Next Federal NDP Leader

765 posts / 0 new
Last post
josh

Debater wrote:

Mulcair Shrugged: How NDP Strategists Failed the Left

Party insiders played a chess game and let Trudeau echo Layton.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/10/22/NDP-Strategists-Failed-the-Left/

Quote:

By the time it came down to deficits versus balanced budgets, Mulcair had already painted himself into a corner, not only fiscally but temperamentally. He had kicked off the campaign by shit-canning a handful of candidates for their statements on Palestine (reminding many of us of the time he hounded Libby Davies; for some of us in the West and in the left our introduction to Mr. Mulcair), and then, when video emerged of him praising the political economy of Thatcherism, he shrugged. Candidate Obama would have taken the opportunity to deliver a defining, inspiring speech about the way we change as individuals and societies, what the left could learn from the right; Candidate Trudeau would have said something vapid and sappy and vaguely evasive. Mulcair shrugged.

pookie

Brachina wrote:

 He already has a history of being a royal asshole towards her, he went on tour basically bashing REB when she was first elected. She just brings out his inner jerk. So there is prescendence for this.

 Alot of you guys are under estimating what REB is capable of, she knows her stats and figures no problem.

 She's already a better MP then Trudeau ever was. She understands policy better then himand she'll be Trudeau Kyptonite.

Wow.  So, in 2011, before he was even Liberal leader, JT went on tour specifically to bash REB?

It's - it's almost as if he KNEW she was gonna be leader someday!

To JT's many skills, we can now add precognition.  Oh, and being Superman.  I guess.

Alrighty then.  Clearly the NDP should go with REB. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..excellent piece

Debater wrote:

Mulcair Shrugged: How NDP Strategists Failed the Left

Party insiders played a chess game and let Trudeau echo Layton.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/10/22/NDP-Strategists-Failed-the-Left/

quote:

Slavoj Zizek called 2011 "the year of dreaming dangerously," for Occupy, Tahrir Square, and other massive street uprisings around the globe.

Despite itself -- despite taking Jack Layton, a leader from the party's genuine left, to the tepid centre -- the NDP benefited from the Canadian franchise of what was clearly a global desire for change in both years. In 2015 -- the year of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, the election and re-election of Syriza in Greece -- they were well-positioned to get lucky one more time.

But the people who run the NDP are political junkies. The clutch of strategists who steer the party, incapable of thinking politically or historically, were convinced that the breakthroughs in 2008 and 2011 owed to the fact that they'd suddenly gotten better at sending emails, were suddenly running more efficient campaigns. They favoured what was not only a purely national explanation for what was clearly at least partially an international phenomenon, but one that even more specifically rested on the story of their own personal genius.

Cody87

pookie wrote:

Brachina wrote:

 He already has a history of being a royal asshole towards her, he went on tour basically bashing REB when she was first elected. She just brings out his inner jerk. So there is prescendence for this.

 Alot of you guys are under estimating what REB is capable of, she knows her stats and figures no problem.

 She's already a better MP then Trudeau ever was. She understands policy better then himand she'll be Trudeau Kyptonite.

Wow.  So, in 2011, before he was even Liberal leader, JT went on tour specifically to bash REB?

It's - it's almost as if he KNEW she was gonna be leader someday!

To JT's many skills, we can now add precognition.  Oh, and being Superman.  I guess.

Alrighty then.  Clearly the NDP should go with REB. 

Didn't everyone bash "Vegas girl" when she was first elected?

 

quizzical

nope

KenS

i cant remember that anyone bashed here here.

Cody87

I mean besides the NDP (I thought that was obvious). I know the pundits had a field day...she was the poster child for all the "unqualified" NDP MP's in Quebec. (Not that I necessarily agree that they were unqualified, but that was the insinuation)

Unionist

Cody87 wrote:

I mean besides the NDP (I thought that was obvious). I know the pundits had a field day...she was the poster child for all the "unqualified" NDP MP's in Quebec. (Not that I necessarily agree that they were unqualified, but that was the insinuation)

I think it was mostly ignoramuses from outside Québec that tried to "bash" her. Here in Québec, her efforts to improve her French and get to know her constituents and their issues were highly appreciated. Quebecers welcome people who show sympathy and solidarity.

 

KarlL

Stockholm wrote:

adma wrote:

Also, people: quit heavy-handedly "gonging" anyone who's either non-bilingual or insufficiently so.

Why stop doing that? Being functionally bilingual is a 100% essential prerequisite for the job of a leader of a national political party. If you are not reasonably fluent in French and English you have no business even thinking about running for leader PERIOD. END OF STORY...and if I ever see anyone speculate on anyone as a potential NDP leader who is unilingual, I will GONG and GONG and GONG and GONG until people wake up and smell the coffee and get the message that this is not going to fly.

FWIW, Nathan Cullen's French is actually very good...about on a par with Jack Layton's by 2011. He has an anglo accent but he is very colloqual and folksy in French....none of which is to say that I would back him for leader and that the NDP even needs a new leader...just saying that IMHO he clears the bar for sufficient bilingualism to be a potential leader.

The House of Commons offers free training in French, coordinated with immersion programs during the summer.  Anyone who fails to avail themselves of this, while aspiring to lead a national party is just too damned stupid to be given such a role.  That is true for MPs from all major parties.

Aristotleded24

KarlL wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

adma wrote:

Also, people: quit heavy-handedly "gonging" anyone who's either non-bilingual or insufficiently so.

Why stop doing that? Being functionally bilingual is a 100% essential prerequisite for the job of a leader of a national political party. If you are not reasonably fluent in French and English you have no business even thinking about running for leader PERIOD. END OF STORY...and if I ever see anyone speculate on anyone as a potential NDP leader who is unilingual, I will GONG and GONG and GONG and GONG until people wake up and smell the coffee and get the message that this is not going to fly.

FWIW, Nathan Cullen's French is actually very good...about on a par with Jack Layton's by 2011. He has an anglo accent but he is very colloqual and folksy in French....none of which is to say that I would back him for leader and that the NDP even needs a new leader...just saying that IMHO he clears the bar for sufficient bilingualism to be a potential leader.

The House of Commons offers free training in French, coordinated with immersion programs during the summer.  Anyone who fails to avail themselves of this, while aspiring to lead a national party is just too damned stupid to be given such a role.  That is true for MPs from all major parties.

Forget those MPs aspiring to lead a national party, why not have all MPs take advantage of an opportunity to so learn?

Debater

Cody87 wrote:

I mean besides the NDP (I thought that was obvious). I know the pundits had a field day...she was the poster child for all the "unqualified" NDP MP's in Quebec. (Not that I necessarily agree that they were unqualified, but that was the insinuation)

Alice Funke gave a strong defence of REB on the CTV Election Night panel on October 19.

Ciabatta2

Cody87 wrote:

I mean besides the NDP (I thought that was obvious). I know the pundits had a field day...she was the poster child for all the "unqualified" NDP MP's in Quebec. (Not that I necessarily agree that they were unqualified, but that was the insinuation)

Want to see the media's biases in action?  Has anyone seen any articles about the nobodies, pilons and last-minute-candidates elected among the new 130+ Liberals this election?  Not an NDP but it's sad.

KarlL

In most cases, the Liberal candidates aren't as inexperienced as much of the NDP class of 2011 was.  

Trudeau had a good run in the polls until mid-2015.

That brought in a lot of decent quality candidates (and opportunists) who were expecting to be competitive.  Plus the Liberals had a history of winning until 2006 in many of the places they just won (some BC, AB and QC seats excepted). And even in most of those, they have held either provincial or federal seats in recent memory.  No doubt many of these Liberal candidates were feeling pretty despondent by this summer but they were already long-committed by then.

I suspect that some of the Liberals' unexpectedly victorious Quebec candidates may be a bit thin but that's a far smaller proportion of the Liberal pick-up than it was of the Orange Crush.

mark_alfred

A few in Toronto too.  Cash's opponent for instance.  She'll likely be fine, but it is true that there hasn't been the sort of dialogue about candidates winning unexpectantly as there was regarding the NDP in 2011.  Which, frankly, is fine.  I'm sure the winner of Davenport against Cash will be fine.  It's interesting that whenever the press spoke about the Davenport result, that they almost exclusively spoke of Cash's loss rather than whats-her-name's win.

swallow swallow's picture

My new MP is an impressive person, and probably far more qualified than the NDP rep she replaced. Though his lack of qualification in the school of professional politics was part of his charm. I'm sure most of the new Librals in Quebec will be fine, just as most of the new NDP'ers were last time. Actually, it's possible that a random sledction of people would lead to as good a good House of Commons as the current system. 

Aristotleded24

Alexa McDonnough went for the leadership of the NDP to challenge the whisper campaign going around at the time suggesting that the NDP lost in 1993 because it had a woman leader. With that in mind, if it was Peggy Nash or Nikki Ashton who had led the party to this exact same result, would the party brass be as adamant that either of them stick around as they are with Mulcair currently?

mark_alfred

I felt Topp had good policies when he ran for the leadership.  But charisma was lacking.  Cullen was good, and like Topp was open to increasing taxes on the rich -- none of the others were, interestingly enough --> they all felt it would be the death knell of the party.  Ironic now since this is seen by some as where the NDP faltered.  That's the thing about the NDP -- good, fair minded, principled, but a bit timid at times.

Brachina

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Alexa McDonnough went for the leadership of the NDP to challenge the whisper campaign going around at the time suggesting that the NDP lost in 1993 because it had a woman leader. With that in mind, if it was Peggy Nash or Nikki Ashton who had led the party to this exact same result, would the party brass be as adamant that either of them stick around as they are with Mulcair currently?

 Maybe ask Adrian Dix a man who is no longer an NDP leader or Andrea Horwath a woman who still is.

 or Dwight former leader of the Sask NDP, who got dumped in election.

So no this isn't about gender, and its not even full about Mulcair because I suspect alot of the bad ideas actually came up from his advisers, who ever was incharge of writing the platform, and the top powers that be in the NDP, so this is about top people in the NDP covering they're own asses, instead of taking responsiblity. Plus I think Mulcair really is well liked by most people in the NDP caucus.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

It is clear that Mulcari truly needs to clean house. He needs to tell McGrath to resign or be fired! He needs to tell that IDIOT!!!! Lavaigne to pack up his bags and get out of dodge! What a mess this election is. And now we're stuck with the Son of the Holy Ghost!

SeekingAPolitic...

Watching Power and Politicals CBC, Mr Cullen(bald guy?) was on, he was saying that Mulcair is staying on for another 4 years.  Amazing.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I'll believe it when a bearded guy says it.

josh

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Watching Power and Politicals CBC, Mr Cullen(bald guy?) was on, he was saying that Mulcair is staying on for another 4 years.  Amazing.

Not surprising he'd say that. Cullen is a bald headed Mulcair.

KenS

Ya'll do not seem to get it.

What any of these people now say is going to be from a common script.

What they think, what they might say in 2 months [even less time after likely events /developments.... none of us has any idea of that.

 

KenS

JKR wrote:

I'm ok with Mulcair staying as long as he stops supporting the idea that we have to maintain continuous balanced and surplus budgets. If Mulcair is unable to effectively jettison this idea, I think the NDP's chances of being successful under his leadership will be too limited.

I dont know about clearing this bar being a good reason for giving Mulcair [qualified] support....

But I would be very, very surprised if Mulcair does NOT stop talking about this as soon as he can safely ignore that he made it a feature of the campaign.

 

Mulcair didnt say it because he believes governments need to do this. It was pandering pure and simple. Their eyes were on stealing the mantle from the Conservatives. So that promise was made to innoculate themselves from attack by the Cons. [Justin who?]

For me it was definitely pandering way too far- just dont go there. Period. But I never imagined it would have such swift and deep pragmatic backlash.

But poetic justice that it did.

The NDP briantrusts are horribly and choricly addicted to flying under the radar- no sudden moves [and worse]- as soon as it is perceived that you are within reach of winning government.

So addicted that in this case they convinced themselves they were in the drivers seat after just weeks of good news, and the same old playbook was going to get you in the rest of the way.

 

JKR

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Watching Power and Politicals CBC, Mr Cullen(bald guy?) was on, he was saying that Mulcair is staying on for another 4 years.  Amazing.

I'm ok with Mulcair staying as long as he stops supporting the idea that we have to maintain continuous balanced and surplus budgets. If Mulcair is unable to effectively jettison that idea, I think the NDP's chances of being successful under his leadership will be too limited.

currents

I am afraid that Mulcair does believe in balanced budgets and austerity. That would be consistent with his admiration for Margaret Thatcher and his attack on the Landry (PQ) government for being too activist. To me the mystery remains why this crucial aspect of Mulair's mindset did not come out in the NDP leadership campaign. Was it because he made these comments in French?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Was it because he made these comments in French?

Probably.  But there's a new Francophone NDP member now, so at least this can never happen again.

mark_alfred

'

Debater

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Watching Power and Politicals CBC, Mr Cullen(bald guy?) was on, he was saying that Mulcair is staying on for another 4 years.  Amazing.

Cullen sounds like he's jumping the gun a bit.

Mulcair is staying on for now, but until the NDP Leadership Review vote is determined in April 2016, how can Cullen know whether Mulcair is staying on for 4 more years?

Aristotleded24

Debater wrote:

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Watching Power and Politicals CBC, Mr Cullen(bald guy?) was on, he was saying that Mulcair is staying on for another 4 years.  Amazing.

Cullen sounds like he's jumping the gun a bit.

Mulcair is staying on for now, but until the NDP Leadership Review vote is determined in April 2016, how can Cullen know whether Mulcair is staying on for 4 more years?

I guess it has to do with leaders who don't step aside immediately keep their cards close to their chest in order to avoid being a lame duck. I remember there was some talk here about Mason needing to step down in the aftermath of the 2012 Alberta election, and even though he didn't say anything at the time, step away he eventually did.

JKR

currents wrote:

I am afraid that Mulcair does believe in balanced budgets and austerity. That would be consistent with his admiration for Margaret Thatcher and his attack on the Landry (PQ) government for being too activist. To me the mystery remains why this crucial aspect of Mulair's mindset did not come out in the NDP leadership campaign.

This should be cleared up. Otherwise the NDP will be burdened by this perception of Mulcair as long as he is leader.

scott16

I think Mulcair will step down in fall of 2018 or early 2019.

Debater

That doesn't allow much time for a new leader to be in place or become known before October 2019.  (If that's when the election still is).

nicky

Here is an excerpt from a fire walled article from the National Post that gives an interesting perspective on why Tom should stay:

"Someone needs to hold Trudeau to account and Mulcair might be the best man for that

Chris Selley: If Justin Trudeau is the faux-progressive charlatan the NDP think he is, it’s tough to think of anyone better qualified to show him up"

Majority Liberal governments have always tended to govern from the right, despite the platform they were elected on. There are great many Blue Liberals in Trudeau's caucus who are probably not too keen on some of his more progressive promises. I don't believe Justin believes very strongly in anything and expect him to retreat from much of his platform unless pressure can be maintained from the left.

That's where Tom is essential.

josh

In other words, it takes a thief to catch a thief?

quizzical

nope. just a leader who knows what's going on and not learning the job.

terrytowel

Mulcair faces a leadership review in April. If he gets less than 50% an automatic leadership race is triggered.

The grassroots of the NDP shold decide his fate.

KenS

JKR wrote:
currents wrote:

I am afraid that Mulcair does believe in balanced budgets and austerity. That would be consistent with his admiration for Margaret Thatcher and his attack on the Landry (PQ) government for being too activist. To me the mystery remains why this crucial aspect of Mulair's mindset did not come out in the NDP leadership campaign.

This should be cleared up. Otherwise the NDP will be burdened by this perception of Mulcair as long as he is leader.

 

Who cares what Mulcair "believes" in his heart of hearts. As leader of the rebuilding third party he's not going to TALK about balanced budgets [except for as long as people make him revisit his strategic mistake].

He's not stupid.

KenS

This general question, did very much come out in the leadership campaign that Mulcair won.

Brian Topp made a feature of how Canadians are ready to see taxes go up- and we will start by raising them on the wealthy.

Mulcair answered that is too risky.

 

Ironic reversal on that one.

terrytowel

KenS wrote:

This general question, did very much come out in the leadership campaign that Mulcair won.

Brian Topp made a feature of how Canadians are ready to see taxes go up- and we will start by raising them on the wealthy.

Mulcair answered that is too risky.

 

Ironic reversal on that one.

Ed Broadbent said the same thing saying the election of Mulcair might damage the party as he would move it to much to the right.

KenS

The "leadership review" in May 2016 is a pro forma exercise.

Sounds good on paper, but means nothing.

 

The only way a leadership review is meaningful is every member votes in it- NOT votes by delegates at a regular convention.  The only case I know of a party doing this was the Nova Scotia Liberals- and I rather doubt it is still in their Constitution.

OMOV reviews take so many resources, and are generally so taxing, that they cant be as often as the pro forma exercises party's have.

Not to mention that it means change to the Constitution, which means 2/3 vote. Good luck on that.  [They must have been smoking something back in the 80s or 90s when the NS Liberals brought in the OMOV leadership review.]

 

KenS

In declining Brian Topp's idea Mulcair was not moving the party to the right, he was saying stick with the status quo.

That said, it could be argued that most of the party was ready for Topp's suggestion. [I think Cullen supported it too.] And therefore, that Mulcair arrested going there.

Unionist

nicky, quote a National Post article wrote:
"Someone needs to hold Trudeau to account and Mulcair might be the best man for that"

Agreed.

Who better than Tom Mulcair to rise daily (or it may now be weekly) in QP and grill Trudeau on why he is running budget deficits, why he is raising taxes on hard-working rich Canadians, and why he is spending our hard-earned tax dollars on pie-in-the-sky infrastructure projects? And when he plans to abolish the Senate?

I'm stocking up on popcorn.

 

KenS

You'll have to eat your words instead when he grills Trudeau on none of those.

KenS

I shoud not say "have to". But it would be the decent thing to do.

josh

Unionist wrote:

nicky, quote a National Post article wrote:
"Someone needs to hold Trudeau to account and Mulcair might be the best man for that"

Agreed.

Who better than Tom Mulcair to rise daily (or it may now be weekly) in QP and grill Trudeau on why he is running budget deficits, why he is raising taxes on hard-working rich Canadians, and why he is spending our hard-earned tax dollars on pie-in-the-sky infrastructure projects? And when he plans to abolish the Senate?

I'm stocking up on popcorn.

 

Hee Hee.

jas

josh wrote:
Mulcair's no baby.

You're talking about the two parties that had won government before and after those results. The NDP can't afford such patience and have to go with a bolder choice.

I think that could be argued both ways. The NDP also cannot afford impatience. The BC NDP is a good example of stupid haste.

Unionist

KenS wrote:

You'll have to eat your words instead when he grills Trudeau on none of those.

I don't understand. You mean, Mulcair won't be urging Trudeau to adopt NDP policies - like no personal tax increases, balanced budgets, abolishing the Senate?

 

KenS

And to stave off nitpicking: abolishing the Senate is indeed NDP policy. But the point is about what parties choose to talk about- talking about the Senate during the election was not as spectacular a failure as the other positionings. But it had no resonance.

I will allow that because Trudeau has himself made the Senate an issue [the aftermath of pushing the Senate and Liberal Senators out of the election]- and one he will have to deal with- Mulcair very likely will touch on the NDP rock of abolish the Senate. Food for the base. But you wont see him mounting some charge.

Its pretty obvious with all the promises Trudeau has made, that there will be plenty of fruitful issues for the NDP to jump on. They will not compete with the Conservatives for the criticsms they will make [essentially the ones you named].

 

KenS

Sounds like baiting to me. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt anyway.

You and I both know that what parties bring up in QP- and toss at governments in general- is what parties find strategically or tactically useful at the time.

They dont do it as "this is the positioning we put out there 3 months ago, time to keep plugging away at it."

Least of all when Mulcair just got his face pushed in the mud for those positions [they are not "policies"].

Pages

Topic locked