==
Tom Mulcair's leadership review 2016
Justin Ling (VICE) predicts 73%.
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.
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?
Friday night they had a review on how the election went. Only half the delegates showed up to participate and offer feedback. As a result the hall was half-empty.
Cheers wz.
Please re-read my opening post.
Cheers wz.
Please re-read my opening post.
Sometimes I think this place should be called "Only Good Positive NDP News" website. Because if anything else is posted, you are accused of baiting.
The vote whether or not to have a leadership convention within the next year has taken place in Edmonton and the ballots are now being counted.
What percentage support is required for a leader to stay on and what support will Mulcair get?
My hunch is that Mulcair will require upwards of 70% to stay on as leader, and if Tom tries to stay on with less than 70% support it will further damage the party.
And yes unfortunately most party politics dictates that it is primarily about the leader.
By-the-way NDP supporters try harder to just ignore the baiting from the anti NDP posters here, and stop posting in their divisive threads.
Silence often is golden.
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.
Marit Styles announced as new NDP President.
52% vote in favour of a leadership race to replace Mulcair.
So Mulcair only got 48% in favour of his leadership?
Surprising.
Thought he would be higher.
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!!
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.
You two are fuckin clueless.
Cheri Di Novo being interviewed on CTV News Net.
You two are fuckin clueless.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it could just be simple Schadenfreude or pleasure at Mulcair's misfortune.
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. :)
What has happened today is what should have happened on election nite after that disastrous campaign
Now the NDP needs to pick a younger and dynamic Bernie Sanders - who can that be?
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.
That resolution though tried to jam the vote by saying within 12 months and that needs to be changed
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.
Mulcair just had too much Liberal baggage and it showed
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:
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.
Wise decision by the delegates.
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?
13 seats next election
I think that was a very classy, honourable, and gracious concession speech by Mulcair.
What has happened today is what should have happened on election nite after that disastrous campaign Now the NDP needs to pick a younger and dynamic Bernie Sanders - who can that be?
The only person is Joe Cressy. I juest tweeted to him that I hoped he runs of the leadership and that I'd support him.
JOE CRESSY! YEEEEEAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!
I just tweeted to him that I hoped he runs of the leadership and that I'd support him.JOE CRESSY! YEEEEEAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!
I wonder if the Alberta delegates voted 100% for a leadship convention
But NDPers need to understand you cannot run against jobs and win
I wonder why he decided to stay on as leader? Any opinions?
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 ;-)
I wonder why he decided to stay on as leader? Any opinions?
Maybe he wants to know that he will have a reliable paycheque for the next two years, while he decides what he wants to do.
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.
Another ignoble comment from terryt...!
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:
What has happened today is what should have happened on election nite after that disastrous campaignNow the NDP needs to pick a younger and dynamic Bernie Sanders - who can that be?
I think it should also be a person who has a strong intuitive understanding of public opinion. As it turns out, even at this convention the NDP's current higher ups were tone deaf to the opinion of even NDP voting delegates. I think the NDP's current higher-ups should never have allowed this kind of embarrassing situation to occur to the party. I think they should have had a much better idea of prevailing opinion.
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.
I wonder why he decided to stay on as leader? Any opinions?Maybe he wants to know that he will have a reliable paycheque for the next two years, while he decides what he wants to do.
I could have sworn he was elected MP in my riding in October, which gives him a "reliable paycheque" until 2019...
Did you have a more considered answer that you might wish to offer?
Another ignoble comment from terryt...!
Above post flagged as a personal attack and using oppresive language
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.
I have now been flagged 12 times in the last week by Terryt...l but the moderators are wisely ignoring him.
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.
Same thing happened with Kim Campbell after the 1993 election. Even though she lost her seat, she was still leader. A month later she gave a speech, where it sounded like she was going to stay on as leader. Immediately afterwards party brass confronted her and told her in plain language she had to go.
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?
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.
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
13 seats next election
Yeah. Uncertain future for sure.
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.
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 can't think of one. And there was no one in his caucus publicy against him. And no obvious heir apparent.