the NDP is now at risk of falling into single digits in QC based on the Leger poll today.

Which is weird on one level, because there's no particularly good reason for 2015 NDP voters in Quebec to vote Liberal this time.  Justin's "policies" offer them nothing.

Debater

Trudeau has certainly turned out to be more of a centrist than the progressive he claimed to be.

But many NDP voters will still vote Liberal because the NDP is in disarray right now and Trudeau is the only one who can keep Scheer out.

Unionist

Ken Burch wrote:

Which is weird on one level, because there's no particularly good reason for 2015 NDP voters in Quebec to vote Liberal this time.  Justin's "policies" offer them nothing.

What Debater said:

Debater wrote:
But many NDP voters will still vote Liberal because the NDP is in disarray right now and Trudeau is the only one who can keep Scheer out.

The NDP offered Québec nothing in 2011 except the hope of beating Harper, via another coalition attempt if necessary (which Ignatieff rejected right from the get-go). When the rest of Canada didn't get the memo, Québec voted Liberal in 2015. That worked. So there's a good chance those who voted Bloc pre-2011, then NDP, then Liberal, will now vote Liberal again - and very possibly in greater numbers.

robbie_dee

Debater wrote:

You may be right.  The NDP may lose the Erin Weir seat to the Cons, but hold the other 2 SK seats.

But according to Eric Grenier and other analysts who looked at the QC numbers today, the NDP is now at risk of falling into single digits in QC based on the Leger poll today.

If I were to predict a total of two NDP MPs elected between Saskatchewan and Quebec, would you take the over or the under?

montgomery

robbie_dee wrote:

Debater wrote:

You may be right.  The NDP may lose the Erin Weir seat to the Cons, but hold the other 2 SK seats.

But according to Eric Grenier and other analysts who looked at the QC numbers today, the NDP is now at risk of falling into single digits in QC based on the Leger poll today.

If I were to predict a total of two NDP MPs elected between Saskatchewan and Quebec, would you take the over or the under?

With as much as I know on the question, I am unable to choose over or under so that means I'm more comfortable with two. 

I'm of the opinion that Jagmeet Singh is the biggest issue that needs to be addressed, and I'm also of the opinion that addressing that issue would address Mulcair's main issue too. 

It's sad to see the party being ripped apart like this but judging from the bigotted attitudes of the oldtimers on this board, it's understandable what needs to change.

They've all got their extremist niches but none of them match the others. It's everything from Kropotkin's anarchy or Marxism to Ken's ignorance, to Sean's paranoia about not being the teacher,  to Michael's kneejerk following, to Paladin's outright stupidity that could be closet Conservatism!

What's an informed newcomer to do? Join the fukking Liberals? At least some of them are dyed in the woll socialists who are biding their time there. Waiting until it's politically safe for Justin Trudeau to lead the party left, in the tradion of his father. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

montgomery wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:

Debater wrote:

You may be right.  The NDP may lose the Erin Weir seat to the Cons, but hold the other 2 SK seats.

But according to Eric Grenier and other analysts who looked at the QC numbers today, the NDP is now at risk of falling into single digits in QC based on the Leger poll today.

If I were to predict a total of two NDP MPs elected between Saskatchewan and Quebec, would you take the over or the under?

With as much as I know on the question, I am unable to choose over or under so that means I'm more comfortable with two. 

I'm of the opinion that Jagmeet Singh is the biggest issue that needs to be addressed, and I'm also of the opinion that addressing that issue would address Mulcair's main issue too. 

It's sad to see the party being ripped apart like this but judging from the bigotted attitudes of the oldtimers on this board, it's understandable what needs to change.

They've all got their extremist niches but none of them match the others. It's everything from Kropotkin's anarchy or Marxism to Ken's ignorance, to Sean's paranoia about not being the teacher,  to Michael's kneejerk following, to Paladin's outright stupidity that could be closet Conservatism!

What's an informed newcomer to do? Join the fukking Liberals? At least some of them are dyed in the woll socialists who are biding their time there. Waiting until it's politically safe for Justin Trudeau to lead the party left, in the tradion of his father. 

...My "ignorance"?  Where, exactly, are you going with all of this?  Are you going to keep on trying to discredit people on a personal basis until there's nobody left here who questions anything you say?  Sorry, pal, but that's not going to happen.

NorthReport

Like Hillary Clinton, some politicos don’t know when they are done like dinner and need to move on after being rejected by the voters.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/what-is-thomas-mulcair-thinking-surely-its-not-comeback/

NorthReport

Mulcair is setting himself up to be one of Canada’s stupidest politicans that ever existed, and showing everyone what a little man he is. Another Canadian political tragedy.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/this-week-in-what-will-tom-mulcair-say-next/

Pondering

montgomery wrote:

Fwiw, I was behind the curve on national politics when I started on this forum but I think I'm close enough to being caught up by now. But I'm ahead of the curve on international politics and so I have something to teach even the most avid NDP'ers on this board. You and some of the others need to accept that and learn from it. 

Actually, we don't have to accept anything. If there is any accepting that has to be done it is on the part of newbies. 

Being knowledgable isn't the same as being right even if it makes you a skilled or superior debater. 

People are discouraged from having opinions based on their insufficient knowledge. It's true that lack of knowledge can lead to mistaken opinion. It took Libya to educate me. But it is also true that all it took was Libya (and some general knowledge) to educate me. I don't need a lot of knowledge to see the disconnect between economic sanctions against Venezuela while sending military equipment to Saudi Arabia. 

Sometimes the trees stand in the way of seeing the forest. Knowledge can be used to confuse as well as inform. 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mulcair is criticizing Singh's decision to wait longer to get a seat, questionning his ability to stay leader depending on the result, speculating about NDP MPs not staying on to run. I think there are two parts of this:

1) the NDP is on the ropes in the polls and sensitive to comments like this that make it harder. The anger is understandable, if not justified, any time these types of comments come from a former leader. In some respects the NDP may be accused of being too sensitive.

I do not think all respects which leads me to the second issue.

2) Mulcair, you could argue, has a right to his new career as a pundit. However, he is doing this really too soon, and this is a fair argument. Mulcair is getting a package as MP, that he got from being MP for the party and this package is at least six months salary. While earning this, he is making life difficult for the party. This seems a little poor taste especially when the byelection has not even been held yet. Mulcair as leader had developed access, internal contacts, trust to hear things within the party. To be open about what is not yet public uses this access (like MPs who confided about not running). This is likely where some of the betrayal is coming from. Had he waited, say about a year after leaving politics, it would be easier to accept the reality that he no longer has any loyalty to the party and is willing to use his knowledge to profit himself as a pundit.

The second reason is why I raised the question of comparison of a person who was elected, was as senior as leader, and did this as soon as Mulcair. I see nobody who has done this all like that. Usually, they let their successor get into the job, before they do this unless the animosity is the point. New Democrats tend to feel that they gave him a chance, that he did not perform well and that he does not really have a moral right to shit the bed now -- so soon, after the position he held AND with the party in such bad shape.

Sure what he did is legal. It may not be the first time, although I have no comparison of the extend of this. But the party is not unjustified in screaming betrayal.

Frankly, I think Mulcair's poor judgment is showing here. He is not instantly going to be trusted by the other parties as an unbiased pundit. His main claim to fame as a pundit would be his connection and knowledge of the NDP. His behaviour at this point looks like it will shut him out of most NDP contacts so he might end up being a bright pundit without any useful contacts. He may not even be a reasonable choice to balance pro Conservative and Liberal pundits as he is coming off as one with anger and animosity to the NDP due to the speed of doing this.

Pundits without contacts are a dime a dozen. You can get a dozen on this site for free.

I think he could have been a great pundit had he waited a year. It was not necessary to rush. The time for him to surface as a pundit could have been the writ period of the 2019 election a few months from now. By starting now, before his succesor wins or loses his seat, before the party has a platform, before his replacement for his seat is taken, while receiving money from his position as MP, while holding still relevant private conversations within the party (because it is so soon), he is betraying the party. By waiting, the party might grumble but they would have no case to make.

What he is doing is controversial. Those here who hate the NDP may defend him and slam the party for being angry. Party loyalists might never accept his right to become a pundit. I do not expect him never to become a commentator as some may feel he should never be, but I think the party has a point given the way he did this.

Great post. 

bekayne
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Like that Liberal hack understood anything about the NDP's legacy. He is publicly becoming a petty little man who can't stand the fact that Singh is getting good press because he is such a breath of fresh air as a campaigner compared to Mister Balanced Budget when he lead the, We Promise to Go Slow Team.

Debater

Singh is doing a competent job in this campaign and is performing fairly well in the debates and on the campaign trail, but the party itself is still in a weaker position, particularly Quebec, compared to where it was under Mulcair.

So Mulcair has a point.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Debater wrote:

Singh is doing a competent job in this campaign and is performing fairly well in the debates and on the campaign trail, but the party itself is still in a weaker position, particularly Quebec, compared to where it was under Mulcair.

So Mulcair has a point.

Anymore Liberal talking points for today?

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Debater wrote:

Singh is doing a competent job in this campaign and is performing fairly well in the debates and on the campaign trail, but the party itself is still in a weaker position, particularly Quebec, compared to where it was under Mulcair.

So Mulcair has a point.

The MSM wrote off the NDP in Quebec immediately after the 2015 election, when the NDP went from 59 to 15 seats in Quebec. And NDP support continued to decline in Qubec after the 2015 election BEFORE the 2016 NDP convention decided to call a leadership race.

The NDP might not be doing quite as poorly in Quebec if Mulcair was still the leader, but I suspect they would still be struggling. And I also suspect that if Mulcair were still NDP leader, his balanced budget, go slow centrism would have the party losing even more support to the Green Party in the ROC, particularly in BC and Atlantic Canada.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

I did not support Mulcair for the party leadership and in fact dropped my membership when he became leader.   He was the one candidate for the leadership at the time who had absolutely no historic connections to the labour and social movements whatsoever.   He was clueless.   He didn't get it.

I rejoined the very day the convention decided to give him the boot.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

radiorahim wrote:

I did not support Mulcair for the party leadership and in fact dropped my membership when he became leader.   He was the one candidate for the leadership at the time who had absolutely no historic connections to the labour and social movements whatsoever.   He was clueless.   He didn't get it.

I rejoined the very day the convention decided to give him the boot.

I share this view of the man which is why I find his preaching on the decline of NDP values, on behalf of the corporate press, to be especially nauseating.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

To some degree-and I'll rephrase this if anything I say below sounds like it is minimizing anyone's lived experience in their personal life-Mulcair's relationship to the NDP can be likened, to some degree, to that of an abuser to the victim who has escaped him.

He sees himself as the victim.

He refuses to accept that his removal from the relationship was in any way legitimate.

He constantly seeks to destroy the NDP's confidence in itself and to undermine its ability to believe it can go on without him.

He won't stop until the party has either totally collapsed-or at least loses every seat in Quebec-or until the party apologizes for removing him, begs him for forgiveness and invites him back, perhaps not as leader, but instead in the status of a revered elder statesmen whose approach to leadership is acknowledged as the officially "correct" one and the party under something like his effective control from behind the scenes with no accountability whatsoever.

Mulcair really does need to be seen as that relentless and that pathological.

 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

I wholly agree with the last 3 sentiments. Mulcair made me cringe from the get go. How anyone ever considered him an NDP member let alone leader always left me deflated.

Sean in Ottawa

Let us stop alternately demanding loyalty from Mulcair and claiming he was never a New Democrat. Take his words as they are and disagree with him if you want. He is not very influential and he is doing a job. Clearly loyalty to the NDP is not uppermost for him. Perhaps he is upset at how he was dumped. Why does this matter? Move on.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Its an election campaign so of course on babble we get to complain about assholes who are attacking progressive politicians.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Its an election campaign so of course on babble we get to complain about assholes who are attacking progressive politicians.

Sure but why does he rate higher for our attention (obsession) than any other?

Misfit Misfit's picture

Tom Mulcair had good points and bad points. He was not a left wing person. He is a Liberal and shifted the NDP to the right. We can also thank him for silencing criticism of Israel and of their human rights abuses to Palestinians.

However, he is intelligent. He is a strong and articulate lawyer. He was effective as Leader of the Opposition. He was chosen to try to retain the NDP’s strength in Quebec which didn’t happen but the niqab issue would have hurt any NDP leader at that time.

He wasn’t all bad.

I am very impressed with Jagmeet Singh and I hope that he stays on as leader after this election. Ed Broadbent and Jack Layton remained party leader after multiple defeats and I hope Jagmeet stays.

And as for Mulcair’s criticism of Jagmeet Singh’s handling of the secularism law in Quebec, what he said is true. Trudeau can claim that he will do more for fighting for rights and what Jagmeet has offered. However, if Jagmeet had claimed that he would legally challenge the law then he would have been attacked for meddling in provincial affairs so really, he was in a damned if he did and damned if he didn’t situation. I think that he made the right decision but that won’t stop the Liberals from capitalizing on it for political gain.

Anyway, that is my opinion.

R.E.Wood

Misfit wrote:

I am very impressed with Jagmeet Singh and I hope that he stays on as leader after this election. Ed Broadbent and Jack Layton remained party leader after multiple defeats and I hope Jagmeet stays.

It's too early to talk about whether Singh might be able to follow the examples of Layton or Broadbent, rather than that of Mulcair and McLaughlin... we have a couple more weeks until we know the results of this election.

Layton's election results were consistent gains for the party in every election he was leader. His first election the NDP won 19 (up from 14), then continued to increase to 29, then 37, then 103 seats. Gains every time.

Broadbent's first election the party won 26 seats (up from 16), then 32, 30, and 43. Only one time did his seat count go down, and only by 2 seats.

McLaughlin's seat count went from 43 down to 9, and it was her only election as leader.

Mulcair's seat count went from 103 to 44, and it was his only election as leader.

If the NDP seat count drops substantially under Singh's leadership I can't see how he will be able to stay on as leader, or why anyone should be satisfied and accepting of such a result. I'm not talking about the loss of a few seats; I'm talking about a loss of +-50% of the party's seats. Unfortunately, that's still the result I see coming in a couple weeks: anything over 25 seats would be a miracle at this point, and far worse could yet happen.  

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Jagmeet Singh has inherited a party that was in poor financial shape after changes in party financing under Harper that hit the NDP hard and Mulcair's total neglect of fundraising during his "lame duck" period.

This is a period where the NDP is rebuilding, and rebuilding on a new basis...a much more diverse and younger party than before.    There are also many candidates running across the country in winnable constituencies who clearly identify with the left of the party, and, my hope is that the balance of power within the NDP's parliamentary caucus shifts clearly to the left.

The NDP has historically won between 15 and 20% of the popular vote, and as long as NDP support is at least in that range, Singh should stay and continue with the rebuilding. 

Besides, there are still two weeks to go and anything can happen.   Just look at the last two weeks!

 

Aristotleded24

R.E.Wood wrote:
Misfit wrote:

I am very impressed with Jagmeet Singh and I hope that he stays on as leader after this election. Ed Broadbent and Jack Layton remained party leader after multiple defeats and I hope Jagmeet stays.

It's too early to talk about whether Singh might be able to follow the examples of Layton or Broadbent, rather than that of Mulcair and McLaughlin... we have a couple more weeks until we know the results of this election.

Layton's election results were consistent gains for the party in every election he was leader. His first election the NDP won 19 (up from 14), then continued to increase to 29, then 37, then 103 seats. Gains every time.

Broadbent's first election the party won 26 seats (up from 16), then 32, 30, and 43. Only one time did his seat count go down, and only by 2 seats.

McLaughlin's seat count went from 43 down to 9, and it was her only election as leader.

Mulcair's seat count went from 103 to 44, and it was his only election as leader.

If the NDP seat count drops substantially under Singh's leadership I can't see how he will be able to stay on as leader, or why anyone should be satisfied and accepting of such a result. I'm not talking about the loss of a few seats; I'm talking about a loss of +-50% of the party's seats. Unfortunately, that's still the result I see coming in a couple weeks: anything over 25 seats would be a miracle at this point, and far worse could yet happen.

I'd also add that under Alexa's watch, the NDP returned to Official Party status, and held ground throught her time as leader. She also presided over by-election breakthroughs in Windsor.

Pages