Next Federal NDP Leader

765 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

Did you get that I was joking?

Can't have one of those dreary explainers, after all.

.. politics too.

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

By that reckoning TT, do you think Stephen Harper, George Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Brian Mulroney and a host of others were "the best leaders" simply because they won majorities?

terrytowel

6079_Smith_W wrote:

By that reckoning TT, do you think Stephen Harper, George Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Brian Mulroney and a host of others were "the best leaders" when they won majorities?

I guess u are right cause I'm a big Alexa McDonough fan, think she is a fabulous female leader

Stockholm

I actually thought MacDonough was a dreadful leader. She was like a parody of a well-meaning Salvation Army majorette standing at a street corner banging a tambourine and saying "health care, health care, more money, money money"...

brookmere

6079_Smith_W wrote:
do you think Stephen Harper, George Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Brian Mulroney and a host of others were "the best leaders" simply because they won majorities?

Definitely they were the best at advancing the causes that their parties represent. That's a leader's job.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If that is the case why he lose over 50 seats?

Because best isn't always popular.

JKR

Unfortunately, the opinions I heard about Mulcair toward the end of the election were not good. On the day of the election I went door to door getting out the vote of people who said they were going to vote NDP or were leaning toward the NDP. Unfortunately, I didn't hear anyone say positive things about Mulcair at the door step and I heard some negative things. So I think the perception of Mulcair is clearly more negative now than it was before the election. Of course this is only anecdotal evidence and even if it is true it could change in the future. The opinion polling over the next few months should tell us how much of a hit Mulcair's and the NDP's brand has taken. If Mulcair's approval numbers remain low over the next 4 months or so then it will probably be best for him to say that he won't be running in the next election and start a process toward a leadership election. On the other hand, if his personal approval numbers are competitive in 4 months or so, he should have a chance at winning the next election.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Approval rating among who?

This part:

Quote:
If Mulcair's approval numbers remain low over the next 4 months or so then it will probably be best for him to say that he won't be running in the next election and start a process toward a leadership election.

... sounds like his approval among NDP members/supporters.

This part:

Quote:
On the other hand, if his personal approval numbers are competitive in 4 months or so, he should have a chance at winning the next election.

... sounds like his approval among the electorate in general.

 

wage zombie

josh wrote:

Quote:
No one cares about deficits anymore. No one regards balanced budgets as a priority.

No one cares about deficits if the Liberals propose them.  It's a whole other story if the NDP propose them.

josh wrote:

So you're saying that only a "tiny and emasculated" (did you peek to see, btw?) fringe are opposed to Mulcair's Blairism? That the only difference is a matter of style, not with the third-way, quasi neo-liberalism of its leader? Sounds like the arrogant attitude of the Labour establishment after Ed Milliband stepped down. How did that one turn out?

When's the last time you've been to an NDP event?

wage zombie

Misfit wrote:
We have the best leader in the House of Commons. Let's not lose sight of that.

Fantasy.

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Approval rating among who?

This part:

Quote:
If Mulcair's approval numbers remain low over the next 4 months or so then it will probably be best for him to say that he won't be running in the next election and start a process toward a leadership election.

... sounds like his approval among NDP members/supporters.

This part:

Quote:
On the other hand, if his personal approval numbers are competitive in 4 months or so, he should have a chance at winning the next election.

... sounds like his approval among the electorate in general.

 

I think the approval rating among the electorate in general is the variable to be considered. If Mulcair's approval rating among the electorate in general or the NDP's approval rating among the electorate in general falls below 16%, a leadership change before the next election will be the way to go for the NDP.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I want Tom to stick around untill the next election. I want the NDP to get its act together on its platform and clean house of all the stupid party insiders. I want the NDP to explain why people should vote for us, and why voting liberal won't work for ordinary Canadians. THere is one silver lining with the result though, TRudeau is going to pass TPP and within a couple of years voters will be feeling its affect, will remember Harper, and be looking for some other place to park their vote. I say it again, Trudeau is going to be a one term PM; despite what some particular LPC sycophants say on here. TPP is much worse than NAFTA, and as Canadians watch us lose control over drug prices and water, the Liberals are going to wish they'd never passed it. I want Tom to stay; we don't knife our leaders and TOm is smart enough to learn from this. Let's support him but insist he change some of the things he does, and pushes back against the stupid, stupid, Liberal framed assertion that the NDP is a right wing party. Frnakly, where that is concerned, that is a real load of bull! Go Tom! Go NDP. Ready? Aye! Ready. Allons-y!

mark_alfred

To go against Trudeau, the NDP need to get Kiefer Sutherland.  And the Conservatives need to get Ben Mulroney.  Then we could have a closer contest.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think the approval rating among the electorate in general is the variable to be considered. If Mulcair's approval rating among the electorate in general or the NDP's approval rating among the electorate in general falls below 16%, a leadership change before the next election will be the way to go for the NDP.

OK, not squabbling here, but who polls for approval ratings of the third party, and what do respondents either approve or not approve?

Quote:
To go against Trudeau, the NDP need to get Kiefer Sutherland.  And the Conservatives need to get Ben Mulroney.  Then we could have a closer contest.

Or a "dance-off".

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I think the approval rating among the electorate in general is the variable to be considered. If Mulcair's approval rating among the electorate in general or the NDP's approval rating among the electorate in general falls below 16%, a leadership change before the next election will be the way to go for the NDP.

OK, not squabbling here, but who polls for approval ratings of the third party, and what do respondents either approve or not approve?

Quote:
To go against Trudeau, the NDP need to get Kiefer Sutherland.  And the Conservatives need to get Ben Mulroney.  Then we could have a closer contest.

Or a "dance-off".

Nanos provides good statistics concerning the general electorate and Len Goodman is a good judge of dancing ability.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_Goodman

terrytowel

Like I said Joe Cressy would be the best one to lead the NDP for a new generation.

He is young, dynamic, more to the left of the NDP and could take on Trudeau in any debate

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/potential-joe-cressy-candidacy...

adma

JeffWells wrote:

If Mulcair really intends to stay on then I believe I can safely predict a party split before the next election.

Sort of like the Socreds in the 1960s?

takeitslowly

maybe we can recruit harper's son...Harpermania 2

takeitslowly

or one of those guys from barenakedladies?

Brachina

 Realistically its unlikely  that Mulcair will stay after a year. His strong suit is QP and Trudeau will avoid that like the plague. He no longer has the soap box of being the official opposition, he can no longer say he can keep Quebec, there is already on the left of the party people who are pushing to get rid of him ever before he lost, no he can no longer say only he can win, he lost, so now they're nothing holding his critics back. Unless a miracle happens it will be Carole James all over again, if he doesn't leave after a year.

 I like Mulcair, but I'm just being realistic, he's a good leader, campaign aside and a good man, but all the cards he's got left are complete crap. I don't see how he fixes that.

 Mulcair can help clean house and help fundraise, but honestly its unlikely he will be able to do much more, and without a major shift in out look for the NDP in a years time, he will likely leave, at least as leader, but stay on as an MP.

Debater

terrytowel wrote:

Like I said Joe Cressy would be the best one to lead the NDP for a new generation.

He is young, dynamic, more to the left of the NDP and could take on Trudeau in any debate

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/potential-joe-cressy-candidacy...

Terry Towel, I have to disagree with you on this. Smile

I do not think Joe Cressy has the stature to be NDP leader.

And I don't think he is fluent in French.

nicky

For once I agree with Debater.

We should all remember that Terryt...l only wants what is worst for the NDP.

terrytowel

nicky wrote:
For once I agree with Debater. We should all remember that Terryt...l only wants what is worst for the NDP.

You do know that Joe Cressy is part of NDP royalty and his ties to the party run deep? Plus he runs more left to the party and has the foreign credentials to lead a party. In 2002 ppl were saying the same thing about Jack Layton, and look what he did with the party.

The party needs a young, fresh face to attract new supporters.

Brachina

 Am I the only one who assumes that TT is only taking about the Joe Cressly as a parody of those of us who have in seriousness suggested Ruth Ellen Brousseau?

 Now Mike or Sarah Layton could be interesting.

 But still I'm helping REB runs.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I just got this email from Tom Mulcair. It seems that he is not ready to quit just yet.

Tom Mulcair wrote:

Michael,

Monday's election results weren't exactly what we had hoped for, but I want you to hear this directly from me: New Democrats will never stop fighting for you.

As a party, we have made historic contributions to build this country. We will continue our pursuit of better health care for Canadians. We will continue to fight against climate change and protect our land, air, and water. And we will continue our efforts to build a true Nation-to-Nation relationship with First Nations, Inuit, and Metis peoples.

That's the vision 3.5 million Canadians voted for this election and we will not let them down.

As a donor, you've made a significant investment in our party's work to build a better Canada. Thank you for your dedication to our cause and steadfast hope and optimism.

I am immensely proud of what we built together. We ran the most women and the most Indigenous candidates in the history of this country.

We knocked on more doors, raised more dollars, and reached more voters than ever before. But our work to build a better country doesn't end on Election Day - in fact, it's only just beginning.

Mr. Trudeau has made ambitious commitments and Canadians have high expectations for their next Parliament. We will hold this new government to account and fight for your priorities every day.

That is my commitment to you.

Thank you for everything you have done - now, let's begin the next chapter.

Tom

Tom Mulcair

Leader

Canada's New Democrats

KenS

Pretty clear from everything around:

* He's not quiting anywhere in the near future.

All good as far as I'm concerned.

* While not being the least bit challenging about it, the indications are that he thinks he and the party have an indefinite period of time to decide. In principle: maybe never.

The wisdom of that is a little more debatable. But it's quite secondary as far as I am converned. For an indefinite period of time- I can live with it as an operative assumption.

There are more central things to address than who leads the party, or even setting some kind of timeline for the leadership process.

terrytowel

Brachina what do you have against Joe Cressy (other than his french). takeitslowly you worked on Cressy election campaign in 2014, don't you think he would be a good leader if Mulcair decides to step down?

Unionist

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I just got this email from Tom Mulcair. It seems that he is not ready to quit just yet.

Tom Mulcair wrote:

Michael,

Monday's election results weren't exactly what we had hoped for, but I want you to hear this directly from me: New Democrats will never stop fighting for you.

As a party, we have made historic contributions to build this country. We will continue our pursuit of better health care for Canadians. We will continue to fight against climate change and protect our land, air, and water. And we will continue our efforts to build a true Nation-to-Nation relationship with First Nations, Inuit, and Metis peoples.

That's the vision 3.5 million Canadians voted for this election and we will not let them down.

As a donor, you've made a significant investment in our party's work to build a better Canada. Thank you for your dedication to our cause and steadfast hope and optimism.

BLAH BLAH BLAH

So I'm a donor too... and I didn't get any message from Tom Mulcair or anyone else in the party. I think that when they're cleaning house, they can also fire all the assholes who send out nonstop "give us money" messages, and then forget to say "thank you".

I think I'll send Tom (my MP, by the way) a letter saying:

Unionist wrote:
Dear Mr. Mulcair, I understand New Democrats will never stop fighting for me - and I heard this directly from Michael Moriarty. Please advise, for future reference, how much I have to donate in order to hear such information directly from you.

Whaddya think?

 

scott16

terrytowel wrote:

Brachina what do you have against Joe Cressy (other than his french). takeitslowly you worked on Cressy election campaign in 2014, don't you think he would be a good leader if Mulcair decides to step down?

He just became a city councillor less then a year ago. That is not enough experience. No French seals the deal.

On top of that there are many, many better candidates

 

scott16

KenS wrote:

Pretty clear from everything around:

* He's not quiting anywhere in the near future.

All good as far as I'm concerned.

* While not being the least bit challenging about it, the indications are that he thinks he and the party have an indefinite period of time to decide. In principle: maybe never.

The wisdom of that is a little more debatable. But it's quite secondary as far as I am converned. For an indefinite period of time- I can live with it as an operative assumption.

There are more central things to address than who leads the party, or even setting some kind of timeline for the leadership process.

If Mulcair were to stay we would lose even more seats next time. If he were to start talking like the Canadian Bernie Sanders no one would believe him or the Ndp.

terrytowel

scott16 wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Brachina what do you have against Joe Cressy (other than his french). takeitslowly you worked on Cressy election campaign in 2014, don't you think he would be a good leader if Mulcair decides to step down?

He just became a city councillor less then a year ago. That is not enough experience.

Dippers said the same thing about Trudeau and look where he is. You guys need to get over the "He's Just NOT Ready" narrative. Obviously it doesn't work.

terrytowel

Mulcair to NDP Caucus:

"I firmly intend to stay for the long-term & to lead the party in the next election"

scott16

terrytowel wrote:

Mulcair to NDP Caucus:

"I firmly intend to stay for the long-term & to lead the party in the next election"

do you have a link with proof in it?

terrytowel

scott16 wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Mulcair to NDP Caucus:

"I firmly intend to stay for the long-term & to lead the party in the next election"

do you have a link with proof in it?

https://twitter.com/RichardMadan/status/657639326667419648

KenS

"I firmly inetnd to lead party X in the next election" is always to be taken with a HUGE scoop of salt.

If you have any intention of POSSIBLY wanting to stay on, very much even if if you have not yet decided whether you want to stay "your term,"  then you ALWAYS say simply "I inted to fight the next election.

Any qualifications at all- and you are already a lame duck on your way out.

Unionist

terrytowel wrote:

scott16 wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Mulcair to NDP Caucus:

"I firmly intend to stay for the long-term & to lead the party in the next election"

do you have a link with proof in it?

https://twitter.com/RichardMadan/status/657639326667419648

Richard Madan isn't allowed in to caucus meetings, so how does he get to quote Mulcair? I'll wait for a first-hand source.

KenS

In practice, Mulcair is ONE person in the shadow race that has begun- he's the one with the advantages, and MAY even decide to fight to not have a race.

We can't stop the distraction of the de facto shadow race. But we can take and encourage the benefits of putting off the full out inensity of an actual race.... so that we can improve focus on the bigger questions of the party's direction.

josh

terrytowel wrote:

scott16 wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Mulcair to NDP Caucus:

"I firmly intend to stay for the long-term & to lead the party in the next election"

do you have a link with proof in it?

https://twitter.com/RichardMadan/status/657639326667419648

Unbelievable. If the party doesn't at least force a leadership election, it should fold up shop.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Unionist wrote:

So I'm a donor too... and I didn't get any message from Tom Mulcair or anyone else in the party. I think that when they're cleaning house, they can also fire all the assholes who send out nonstop "give us money" messages, and then forget to say "thank you".

I think I'll send Tom (my MP, by the way) a letter saying:

Unionist wrote:
Dear Mr. Mulcair, I understand New Democrats will never stop fighting for me - and I heard this directly from Michael Moriarty. Please advise, for future reference, how much I have to donate in order to hear such information directly from you.

Whaddya think?

I can assure you that my donation was very small, probably smaller than yours. I attribute their failure to send you the thank you note to the NDP's general incompetence in data management.

NDPP

Time to leave it to its own devices and get to work building something truly progressive and responsive to the critical challenges Canadians face. How many more NATO missions and Libyas, Syrias, Ukraines,Palestines or pro-austerity 'balanced budgets' do dippers wish to support under its failed, embarassing collaborationist misleadership? LEAP looks far more promising as a place to start than a Hill & Knowlton style NDP..

Cody87

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-election-poll-change-oct24-1.328...

Quote:

But change was the main issue for them, with 32 per cent telling Forum it was their main reason for voting for the Liberals. Leader Justin Trudeau was the main vote driver for 20 per cent of Liberals, while another 20 per cent said they voted for the party because it was the one they liked best.

The Liberals convinced a majority of their voters during the campaign itself, with two-thirds having decided to vote for the party after the election was called. The plan to go into deficits to spend on infrastructure moved the largest number of Liberal voters who swung to that party during the campaign, the polls suggest.

20 percent of the 7M Liberal voters (~1.4M) voted for Trudeau, as opposed to against Harper (~2.3M) or due to party loyalty (1.4M)

Quote:
More NDP voters told Forum that they were voting primarily against a party than for a party, suggesting that many voters who went with the New Democrats did so for strategic reasons. Indeed, 44 per cent of NDP voters in B.C. and 40 per cent in Alberta said that they were voting strategically, according to Insights West....Like the Liberals, change was a major driver for NDP voters. But voting for the local candidate scored much more highly among New Democrats than it did among Liberals and Conservatives, while voting for the leader scored much lower. Forum found that just 9 per cent of NDP supporters were influenced most by the leader in their voting decision, less than half of the scores for Justin Trudeau and Stephen Harper. Not surprisingly, by the end of the campaign Tom Mulcair was trailing both Trudeau and Harper by a wide margin on who would make the best prime minister.

By comparison, only 9 % of the NDP's 3.5M voters (or about 325000) voted for Mulcair.

 

Cody87

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Unionist wrote:

So I'm a donor too... and I didn't get any message from Tom Mulcair or anyone else in the party. I think that when they're cleaning house, they can also fire all the assholes who send out nonstop "give us money" messages, and then forget to say "thank you".

I think I'll send Tom (my MP, by the way) a letter saying:

Unionist wrote:
Dear Mr. Mulcair, I understand New Democrats will never stop fighting for me - and I heard this directly from Michael Moriarty. Please advise, for future reference, how much I have to donate in order to hear such information directly from you.

Whaddya think?

I can assure you that my donation was very small, probably smaller than yours. I attribute their failure to send you the thank you note to the NDP's general incompetence in data management.

Actually, I doubt that. I'm sure that the New Democrats, like the Conservatives (and I'm sure the Liberals), "sort" their supporters by various data points such as what issues matter to them. This allows them to send micro-targetted messages, so people who (for example) want to see marijuana legalized will get emails about topics related to marijuana legalization, while people who care about women's rights and FN's will get an email about topics related to an inquiry on missing and murdered indigineous women. Naturally, for all three parties, these emails will invariably end with a plea for donations.

So I'm sure that whatever data point triggered Michael Moriarity's email from Mulcair did not trigger it for Unionist (or, conversely, Unionist had a data point that excluded him for the email).

JeffWells

scott16 wrote:

If Mulcair were to stay we would lose even more seats next time. If he were to start talking like the Canadian Bernie Sanders no one would believe him or the Ndp.

I believe this, too. He's boxed himself in. I don't want us to perish in the same box.

Gosh, I can't wait to hear him rail in the House at Trudeau against deficit spending.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Stockholm wrote:

What passes for a leftwing "faction" in the NDP is a buffoon like Barry Weisleder and his retinue of a dozen acolytes who go up to microphones at conventions clutching their copies of "Fightback" magazine and shouting a lot. 

Please don't associate us with Barry. We are an international Marxist organization, active in over 30 countries. Barry and the SC aren't - they're affiliated with Socialist Action. And there are more than a dozen of us. In fact, we have nearly 100 members.

Also, we don't shout, nor do we pick fights with the leadership or bureacracy, nor stall conventions or the standard procedures or protocols of conventions either.

Brachina

 It sounds like he thinks that perhaps because Andrea Horwath stayed after her defeat, but Andrea Horwath may of had set backs in that election, including partly some bad choices, partly from an awkward position, partly because of the Toronto Star, but she never had a huge loss like this, the Ontario NDP still has seats in Toronto even if it lost some, and over all I believe she made a slight increase in seats and votes.

 

 Mulcair lossed a massive amount of seats and over a million votes, he lost official opposition, and put himself in a position where his strongest suits, which he btw failed to bring to the election, are of little use.

 He's name was not an advantage, most of those who won did so more because of incumbant strength or regional reasons.

 For now he can keep the party stabile, but realistically if he's not gone in a year, barring a miracle, the caucus will be in a crisis, there could be a revolt, possible party split or worst of all, a Lorne Micheals situation where some of the caucus gives up on the NDP and moves over to the Liberals.

 I'd profer to avoid that, so Mulcair has to go. Look I don't say this for the fun of it, had the defeat been less severe, say 25% vote, most of Quebec's seats, and some MPs in TO, I might have said stay and rebuild, fight the next election, but this is too brutal to move past.

 I think many on here have called me a Mulcair cheerleader, so this is very painful for me as I'm a big fan of Tom's for years now, but the damage is done and ignoring it won't change that.

quizzical

the drama.

letting the Liberals wallow around with no opposition at all is not a solution.

having both the NDP and Conservatives in leadership races at the same time would be the biggest con ever pulled by the Liberals. Justin's first 4 years would be a play in the shallow end of the pool.

 

Debater

Mulcair turns 61 years old today.

I don't think the NDP will want him to say for another election.  He will be 65 in October 2019.

I think the NDP will want a generational change.

Stockholm

Hilary Clinton is 69 years old and Joe Biden is 74 years old and no one seems to think either of them would be "too old" to run for the much more demanding job of President of the United States. I'm an agnostic on whether or not Tom Mulcair should lead the NDP in 2019 - but the fact he will be 65 in that year is not a factor for me.  

The NDP has to be careful not to over-react and try to re-fight the 2015 election...that's why i think its important to take a deep breath, count to 100 and wait at least year until we see the following three things before deciding on the fate of Tom Mulcair:

1. What does the Trudeau government look like after a year? are they bullet proof and doing lots of progressive things that are hard to criticize or are they gaffe and accident prone and already disappointing progressives? and how good a job is Mulcair doing of holding their feet to the fire?

2. Who have the Tories picked as their new leader and what does that do to national political dynamics.

3. What is the feeling in caucus (which has 15 new faces)? Is everyone united around Mulcair or are their divisions and faction who want change and most importantly is anyone else emerging as a plausible new leader?

Until we have answers to those questions, the issue of leadership needs to be put on hold.

mark_alfred

Mulcair was the best opposition leader by far.  Given that I don't see an heir-apparent, it makes sense for him to stay on for now.  The policies that the NDP ran on were stellar.  Child care, corporate tax increase (and other tax changes for greater revenue, rather than going into further debt), climate-change accountability act setting national standards along with national cap and trade, MMP, kill Bill C-51, begin pharmacare, renegotiate or reject TPP, etc. 

Mulcair just couldn't outdo Trudeau in the charisma department.  But I don't see anyone now who can (and the next election is years away).  And there needs to be an effective voice of left-wing opposition to this government now, which I feel Mulcair is the best able to provide. 

It will be interesting to see how things develop over the years, particularly when Trudeau's Liberals enter into their "expenditure review" phase.  The next election will have Trudeau's record being the question, rather than simply his charismatic "real change from Harper" appeal being the question.  Mulcair may or may not be the best one to provide an alternative to Trudeau's government.  Or Trudeau's government may be quite popular after its first term.  Hard to say. 

But for now it's best that Mulcair be there to hold the Trudeau government to account.  Again, Mulcair is one of the best opposition leaders ever.  We need someone capable to hold this government to account.  Various questions will arise.  For example:

If the NDP introduce the Climate Change Accountability Act, how will the Liberals vote on it?

If the NDP press for an agreement with the provinces for 60% federal funding of child care spaces, how will the Liberals respond to it?

If the financial numbers become shakier and the Liberals start going over in spending, how will the Liberals respond to the NDP openly suggesting a corporate tax increase?

During public parliamentary hearings on the TPP, it will be crucial to have someone on the left in opposition who can speak authoritatively on any games the Liberals may play on this file.

If the NDP table a bill to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, how will the Liberals respond to it?

If the NDP table a bill to make it illegal to employ scabs during strikes, how will the Liberals respond to it?

If the Liberals fail to kill C-377, who would be best to speak against this?  I'd say Mulcair.

Etcetera.

scott16

mark_alfred wrote:

Mulcair was the best opposition leader by far.  Given that I don't see an heir-apparent, it makes sense for him to stay on for now.  The policies that the NDP ran on were stellar.  Child care, corporate tax increase (and other tax changes for greater revenue, rather than going into further debt), climate-change accountability act setting national standards along with national cap and trade, MMP, kill Bill C-51, begin pharmacare, renegotiate or reject TPP, etc. 

Mulcair just couldn't outdo Trudeau in the charisma department.  But I don't see anyone now who can (and the next election is years away).  And there needs to be an effective voice of left-wing opposition to this government now, which I feel Mulcair is the best able to provide. 

It will be interesting to see how things develop over the years, particularly when Trudeau's Liberals enter into their "expenditure review" phase.  The next election will have Trudeau's record being the question, rather than simply his charismatic "real change from Harper" appeal being the question.  Mulcair may or may not be the best one to provide an alternative to Trudeau's government.  Or Trudeau's government may be quite popular after its first term.  Hard to say. 

But for now it's best that Mulcair be there to hold the Trudeau government to account.  Again, Mulcair is one of the best opposition leaders ever.  We need someone capable to hold this government to account.  Various questions will arise.  For example:

If the NDP introduce the Climate Change Accountability Act, how will the Liberals vote on it?

If the NDP press for an agreement with the provinces for 60% federal funding of child care spaces, how will the Liberals respond to it?

If the financial numbers become shakier and the Liberals start going over in spending, how will the Liberals respond to the NDP openly suggesting a corporate tax increase?

During public parliamentary hearings on the TPP, it will be crucial to have someone on the left in opposition who can speak authoritatively on any games the Liberals may play on this file.

If the NDP table a bill to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, how will the Liberals respond to it?

If the NDP table a bill to make it illegal to employ scabs during strikes, how will the Liberals respond to it?

If the Liberals fail to kill C-377, who would be best to speak against this?  I'd say Mulcair.

Etcetera.

No one would believe Mulcair if he started to sound like Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn. We need someone radically different than Mulcair could ever be.

I think he should stay until Spring 2018

Pages

Topic locked