NDP Youth Wing says Mulcair Has To Go

swallow wrote:

The main media story on the NDP is who should be leader.

Correct. That's one problem. Most people in the media are not noted for their analytical acumen (Rosemary Barton, Althia Raj) - and I'm naming them only because they've been cited above and they got this story totally wrong. Their job is more commercial in nature. Combined with their inability to analyze politics is a powerful inducement to create sensationalist scandals with little basis in reality - such as:

The Daily Scandal Sheet wrote:

BREAKING NEWS: The NDP's very own Official Youth Wing has publicly proclaimed that Mulcair must go!!! Can you even believe that!!!???

It's factually false, always was. And how embarrassing to see terrytowel and Debater - each of whom is more knowledgeable and interested in political conversation than the Bartons and the Rajes and their ilk - resorting to: "Well listen, maybe you're technically right about the Youth Wing, but hey, even Barton and Raj believed this, so why shouldn't we??" It's not an argument worth engaging in. It's childish.

However, to tell the "whole truth": "who should be the leader?" seems to be the main preoccupation of many NDP members and supporters, including some in this thread.

And to tell the even wholer truth: same goes for many opponents of the NDP (including some in this thread).

"Who the leader is" should be of very little importance to those who want the party to return and stick to principles, support the movement, be a fertile ground for activism and debate, etc.

Québec solidaire has no "LEADER". It has two spokespersons. Neither one "runs" anything, neither one sets policy. And in fact, they don't necessarily get more press than others. Amir Khadir gets interviewed and quoted all the time, and he is no longer even an official "spokesperson". But he is, in a much more real sense, a leader - as is Françoise David (who also happens to be a spokesperson), and there are many others.

And one more thing: Calling terrytowel and Debater and Pondering "trolls" (which seems to be becoming an "accepted" insult around here) is offensive and unworthy and very likely false. I support their presence on this board. When they engage in subjects, or express opinions, that I find not worth answering, I don't answer. Try it.

And one final thing: Calling babblers "rabid NDP partisans" is offensive and dehumanizing. If you don't like someone's behaviour, that's fine, object to it, mildly, loudly, officially, whatever. But please don't paint members of our family as something other than people whose opinions you happen not to share.

Unionist, that begs the question, if there has to be a leader, who should that leader be. Apparently, today, the question is, should Mulcair be leader. Saying that there should be no leaders, or that leadership is overemphasized, doesn't answer that question.

Unionist wrote:

And one more thing: Calling terrytowel and Debater and Pondering "trolls" (which seems to be becoming an "accepted" insult around here) is offensive and unworthy and very likely false. I support their presence on this board. When they engage in subjects, or express opinions, that I find not worth answering, I don't answer. Try it.

I think that Debater is a positive presence on this board while I think Terry Terrific deliberately engages in mischievous antagonism. If you look back at his posts it seems clear he comes here to poke at NDP supporters for shits and giggles so I will admit to giving him a rough ride because frankly there are very few places on the internet that are not dominated by Liberal partisans like Terry Terrific. I want to be able to engage the NDP partisans on this board over progressive issues not debate how the assholes in the MSM portray the NDP. The threads TTerrific opens almost allways try to use the worst of our sycophantic pundits as truthsayers when in fact anyone on the left sees them clearly for what they are.

josh wrote:

Unionist, that begs the question, if there has to be a leader, who should that leader be. Apparently, today, the question is, should Mulcair be leader. Saying that there should be no leaders, or that leadership is overemphasized, doesn't answer that question.

I'll try to be respectful. That's sophistry, josh. The debate over "who should be leader" didn't start on the Sunday when the leadership review issue is being debated. The noise has been going on forever.

My view, expressed for years, is that the leadership issue is "overemphasized", and the fact that we have a few dozen threads dealing more or less directly with it should be given some weight as evidence for that. And my main view is that overemphasizing the Leader issue disenfranchises the members and supporters, turns the organization into a dictatorship and a marketing/branding agency, and is toxic to progressive politics. I don't mean there shouldn't be leaders. There [b]are[/b] leaders (see my example of Khadir above). I mean that this equation must be consciously, carefully, and deliberately erased:

THE PARTY = ITS LEADER

So let me take a stab at a hypothetical analogy:

For months before a convention, social media and MSM media outlets are buzzing with this question: "WHAT SHOULD BE THE NEW NAME OF THE PARTY??" Almost all other discussion gets squeezed out.

A few lone voices say, "Isn't it at best diversionary, and at worst toxic, to have this question monopolize the conversation?"

And the reply comes: "Ok, I understand - but we need a name, so what do you think it should be??"

Ok, josh. If I need to pick a "leader" (and I don't want to feed this diversion, but I will for one moment), I pick Svend Robinson.

Unionist wrote:

Ok, josh. If I need to pick a "leader" (and I don't want to feed this diversion, but I will for one moment), I pick Svend Robinson.

I would not agree although I would support Bill Siksay in a heartbeat. Bill is not a great speaker but he demonstrated his worth when he alone stood against Charter breaching Criminal Code amendments. He is also a very humble man so he would never run.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Ok, josh. If I need to pick a "leader" (and I don't want to feed this diversion, but I will for one moment), I pick Svend Robinson.

I would not agree although I would support Bill Siksay in a heartbeat. Bill is not a great speaker but he demonstrated his worth when he alone stood against Charter breaching Criminal Code amendments. He is also a very humble man so he would never run.

Actually, I'll support your choice of Siksay as well, although I obviously don't know him as well as you do. One of the reasons I picked Svend (who, like Bill, was victimized by the party for not abandoning principle) is that I know damn well he'll never run!

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I agree with you Unionist. When I was actively involved in the federal NDP our riding and its sitting MP opposed Jack's move to the cult of the leader. We insisted on no more than one or two pictures of Jack in the campaign office and we never put up signs that said Jack Layton in our riding. We received boxes and boxes of that kind of shit and we recycled it all. We were trying to elect an MP to parliament not a trained seal.

I was extremely impressed with the caliber of left wing voices elected in 2011 in Quebec and became increasingly disillusioned as I realized that they would not be allowed to speak about the issues that prior to being elected had been their focus. I believe more than anything else this is why they lost their seats. If they had been true to their principles and allowed to speak about them they would have provided a reason to vote for them. Instead the choice was between Liberal hacks and NDP hacks whose leader sounded like the Quebec Liberal that he was.

I agree with all of the above - except that we shouldn't overlook the "strategic" aspect that caused many Québecers who had voted NDP in 2011 to shift this time. But you're very right - if some of these young newbies had been "allowed" to publicly participate and speak about the social tidal waves sweeping Québec from 2012 on (the student movement, anti-austerity, etc.), we might well have seen more of them re-elected.

Good point.

Chantal Hébert made this same point recently.

She said that under Mulcair's leadership, the Québec NDP MP's were not really allowed to participate in the debates taking place in Québec over the past several years, such as the student protests and other demonstrations and movements taking place.

terrytowel wrote:

You have all the power to decide my fate here at rabble. Just say the word.

It is all in your hands kropotkin1951

Sorry, terrytowel. I get a vote too. I've encouraged you before to stay here. You're a member of this community and an active participant. Even if you (like everyone) gets stepped on from time to time, and frustrates others at other times.

So just stay, and let's get back to the substantive issues.

Please.

Ok, I'm repeating my reply to josh, as part of trying to get back to more substantive discussion. And I've snipped out my last line about Svend, because that inadvertently became the focus of discussion.

Unionist wrote:

josh wrote:

Unionist, that begs the question, if there has to be a leader, who should that leader be. Apparently, today, the question is, should Mulcair be leader. Saying that there should be no leaders, or that leadership is overemphasized, doesn't answer that question.

I'll try to be respectful. That's sophistry, josh. The debate over "who should be leader" didn't start on the Sunday when the leadership review issue is being debated. The noise has been going on forever.

My view, expressed for years, is that the leadership issue is "overemphasized", and the fact that we have a few dozen threads dealing more or less directly with it should be given some weight as evidence for that. And my main view is that overemphasizing the Leader issue disenfranchises the members and supporters, turns the organization into a dictatorship and a marketing/branding agency, and is toxic to progressive politics. I don't mean there shouldn't be leaders. There [b]are[/b] leaders (see my example of Khadir above). I mean that this equation must be consciously, carefully, and deliberately erased:

THE PARTY = ITS LEADER

So let me take a stab at a hypothetical analogy:

For months before a convention, social media and MSM media outlets are buzzing with this question: "WHAT SHOULD BE THE NEW NAME OF THE PARTY??" Almost all other discussion gets squeezed out.

A few lone voices say, "Isn't it at best diversionary, and at worst toxic, to have this question monopolize the conversation?"

And the reply comes: "Ok, I understand - but we need a name, so what do you think it should be??"

<SNIP>

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I agree with you Unionist. When I was actively involved in the federal NDP our riding and its sitting MP opposed Jack's move to the cult of the leader. We insisted on no more than one or two pictures of Jack in the campaign office and we never put up signs that said Jack Layton in our riding. We received boxes and boxes of that kind of shit and we recycled it all. We were trying to elect an MP to parliament not a trained seal.

I was extremely impressed with the caliber of left wing voices elected in 2011 in Quebec and became increasingly disillusioned as I realized that they would not be allowed to speak about the issues that prior to being elected had been their focus. I believe more than anything else this is why they lost their seats. If they had been true to their principles and allowed to speak about them they would have provided a reason to vote for them. Instead the choice was between Liberal hacks and NDP hacks whose leader sounded like the Quebec Liberal that he was.

I agree with all of the above - except that we shouldn't overlook the "strategic" aspect that caused many Québecers who had voted NDP in 2011 to shift this time. But you're very right - if some of these young newbies had been "allowed" to publicly participate and speak about the social tidal waves sweeping Québec from 2012 on (the student movement, anti-austerity, etc.), we might well have seen more of them re-elected.

Here's what Chantal Hébert wrote about Québec earlier this year:

-

For all of Mulcair’s strengths, the NDP — on his watch — has remained a bit player in his home province. Justin Trudeau’s current post-election honeymoon is an aggravating factor but not the root cause of the situation.

The party’s self-imposed discretion in the face of most of the debates that have been central to Quebec politics over the past five years is largely responsible for its low profile.

Under Mulcair, the NDP steered clear of the 2012 Maple Spring and the social unrest that attended it.

The party kept as much distance as possible from the debate over the Parti Québécois’ controversial securalism charter.

The New Democrats contributed little to the prolonged conversation that led to the introduction of medically assisted suicide in the province’s end-of-life care protocol, and it remained on the sidelines of the pipeline issue.

Even as the party was making a national child-care plan modelled on the Quebec example a central plank of its federal platform, it looked the other way as Philippe Couillard’s government clipped the wings of the popular program.

-

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1334981-h%C3%A9bert-no-compelling-c...

I think there is enough room for multi points of view on rabble.  All this talk for banishment is counterproductive, we are all adults here so I assume we can take some flak from others(Some people take more flak than others).  I don't have the time to go through every post to keep up on all the personal fueds. Lets be civil to each other, we are already small minority in the population.  We care about politics and we want to discuss the issues in intellgent and thoughtful way.  We want to encourage this discussion rather than personally destroy each other. 

Im not in the habit of apologizing to whiny mendacious trolls.
After you look up mendacious in the dictionary you can flag me again

terrytowel wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I will admit to giving him a rough ride because frankly there are very few places on the internet that are not dominated by Liberal partisans like Terry Terrific.

OK I'll give you a gift, If you want me to leave just say the word. Say Go and never come back. And I will leave this board forever.

No questions, no debates, no whining. Just say the word and I will never come back and post here again.

You have all the power to decide my fate here at rabble. Just say the word.

It is all in your hands kropotkin1951

What a piece of work.

You are embarrassingly transparent, TT.

Terry: you shoudl do what you want, honestly. I'd like you to stay, but stop trying to make things all about yourself. 

So, with Mulcair gone, I wonder if there's more chance for a "new style of leadership" - a far more important issue than who gets to wear the special Leader hat. 

You can read past posts from me and many others on that above, Terry. The thread title would be incorrect even if Muclair had received 0% support, as you were told by many people starting in post #4. and for reasons we have all wasted too much time on already. I post here only to say I will not respond to any more posts from you on this thread. Happy to continue speaking with others, of course, and especially on how political parties might seek to move away from the leader cult and towards the sort of new styles and understandings of "leadership" that the NDP youth letter referenced. 

It does appear as if the Youth Wing voted against Mulcair, although it's hard to know what their exact position was, because they didn't make it very clear.

Debater wrote:

It does appear as if the Youth Wing voted against Mulcair, although it's hard to know what their exact position was, because they didn't make it very clear.

Is that deduction based simply on the fact that if more than half the delegates rejected his leadership then that would have to include the majority of the youth at convention? I would agree it is highly improbable that Mulcair got a higher percentage of the youth vote than he got of the overall vote.

swallow wrote:

So, with Mulcair gone, I wonder if there's more chance for a "new style of leadership" - a far more important issue than who gets to wear the special Leader hat. 

I've suggested a conversation [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/ndp-should-consider-collective... about a "new style of leadership" - a collective style. I'm sick and tired of the one-person dictator model. And I'm sick and tired of the infantile mudslinging in this thread. Let's leave, shall we?

Allow me to present the next Prime Ministers of Canada:

[IMG]http://i63.tinypic.com/2zgyr1g.jpg[/IMG]