NDP leadership race 2

nicky wrote:

I have been taking a hiatus from Babble and returned today to read Pondering promoting a number of the more left-wing prospects for NDP leader. Is this the same Pondering who was so star-struck by Justin despite the obvious fact he never believed in anything except himself? Or has she become disillusioned by his steady retreat from his promises?

It is prejudice based on my supporting Trudeau for 2015 that prevents you from comprehending what I say. You interpret everything I say through a lens of my having supported Trudeau for PM. You make all kinds of assumptions about me based on that. Everything I say is assumed to be motivated by my support for electing Trudeau in 2015. The attitude has always been that I must be a dreaded Liberal because only one of those could possibly support him. It couldn't possibly be for actual reasons grounded in hard logic. I am not in the least bit star struck by Justin Trudeau unless you count being impressed by his political instincts. My complaint about the NDP has always been that they were too centrist. Trudeau's campaign was left of the NDP. Democracy doesn't exist within the NDP. The NDP never gave me a reason to vote for them. Trudeau gave me several.

I don't want Trudeau to win in 2019. I don't want him not to win in 2019. I want the leader best able to successfully deliver the most progressive policies. It isn't good enough to support the most progressive policies. What matters is that they are implemented not just talked about.

I criticize the NDP a lot because I believe they could be hugely successful. The executive changed the marketing team at some point and that had a significant positive impact bringing them to first place. It couldn't hold because Mulcair was the wrong leader for these times and the executive has atrophied.

When I predict that Trudeau is almost unbeatable in 2019 it isn't because I want him to win. It doesn't take micro-analysis to look at Canadian history both recent and distant to see that Canadians generally give a government at least two if not three terms. It seems Canadians would rather have the devil they know. Harper might have won another term. He was in first place briefly as I recall, or at least close to it. I have a hard time believing that Canadians will suddenly get too disillusioned by him after how long Harper lasted.

Trudeau is not stupid. I was concerned that he might stumble on the world stage but he has done the opposite. The world is effusive in his praise on every front including economic management. He isn't going to make any huge mistakes from the perspective of damaging his prospects for a win in 2019. Domestically he has made many popular decisions. That isn't a partisan analysis. I think the onus is on those who think he will be easy to beat in 2019 to present their argument.

If the NDP persists in presenting itself as a kinder gentler Liberal party they will continue to lose. Criticizing Trudeau is going to be about as effective as criticizing Harper was. Not at all. Even worse it has a lot of potential for backsplash. The Conservative attacks may shore up their base but it does nothing to gain new support or undermine confidence in Trudeau.

I think the Leap Manifesto was presented with too much of an ideological air but within it does lie the seeds of a vision for the NDP to present of a different future than that offered by neoliberalism. People are hungry to hear that the system is screwing us over and that the system can and must be changed in ways that go beyond daycare promises. People want to hear that the sky won't fall if we defy corporations.

There are two opposing sides in the NDP. I hope that the more progressive side wins giving me a reason to vote for the NDP. The main item that kept my support for Trudeau was marijuana legalization. The primary reasons I did not support Mulcair were due to his passionate support for Energy East, his anti-marijuana stance, the refusal of the NDP to allow for a vote on legalization, and his promoting of the Sherbrooke Declaration. To hardcore NDP supporters maybe none of that mattered but it all mattered to me.

None of those reasons are why Mulcair lost the election, Mulcair was briefly in 1st place with all those positions known, they are just my personal reasons for having wanted Trudeau to win.

It's fine and dandy to complain about Liberals saying one thing during an election, then doing another. The problem is, anyone who has lived with an NDP government knows they do exactly the same.

Why the NDP is a cowardly and opportunistic party and why I was a poster child for the modern NDP(Quite frankly I am not dumping of Mulcair, this has been a problem for a long time)

I was living a middle class existence, I voted NDP, I was well educated and could speak intelliegently to all of the concerns that the media told were important.  I donated my time and money to progressive/trendy causes but I viewed being people in poverty with a sense paternalism.  I would talk and debate against the ideas of the right on poverty.  But if someone in the obvious sings poverty walked near I would uncomfatble. 

Then I got sick, I lost my job, I could not afford a place to live and ended living in my car.  I will not bother to tell the rest of the story.  Let me say how people precived me in now state, I run out of the grooming products, I had not taken a shower in 45 days, I looked like a wild man and smelled as one would.  Most of former friends were just not comfortambe with me, I would rate there attutudes from horror to pity.  My police interactions which I had none before I sick, changed I say that police viewed me with bady hidden hositily not all but most. 

I considered nothing had changed  with how I thought of myself, I felt I was still felt I was a middle class person.  But others above my fimancial class viewed me with it pity, contempt, and even hositity.  The striking thing was that I had not changed but financially I was on the edge of finianciial existence.  And then it hit me, this is how I would treat a person in poverty in my old life.  Just because I had no money people felt I deserved no respect. Being poor changed everthing how people prepcive you.  Thats my story,I am not saying all people in the mibble class had my views but you would be suprised to may have similiar views. 

Now why I view the NDP in less than white light?  In the old days of the NDP it was organized  as ideology party.  That changed and the political imperatives changed.  You see the people that have been running the NDP realized that poverty exists. I mean people living in tent camps, under bridges, and generlly people living at the margins of society is well known.   But the NDP has made calucalution that the poor are useless politically, they have no donations to give, they general don't vote, and probably being seen with these people in poverty is liabiltiy.  All the major parties view poverty in the same sense.  There are no votes to gained so whats the point on using policial capital to address their views.  At one point this was different with the NDP, those had run the NDP they viewed poor people as allies becasue there idedoly.  Thats my view.

Maybe but I not given up on the NDP even though it gave up on me.

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

Maybe but I not given up on the NDP even though it gave up on me.

The NDP can't focus on poverty because the votes really aren't there and they do need votes but they can focus on how expensive poverty is and cheaper methods to deal with it like housing first programs. But that isn't even the main issue anymore.

Much of the following applies to the NDP.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/26/labour-battle-blai...

The day’s proceedings finished with a Dragons’ Den-style competition for a big idea for the next election manifesto. A pitch for a Green New Deal to provide a Keynesian stimulus, create good jobs, and decarbonise the economy was greeted enthusiastically by delegates but rejected by Gordon Brown’s pollster, Deborah Mattinson, who said that while climate change was “the biggest issue facing humanity” this was not an idea she could sell to voters.

There, six years ago, was the essence of Labour’s current civil war: on one side a grassroots bursting with ideas, determined to tackle the most urgent issues; on the other a party establishment so deferential to “political reality” that the survival of human civilisation has to take a back seat. This is the real struggle taking place in the party now: not one between “Blairites” and “Corbynistas”, but between conservatives and progressives.

Unlike those of the Attlee or Thatcher governments, New Labour’s agenda was never a transformative one. Tony Blair saw his task as “to build on some of the things [Thatcher] had done rather than reverse them”. The new economic framework imposed in the 1980s, which dramatically strengthened big business at the expense of working people, was essentially retained after 1997. Thatcherite ideology, with some rougher edges smoothed off, became the neoliberal consensus – more commonly known simply as “the centre ground”.

It can be sold to voters. It's the "corporations" shielding the wealthy that aren't buying.

This is the best chance in a generation for progressives to retake control of the NDP.

josh wrote:

DiNovo drops out citing health reasons.

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/08/02/cheri-dinovo-drops-unofficial-federal-ndp...

I wish her a rapid convalescence and return to good health.

But the Canadian Press seems to have missed her announcement that she intended to run as an "official" candidate.

Thank goodness for babble. At least we have linear chronological threads, where we can reality check just by scrolling up.

The NDP must look beyond its elected MPs and MPPs.

Given that there are no clear candidates perhaps some as yet unknown person will come forward with a reasonble chance. Without an NDP celebrity in the race important attributes and positions may be evaluated more clearly. More options may become available.

This might be the first time a leader comes out of the process that was not on the radar at the start.

We need a Bernie Sanders.

Interesting piece in the G&M - "NDP needs a strong leader to return wind to its sails": 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-needs-a-strong-leader-t...

Including Avi Lewis firmly ruling himself out of leadership contention (again, as I recall he did so before also), and a contrast of direction for the party between Peter Stoffer (who likes the alternative-Liberal middle-ground) and James Laxer (who wants to steer leftward).

Ibbitson is a conservative and a Harper lover so it's not a surprise.

As for Peter Stoffer, he doesn't speak French, so I don't see him running for leader, but you never know.

Geoff wrote:

We may have been premature in starting this thread. As far as I can tell, there is no NDP leadership race going on at the moment.

I think it is the Never Ending Leadership campaign. Unfortunately they seem to be having trouble finding anyone that wants the job that has the requisite money to play the game.

Quote:

Unfortunately they seem to be having trouble finding anyone that wants the job that has the requisite money to play the game.

Who, specifically, has indicated that they want the job, but cannot come up with the money?

Perhaps we could start a gofundme page for them.

Well, as a minimum-wage earner, it was understandable that she had to find ways around that elitist barrier to her participation.

The leadership bid seems to cost as much as a new car.  Who, but the 1%, could afford a car??

(to be clear for everyone:  yes, facetious)

Well, anyone who wants to get pushed under a bus can just jump under a bus for free.

What about a negative entry fee?  In other words, the NDP will PAY you $30K to listen to how you're just a centrist and a Thatcherite and have no place in public politics?

If you can't raise the entry fee, you probably won't be able to raise the total amount necessary to win the leadership, which will be much more than $30 000. Bourgeois politics suck, but it's all that's on the menu at the moment.

Ken Burch wrote:

my question is...does whoever set the timetable for the selection of the next NDP leader WANT the NDP to do well at the next federal election?

After all the time that will have passed(most of it likely to be with the party stuck at barely over 10%)will whoever does become leader have any chance at to even establish enough popular support to re-elect the current caucus, let alone have any chance of regaining any of the ground lost in 2016?

Why didn't they just set it up for a leader to be in place by the end of THIS year? 

Let's face it...a leader who doesn't take over until, for all practical purposes 2018 won't have any time at all to make an impression on the electorate.  No one in politics now has any chance of capturing voter attention and support that quickly.

It feels as though this ridiculously extended process is just Mulcair getting payback. 

Although I'm sure the party brass will deny it, I suspect that when we voted to delay the leadership vote, we were voting to take a pass on the 2019 election.

Donations have collapsed, and spinning our wheels for an extra year will ensure they drop even further. Consequently, there will be no money to run a competitive campaign. We'll content ourselves with 'flying the flag' and maybe taking a few issues or themes out for a 'test drive'.

The only (slim) hope for the NDP is if we end up holding the balance of power in a minority government next time around. Unfortunately, that will depend on the fortunes of the other parties, not us. For now, stick a fork in the NDP: we're done.

oh ffs. he should never have been thrown under the bus in te first place.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Well, anyone who wants to get pushed under a bus can just jump under a bus for free.

What about a negative entry fee?  In other words, the NDP will PAY you $30K to listen to how you're just a centrist and a Thatcherite and have no place in public politics?

Presumably those epithets wouldn't apply to someone who was not a Liberal, and who had not endorsed the Thatcher program (as Mulcair had).

R.E.Wood wrote:

quizzical wrote:

oh ffs. he should never have been thrown under the bus in te first place.

And this is the never-ending argument, isn't it? Blah blah blah. It's really tired now, quizzical. The majority of members wanted him gone. He's (eventually) going to be gone.

no. the majority of those who went to the convention wanted him gone. as for the rest which make the majority of members who knows.

i've got no use for the ON NDPers.

I don't see much to be gained by re-hashing what went down at convention. The party has disappeared from public view, and the result is that no one is donating to help us pay off our debt and get ready for the next election.

We have a leadership non-race, adding to the public perception that the NDP is no longer in the game. Hopefully, leadership candidates will start putting their names forward, sooner rather than later. There just aren't enough fingers to plug the growing number of holes in the NDP dike.

Geoff wrote:

I don't see much to be gained by re-hashing what went down at convention. The party has disappeared from public view, and the result is that no one is donating to help us pay off our debt and get ready for the next election.

We have a leadership non-race, adding to the public perception that the NDP is no longer in the game. Hopefully, leadership candidates will start putting their names forward, sooner rather than later. There just aren't enough fingers to plug the growing number of holes in the NDP dike.

What if they held a leadership race and nobody showed up.

Geoff wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

my question is...does whoever set the timetable for the selection of the next NDP leader WANT the NDP to do well at the next federal election?

After all the time that will have passed(most of it likely to be with the party stuck at barely over 10%)will whoever does become leader have any chance at to even establish enough popular support to re-elect the current caucus, let alone have any chance of regaining any of the ground lost in 2016?

Why didn't they just set it up for a leader to be in place by the end of THIS year? 

Let's face it...a leader who doesn't take over until, for all practical purposes 2018 won't have any time at all to make an impression on the electorate.  No one in politics now has any chance of capturing voter attention and support that quickly.

It feels as though this ridiculously extended process is just Mulcair getting payback. 

Although I'm sure the party brass will deny it, I suspect that when we voted to delay the leadership vote, we were voting to take a pass on the 2019 election.

Donations have collapsed, and spinning our wheels for an extra year will ensure they drop even further. Consequently, there will be no money to run a competitive campaign. We'll content ourselves with 'flying the flag' and maybe taking a few issues or themes out for a 'test drive'.

The only (slim) hope for the NDP is if we end up holding the balance of power in a minority government next time around. Unfortunately, that will depend on the fortunes of the other parties, not us. For now, stick a fork in the NDP: we're done.

Part of the reason for the NDP taking its time is because it's important for the NDP to figure out where it wants to go. If we had rushed into a leadership race, we could have very easily ignored structural problems.

But the whole leadership thing is getting ridiculous. First Mulcair loses the most number of seats the party has ever lost in an election, then he is the first leader in Canadian history to outright lose a vote of confidence, and now we know he's not going to run in 2019. Can he be any more of a lame duck than he is?

At the start I agreed that he can stay on until the next leader is chosen, however now I'm of the view that he should be dumped now and an interim leader named. Unfortunatley I don't know if there is any method to do so.

Geoff wrote:

If this ia all part of some carefully planned strategy, I wish the party would let its members in on the secret.

Who are you referring to as the "the party" in that statement?  Clearly you don't mean the membership.

Geoff wrote:

wage zombie wrote:

Geoff wrote:

If this ia all part of some carefully planned strategy, I wish the party would let its members in on the secret.

Who are you referring to as the "the party" in that statement?  Clearly you don't mean the membership.

It's the members who need to know if there is a strategy behind the silence. I doubt that there is. It may well be that the leadership is scratching its collective head. I don't know. Truly, I'm grasping at straws.

The strategy of the party executive is probably the same as the Liberal strategy after Ignatieff. The Liberal party put Rae in as interim leader with the agreement that he wouldn't run for the leadership but as the leadership contest approached they were toying with the idea of releasing him from that promise and having him run. Then Trudeau showed up and upset the apple cart creating generational change within the party. The Martin/Chretien people lost power. I predict the plan is the same with Mulcair. The party executive and people like Cullen want Mulcair to stick around because he is their man. The focus is on winning power which ironically is exactly what is standing in the way of the NDP actually winning power.