Next Federal NDP Leader

765 posts / 0 new
Last post
scott16

Debater wrote:

What's the main reason do you think that Mulcair doesn't want to step down?

Surely he must realize that the odds are against the NDP forming government in 2019, and that it's also unlikely a 65-year old leader will he chosen as PM?

The same was said about the Libs in the last term.

Debater

1.  The Liberals had a history of forming Government historically, so it was easier for them to reactivate a previous base once they ran a good campaign.  The Liberals weren't really a traditional "third party" in the way that the NDP is.

2.  The Liberals had a new leader from a younger generation who has only been in elected politics for 7 years.  Mulcair is an older leader who is in his 60's and has been in politics for about 3 decades.

So some very different factors there.

Stockholm

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Does anyone know where the next convention is going to be held?  There are always more delegates from the local ridings in attendance than the average for the country. If its in Vancouver then there might be a chance to stack the convention with enough people who are fed up with the Ottawa cabal led by Tom Mulcair to convince other delegates to vote for a leadership race.  If the venue hasn't been picked yet and it is anywhere in Central Canada it will be homefield advantage for the insiders. 

It will be in Edmonton next spring

scott16

Debater wrote:

1.  The Liberals had a history of forming Government historically, so it was easier for them to reactivate a previous base once they ran a good campaign.  The Liberals weren't really a traditional "third party" in the way that the NDP is.

2.  The Liberals had a new leader from a younger generation who has only been in elected politics for 7 years.  Mulcair is an older leader who is in his 60's and has been in politics for about 3 decades.

So some very different factors there.

Either way the NDP will go from 3rd to first in 2019.

jjuares

Stockholm wrote:
kropotkin1951 wrote:

Does anyone know where the next convention is going to be held?  There are always more delegates from the local ridings in attendance than the average for the country. If its in Vancouver then there might be a chance to stack the convention with enough people who are fed up with the Ottawa cabal led by Tom Mulcair to convince other delegates to vote for a leadership race.  If the venue hasn't been picked yet and it is anywhere in Central Canada it will be homefield advantage for the insiders. 

It will be in Edmonton next spring


If having it here has an impact one way or the other then i think Mulcair's already slim chances took an even bigger hit.

Stockholm

I predict that when they have a leadership review vote at the next convention. In Edmonton next spring Mulcair will get about an 80% vote of confidence from delegates. There was vastly more internal rumbling against Andrea Horwath after the 2014 Ontario election and the ONDP convention was held five months later in downtown Toronto and there was even a semi organized campaign against her and she still got an almost 80 vote of confidence. For there to be an actual vote against a sitting leader at a convention, it cannot happen spontaneously, there would have to be a highly organized open campaign to reject the leader. It would have to involve high profile MPs and union leaders announcing that they were organizing a "no" vote and they would in turn have to organize to elect slates of anti-Mulcair delegates in riding after riding and send them all to Edmonton.

I am quite certain none of this will happen. If anything all the MPs (including all those who are talked about as future leaders) have expressed loyalty to Mulcair and I have not heard of any union leaders or high profile opinion leaders in the party say anything about organizing against him.

disenchanted

Depressing to see the lack of awareness of those close to the campaign.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/10/27/NDP-Was-Not-Ready/?utm_source=twitt...

Unless there is substantial renewal at that level, including the replacement of many of these big names from recent years, little can be expected to change. Aside from the accident of Notley (a vote against more than a vote for), this group has piloted disasters for Horwath, Dix, Dexter and now Mulcair. There is no room for another centrist Liberal party in Canada and "progressive" cannot be reduced as it has to a slogan to be used mostly when in opposition.

josh

Stockholm wrote:
I predict that when they have a leadership review vote at the next convention. In Edmonton next spring Mulcair will get about an 80% vote of confidence from delegates. There was vastly more internal rumbling against Andrea Horwath after the 2014 Ontario election and the ONDP convention was held five months later in downtown Toronto and there was even a semi organized campaign against her and she still got an almost 80 vote of confidence. For there to be an actual vote against a sitting leader at a convention, it cannot happen spontaneously, there would have to be a highly organized open campaign to reject the leader. It would have to involve high profile MPs and union leaders announcing that they were organizing a "no" vote and they would in turn have to organize to elect slates of anti-Mulcair delegates in riding after riding and send them all to Edmonton.

I am quite certain none of this will happen. If anything all the MPs (including all those who are talked about as future leaders) have expressed loyalty to Mulcair and I have not heard of any union leaders or high profile opinion leaders in the party say anything about organizing against him.

Well, if so, I guess the NDP is content to being a third place party. Unlike in the past, however, they're now a third place party with no ideological niche. At least not as long as they continue to accept Mulcair at the helm.

robbie_dee

Erin Weir profiled in post-election coverage:

Quote:

Erin Weir, one of 16 rookies on the New Democrat bench, sees his role as an MP as much like his election campaign — honed in on building Canada's economy and protecting the environment.

One significant additional responsibility: reinvigorating his party in time for the next election.

Part of the process will involve assessing the strengths of the current NDP caucus and, perhaps more painfully, looking back to learn from the lessons of what went wrong during the campaign.

"The Liberals were able to out-manoeuvre us to some extent as the agents of change," said Weir.

"But now that they're in power, we'll have to see whether they follow through on those promises, and we'll be there to hold them accountable."

***

At 33 years old, Weir is among the younger members of his party's caucus.  But the life experience he gained prior to narrowly winning his seat appears to go far beyond his young age.

Educated in economics, history and political science, he worked in the civil service — at the Treasury Board Secretariat, Department of Finance, and Privy Council Office — where for a time he wrote briefing notes for the prime minister and minister of finance.

He went on to work as an economist for the Canadian Labour Congress and the United Steelworkers Union before moving to Belgium as senior economist at the International Trade Union Confederation, a labour umbrella organization representing 175 million workers in 153 countries.

He also ran unsuccessfully as a federal NDP candidate in 2004, and then for the leadership of the Saskatchewan New Democratic Party in 2013.

Weir worries that the economy is slowing down, rather than accelerating since the recovery started to take hold following the recession of 2008. And he favours a proposal that was a centrepiece of the Liberal policy platform during the election campaign.

"I think it's important for the government of Canada to make major investments in infrastructure, in public services," said Weir, who is also president of the public policy group Progressive Economics Forum.

"First and foremost because we need the infrastructure and we need the services, but those investments will also tend to boost the economy and create jobs."

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/01/federal-ndp-regroups-for-42nd-pa... ready to rebuild, start over despute third party status (Huffpo)[/url]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

josh wrote:

Well, if so, I guess the NDP is content to being a third place party. Unlike in the past, however, they're now a third place party with no ideological niche. At least not as long as they continue to accept Mulcair at the helm.

I have no problem with supporting a third place party with principles that other parties have to steal to get elected. It beats the hell out of a party trying to become government by becoming a new liberal party instead of a social democratic party.  Mulcair is a liberal and he failed to get liberal voters to support him. He doesn't speak for the left in this country he speaks for the inner circle of the NDP who think chasing the liberal and red tory vote is the way to power. Power being the end game, of course, not systemic change.

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

josh wrote:

Well, if so, I guess the NDP is content to being a third place party. Unlike in the past, however, they're now a third place party with no ideological niche. At least not as long as they continue to accept Mulcair at the helm.

I have no problem with supporting a third place party with principles that other parties have to steal to get elected. It beats the hell out of a party trying to become government by becoming a new liberal party instead of a social democratic party.  Mulcair is a liberal and he failed to get liberal voters to support him. He doesn't speak for the left in this country he speaks for the inner circle of the NDP who think chasing the liberal and red tory vote is the way to power. Power being the end game, of course, not systemic change.


I agree. There is no point in trying to take power for simply taking power. We already have a party for that, it's called the Liberal Party of Canada. As for Mulcair from what I see from the membership both personally and through blogs etc. he is finished. As we move towards spring that I believe will be come more evident. And putting McGrath in charge of the review? That also damaged his slim chances because he has now tethered his leadership to this widely reviled innner circle.

KenS

I'm not going to give up before starting and set my sights on being a "principled third party."

I have always believed that a party providing a real alternative vision can win. All that has changed for me is that "the lets win first," then go there [how?] line has completely lost credibility. I never believed that was necessary, but was willing to go along for the ride.

MegB

I don't think a lot of analysis of what went wrong for the Mulcair NDP is very productive. We have a new government, differing little in substance from the Harper regime, whose feet need to be held to the fire. The only bright spot is that the new government is a little less intractable than the previous one.

scott16

It's unfortunate that most people believe that the NDP can't win as how they were before the turn to the centre.

I believe that under a new leader and a return to their roots, the NDP will win gov't. (Pharmacare, daycare, 15 fed minimum wage.)

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

scott16 wrote:

It's unfortunate that most people believe that the NDP can't win as how they were before the turn to the centre.

I believe that under a new leader and a return to their roots, the NDP will win gov't. (Pharmacare, daycare, 15 fed minimum wage.)

I love your optimism. Do you live in Central Cananda? I live where the NDP is always in contention and normally wins because of its left wing roots. I don't live in Central Canada. 

I worked hard to have an alternative voice in the HofC during the lean years in the 90's and '00's. We always ran a self avowed socialist and never lost because our MP's and their staff by their outstanding advocacy and service made themselves respected in the community they represented. They walked picket lines and stood shoulder to shoulder with protestors in peace marches. That commitment to principles and community service is in my view the key to success. Our campaigns spent a lot of time on messaging and never ever used much of the central campaigns literature or messaging. But then we were only trying to elect an MP to speak truth to power not become the government by convincing voters in Ontario that the NDP was a safe choice.

The only way to power is to replicate that risdng by riding and throw off the central campaign shackles that had Mulcair running to be PM instead of a great team running to become MP's. 

KenS

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I love your optimism. Do you live in Central Cananda?

Is that sarcasm?

swallow swallow's picture
laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Agree 100% with kropotkin and swallow.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
What successful NDP members of parliament look like

Wait!  What are you doing there?

[IMG]http://i65.tinypic.com/67r041.jpg[/IMG]

Oh, I see.

Quote:
What failed NDP contenders for power look like

 

scott16

Who are some potential leadership contenders from outside of caucus?

KenS

Too many to mention. and depends on when the race is, what happens first, etc.

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I live where the NDP is always in contention and normally wins because of its left wing roots. I don't live in Central Canada. 

I worked hard to have an alternative voice in the HofC during the lean years in the 90's and '00's. We always ran a self avowed socialist and never lost because our MP's and their staff by their outstanding advocacy and service made themselves respected in the community they represented. They walked picket lines and stood shoulder to shoulder with protestors in peace marches. That commitment to principles and community service is in my view the key to success. Our campaigns spent a lot of time on messaging and never ever used much of the central campaigns literature or messaging. But then we were only trying to elect an MP to speak truth to power not become the government by convincing voters in Ontario that the NDP was a safe choice.

Worth repeating, over and over!

quizzical

Ontario appears happy with the Liberals both provincially and federally. they can keep on becoming a have not province imv.

scott16

I have an interesting possible candidate. Bruce Moncur. I don't know how his french is but I hope it's good.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/bruce-moncur/

Stockholm

Candidate for what? Moncur has had "severe brain injuries" and was not even able to win an NDP nomination let alone be an mp and somehow this makes him leadership material?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

From a BC perspective I think the best choice for new leader, from within the MP pool, would be Peter Julian.

Geoff

kropotkin1951 wrote:

From a BC perspective I think the best choice for new leader, from within the MP pool, would be Peter Julian.

Peter has a very impressive resume inside and outside the party, and is bilingual, to boot. I'd support him.

felixr

Megan Leslie remains a strong contender

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

felixr wrote:

Megan Leslie remains a strong contender

I think the NDP already tried to win the Martimes with a woman leader from Nova Scotia. If she had held her seat then she would be a serious contender. Losing has made her leadership a non-starter.

KenS

Megan has made it very clear she wants a break from electoral politics- and she is not talking a short break.

Debater

I think Megan Leslie would be a good addition to the Nova Scotia NDP.  I'm sure they would want her involvement.

KenS

She's not interested in electoral politics right now or for the forseeable future.

[and who wants to join that pathetic crowd?]

Brachina

quizzical wrote:

Ontario appears happy with the Liberals both provincially and federally. they can keep on becoming a have not province imv.

 

 As someone who lives in Ontario it breaks my heart and makes me sick to see this great Province continue its Liberal and Tory inspired death spiral.

 Dispite horrible taste in government Ontario is a wonderful diverse province with much to offer, it just needs to stop electing rightwing governments.

Unionist

Brachina wrote:

 Dispite horrible taste in government Ontario is a wonderful diverse province with much to offer, it just needs to stop electing rightwing governments.

I don't think it's fair to blame Ontarian voters. Give them a real left-wing alternative, and they might surprise you.

 

quizzical

lololol

mark_alfred

MegB wrote:

I don't think a lot of analysis of what went wrong for the Mulcair NDP is very productive. We have a new government, differing little in substance from the Harper regime, whose feet need to be held to the fire. The only bright spot is that the new government is a little less intractable than the previous one.

Agreed.

KenS

I'm sorry, but I think "differs little in substance from the Harper regime" is delusional.

I is not merely "a little less intractable." The Trudeau government promises to be massively different, and so far acts accordingly.

It MAY be totally predictable that they will mostly have betrayed that by say a year from now. Or it may take two years.

But that has not happened yet. So that is not the realistic framing of where the NDP finds itself now.

Sean in Ottawa

Sorry I am sickened by loyalty to Mulcair.

The NDP has a problem with its leadership.

We need to face it.

This is not about punishing a leader who lost an election in a good fight but one who blew the campaign taking us in the wrong direction -- the same one who is ill-equiped to take us in the right direction. The same one who is now saying he wants to contest the next election as leader; the one who claims to be proud of this campaign and who minimizes the failure the NDP has suffered.

NO!

If Mulcair is around for the next couple years consolidating his leadership to run in the next election he will get a chance to lose half of the MPs we now have.

He either should stay as a leader to guide us to a new leader and rebuilding or he should be gone. Today. Mulcair is not a long term option like Layton or Broadbent. And he is responsible for the greatest reversal the party has had since 1993. the problem in that campaign cannot be attributed to circumstance. It was not the platform or the public. Not even the media. It was the communication of the campaign -- the leader -- his performance.

scott16

how can an 9 year member of the NDP who is also a monthly contributer work to remove Mulcair from the leadership of the party?

Does anyone know how I can do this?

Aristotleded24

scott16 wrote:
how can an 9 year member of the NDP who is also a monthly contributer work to remove Mulcair from the leadership of the party?

Does anyone know how I can do this?

Advocate that fellow NDP members vote for a leadership review at the first available opportunity and make it known to the federal party that your financial support will not be taken for granted.

Debater

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

He either should stay as a leader to guide us to a new leader and rebuilding or he should be gone. Today. Mulcair is not a long term option like Layton or Broadbent. And he is responsible for the greatest reversal the party has had since 1993. the problem in that campaign cannot be attributed to circumstance. It was not the platform or the public. Not even the media. It was the communication of the campaign -- the leader -- his performance.

Conservative commentator Konrad Yakabuski makes some of the same points about Mulcair's failure as you do:

Quote:

For its entire history, the New Democratic Party has had to guard against being outflanked on the left by the always cunning Liberals. That current NDP Leader Tom Mulcair failed to anticipate this standard Liberal tack, or to consider it a threat serious enough to counter, will rank as his most egregious tactical error of this election campaign. The fallout may not be pretty to watch.

. . .

The most unpardonable mistake, however, was to think the NDP could move blandly to the centre without the Liberal Party filling not only the progressive vacuum left behind but also seizing the “change” mantle that allowed it to claim its legitimacy as the true alternative to the Tories.

. . .

Mr. Mulcair, the one-time Margaret Thatcher admirer, may have had history on his side in promoting balanced budgets. But he did not have a vision to sell left-of-centre voters, much less younger idealists, that established the NDP in their minds as the vehicle for the kind of change they sought. Mr. Trudeau conveyed the “yes, we can” optimism they were looking for.

---

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/mulcairs-challenge-the-morni...

Stockholm

scott16 wrote:

how can an 9 year member of the NDP who is also a monthly contributer work to remove Mulcair from the leadership of the party?

Does anyone know how I can do this?

It's very simple, there will be an NDP national convention next April (not sure of dates yet) in Edmonton. All delegates will vote on a leadership review question, as happens at all conventions. I f you want a say in the process then I suggest you ask to be delegate to the convention for your riding and buy a round trip ticket to Edmonton.

But don't hold your breath on there being any high drama. Leaders don't get dumped by their parties spontaneously. When leaders get deposed it's invariably because powerful forces within the party actively organized. When the PCs got rid of Joe Clark it was because Mulroney's people actively organized to stack delegate slates with people who were going to vote against Clark...so far there seems to be a closing of ranks behind Mulcair. All MPs and defeated MPs have spoken out in support of him and so have major union leaders. The only people shrieking "off with his head!" Are a handful of people posting on babble and on Facebook, most of whom are probably not even party embers.

There was way more public criticism of Andrea Horwath after the last Ontario election and some unions were even half heartedly trying to organize a dump Horwath movement AND the ONDP convention was in Toronto where the anti Horwath forces were concentrated making it easy for them to attend the convention and vote. She still got a ringing 80% vote of confidence.

Absent some actual movers and shakers and potential leadership rivals starting to organize to stack delegate selection meetings, I predict Mulcair will get about a 90% vote of confidence.

Geoff

Stockholm wrote:
scott16 wrote:

how can an 9 year member of the NDP who is also a monthly contributer work to remove Mulcair from the leadership of the party?

Does anyone know how I can do this?

It's very simple, there will be an NDP national convention next April (not sure of dates yet) in Edmonton. All delegates will vote on a leadership review question, as happens at all conventions. I f you want a say in the process then I suggest you ask to be delegate to the convention for your riding and buy a round trip ticket to Edmonton. But don't hold your breath on there being any high drama. Leaders don't get dumped by their parties spontaneously. When leaders get deposed it's invariably because powerful forces within the party actively organized. When the PCs got rid of Joe Clark it was because Mulroney's people actively organized to stack delegate slates with people who were going to vote against Clark...so far there seems to be a closing of ranks behind Mulcair. All MPs and defeated MPs have spoken out in support of him and so have major union leaders. The only people shrieking "off with his head!" Are a handful of people posting on babble and on Facebook, most of whom are probably not even party embers. There was way more public criticism of Andrea Horwath after the last Ontario election and some unions were even half heartedly trying to organize a dump Horwath movement AND the ONDP convention was in Toronto where the anti Horwath forces were concentrated making it easy for them to attend the convention and vote. She still got a ringing 80% vote of confidence. Absent some actual movers and shakers and potential leadership rivals starting to organize to stack delegate selection meetings, I predict Mulcair will get about a 90% vote of confidence.

Well put, Stockholm. I was at the ONDP Convention, and that's exactly how it went down. Because there was no one from caucus who seemed interested in challenging the leader, there was no flag for those who were dissatisfied with the party's abysmal campaign to rally around.

The sad irony is that the feds thought the Ontario campaign was such a brilliant success, they decided to copy it, with the same result of course.

If the party poobahs have their way in Edmonton next April, I think we're going to make it that much harder to regain any of the ground we lost last month. However, unless we have a caucus member (or members) who agrees with the need for a change, we won't get anywhere. (Which brings us back to the purpose of this thread.)

Geoff

Geoff wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
scott16 wrote:

how can an 9 year member of the NDP who is also a monthly contributer work to remove Mulcair from the leadership of the party?

Does anyone know how I can do this?

It's very simple, there will be an NDP national convention next April (not sure of dates yet) in Edmonton. All delegates will vote on a leadership review question, as happens at all conventions. I f you want a say in the process then I suggest you ask to be delegate to the convention for your riding and buy a round trip ticket to Edmonton. But don't hold your breath on there being any high drama. Leaders don't get dumped by their parties spontaneously. When leaders get deposed it's invariably because powerful forces within the party actively organized. When the PCs got rid of Joe Clark it was because Mulroney's people actively organized to stack delegate slates with people who were going to vote against Clark...so far there seems to be a closing of ranks behind Mulcair. All MPs and defeated MPs have spoken out in support of him and so have major union leaders. The only people shrieking "off with his head!" Are a handful of people posting on babble and on Facebook, most of whom are probably not even party embers. There was way more public criticism of Andrea Horwath after the last Ontario election and some unions were even half heartedly trying to organize a dump Horwath movement AND the ONDP convention was in Toronto where the anti Horwath forces were concentrated making it easy for them to attend the convention and vote. She still got a ringing 80% vote of confidence. Absent some actual movers and shakers and potential leadership rivals starting to organize to stack delegate selection meetings, I predict Mulcair will get about a 90% vote of confidence.

Well put, Stockholm. I was at the ONDP Convention, and that's exactly how it went down. Because there was no one from caucus who seemed interested in challenging the leader, there was no flag for those who were dissatisfied with the party's abysmal campaign to rally around.

The sad irony is that the feds thought the Ontario campaign was such a brilliant success, they decided to copy it, with the same result, of course. (Einstein's definition of insanity comes to mind.)

If the party poobahs have their way in Edmonton next April, I think we're going to make it that much harder to regain any of the ground we lost last month. However, unless we have caucus members who agree with the need for a change, we won't get anywhere. (Which brings us back to the purpose of this thread.)

swallow swallow's picture

It might be possible without a caucus member - Mulroney had never been a member of parliament. But it would need a pluausible rallying point, whether person or issue-oriented change movement like the New Politics Initiative. 

NBut that was a call to have social movements and the NDP ally. I don't think social movements really see the NDP as a plausible vehicle any more, do they? 

Stockholm

The point wasn't whether Mulroney was a member of caucus or not...he was a powerful mover and shaker in the party AND there were a ton of people who were MPs or recently defeated MPs who wanted to get rid of Joe Clark.

IMHO, no one will make any noise about leadership right now because I think the party feels it needs to lick its wounds and adopt a bit of a wait and see approach. We don't yet know what the Trudeau government willl be like or what its vulnerabilities will be, we don't know how Tom Mulcair will be in the role of "leader og the progressive opposition" to Trudeau and who will start to emerge from caucus as bright lights. We also don't know who the Conservatves will pick as their next leader. On top of that I would want to see who impresses me over the next year or two qwithin caucus who could be a viable next leader at some point down the road. Dumping a leader when there is no viable successor is like jumping out a window with no safety net.

My sense is that the consensus among party "elders" is that the party needs a year or two to regroup before tackling the leadership issue. Mulcair himself may have (for all we know) already decided that he will not lead the NDP in the 2019 election but wants to provide some continuity for the next year and half or so...and the reality is if he said anything other than "I will lead the NDP in 2019", it would signal that the leadership was up for grabs and a de facto leadershiup contest would start immediately...we don't need that.

 

I actually don't think there is much comparison between the federal NDP campaign. The federal NDP did not vote down a federal Liberal budget and cause an election with no explanation of any kind for why they were doing it. Also, unlike the Ontario NDP under Horwath who put NOTHING in the window to make party activitists happy - the federal NDP staunchly opposed Bill C51 and proposed things like nationbal child care and a higher minimum wage etc... that were seen as jewels in the crown by party activists - that's one of the reason why you never saw any party members criticize the federal NDP during the campaign the way they attacked Horwath. Mulcair also bravely stuck to his guns on the niqab issue even though it was clearly going to cost him votes.

The problem with the federal NDP campaign was not that the policy wasn't "progressive enough" in fact most observers say thsi was the most visionary and progressive platform the NDP had run with in many elections...the problem was an unspeakably dull presentation of the platform and really dull ads and being up against Trudeau who ended up exceeding expectations. Andrea Horwath was in many ways the exact opposite, she had a platform full of crap but she did reasonably well in getting 24% of the vote because she is actually a very good retail politician who does connect with people - apart from a few malcontents in downtown Toronto. Of course she was also runniong against a tired Liberal government that had been iun power for 11 years and was led by Wynne who is not charismatic at all and is no Justin Trudeau by any stretch of the imagiation.

terrytowel

Geoff wrote:

Well put, Stockholm. I was at the ONDP Convention, and that's exactly how it went down. Because there was no one from caucus who seemed interested in challenging the leader, there was no flag for those who were dissatisfied with the party's abysmal campaign to rally around.

At that convention NDP fan favorite Joy Taylor (at 91 years young) was lobbying hard for Andrea's ouster.

Saying “I will never get over that deceit,” she said.

Geoff wrote:

The sad irony is that the feds thought the Ontario campaign was such a brilliant success, they decided to copy it, with the same result, of course. (Einstein's definition of insanity comes to mind.)

Maybe that is one of the reasons why former NDP MP Glenn Thibeault took a walk. Back then as caucus chair he was involved in the election planning. He refused to say why he had doubts about Mulcair's leadership. And when asked why not run got the ONDP, he said the 2014 election platform had many problems with it,

adma

Stockholm wrote:
The problem with the federal NDP campaign was not that the policy wasn't "progressive enough" in fact most observers say thsi was the most visionary and progressive platform the NDP had run with in many elections...the problem was an unspeakably dull presentation of the platform and really dull ads and being up against Trudeau who ended up exceeding expectations. Andrea Horwath was in many ways the exact opposite, she had a platform full of crap but she did reasonably well in getting 24% of the vote because she is actually a very good retail politician who does connect with people - apart from a few malcontents in downtown Toronto. Of course she was also runniong against a tired Liberal government that had been iun power for 11 years and was led by Wynne who is not charismatic at all and is no Justin Trudeau by any stretch of the imagiation.

I don't know, I'd say Wynne has her own kind of charisma--if you want an archetype of "not charismatic at all", look at Dull Dalton before her.

But I'd agree that Horwath shouldn't be sold too short; after all, she may have blown it in the 416, but she held onto her byelection gains just about everywhere else.  By comparison, Mulcair lost ground *everywhere*, even in Quebec where I'd argue their end result is even worse than it appears, given how at least half of their remaining QC caucus might owe their survival to Mourani-esque FPTP "accidents".  (And it also depends on what the advance polls will tell us, presuming that NDP support continued to slide Lib-ward until election day.)

terrytowel

adma wrote:

after all, she (Horwath) may have blown it in the 416, but she held onto her byelection gains just about everywhere else. 

Even she managed to hang on to TWO 416 seats. The federal NDP was completely wiped out in the 416

mark_alfred

And she increased the popular vote of the ONDP.  And she was one of the first Canadian political leaders to actually advocate for and get an increased surtax on the very wealthy back when no one was talking about this.  And she has been an outspoken critic of the privatization plans of the Ontario Liberals. 

Pages

Topic locked