Tom Mulcair's leadership review 2016

terrytowel wrote:

The other day when they had the election review part of the convention. Where delegates got to vent their frustration at party officials about what went wrong. Only half the delegates showed up. The hall was half empty.

What the hell are you talking about?

Marit Styles announced as new NDP President.

So Mulcair only got 48% in favour of his leadership?

Surprising.

Thought he would be higher.

Debater wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

The other day when they had the election review part of the convention. Where delegates got to vent their frustration at party officials about what went wrong. Only half the delegates showed up. The hall was half empty.

What the hell are you talking about?

Terry Towel is correct about this.

There was a lacklustre response to the NDP Election Review panel at the Convention on Friday.

John Geddes wrote about it in Maclean's.

I'll try to find the piece.

I was in the room at the convention.  But please, find me a pundit to tell me what happened.

Cheri Di Novo being interviewed on CTV News Net.

R.E.Wood wrote:

First I'd like to give respect to Nicky and quizzical, who are probably the strongest Mulcair supporters here at Babble, and I'm sure are very disappointed in this result.

That said, I'm extremely happy with the result of the vote!! It's astoundingly clear. I never thought he'd get below 50%, but he only got 48%. It is now clear and decisive that the party wants new leadership.

:-)

Let the games begin!! 

i predict the fools won. :)

I am eating crow here because I thought he would make it.  But when people started to pass progressive resloutions like the Leap.  That kind off forshadowed the fall Mulcair.  

wage zombie wrote:

Debater wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

The other day when they had the election review part of the convention. Where delegates got to vent their frustration at party officials about what went wrong. Only half the delegates showed up. The hall was half empty.

What the hell are you talking about?

Terry Towel is correct about this.

There was a lacklustre response to the NDP Election Review panel at the Convention on Friday.

John Geddes wrote about it in Maclean's.

I'll try to find the piece.

I was in the room at the convention.  But please, find me a pundit to tell me what happened.

Peter Van Dusen of CPAC was in the room and said the room was half-empty. I posted this because he also mused if a half-empty room was a telling sign to how the vote would go.

Obviously it was.

Here's part of what a young-ish female delegate from Toronto who was just interviewed on CPAC has to say about the results of the leadership review:

Quote:

I think that Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders are proving that bold socialist politics are electable, that's actually what pepople are looking for; and the election result, and the defeat that the NDP experienced actually proved that moderation is not the way to get elected. It's not just about winning though, it is actually about offering a real alternative to be the vehicle of struggle for workers, oiur most vulnerable people; however, to win, I think we actually have to stand on those ideas.

Debater wrote:

So Mulcair only got 48% in favour of his leadership?

Surprising.

Thought he would be higher.

Yeah, given how hard it is to organize against an incumbent leader, often people may feel the need for a review but won't back it with their vote. That's why many leaders often step down with over 50% approval even though they have the math to stay on.

But an approval rating less than 50%? Wow. The NDP must have been really unhappy with Mulcair for that to happen. Is there any precedent in Canadian politics where a party leader earns less than a 50% approval rating?

I think that was a very classy, honourable, and gracious concession speech by Mulcair.

JOE CRESSY!  YEEEEEAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Niki Ashton was just interviewed and didn't indicate whether she would run for leadership or not.

Someone's going to have to start a new Leadership thread ;-)

Unionist, he's being graceful and staying on as interim leader until the vote can be held to elect his successor. I would have been far more surprised if he'd resigned - that would have been a childish, poor-sport move to make. He's doing the right thing and maintaining stability while the party selects a new leader.

ikosmos wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

You two are fuckin clueless.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it could just be simple Schadenfreude or pleasure at Mulcair's misfortune.

Is Wage Zombie referring to me?

I was just reporting what John Geddes (normally a friendly reporter to Mulcair) wrote about the tame response to the NDP Election Review panel.

Here is the piece:

http://www.macleans.ca/authors/keep-building-keep-dreaming/

Unionist wrote:

I wonder why he decided to stay on as leader? Any opinions?

?  A good question, maybe he wants to be revelant in the policy making.  As long as he is the leader he try to curtail any "radical" changes in policy. 

nicky wrote:

Another ignoble comment from terryt...!

Above post flagged as a personal attack and using oppresive language

I have now been flagged 12 times in the last week by Terryt...l but the moderators are wisely ignoring him.

Unionist wrote:

I wonder why he decided to stay on as leader? Any opinions?

I don't know, but it's kind of surprising (and unprecedented?) to stay on as leader with such low levels of support.

I could understand if it was only temporary for a few months, but 2 years?

nicky wrote:

I have now been flagged 12 times in the last week by Terryt...l but the moderators are wisely ignoring him.

Above post flagged as a personal attack and using oppresive language

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 Nicky

Unionist wrote:

pookie wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I wonder why he decided to stay on as leader? Any opinions?

Either he's in shock and made a snap decision, or he can't believe the party would survive him in the interim.

I think it's very ill-advised and I would be surprised if he actually stays in the role for long.

 

He met with his caucus for a few minutes after the vote was announced and before he spoke to convention. I'm guessing there was a consensus (whether real or feigned) that they didn't want to deal with an unknown interim leader for what is now (after the emergency resolution) potentially two years until a leadership race. But this is just speculation.

 

If we are speculating then I suggest that maybe the NDP is bad financial position and there is not enough money put together something credible.  I heard that donations a down, but I have no idea how far down.