Next Federal NDP Leader

765 posts / 0 new
Last post
Geoff

Indeed, the federal platform included a hodge-podge of prokises, some of them quite progressive. However, apart from C-51 and child care, the rest of the policies (i.e. pharmacare) only got the spotlight after the party was already in trouble.

Speaking of childcare, given that Quebec was the party's strength, and given that they already have a childcare plan, why was that particular platform item given so much airtime? Essentially, we were saying, "Vote for us and we'll give you what you already have".

I also agree that Mulcair was right to take a stand on the niqab. However, Trudeau did, too, so how were we out-smarted on that issue?

I'm not exprecting a party revolt in April for the very reasons listed in Stockholm's post. However, what I hope to see is a clear message from the delegates that the NDP requires a major overhaul, not just a tweak, here and there. In fact, I'd go as far as to say the name NDP has become more of an anchor around our necks than an asset. Too many losses and not enough wins.

I know changing the name will not, by itself, solve our problems. We need to think about what a democratic socialist party should stand for in the present circumstances and choose a new name that reflects our principles. The CCF knew when the game was up; the NDP needs to show the same courage. 

Debater

adma wrote:

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.)

I agree.  The NDP seats in Québec look very fragile, except for a couple like Boulerice in Rosemont & REB in Berthier-Maskinongé (and to some extent Mulcair in Outremont).

Several of the remaining 16 seats were won by small margins (Hochelaga, Salaberry-Suroit, Trois Rivieres, Jonquiere etc.).  If the Liberals had been just a little higher in Quebec, they would have taken those ridings, too.

Most of the NDP seats in QC were retained by vote-splits.

Some of the LPC, BQ & CPC seats were won by narrow margins, but the LPC & CPC have some strongholds in Québec now (Liberals in Montreal & the Outaouais and the Cons in Quebec City & the Beauce).

The Liberals won most of the Montreal & Outaouais seats by 2-1 margins with support ranging from 50-65% (St. Léonard, Lac St. Louis & St. Laurent all being ridings LPC won with over 60%).

The CPC was able to win Louis Saint Laurent in a big way with Gerard Deltell getting about 50% of the vote and way ahead of the 2nd place finisher (who ended up being the Liberal, rather than the 3rd place Daniel Caron who was rumoured to have pushed out NDP MP Alexandrine Latendresse).

adma

Maybe the exception to the lost-ground rule is Vancouver Island, where the Green-induced vote splits actually worked in the NDP's favour--but still, the shares were lower even there.  And the VI situation camoflauged the mixed situation elsewhere in BC: lost both Surrey seats, Justinmania polevaulting over the NDP in or otherwise cheating them out of other "sure gains", etc.

Debater

What's interesting is that when you look at the NDP gains from the Conservatives in BC, SK & MB, most of them were as a result of the Liberals taking out the Conservatives, and therefore helping the NDP win the seat.

There were big Liberal increases in BC as a result of Justin's "native grandson" effect, and this is what caused the Liberals to finish 1st with their best result since 1968.  But the other effect it had is that even though the NDP vote fell in some of the BC ridings, the NDP was able to take several seats from the Conservatives as a result of the Liberals taking away Con votes.

Same thing happened in Elmwood-Transcona in MB.  I looked at the numbers the other day and the NDP actually *dropped* about 10 points in E-T, but because the 3rd place Liberals made a huge leap, it ended up coming more at the expense of CPC MP Toet, and allowed Blaikie to win by 50 votes.

I noticed that Erin Weir won his SK riding for the same reason -- not because of an increase in the NDP vote, but because of an increase in the *Liberal* vote in SK at CPC expense.

Mulcair is very lucky that the LPC took out the CPC in some of those Western ridings, otherwise the NDP would have finished with under 40 seats.

felixr

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 actually agree with this. The campaign got killed by Trudeau's "charisma" and the NDP's lack of it. Tactically, failing to account for the presence of a Liberal fifth column in the media and the poorly orchestrated defence against a Liberal surge were inexcusable. Next campaign may be more traditional, as the country falls back into a Liberal-Conservative binary, especially given that the Liberal campaign, platform, and cabinet choices suggesti a forthcoming abandonment of fiscal discipline.

The other thing to remember is that Trudeau looks a lot like Obama as a politician. Both are photogenic panderers that dip into substance-less demagoguery to stir their supporters. Both are more interested in doing photo ops and proving how cool they are than progressive government. So the outcome of the next US federal election will be interesting for the role it has on the Canadian political psyche and expectations of leadership.

felixr

Debater wrote:

What's interesting is that when you look at the NDP gains from the Conservatives in BC, SK & MB, most of them were as a result of the Liberals taking out the Conservatives, and therefore helping the NDP win the seat.

Let's see some evidence in the form of 2011 to 2015 vote shifts to back up that statement before you make such a generalization. The fact of the matter is that the redistribution helped the NDP retain seats in SK (e.g. Weir) and the effect of Liberal draw down on the CPC vote electing the NDP was in general negligible- unless of course you consider winning 45% of the vote in a riding during an election where your party dropped >10% a small feat. Also, referring to your previous post, the Liberals helped the Conservatives (the most hated major political party in Québec) to generate one of their best hauls of Québec seats in a long time- and this despite awful polling numbers. Thank you Liberals for putting the Conservatives AND a racist Bloc Quebecois back in the winner's column in Québec.

josh

Geoff wrote:

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.

Yes. Would be a great choice.

Centrist

adma wrote:

Maybe the exception to the lost-ground rule is Vancouver Island, where the Green-induced vote splits actually worked in the NDP's favour--but still, the shares were lower even there.  And the VI situation camoflauged the mixed situation elsewhere in BC: lost both Surrey seats, Justinmania polevaulting over the NDP in or otherwise cheating them out of other "sure gains", etc.

Another matter to consider is that an election day "exit"poll by Insights West confirmed that 44% of NDP voters in BC had the NDP as their "2nd choice". And Van Isle had the highest number of such NDP voters. Had they gone with their first choice (Liberals/Greens), the results would have been disasterous.

 

terrytowel

Thomas Mulcair tells party faithful the NDP fulfileld their campaign goal of defeating Stephen Harper.

They are ready for ‘real change’, NDP style!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/mulcair-tells-bc-co...

josh

Stockholm wrote:
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.

Maybe, maybe not. And maybe this is simply wish fulfillment on the part of the poster.

Sean in Ottawa

josh wrote:
Stockholm wrote:
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.

Maybe, maybe not. And maybe this is simply wish fulfillment on the part of the poster.

The next step for the NDP is more critical than the last.

If the NDP ignores looking at what happened substantively the party may go down a road from which it cannot recover. I think the NDP is at grave risk of facing a new party on the left. The establishment and winning MPs could try to gloss over the issues and stand behind Mulcair, but if they do they may find that their support has largely walked away.

In the short term some may simply support the Liberals and this would leave those who cannot go to the Liberals little choice but to create a new party, demanding a new direction. Such a process involves a lot of investment and is hard to undo. A split could destroy the movement for a generation. As well a left-right split in the NDP could result even though the actual cause may not have been entirely a left right disagreement -- it can simply be a question of the more centre voices walking to the Liberals for a time. Those who walk to the Liberals can come back in time for the very next election once the party leadership is in better hands but those who build a new party may be gone for decades.

The party's tolerence for building a leader longer term is a very bad reason to keep Mulcair who, on account of his age is not a long term proposition. This argument of relative patience is a great one to move to one of the younger lights -- who hold less baggage and are less likely to see members leave to build a new party. A move to someone like Ashton now could allow a decade long build with a new leader who could be with the party every step of the way. And Ashton is not the only bright light. This includes MPs who lost their seats who will, in several cases, remain in the party.

 

 

KenS

Its not remotely some kind of wish fulfillment for me. Just realism as I see it. "The grassroots" come to Convention in very small numbers. Even the delegates that could be called grassroots, rather than institutionalized [mostly volunteers], they need to see some very compelling force displayed to consider dumping the Leader.

This is not One Member One Vote- and cannot be made to "approximate" it.

If we could force the departure of Mulcair in less than a year- it would require a level of organization and discipline capable of far more than that.

Fair enough to see it as building- I hope it is- but it's not like its on the cusp of going on the streets.

KenS

An interesting obsrvation, even if I dont see the exact connection.... as much [unformulated] will is of people demanding much more.... you are unlikely see within the next year a groundswell of widespread and articulated generalized displeasure with the Trudeau government.

Stockholm

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

If the NDP ignores looking at what happened substantively the party may go down a road from which it cannot recover. I think the NDP is at grave risk of facing a new party on the left. The establishment and winning MPs could try to gloss over the issues and stand behind Mulcair, but if they do they may find that their support has largely walked away.

In the short term some may simply support the Liberals and this would leave those who cannot go to the Liberals little choice but to create a new party, demanding a new direction. Such a process involves a lot of investment and is hard to undo. A split could destroy the movement for a generation. As well a left-right split in the NDP could result even though the actual cause may not have been entirely a left right disagreement -- it can simply be a question of the more centre voices walking to the Liberals for a time. Those who walk to the Liberals can come back in time for the very next election once the party leadership is in better hands but those who build a new party may be gone for decades.

I'm not sure ewhat you mean by this "split" or by any new leftwing party being created. For all the talk about right vs. left - its often the people who would be considered more on the "right" within the NDP who are also the most partisan and the most aggressive towards the Liberals...One thing about Mulcair is that he is a fighter and i have a feeling that he will attack the Trudeau government very aggressively before long once they start to show their true colours. So i'm not ssurre where this split could occurr - is it that people on the far left of the party will be upset that Mulcair is attacking the Liberals too much for not being leftwing enough and will leave the party (to ask the question is to answer it) or will it be that people who are more "centrist" than Mulcair will decide that they think everything Trudeau is doing is perfect and take an attitude of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em") - not sure who those people are either... 

DaveW

for me, it is 1974 and 1988 all over again, sort of an amalgam of the last 2 most promising elections where a move by NDP into second-party and/or more influential status seemed possible; in short, a terrible disappointment not to achieve that

the 1974 defeat led shortly to Broadbent's ascension, the 1988 one away from Broadbent 

Stockholm above reflects the current Party establishment view that maybe now a more aggressive Mulcair will rally supporters/ voters against Liberals;

I doubt it, one of the elements that low-information voters turned to Justin for was less divisiveness, partisanship and hostility;  they came to hate all that conflict in Harper's final years, and "sunny ways" now rule the day ...

 

 

Stockholm

DaveW wrote:

for me, it is 1974 and 1988 all over again, sort of an amalgam of the last 2 most promising elections where a move by NDP into second-party and/or more influential status seemed possible; in short, a terrible disappointment not to achieve that

the 1974 defeat led shortly to Broadbent's ascension, the 1988 one away from Broadbent 

Stockholm above reflects the current Party establishment view that maybe now a more aggressive Mulcair will rally supporters/ voters against Liberals;

I doubt it, one of the elements that low-information voters turned to Justin for was less divisiveness, partisanship and hostility;  they came to hate all that conflict in Harper's final years, and "sunny ways" now rule the day ...

I don't actually think 1974 was ever seen as a great opportunity - I was a child then but from what I've read the NDP went into that election rather reluctantly and were mainly just hoping to contain losses and have another minority government. no one was expecting any great breakthrough.

If you seriously think that now and forever, all Canadian voters want is "sunny ways" and that no one wants to hear any criticism of Trudeau from right or left - then why even have this discussion - maybe both the NDP and the Conservatives should fold and we should just acknowledge that Canada is a one party state?

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Centrist wrote:

adma wrote:

Maybe the exception to the lost-ground rule is Vancouver Island, where the Green-induced vote splits actually worked in the NDP's favour--but still, the shares were lower even there.  And the VI situation camoflauged the mixed situation elsewhere in BC: lost both Surrey seats, Justinmania polevaulting over the NDP in or otherwise cheating them out of other "sure gains", etc.

Another matter to consider is that an election day "exit"poll by Insights West confirmed that 44% of NDP voters in BC had the NDP as their "2nd choice". And Van Isle had the highest number of such NDP voters. Had they gone with their first choice (Liberals/Greens), the results would have been disasterous.

I didn't see any exit polls in this part of the Island. Was this another Victoria poll that is being extrapolated to the rest of the Island? I don't know a single person in the riding of Courtenay-Alberni who voted NDP when they really wanted to vote Liberal. I know many people who might have voted Green instead of NDP if PR was in effect but not Liberal. The Liberals here went from 5% to 22% and both the NDP and Conservatives lost votes. It appears that as always in BC when the Conservatives tank their swing vote goes to the Liberals and when the Liberals tank they go back to the Conservatives.

The NDP in BC needs three way races if not four way races to win seats. The Conservatives win when there are two way races just like the way the BC Liberals keep winning. The same pool of voters who vote BC Liberal are the people who go back and forth from Cons to Libs federally. On Vancouver Island the change voters are sophisticated enough to know that a Liberal is not a progressive but merely a corporate hack with a nicer smile.

Stockholm

There is clearly a block of people who vote Liberal federally in BC and NDP provincially. In 2013 the BC NDP took 40% of the vote. In the federal election last month the NDP took 27% of the vote in BC - I have to think that virtually all of that 13% gap are people who are BC NDP voters who went for the Liberals federally because they saw them as being better positioned to beat Harper and because the Liberals actually sounded more like the NDP than the NDP did what with pledging to increase taxes on the top 1% etc...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Stockholm wrote:

There is clearly a block of people who vote Liberal federally in BC and NDP provincially. In 2013 the BC NDP took 40% of the vote. In the federal election last month the NDP took 27% of the vote in BC - I have to think that virtually all of that 13% gap are people who are BC NDP voters who went for the Liberals federally because they saw them as being better positioned to beat Harper and because the Liberals actually sounded more like the NDP than the NDP did what with pledging to increase taxes on the top 1% etc...

That is what happened in the Lower Mainland. The problem with many of these ideas are they are very regional and the regions are far smaller than the province. Vancouver Island has a different political culture than the Lower Mainland and both of them are far more progressive than the Interior of BC, except for maybe the West Kootenays. 

I think much of the problem comes with using precentages and voting numbers as interchangable. This election saw a large number of first time voters especially in BC and those voters mostly all voted for the Liberals. After all a Next Gen promising legalized pot compared to a old fuddy duddy promising to study it to death likely won the Liberals a number of Lower Mainland seats. My 27 year old university educated son told me his friends were all on the Trudeau pot bandwagon and most had never voted before.

DaveW

Stockholm wrote:

DaveW wrote:

for me, it is 1974 and 1988 all over again, sort of an amalgam of the last 2 most promising elections where a move by NDP into second-party and/or more influential status seemed possible; in short, a terrible disappointment not to achieve that

the 1974 defeat led shortly to Broadbent's ascension, the 1988 one away from Broadbent 

Stockholm above reflects the current Party establishment view that maybe now a more aggressive Mulcair will rally supporters/ voters against Liberals;

I doubt it, one of the elements that low-information voters turned to Justin for was less divisiveness, partisanship and hostility;  they came to hate all that conflict in Harper's final years, and "sunny ways" now rule the day ...

I don't actually think 1974 was ever seen as a great opportunity - I was a child then but from what I've read the NDP went into that election rather reluctantly and were mainly just hoping to contain losses and have another minority government. no one was expecting any great breakthrough.

If you seriously think that now and forever, all Canadian voters want is "sunny ways" and that no one wants to hear any criticism of Trudeau from right or left - then why even have this discussion - maybe both the NDP and the Conservatives should fold and we should just acknowledge that Canada is a one party state?

well, I was in high school at the time, 1972-74, and the NDP held enormous influence for a two-year period under David Lewis, which in many people's minds raised hopes of greater things to come; did not happen, correct

in any case, your reductio argument in the 2nd graf fails, as all debating-union seminars teach, because  you misstate the adversary's position;

OF COURSE Mulcair or whoever leads the NDP  has to be critical of Justin Libs; he is in opposition. But doing so at a higher volume to gain attention and be the "true opposition" will just revive all the Angry Tom memes. A sure fail.

Aristotleded24

Stockholm wrote:
If you seriously think that now and forever, all Canadian voters want is "sunny ways" and that no one wants to hear any criticism of Trudeau from right or left - then why even have this discussion - maybe both the NDP and the Conservatives should fold and we should just acknowledge that Canada is a one party state?

That is true to an extent, but taking it for granted that Canadians will eventually tire of Trudeau shows the same partisan delusion and arrogance of the Liberals on this board who claim that Trudeau will be able to charm himselt into office forever and ever. The fact is, Mulcair tried to "mop the floor" with Trudeau using your approach and it backfired miserably. Additionally, with the NDP as the third party, not only will not only Mulcair but the NDP caucus have less opportunities to go after the Liberals in Question Period, but the media establishment will once again to back to ignoring the NDP, and they may even be more selective in the quotes of Mulcair they choose to present to the people.

On the Conservative side, people wanted to see an angry approach with Harper because he made them angry. Now that Harper's gone, different tactics will be needed as well. Already the Conservatives have signalled the direction they're going by selecting Ambrose to lead them, and they may even find someone more likeable than Harper to step up to the plate (not that more likeable than Harper is a high bar to have to clear). Do you really think that angriliy going after Ambrose is going to go over well with people? Never mind us partisans who've already made up our minds about both parties and aren't going to change any time soon, what about the non-aligned voters who decide elections?

DaveW

Good points, the times have changed and partisan approaches have fallen into disrepute. For a while.

It was different when Duffy ruled the waves, now it's good news from the new Government and a prolonged (likely) honeymooon.

Centrist

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I didn't see any exit polls in this part of the Island. Was this another Victoria poll that is being extrapolated to the rest of the Island? I don't know a single person in the riding of Courtenay-Alberni who voted NDP when they really wanted to vote Liberal. I know many people who might have voted Green instead of NDP if PR was in effect but not Liberal.

Actually on e-day, Insights West conducted an opinion poll of all BCers that actually voted. And they found that 44% of NDP voters in BC overall voted NDP in 2015 as their 2nd choice (strategic voting). And by region, Vancouver Island had the largest proportion of these voters (compared to Metro Vancouver of interior BC).

I highly suspect that the NDP campaign did one thing right in BC. Both Tom and the NDP in general kept hammering away in the media that the only way to defeat a Con in BC was vote NDP. And that obviously resonated. Also made alot of sense since the Libs were basically dead pre-2015 and fear by Green voters that they might inadvertently elect a Con.

Just look at the Van Isle riding of Nanaimo-Ladysmith, for example:

NDP: 33%

Lib: 24%

Con: 23%

Green: 20%

Had these 44% of NDP voters in BC that voted NDP as their 2nd choice actually voted for their first choice, we likely would have seen completely different riding outcomes in BC. Just the way I see how things unfolded.

felixr

Nanaimo-Ladysmith is a weird case because the Green candidate was the son of the NDP MP that succeeded Tommy Douglas as MP there. That Green candidate had also run for the NDP nomination but been disqualified by Federal HQ for comments criticizing Israel. It was a central purge pure and simple and it did a lot of damage to the local campaign. The NDP is very lucky the Conservative campaign tanked so badly because that was their riding to win.

NorthReport

Right now the only Opposition Party making all the right moves are the Conservatives, because they know the name of the game is to win.

May as well lump the NDP in with the Greens.

NDP who?

Debater

felixr wrote:

Also, referring to your previous post, the Liberals helped the Conservatives (the most hated major political party in Québec) to generate one of their best hauls of Québec seats in a long time- and this despite awful polling numbers. Thank you Liberals for putting the Conservatives AND a racist Bloc Quebecois back in the winner's column in Québec.

What?

How are the Liberals responsible for the Conservatives picking up some seats in Quebec?

That happened because:

1) Harper & Duceppe brought up the Niqab issue which increased support for the CPC & BQ in socially conservative ridings in QC

2) The NDP campaign was lacklustre and was unable to be the agent of change for ABC voters in QC

3) The NDP platform was unappealing to Quebecers.  As Chantal Hebert wrote last month, one of the things that hurt the NDP in QC was that its economic platform looked too much like the provincial austerity Quebecers are getting from the Couilliard Government.  Plus, the other issues like re-opening the Constiution to abolish the Senate did not resonate in QC, either.

It was the Liberals that actually prevented the Conservatives from sweeping Quebec City.  The NDP collapsed so far in Quebec City that they ended up finishing 3rd, but fortunately the Liberals were able to stop the Conservatives from winning Louis-Hebert & Quebec.

The Liberals also blocked Conservative ambitions in Mount Royal by putting a stop to Robert Libman.

Stockholm

DaveW wrote:

OF COURSE Mulcair or whoever leads the NDP  has to be critical of Justin Libs; he is in opposition. But doing so at a higher volume to gain attention and be the "true opposition" will just revive all the Angry Tom memes. A sure fail.

But wait a second, I thought the consensus was that the NDP erred in trying to turn "angry Tom" into "friendly Tom" and that voters actually would have LIKED to see more anger and passion. IMHO the only people who ever went on about "angry Tom" were a few Liberals and their media friends in the Ottawa bubble. In the real world, I never ever met anyone who thought Tom Mulcair was angry...if anything what I heard from people was that they wished Mulcair was ANGRIER because they were pissed off at Harper and wanted that to be voiced by someone. I think the NDP stupidly let themsleves get spooked by this "angry" thing - even though there is not a shred of evidence that voters see anger as a negative attribute in a politician. I remember reading all this post-debate analysis after each of the leaders debates where the consensus was that Tom Mulcair seemed like he had taken a tranquilizer and was too low-key and how IF ONLY he had shown the anger and passion he had shown in the House of Commons - he would have won the debate easily.

Trudeau and the Liberals will inevitably screw up some files and will disappoint people by NOT being as progressive as people might have hoped - and it will be the job of the NDP leader - whether its Tom Mulcair or eventually someone else - to aggressively attack the Liberals for their failings. Its not a matter of being loud or soft-spoken - its a matter of having the brainpower and analytic skills to know how to pick apart the government when oppoirtunity knocks. The task of opposing the Liberals will be very different from opposing the Tories...and one difference is that when the Tories were in power, for the most part the NDP and Liberal critiques were identical since both were attacking the Tories from the left. It will be very different now because the NDP will be the "progressive opposition" attacking the Liberals from the left while i expect the Conservatves to be "the Conservative opposition" attacking from the right...it will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

BTW: One of the reasons why there is an apparent closing of ranks for the time being behind Mulcair is that I think the 3 or 4 people in caucus who have ambitions to be leader at some point down the road a. do not want to be seen as disloyal backstabbers - he who kills the kind never gets to bear the crown and b. I think the next generation of leadership hopefuls all genuinely feel they need a couple of years cutting their teeth in this new parliament and developing their skills and would not be ready for a leadership contest at this time. 

 

Stockholm

People forget that after the 1968 election, even after losing his seat - Tommy Douglas wanted to stick around as NDP leader and he was more or les read the riot act by some party elders that it was time for him to go...though he was replaced by David Lewis who was only a few years younger.

After the 2000 election I don't recall what the dynamics were around Alexa MacDonough. The election was a flop but she did not resign right away...she waited until July 2002 to announce she was stepping down and Jack Layton became the new leader in January 2003. I don't know whether MacDonough was pressured to quit or is it was always the plan to wait a bit after the 2000 election before having a new contest.

There have been other federal party leaders who's first outing was not very promising. Lester Pearson led the Liberals to their worst defeat ever in 1958 - i don't know if any Liberals wanted him to quit after that - but he stuck around and was PM by 1963. In 1968, Stanfield's first campaign against Trudeau was an unmitigated disaster - again, i do not know if there was any pressure on Stanfield to quit after '68, but in the end he stuck around and came within two seats of winning in 1972. John Turner led the Liberals to just 40 seats in 1984 and was seen as a total fiasco...but contrary to expectations, he stuck around as Liberal leader (though Chretien's people kept plotting against him) and he managed to redeem himself with a great campaign in 1988 where he may not have won, but he took the Liberals from 40 seats to 88 and made them contenders again...  

Again, I am not saying Mulcair should or should not lead the NDP in 2019 - just that there are "second acts" in Canadian politics and plenty of precedents of leaders doing much better in their second kick at the can.

DaveW

in the post-1974 and post-1988 NDP leadership races, the national leader (D.Lewis, Broadbent) had been in the seat for so long that there was no early pulling-the-tooth struggle, it was time to leave -- the way there would be in 2015 to oust a still combative one-term Mulcair;

  such an involuntary departure could be Clark/Mulroney all over again, if strong NDP leader candidates emerged ...

DaveW

good points

-- speaking of second acts, the greatest of all was of course Trudeau rising from the dead in 1980

Debater

There are definitely 'second acts' in Canadian politics.  That is true.

The Liberal Party of Canada just had the biggest comeback in Canadian history.

 

But it's important to keep in mind that what makes Mulcair's case different is that:

1) The NDP has never started out so high and taken such a big drop from such high a point before

2) Mulcair himself is in his 60's and would almost certainly be the oldest leader of any of the parties again in the next election.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Debater wrote:

 Mulcair himself is in his 60's and would almost certainly be the oldest leader of any of the parties again in the next election.

That is just the facts. All across Canada our cities have been electing GenX Mayors and civic leaders. The idea that Mulcair could be the poster boy for change is ludicrous. 

Naomi Klein for PM

Debater

And I think the Cons know that now, too.

There's about a 99% chance that the next Con leader will be younger than 60.

Probably someone in their late 40's, but probably early 50's at the oldest.

felixr

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Debater wrote:

 Mulcair himself is in his 60's and would almost certainly be the oldest leader of any of the parties again in the next election.

That is just the facts. All across Canada our cities have been electing GenX Mayors and civic leaders. The idea that Mulcair could be the poster boy for change is ludicrous. 

Naomi Klein for PM

How about Hazel Mccallion? or Trudeau Sr? Yes, Mulcair should be shit-canned for being old. Brilliant point Debater.

felixr

Debater wrote:

felixr wrote:

Also, referring to your previous post, the Liberals helped the Conservatives (the most hated major political party in Québec) to generate one of their best hauls of Québec seats in a long time- and this despite awful polling numbers. Thank you Liberals for putting the Conservatives AND a racist Bloc Quebecois back in the winner's column in Québec.

What?

How are the Liberals responsible for the Conservatives picking up some seats in Quebec?

That happened because:

1) Harper & Duceppe brought up the Niqab issue which increased support for the CPC & BQ in socially conservative ridings in QC

2) The NDP campaign was lacklustre and was unable to be the agent of change for ABC voters in QC

3) The NDP platform was unappealing to Quebecers.  As Chantal Hebert wrote last month, one of the things that hurt the NDP in QC was that its economic platform looked too much like the provincial austerity Quebecers are getting from the Couilliard Government.  Plus, the other issues like re-opening the Constiution to abolish the Senate did not resonate in QC, either.

It was the Liberals that actually prevented the Conservatives from sweeping Quebec City.  The NDP collapsed so far in Quebec City that they ended up finishing 3rd, but fortunately the Liberals were able to stop the Conservatives from winning Louis-Hebert & Quebec.

The Liberals also blocked Conservative ambitions in Mount Royal by putting a stop to Robert Libman.

What an asinine post. Using one standard to vaunt the Liberals in BC and when the same standard is applied to the results in Québec we get a channel changing three bullet list. Liberal argument has about as much consistency as its principles.

scott16

Ruth Ellen Brosseau introduced Tom Mulcair at the BC convention. I wonder who decided on her to introduce him. Maybe he chose her?

I hope when he steps down as leader she runs for the leadership.

Aristotleded24

felixr wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Debater wrote:

 Mulcair himself is in his 60's and would almost certainly be the oldest leader of any of the parties again in the next election.

That is just the facts. All across Canada our cities have been electing GenX Mayors and civic leaders. The idea that Mulcair could be the poster boy for change is ludicrous. 

Naomi Klein for PM

How about Hazel Mccallion? or Trudeau Sr? Yes, Mulcair should be shit-canned for being old. Brilliant point Debater.

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kWaKhrpa28]I agree[/url]

JKR

Debater wrote:

And I think the Cons know that now, too.

There's about a 99% chance that the next Con leader will be younger than 60.

Probably someone in their late 40's, but probably early 50's at the oldest.

Jason Kenney is 47 now and will be 51 at the time of the next election. His similarity to Harper will hinder his chances of winning but I think he is the one with the best chance of winning the Conservatives leadership race.

So the NDP will likely have the advantage of knowing who will be the leaders opposing them in the 2019 election when they choose their leader likely in 2017 or 2018. The scenario that worries me now is that Mulcair and his team will hang on to power and lead the NDP in 2019. My guess is that Mulcair is already planning to step down in time for a NDP leadership convention in either 2017 or 2018. I volunteered for the NDP in this election but I'm not sure I would in the next election if Mulcair is still the leader of the party.

Unionist

JKR wrote:

Jason Kenney is 47 now and will be 51 at the time of the next election.

Ok, I agree he's 47 now, but how do you figure he'll be 51 at the next election??

Quote:
His similarity to Harper will hinder his chances of winning but I think he is the one with the best chance of winning the Conservatives leadership race.

He eats kittens??

Quote:
So the NDP will likely have the advantage of knowing who will be the leaders opposing them in the 2019 election when they choose their leader likely in 2017 or 2018.

I see. So they'll pick a leader based on who the other leaders are? How very Machiavellian.

Quote:
The scenario that worries me now is that Mulcair and his team will hang on to power and lead the NDP in 2019.

Surely if that's what the members of the NDP want, that's what will happen. Why does that worry you? Democracy worries you?

Quote:
My guess is that Mulcair is already planning to step down in time for a NDP leadership convention in either 2017 or 2018. I volunteered for the NDP in this election but I'm not sure I would in the next election if Mulcair is still the leader of the party.

If I based my electoral choices and work on who the leader was, I would consign them all to hellfire where they belong. Thankfully, some of these parties are more than the two-bit preening dictator who leads them. Except for the Conservatives.

 

Debater

JKR wrote:

Jason Kenney is 47 now and will be 51 at the time of the next election. His similarity to Harper will hinder his chances of winning but I think he is the one with the best chance of winning the Conservatives leadership race.

Will the fact that Kenney is a 47-year old 'bachelor' with no kids be an issue for the Conservative base?

I'm not a Conservative, so I'm trying to put myself into the mind of the average 'Earl Cowan' type.

It has usually been the case that Conservatives expect their leaders to be married with children and be a good 'family man'.

(This could also be one of the reasons why John Baird has ruled himself out of the Conservative leadership.)

Policywonk

Unionist wrote:

JKR wrote:

Jason Kenney is 47 now and will be 51 at the time of the next election.

Ok, I agree he's 47 now, but how do you figure he'll be 51 at the next election?? 

Unless the Liberals abrogate or change the Canada Elections Act the next election will be the third Monday of October 2019.

Stockholm

Debater wrote:

JKR wrote:

Jason Kenney is 47 now and will be 51 at the time of the next election. His similarity to Harper will hinder his chances of winning but I think he is the one with the best chance of winning the Conservatives leadership race.

Will the fact that Kenney is a 47-year old 'bachelor' with no kids be an issue for the Conservative base?

I'm not a Conservative, so I'm trying to put myself into the mind of the average 'Earl Cowan' type.

It has usually been the case that Conservatives expect their leaders to be married with children and be a good 'family man'.

(This could also be one of the reasons why John Baird has ruled himself out of the Conservative leadership.)

I have made this point before, but then again the Ontario PCs chose Patrick Brown as their leader who has never been married and has no kids and up until a year or two ago Peter McKay had never been married and had no kids...just s string of high profile dalliances. Perhaps it's one thing to be known as a heterosexual serial monogamist who just hasn't settled down yet and another to be a "49 year old virgin" who is rumored to be gay...

Btw: Kellie Leitch has also never been married and is also the subject of rumors...

adma

Earl Cowan would probably be all like "his private life is none of your business, you lying pieces of sh*t"

Unionist

Policywonk wrote:

Unionist wrote:

JKR wrote:

Jason Kenney is 47 now and will be 51 at the time of the next election.

Ok, I agree he's 47 now, but how do you figure he'll be 51 at the next election?? 

Unless the Liberals abrogate or change the Canada Elections Act the next election will be the third Monday of October 2019.

Sorry PW, I was making a feeble attempt to mock the redundancy of citing a person's age now and then citing his age 4 years from now (and, more substantively, the rank ageism pervading some of these threads).

But now that you raise the fixed election angle, let me reconsider:

I'm predicting that in March 2016, the entire Liberal caucus will defect to the other 3 parties (in equal numbers), no viable coalition will be formed, the G-G will dissolve the House and call an election - in short, Jason Kenney will still be 47 years old at the "next election" (because his birthday is May 30)!!

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

JKR

Unionist wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

Unionist wrote:

JKR wrote:

Jason Kenney is 47 now and will be 51 at the time of the next election.

Ok, I agree he's 47 now, but how do you figure he'll be 51 at the next election?? 

Unless the Liberals abrogate or change the Canada Elections Act the next election will be the third Monday of October 2019.

Sorry PW, I was making a feeble attempt to mock the redundancy of citing a person's age now and then citing his age 4 years from now (and, more substantively, the rank ageism pervading some of these threads).

But now that you raise the fixed election angle, let me reconsider:

I'm predicting that in March 2016, the entire Liberal caucus will defect to the other 3 parties (in equal numbers), no viable coalition will be formed, the G-G will dissolve the House and call an election - in short, Jason Kenney will still be 47 years old at the "next election" (because his birthday is May 30)!!

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

I was trying to point out that Jason Kenney's age almost perfectly fits the ages Debater mentioned in his post.

JKR wrote:
Debater wrote:

And I think the Cons know that now, too.

There's about a 99% chance that the next Con leader will be younger than 60.

Probably someone in their late 40's, but probably early 50's at the oldest.

Jason Kenney is 47 now and will be 51 at the time of the next election.

Stockholm

There are a number of criteria of what makes for a good leader - and age is the least of them. I remember how back in the early 90s Jean Chretien was dismissed as "yesterday's man" and was seen to be as old as the hills and everyone went on about how he was no competition for the young dynamic first woman PM - Kim Campbell! I also remember how in 2000 the Canadian Alliance under their "young, vibrant, athletic" leader Stockwell Day was going to easily blow old man Chretien out of the water because he looked so sexy on a jet ski - how did that turn out???

DaveW

I agree, the age issue counts for zero; Mulcair is dynamic and indefatigable, so throw that out;

the issue is entirely: Did he blow the 2015 election through avoidable campaign/policy errors? and is he likely to do similar in the future? (cf. Ontario 2014, B.C. 2013)

as for age, at 59 I am too old to keep fighting with the thought that NDP is 3rd party ad infinitum; some NGO or social cause could better use my support, maybe that is the way to go

... all  those Party policies are devised at great expense with the goal of being IMPLEMENTED, and that generally depends on being close to power, at least

that depends to a great degree on the approach(es) of the leader

Stockholm

That's why I would adopt a wait and see approach. There is no rush. In many (but not all) cases politicians learn from their mistakes and do better with experinece under their belts. Harper blew the 2004 election by making a series of mistakes...he learned from those mistakes and won the next three elections. Dalton McGuinty was a flop in 1999, but did a lot better in 2003 and won three straight elections. John Tory was considered a washed up loser after losing the TO mayoralty in 2003 and the Ontario election of 2007 - now he is mayor of Toronto. Up until about two weeks before the 2011 election, it was not hard to find malcontents in the NDP who said that Jack Layton had failed to make any major gains in three straight elections and had to be replaced...

on the other hand, the Ontario PCs had a bad experience with Tim Hudak in 2011 and then in 2014 he ended up being even worse!

Ask me towards the end of 2016 whether I think Tom Mulcair should lead the NDP in 2019 and by then I may have an answer. I think by then we will have a much better idea of how Mulcair plans to position the NDP vis a vis the Liberal government and what he plans to do differently. 

quizzical

kropotkin1951 wrote:
That is just the facts. All across Canada our cities have been electing GenX Mayors and civic leaders. The idea that Mulcair could be the poster boy for change is ludicrous. 

Naomi Klein for PM

does she speak French?

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Stockholm wrote:
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 leade[/rshiup contest would start immediately...we don't need that.[/url]

My sense is that the NDP's "elders"/inner cabal doesn't think there is a leadership issue. Which is unfortunate, given that I think Mulcair leading the NDP into the next election would be an unmitigated disaster.

Pages

Topic locked