Next Federal NDP Leader

765 posts / 0 new
Last post
terrytowel

mark_alfred wrote:

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.

There is one person who can match Trudeau on the charisma dept and is an effective voice of the NDP and the left.

Joe Cressy

He is the only one who could go toe to toe with Trudeau. & he could bring in so many new young people into the NDP, like Trudeau did with the Liberals.

scott16

terrytowel wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

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.

There is one person who can match Trudeau on the charisma dept and is an effective voice of the NDP and the left.

Joe Cressy

He is the only one who could go toe to toe with Trudeau. & he could bring in so many new young people into the NDP, like Trudeau did with the Liberals.

No French no federal leadership.

Ruth Ellen Brosseau is bilingual and the Better choice. She is radically different from most others.

terrytowel

scott16 wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

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.

There is one person who can match Trudeau on the charisma dept and is an effective voice of the NDP and the left.

Joe Cressy

He is the only one who could go toe to toe with Trudeau. & he could bring in so many new young people into the NDP, like Trudeau did with the Liberals.

No French no federal leadership.

Ruth Ellen Brosseau is bilingual and the Better choice. She is radically different from most others.

How do you know he doesn't know french.

Paul Dewer & Nathan Cullen french was rudimentary, and it didn't stop them from running for the leadsership. Jack Layton didn't have a federal seat either. Sometimes you need to look outside the box.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

jjuares wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

Brachina wrote:
... 3) Most of the other English debates went on simular lines until Trudeau bullshit sob story about being proud of his dad, total bullshit, he'd through his dad under the bus in 2 seconds flat if it'd help him win...

It is this kind of idiotic comment that makes me despair for the NDP. If this is indeed the level to which they've sunk, then goodbye, and good riddance. I've been a NDP supporter for over 40 years, through thick and thin, provincially and federally. After reading a lot of similar bullshit from NDP supporters here during this election, I am seriously questioning my status as a supporter.

The NDP lost near a million votes from 2011 to 2015. I'd say that requires a pretty serious analysis of what happened. Stupid pot shots at a leader you don't like won't hurt that leader, and won't do anything to advance your cause.   

The party needs to figure out what it is about. Yes, these potshots by Mulcair at Trudeau only made Mulcair look mean. They also looked to be planned and rehearsed lines for the most part which makes it worse.

Its got a solid core of left wing MP's that if left unfettered will shine and hopefully in four years they will have made themselves heard in all the media that is not corporate controlled. But four years of waiting for the Tory voters who switched to the Liberals to make the futher step to a neo-con NDP is just not going to happen. If the voters who gave Trudeau his majority get pissed at the Liberals they will go back to the Conservatives under a new leader who is not the hated Harper. The Conservatives held onto a third of the vote and basically kept their base intact ready to fight another day if the Liberals start to show signs of arrogance in power or are caught with their fingers in the cookies jar.

Stockholm

Nathan Cullen's French is actually very good. Paul Dewar's is abysmal and that is why he had no business running for the leadership in the first place and got a humiliating 7% of the vote. 

There are always second acts in Canadian politics. In 1968 when "Trudeaumania" swept the country the first time, the man who was the Mulcair of 1968 was PC leader Robert Stanfield who was all substance and no style and was said to possess "ahsirahc" (that's charisma spelt backwards). His lost 30-odd seats and was humiliated in the 1968 election...but there wasnt much of a push for him to go and he plodded along being an effective opposition leader for the next 4.5 years and by 1972, Pierre Trudeau had been a big disappointment and sudden;y Stanfield didnt look so bad and on election night the Tories gained almost 40 seats from the Liberals and the Liberals ended up only winning 109 seats to 107.

Other example of comebacks like this would be how Lester Pearson was destroyed by Diefanbaker in 1958 and the Liberals reduced to just 48 seats...Pearson stuck around and in 1962 he gained 60 seats reducing Dief to a minority and in s snap election in 1963, the Liberals won under Pearson. Also, in 1984 John Turner suffered the worst defeat in Canadian history as his Liberals were reduced to 40 seats while Mulroney got 211...Turner stayed on and by all accounts ran a great campaign in 1988 and while he didnt win, he gained 45 seats and brought the Liberals back into the game.

All of which is to say, let's think long and hard before throwing any babies out with the bathwater.

josh

Mulcair's no baby.

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

Stockholm

After Broadbent stepped down in 1989, the party decided it needed a "bold choice" and decided that it just needed a WOMAN leader at all cost - no matter how unqualified and unskilled - the result was Audrey McLaughlin and loss of official party status...if there were an obvious knight in shining armour waiting in the wings that would be great....but so far everytime anyone starts listing possible new leaders the names mentioned are so weak and heavily flawed that it makes me roll my eyes and say "better the devil you know than the devil you don't"

terrytowel

josh wrote:

Mulcair's no baby.

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

Which is why I say the radical choice of Joe Cressy. He is the only one who could go up against Trudeau. Cressy is NDP royalty, just as Trudeau is royalty among the Liberal party

Stockholm

Cressy speaks no French GONG GONG GONG!!!!!

pookie

terrytowel wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

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.

There is one person who can match Trudeau on the charisma dept and is an effective voice of the NDP and the left.

Joe Cressy

He is the only one who could go toe to toe with Trudeau. & he could bring in so many new young people into the NDP, like Trudeau did with the Liberals.

FTR I never really bought into le Dauphin's much vaunted charm (though I am not unhappy with the result and I think he fought an excellent campaign).  I don't even think his hair is all that much...though I am spoiled in that department.

But this is just weird.

You don't find Joe Cressy kind of....boring?  You really think he can burn up our television screens? You think the international media would go bonkers for him?

Oooookay.

terrytowel

Stockholm wrote:

Cressy speaks no French GONG GONG GONG!!!!!

and you know this how? again you can always learn french, and improve upon it. As Joe Cressy had said

"Michael Ignatieff was fluent in English and French, and was equally unpopular in both."

terrytowel

Joe Cressy represents the NPI side of the NDP, and I think that is what this party needs. Someone young and dynamic who can mobilize young people into the party

JKR

Stockholm wrote:

Nathan Cullen's French is actually very good. Paul Dewar's is abysmal and that is why he had no business running for the leadership in the first place and got a humiliating 7% of the vote. 

There are always second acts in Canadian politics. In 1968 when "Trudeaumania" swept the country the first time, the man who was the Mulcair of 1968 was PC leader Robert Stanfield who was all substance and no style and was said to possess "ahsirahc" (that's charisma spelt backwards). His lost 30-odd seats and was humiliated in the 1968 election...but there wasnt much of a push for him to go and he plodded along being an effective opposition leader for the next 4.5 years and by 1972, Pierre Trudeau had been a big disappointment and sudden;y Stanfield didnt look so bad and on election night the Tories gained almost 40 seats from the Liberals and the Liberals ended up only winning 109 seats to 107.

Other example of comebacks like this would be how Lester Pearson was destroyed by Diefanbaker in 1958 and the Liberals reduced to just 48 seats...Pearson stuck around and in 1962 he gained 60 seats reducing Dief to a minority and in s snap election in 1963, the Liberals won under Pearson. Also, in 1984 John Turner suffered the worst defeat in Canadian history as his Liberals were reduced to 40 seats while Mulroney got 211...Turner stayed on and by all accounts ran a great campaign in 1988 and while he didnt win, he gained 45 seats and brought the Liberals back into the game.

All of which is to say, let's think long and hard before throwing any babies out with the bathwater.

In all those cases responsibility for the election losses fell mostly on the previous leadership. In 1968 Stanfield actually managed to get more votes than Diefenbaker did in 1965. In 1958, mismanagement under St. Laurent was felt mostly responsible for the Liberals huge defeat in 1958 under Pearson. In 1984, the previous Trudeau government was held mostly responsible for the Liberals defeat under Turner.

HisHighness

I want to see Mulcair stay. I think he's a FANTASTIC leader! The NDP simply could not do better than him, Hell I hope he runs the next 10 campaigns!

Although I've been a Liberal since I was 14.

Unionist

* passing the 14-year-old troll on the highway *

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

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

They could respond: "Let's wait and see how those NDP anti-scab bills work out in Manitoba and Alberta." And the provincial MMP initiatives. And the $15 minimum wage. And the corporate tax increases.

 

JKR

Stockholm wrote:

After Broadbent stepped down in 1989, the party decided it needed a "bold choice" and decided that it just needed a WOMAN leader at all cost - no matter how unqualified and unskilled - the result was Audrey McLaughlin and loss of official party status...if there were an obvious knight in shining armour waiting in the wings that would be great....but so far everytime anyone starts listing possible new leaders the names mentioned are so weak and heavily flawed that it makes me roll my eyes and say "better the devil you know than the devil you don't"

Nathan Cullen?

Debater

terrytowel wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Cressy speaks no French GONG GONG GONG!!!!!

and you know this how? again you can always learn french, and improve upon it. As Joe Cressy had said

"Michael Ignatieff was fluent in English and French, and was equally unpopular in both."

Stockholm is right on this one, Terry Towel.

Being fluent in French is an important requirement for a Federal Leader in the 21st Century -- including for the NDP now if it wants to keep its toehold in Québec.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Cressy would be an absolutely AWFUL choice for leader. The NDP membership needs to rise up against the Party's current leadership and not let them run things. It is ABSOLUTELY unbelieveable that Mulcair would choose McGarth to do anything. He has clearly learned NOTHING form this. Maybe it is time for a new leader. Christ, I hate career party insiders!

josh

Stockholm wrote:

After Broadbent stepped down in 1989, the party decided it needed a "bold choice" and decided that it just needed a WOMAN leader at all cost - no matter how unqualified and unskilled - the result was Audrey McLaughlin and loss of official party status...if there were an obvious knight in shining armour waiting in the wings that would be great....but so far everytime anyone starts listing possible new leaders the names mentioned are so weak and heavily flawed that it makes me roll my eyes and say "better the devil you know than the devil you don't"

Peter Julian and Alexandre Boulerice. Either one would be a fine leader.

josh

terrytowel wrote:

josh wrote:

Mulcair's no baby.

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

Which is why I say the radical choice of Joe Cressy. He is the only one who could go up against Trudeau. Cressy is NDP royalty, just as Trudeau is royalty among the Liberal party

If you just want NDP "royalty," why not Michael Layton? He has a more recognizable last name.

Brachina

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Cressy would be an absolutely AWFUL choice for leader. The NDP membership needs to rise up against the Party's current leadership and not let them run things. It is ABSOLUTELY unbelieveable that Mulcair would choose McGarth to do anything. He has clearly learned NOTHING form this. Maybe it is time for a new leader. Christ, I hate career party insiders!

 

 My biggest fear isn't weather the Mulcair stays or leaves, my biggest fear is the NDP goes into denial and pretends nothing went wrong, no mistakes were made, and that that platform was fine the way it was. It wasn't just bad luck in fact, we had everything going for us and still blew it and because of that its the biggest fuck up in NDP history.

 I've heard that well it was the ABC vote, people just went with what was safer and went with the Liberals, but the truth was for months we were higher until people saw Tom in the debates and started to see the platform. The ABC vote was something we could have tapped to blow the Liberals out of the water, instead they used it against us. The ABC doesn't explain why Muclair's best Prime Minister numbers dropped like a stone.

 And what bothers me more then Anne being an insider is, she's under the mistaken impression this wasn't a disaster, that alone shows she unqualified and more concerned about saving face.

 The truth is more then any election in NDP history this one was based not on forces outside the NDPs control, but on the NDPs own decisions and Tom doesn't understand that he has to go sooner, not later.

Brachina

 Why is anyone taking TT's silly Joe Cressily push seriously?

mark_alfred

scott16 wrote:

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

What is with these irrelevant references to Sanders or Corbyn?  Everything I've mentioned above is either from NDP initiatives in the House or from their platform.  I've not mentioned anything new.  At this time I feel Mulcair is the best for advocating these issues and keeping the Liberals accountable.

Basement Dweller

If you want to see what happens when you let insiders stay around too long -- after they've become proven liabilities -- look at the BC NDP. I don't hold anything against Tom Mulcair, I think he is quite brilliant in some ways, but I hope he is doing some soul searching right now.

In an ideal world, Mulcair will choose new people to rebuild the party, give some of the more talented MPs more roles to test their performance, then call a leadership convention a little while after the Conservatives. It's up to Mulcair whether he runs or not.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Why is anyone taking TT's silly Joe Cressily push seriously?

Same reason people are taking the silly REB push seriously, probably.

An experienced parliamentarian lost on Monday, ergo we need an inexperienced parliamentarian.

Brachina

 The REB push is serious, its being pushed by a bunch of people who are serious about, for Joe Cressily its being pushy by Terrytowel of all people.

scott16

Brachina wrote:

 The REB push is serious, its being pushed by a bunch of people who are serious about, for Joe Cressily its being pushy by Terrytowel of all people.

Just to be clear, are you talking people pushing on babble or elsewhere?

mark_alfred

Brachina wrote:

 The REB push is serious, its being pushed by a bunch of people who are serious about, for Joe Cressily its being pushy by Terrytowel of all people.

Bullshit.  It's just some ne'er-do-wells here.

JKR

Basement Dweller wrote:

If you want to see what happens when you let insiders stay around too long -- after they've become proven liabilities -- look at the BC NDP. I don't hold anything against Tom Mulcair, I think he is quite brilliant in some ways, but I hope he is doing some soul searching right now.

In an ideal world, Mulcair will choose new people to rebuild the party, give some of the more talented MPs more roles to test their performance, then call a leadership convention a little while after the Conservatives. It's up to Mulcair whether he runs or not.

Setting up a leadership convention for 2017 or 2018 now might make sense as it would end the squabbling Over leadership. It would also give the party time to review and renew itself in the mean time. Mulcair could also say that he intends on running in that leadership convention so if he does perform well over the next year or so he could maintain his leadership by winning. In the end, the members would make the choice and the party would go into the next election united behind the person who took on all comers and won.

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Cressy would be an absolutely AWFUL choice for leader.

What exactly do you have against Joe Cressy, other than him not knowing french?

swallow swallow's picture

Terry, how can you be so opposed to Howard McCurdy's potential candidacy for leadership? 

terrytowel

Because you guys are not looking outside the box, nor thinking in bold terms. That is what doomed the NDP in this past campaign.

scott16

terrytowel wrote:

Because you guys are not looking outside the box, nor thinking in bold terms. That is what doomed the NDP in this past campaign.

Would he bring about pharmacare, childcare, increased taxes on the rich? Do you know what his position is on these and other issues?

scott16

Another reason REB would be good would be I think she would bring out the worst in Trudeau. I think it would increase his gaffes and verbal mistakes.

terrytowel

Joe Cressy represents the NPI faction of the NDP. He is far-left of the party. Like Libby Davies.

Brachina

 I've never been called a Ne'er-do-well before.

 REB is not inexperience, she had four years of solid experience.

 

Debater

When is the date for the NDP Leadership Review?

Does it work the same way Federally the way it did in Ontario last year?

Howarth received a better vote of confidence than expected, but perhaps Mulcair won't do as well as Horwath?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I love how Libs are telling us what we should want in a leader. As a party member of 40 years I feel very comfortable tellin you miind you own business. No one in the NDP cares who you think should be our leader. I know its against the rules to say get lost trolls, so I won't.

pookie

scott16 wrote:

Another reason REB would be good would be I think she would bring out the worst in Trudeau. I think it would increase his gaffes and verbal mistakes.

I haven't the foggiest notion why that should be.  In fact, I think he would admire her.  

They'd probably get along great!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
REB is not inexperience, she had four years of solid experience.

She's clearly paid her dues.

As I understand it, she was Deputy Agriculture critic.  I think she's ready to stare down some world leaders now.  What higher post is there left for her, besides Party Leader??

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
REB is not inexperience, she had four years of solid experience.

She's clearly paid her dues.

As I understand it, she was Deputy Agriculture critic.

Certainly well equipped to deal with manure, a skill that comes in quite handy in Parliament.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Fair enough, but what if her constituents have told her that the problem with manure is that there's not enough of it?

Woe to us all.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
REB is not inexperience, she had four years of solid experience.

She's clearly paid her dues.

As I understand it, she was Deputy Agriculture critic.

Certainly well equipped to deal with manure, a skill that comes in quite handy in Parliament.

Helped in the last campaign dealing with all the Crap the LPC threw at NDP candidates this last election. REB isn't ready, and I'm guessing she knows it. It is a non starter; I'm guessing she'd never agree to run. She strikes mea s very down to earth and aware, not like Juniior. That a MP like REB is subject to such disdain while a skiboarding, drama teacher, dandy became PM is beyond my ability to understand. Canadians really ought to be asahmed of themselves; they thought they were voting for Canadian Idol and voting Harper off the Island. PATHETIC!

takeitslowly

REB is just not ready, nice hair though. JK.

 

I think shes ready, i like her!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Was that really a joke? Why would anyone feel the need to make it. She's proven herself in and out of the House. She's not a joke. Let's give her the respect she deserves. I guess its only OK to elect truly ordinary Candians with REB's background as MP, ONLY if they're Liberals!

Cody87

pookie wrote:

scott16 wrote:

Another reason REB would be good would be I think she would bring out the worst in Trudeau. I think it would increase his gaffes and verbal mistakes.

I haven't the foggiest notion why that should be.  In fact, I think he would admire her.  

They'd probably get along great!

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I had basically the same thought - Trudeau would at least respect her for her ability to connect with Canadians. You know, like him.

Cody87

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Was that really a joke? Why would anyone feel the need to make it. She's proven herself in and out of the House. She's not a joke. Let's give her the respect she deserves. I guess its only OK to elect truly ordinary Candians with REB's background as MP, ONLY if they're Liberals!

Arthur, takeitslowly is definitely on your side here. Stick to picking fights with Liberals, it's funny when you attack Liberals. It's sad when you attack New Democrats.

And how about you show some respect to our democratically elected Prime Minister-elect for a change, huh?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I think this is a fair question:  let's pretend that the Leadership of the NPD is up for grabs between Mulcair and Brosseau.

Can Brosseau supporters tell us, in clear and differentiating terms why Brosseau should win?  And by "differentiating" I mean NOT things like "she's got four years of experience" -- so does Mulcair.  Or, "her constituents gave her another mandate on Monday" -- so did Mulcair's.

I'm also not interested in vague, unfalsifiable platitudes like "she has her finger on the pulse of what Canadians want" or "it's time for change".

Let's look at the tale of the tape.

I'm not saying this because I think Mulcair should be leader for life.  But what, specifically, makes Brosseau the better leader?

Brachina

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
REB is not inexperience, she had four years of solid experience.

She's clearly paid her dues.

As I understand it, she was Deputy Agriculture critic.  I think she's ready to stare down some world leaders now.  What higher post is there left for her, besides Party Leader??

 

 Of course being an MP didn't prepare her for staring down world leader, working in a bar dealing with drunks prepared her to stare down world leader, many of whom are likely drunks

Pages

Topic locked