Some NDPers Claim Tom Mulcair Was Illegitimately Ousted As Party Leader

Plus, I don't think Mulcair would want to come back anyway.

He's teaching at a University in Montreal now, and also working as a political commentator on TV.

The federal delegate selection as described in the above link is nothing new and as far as I’m aware is the norm. Members from ridings that have already reached their quota of delegates that want to go are designated to represent ridings that are short on representation at the convention   In fact, it would be odd to change common practice just because of the geography?

Part of me also feels a little sorry for Mulcair. Obviously Tom should have stepped down immediately  when he saw that the NDP only came out with 44 seats, but really he shouldn’t have even ever became leader in the first place. 

The NDP’s problems all started with Jack Layton’s desire to hold on to the leadership. And arguably a little more?

From my understanding, Jack was aware he was going to die before the 2011 election, but he chose to stay and fight a ridiculously straining on the body campaign that probably took months off his life. This is a sign of selfish greed and a very poor decision! Poor decisions are the ultimate sign that you’re incapable of leading. 

Jack did a lot for the NDP, and so did Tom, their problem in my opinion was that their egos got in the way. 

I think Mulcair has absolutely no desire to return to active politics - he is very appreciated as a teacher at UdM.

There is certainly truth about Jack's choices; however there is not much choice arguing with someone who is dead.

Hindsight is very accurate.

Arguably Layton gave his life earlier to create an opportunity to the NDP. He would not have known that it would be lost. Had he not run we do not know if this would have put the NDP (then under 18% in the polls) into chaos and potentially losing party status. To say that his running becoming official opposition and dying was somehow selfish is very strange indeed.

The dramatic growth in the NDP was a Layton bump and quite possibly directly related to his illness in part (remember the cane).

All politicians are egotistical in thinking they would be chosen and they can make a difference. However, the calculation in running while sick is not necessarily that.

Also Layton knew he had cancer, I think, although this has been denied and there is no strong evidence either way. I do not believe he knew that he was terminal -- even if his doctors thought that likely.

Politicians tend to be optimistic about themselves. Goes with the ego. He probably knew he had a risk which he kept private and he probably thought he could beat it until his illness hit much harder after the election.

This is partly the thing about ego: it is almost a contradiction to say his ego led him to believe he was going to die and to run anyway. The ego that would have made him run anyway would also have beleived he could beat it.

Most people who have known a person with a big ego go through a serious disease can tell you that sometimes the ego can lead to them surviving against the odds by willpower. It will certainly increase the chance that they will believe they can.

I think the comments here to the effect that he knew he was dying and kept going anyway are deeply offensive and without foundation in any evidence.

There is not even any evidence that Layton's medical prognosis was known to be terminal to his doctors then (as opposed to serious risk) nevermind that he believed it.

Of course the people who say this are also the ones who are often Liberal or those who throw around the accusation that others are Liberals (protest to much?).

New Democrats on this site know that a common feature among actual longtime NDP supporters, members and candidates is extreme optimism. And hey the last message he endorsed (and presumably wrote much of) was typical NDP optimism.

This part of the thread accusing Layton is absolute BS. sure he is dead and you cannot hurt him but the poeple close to him you can.

Try to have some facts - once in a while.

I will add this:

pessimists on the left go to the Liberal party hoping to make a bit of a difference however they can - within the system. You have to be a massive optimist to go to the NDP and think you can beat the bigger parties and govern. Which Layton famously did.

It would not shock me to hear that Layton imagined he could survive until his last breath. I have no doubt he imagined he could win and beat Harper and have no doubt that he thought beating cancer was another long shot he could win.

I also think that while there is strong speculation he knew he had cancer there is no evidence that even the doctors knew he had it and was that serious. I also think that had he known it was going to kill him he might even have decided not to run to save his own life. People are like that - they like survival. Most people who do things risking their lives do so out of a belief that will not die. Call that optimism. Call that ego. Don't call that selfish becuase the decision making process is not based on a presumption of loss.

Ken Burch wrote:

I'm saddened and puzzled that anyone who votes NDP would say that the Orange Crush was solely "a Layton surge".  There's no reason people on THIS board should be repeating what is essentially a Liberal Party talking point-should be repeating the canard that the 2011 NDP breakthrough somehow "doesn't count".  We don't KNOW if it might have been sustained under a different leader. We don't KNOW if if might have been sustained if the party had used its status as Official Opposition to actually provide a real alternative to the status quo, to give the voters a chance to vote for a clear break with the free-marker austerity consensus.

Has it never occurred to people that, even with the supposed moderation in Jack's message, the voters had actually engaged in "psychic freeing"?  That perhaps, perhaps, the minds of the voters were actually open and were willing to embrace a different set of possibilities...perhaps even including a break with Bush and Harper's militarism? I think they just needed to hear the party speaking of a different world and would have responded to that vision.  It's just that they weren't offered that vision, or ANY vision at all.  They were offered a balanced budget, which is a useless, meaningless commitment that no one but Bay Street billionaires would ever have demanded-everybody else would have voted NDP because they wanted non-billionaires to have their say in life for once.

Calling 2011 a "Layton bump" is NDP supporters self-delegitimizing the NDP and surrendering to the Liberal/Conservative "There Is No Alternative" narrative.  Can't see what good comes of that.

Well no. absolutely not.

There is no way that saying that the opportunity that a connection makes means that what is connected is not legitimate. It also does not mean that it cannot be reproduced.

I am not really interested in puritans who want to pretend that we can all do well without a spokesperson with charisma. Fact is in our media politics you need this. Fact is it is rare. Fact is that you need that magical connection and it is very hard to do.

To say that I am insulting to say this is actually in itself an insult. If this did not matter you are suggesting some other reason for the NDP to have been so unsuccessful for the last 50 years.

I know we all want to live in a world where leaders are less important than policy and ideas. We do not live in that world.

Even a good leader needs that spark of connection that can happen for many reasons. It was not there for Layton in the early years becuase he was seen as fake by many people. It does not mean NDP policy is illegitimate but that they did not reach people and were not seen as an option. Layton with his cane was a symbol of humanity that resonated. The politics of the NDP aremore than any other major party related to humanity. This connected in Quebec as he was seen as real-down-to-earth adn courageous.

People turned to the NDP that the NDP had been unable to reach before.

These people having been connected are now available much more easily to connect.

So maybe Singh stumbles. Maybe he loses party status even. But the NDP after 2011 is different. It is capable becuase it has been listened to before -- Layton broke through the fog. Another leader with potential can break through more easily becuase Layton did before.

It is frankly delegitimizing of the value to the NDP and rarity in politics of what Layton did to say that recognition of that is a bad thing.

Your comments are part of the problem with the NDP some times being unable to recognize its successes and build on them becuase it is too busy pretending we live in an ideal world where we don't need any help to get through; pretending that the media either can never help the NDP and is always bad or that the media is capable of delilvering without this. Both can only lead to defeat.

People need to open their eyes to what Layton did. Be thankful for it. And work to reproduce it, a task made easier by what he did.

Crapping on it and saying that to recognize it, if a majority view is exactly how to make the NDP a perfect, pure, fourth party trhat can be the moral high ground and a good "conscience of the House" but otherwise no threat to power and really for the most part quite useless.

Your comments could not be taken more badly as you are taking a position that puts you exactly, in my view, where you were placing me. Among those who want the NDP to be really good at failing. Really good at being so unrealistic that it can never succeed. Good for nothing.

pietro_bcc wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

The federal delegate selection as described in the above link is nothing new and as far as I’m aware is the norm. Members from ridings that have already reached their quota of delegates that want to go are designated to represent ridings that are short on representation at the convention   In fact, it would be odd to change common practice just because of the geography?

Part of me also feels a little sorry for Mulcair. Obviously Tom should have stepped down immediately  when he saw that the NDP only came out with 44 seats, but really he shouldn’t have even ever became leader in the first place. 

The NDP’s problems all started with Jack Layton’s desire to hold on to the leadership. And arguably a little more?

From my understanding, Jack was aware he was going to die before the 2011 election, but he chose to stay and fight a ridiculously straining on the body campaign that probably took months off his life. This is a sign of selfish greed and a very poor decision! Poor decisions are the ultimate sign that you’re incapable of leading. 

Jack did a lot for the NDP, and so did Tom, their problem in my opinion was that their egos got in the way. 

Poor decision to stay on for who? He got the NDP their greatest result ever, so it wasn't the wrong decision for the party. The campaign may have taken some time off his life but its his life, his time to spend not our's or anyone else's. So who was it a poor decision for?

 

 

As for Mulcair, I respect the guy but he's a terrible politician who took advice from the wrong people. I still maintain that more than anything "smiling" Tom Mulcair is what lost the election. The Conservatives branded him as Angry Tom and he internalized it, he spent all his time trying to convince people that he wasn't "Angry" Tom, he was "smiling" Tom. And "smiling" Tom was so clearly fake that people were repulsed by him. His greatest strength was his anger and his authenticity and the Conservatives (to their credit I suppose) were so thoroughly successful in making Mulcair turn his back on his greatest strength, that they ended his political career.

Without "smiling" Tom Mulcair, he likely would still be leader.

Ok  I'm wrong to say that Jack knew he was going to die going into the election. At the very least, he knew he had to get rid of stress in his life to improve his odds.

He had hip surgery just days or weeks before the election call! From my research, he first thought he could "walk off" a fractured hip until he finally got tested out. That says something right there about his attitude towards his personal health!

Now if he was just an MP, I can see him deciding to stay on. But as the leader, he has to take into account the entire party, not just his own health. He had to consider the worst case scenario, his own death, no matter what the odds are.What would happen to the NDP if he died? Would the NDP be able to build? Who would build and maintain the party after he died? If he honestly believed it was up to him and only him, then that would be such a huge burden on him, for sure it would interfere with his chances  of fighting prostate cancer. If he felt there were members that could build the party, then why not let them? Why the lack of faith in his own party?

I'm trying to get inside his head or his frame of mind at the time, and I honestly believe that he was acting very selfish, omnipotent and had one or more of arrogant/superiority/condescesion/egotism and perhaps narcissism.

Mulcair clearly had a couple of these that I have mentioned 

edited to add

Your body is the only thing that connects you to this world/reality! It must come first! The only exception would be family.

.

..election results are not a reflection what people really feel. federal elections are a set of limited options played out in a 3 ring circus. the leader plays a part but so do other matters. 2015 people hated harper and pre election weren't to crazy about trudeau. and this presented an opportunity for the ndp which they fucked up. my point is circumstance played the most important part in 2015. i don't see how this was different in 2011. 

epaulo13 wrote:

..election results are not a reflection what people really feel. federal elections are a set of limited options played out in a 3 ring circus. the leader plays a part but so do other matters. 2015 people hated harper and pre election weren't to crazy about trudeau. and this presented an opportunity for the ndp which they fucked up. my point is circumstance played the most important part in 2015. i don't see how this was different in 2011. 

Thanks for the reality check, epaulo.

In 2011, Quebecers' greatest common wish was to get rid of Harper. They deserted the Bloc en masse, having entrusted it with their interests for almost 20 years, and finally realizing that the Bloc wasn't, like, running anyone outside QC, so they could never form the government - and even briefly as official opposition, it couldn't build the kind of coalition needed to stop the worst reactionary forces from taking power. So Quebecers tried a "federalist" option - it happened to be the NDP. It had nothing to do with the NDP's platform (which Quebecers weren't aware of). It had little to do with Jack Layton's personal appeal, except (in my analysis) that Jack had already tried a coalition to get rid of Harper, and didn't rule out the possibility of doing so again if need be (a fatal mistake that Ignatieff made, for example). I know workers and trade unionists that voted NDP but couldn't have told you what the letters stand for. They were previously all staunch BQ voters. And no one should underestimate Mulcair's significant role as chief organizer and deputy in QC. Respect for him was widespread.

The NDP lost QC in 2015 for the same basic reason it won in 2011. It was about Quebecers' motivation to defeat Harper. Second time lucky.

 

Debater wrote:

Unionist, I respect your analysis, but there's also some other factors involved.

Yes, there was a strong anti-Harper feeling in Quebec, but a large part of the vote in Quebec was for Jack Layton's personal appeal.  Many Quebecers have said they voted for "Jack".  And as I mentioned above, Chantal Hebert and other Quebec experts have said that it was because of Jack Layton that the NDP won Quebec.

And part of the reason Trudeau & the Liberals finished 1st in Quebec in 2015 wasn't just an anti-Harper vote, but it was also because some Quebecers were attracted to Trudeau's personality and positive campaign.

OK, then...a possibly "sci-fi" question here:

Had Jack survived and stayed on as leader, how do you think it would have gone in Quebec in 2015?  

To say that something is only becuase of one thing does not mean that it wasn't only becuase of something else as well. This is what prerequisite means. So no, I think without Layton the party would not have made a breakthrough in 2011. Not at all.

Yes I think that Layton would have held much of that vote had he recovered into 2015 and it would have been a close election three ways.

It takes a lot to win -- a lot has to go well. What Layton brought was essential and woudl not have happened without him. That is not to minimize any other value but to admit that those values would have gotten nowhere without that connection to Jack Layton.

Every star had to be in the right place for 2011 to happen. Layton's contribution was one of them and therefore essential.

the NDP has put together good platforms and said good things before since the 1960s. It was not just the party. There was the party, the opening of circumstances with the BQ in trouble and Harper unpopular etc. and there was this almost phenomenal connection Harper made. A great part of that connection was in how human he became as well.

The fact that it happened also means that it is easier for it to happen again so even if the party loses party status in 2019, this benefit will not go away completely.

WWWTT wrote:

Ok  I'm wrong to say that Jack knew he was going to die going into the election. At the very least, he knew he had to get rid of stress in his life to improve his odds.

He had hip surgery just days or weeks before the election call! From my research, he first thought he could "walk off" a fractured hip until he finally got tested out. That says something right there about his attitude towards his personal health!

Now if he was just an MP, I can see him deciding to stay on. But as the leader, he has to take into account the entire party, not just his own health. He had to consider the worst case scenario, his own death, no matter what the odds are.What would happen to the NDP if he died? Would the NDP be able to build? Who would build and maintain the party after he died? If he honestly believed it was up to him and only him, then that would be such a huge burden on him, for sure it would interfere with his chances  of fighting prostate cancer. If he felt there were members that could build the party, then why not let them? Why the lack of faith in his own party?

I'm trying to get inside his head or his frame of mind at the time, and I honestly believe that he was acting very selfish, omnipotent and had one or more of arrogant/superiority/condescesion/egotism and perhaps narcissism.

Mulcair clearly had a couple of these that I have mentioned 

edited to add

Your body is the only thing that connects you to this world/reality! It must come first! The only exception would be family.

I think it should be remembered that before the 2011 election the Harper government was a precarious minority government that could have been defeated at any time so Layton resigning and leaving the NDP to be led in the 2011 election by an interim leader would likely have put the NDP in a very weak position in that election. It should also be remembered that one of the majour obstacles Ignatieff faced in the 2011 election was that he was coronated as leader by Liberal insiders. It would have been quite something if in the 2011 election both the NDP and Liberals had been led by leaders questionably chosen by their respective party's insiders!

My guess is that Layton would likely have resigned as NDP leader in 2011 due to having personal health issues if the Conservatives had had a majority government and if the next election had bern set for 2012 or 2013. But Layton did not have the luxury of being in that kind of stable position in 2011. I think the NDP would have been in a very weak position if they had been led in the 2011 election by an interim leader. Looking back at 2011 I see that Layton was faced with a very unstable personal health situation and a very unstable political possition and I think he handled the unenviable situation he found himself in admirably and he should be lauded for how he paid the ultimate sacrifice to meet those two very difficult challenges.

JKR wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Ok  I'm wrong to say that Jack knew he was going to die going into the election. At the very least, he knew he had to get rid of stress in his life to improve his odds.

He had hip surgery just days or weeks before the election call! From my research, he first thought he could "walk off" a fractured hip until he finally got tested out. That says something right there about his attitude towards his personal health!

Now if he was just an MP, I can see him deciding to stay on. But as the leader, he has to take into account the entire party, not just his own health. He had to consider the worst case scenario, his own death, no matter what the odds are.What would happen to the NDP if he died? Would the NDP be able to build? Who would build and maintain the party after he died? If he honestly believed it was up to him and only him, then that would be such a huge burden on him, for sure it would interfere with his chances  of fighting prostate cancer. If he felt there were members that could build the party, then why not let them? Why the lack of faith in his own party?

I'm trying to get inside his head or his frame of mind at the time, and I honestly believe that he was acting very selfish, omnipotent and had one or more of arrogant/superiority/condescesion/egotism and perhaps narcissism.

Mulcair clearly had a couple of these that I have mentioned 

edited to add

Your body is the only thing that connects you to this world/reality! It must come first! The only exception would be family.

I think it should be remembered that before the 2011 election the Harper government was a precarious minority government that could have been defeated at any time so Layton resigning and leaving the NDP to be led in the 2011 election by an interim leader would likely have put the NDP in a very weak position in that election. It should also be remembered that one of the majour obstacles Ignatieff faced in the 2011 election was that he was coronated as leader by Liberal insiders. It would have been quite something if in the 2011 election both the NDP and Liberals had been led by leaders questionably chosen by their respective party's insiders! My guess is that Layton would likely have resigned as NDP leader in 2011 due to having personal health issues if the Conservatives had had a majority government and if the next election had bern set for 2012 or 2013. But Layton did not have the luxury of being in that kind of stable position in 2011. I think the NDP would have been in a very weak position if they had been led in the 2011 election by an interim leader. Looking back at 2011 I see that Layton was faced with a very unstable personal health situation and a very unstable political possition and I think he handled the unenviable situation he found himself in admirably and he should be lauded for how he paid the ultimate sacrifice to meet those two very difficult challenges.

Agreed that Jack was faced with a very hard decision! Should also point out that prostate cancer has good odds of fighting  not sure how good the odds were in 2010?

I still believe he made the wrong choice. So let’s just agree that we disagree 

pietro_bcc wrote:

If the NDP goes below official party status again in 2019, as a party whose core values have been erased, what possible case can be made, WITHOUT the party totally repudiating neoliberalism and austerity capitalism-which means admitting that balanced budgets are reactionary and pointless-for even keeping the party alive?

Nothing wrong with balanced budgets, the issue is how you reach a balanced budget. Mulcair gave no road map towards how to collect additional revenue. The only policy plank that raised revenue was a 2 point increase in corporate taxes which wouldn't have been enough to balance the budget or pay for the NDP's promises, this led people to reach the correct conclusion that those promises would either be abandoned, there would be cuts to social services or the balanced budget would be abandoned.

Fiscal prudence isn't a bad word, nor is balanced budgets. This should be the model for how progressives released their plans and how to pay for them https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ very simple, clear and easy to understand. A line for increased revenues, a line for increased spending, no vagueness. That way when the pundits say "well how will you pay for it" NDP politician can say "ndp .ca slash how we pay for it, next question" no stumbling or mumbling while trailing off, which is how most Canadian parties on the left answer that question.

OK, I overstated there.  Balanced budgets, in and of themselves, are not the problem.  Making a balanced budget the CENTRAL, DOMINANT pledge of your campaign and, in the one televised leaders' debate you participate in, never mentioning ANY of the progressive items in your program, is the problem.  There was no reason for Mulcair to pretend to be to the right of Harper on fiscal issues.

You are correct on the federal delegate selection, this is nothing new and that was stated in the report we published.  That does not make the practice right and is certainly questionable ethically. The issue is the constitutionality of that process, something we had vetted by a lawyer and confirmed by others.  And there were other important issues, notably the 1500+ members purged pre-convention by questionable methodology, and some that we have not yet made public.  Only 850 people voted in the actual leadership review vote and, as is obvious, it would not take many fake delegates to swing that small a number – nor was it representative of the NDP membership.  Tens of thousands of the rest of the membership were rightly pissed off to this day.

We do have more than enough evidence to challenge the 2016 convention results, and in fact we seriously considered doing so at one point.  This has never been done in Canada but that would not have stopped us.  What did sway us in our decision making was the damage that would have done to the federal NDP.  We had some vague, and now vain hope, that the party would do the right thing and at least acknowledge what really happened.  We also asked for an apology to the membership and Tom, and to change future leadership review practises.  None of these happened so we, in the Bring Back Tom Mulcair Campaign are still here and very much active.  

We do realize that Tom may never come back.  The 2016 federal NDP convention destroyed the reputation and political career of a truly great Canadian, and perhaps our best leader ever.  This is something that our members are still, to this day, very angry about.  Obviously not everyone will agree with how we feel, but we are Tom Mulcair supporters, just over five-thousand in number, and growing.  We are far from done in our campaigns. 

It is unfortunate that the current party leader is caught in the cross-fire.  Most of us wish him well and know that he would make a great MP, one day. 

Dale Jackaman
Chair – The Bring Back Tom Mulcair Campaign

"I am a fervent supporter of Israel in all situations and circumstances." - Tom Mulcair

The continuing support for Apartheid Israel and pro- Zionist politicians  should be unacceptable to any Canadian who claims to be 'progressive'. 

I disagree that Mulcair is or was a conservative.

I think he lacked the necessary confidence and optimism with respect to social democratic values and for this reason I believe he wanted to "run from the centre" in order to have an opportunity to make a difference. Mulcair was also typical of a number of people I have known that are so careful to modify expectations that they are seen as very pessimistic while they are actually confident of exceeding them. Mulcair also misread the political mood and essentially ran against the Conservatives when he needed to run against the Liberals. This was serious in that his greatest threat as we now know was from the Liberals and ignoring them as Layton did in 2011 successfully was a critical mistake.

Specifically, the Liberals ran on their middle class message which was a transparent lie from the start and the NDP never challenged it. The Liberals released enough information about their tax plans for the NDP to blow them up as fiddling among the more wealthy than anythign for most working people.

I think Mulcair's advice was atrocious. I actually think he could well have become a decent leader with better advice on where Canadians were at the time and what things to campaign on. The emphasis on not running a deficit was a message good for previous campaigns aganst the Conservatives, perhaps. It was a dud against the Liberals.

Literally, Mulcair did not see the Liberals coming.

I fear that some of the people behind this poor advice are still in leadership.

Debate wrote:

As Chantal Hebert said on 2011 Election Night, Quebecers voted for Jack, not really for the NDP.

It only took 7 years and 4 elections for Quebecers to “vote for Jack and not really the NDP” Ok if you say so Chantal?

I was at the Edmonton convention and didn't see anything suspicious, unless someone stuffed the ballot boxes when I wasn't looking. Mulcair lost, fair and square. And there's no point re-hashing the last election. The next election is the one we should be focused on.

Yeah. some people act as if it was close. If he would've won with 60% of the vote instead of lost with a little under 50% he still wouldn't be leader.

I doubt that any configuration of votes would have left Mulcair with the leadership.

Without rehashing it all, he was severely damaged. While I do not think he was a conservative, his judgment as leader was poor so the reasons he failed are largely academic, except that I would resist attempts to further damage his personal reputation as to pretend he was something he was not. From a tactical point of view having a consevative as leader is not a whole lot worse than having one (as I believe) without the confidence in the positions of the party such that he thought that looking more conservative was a good idea.

The party reached for Singh in part to show how inclusive it was rather than good reasons to belive he would be successful. I still believe Caron woudl have made a fantastic leader and the NDP would not be in this position. Better yet, I really wish some of the other people I mentionned here in terms of leadership would have run. It is not clear that they are interested in the party but these were examples of the kind of people the party could have done well with.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I doubt that any configuration of votes would have left Mulcair with the leadership.

Without rehashing it all, he was severely damaged. While I do not think he was a conservative, his judgment as leader was poor so the reasons he failed are largely academic, except that I would resist attempts to further damage his personal reputation as to pretend he was something he was not. From a tactical point of view having a consevative as leader is not a whole lot worse than having one (as I believe) without the confidence in the positions of the party such that he thought that looking more conservative was a good idea.

The party reached for Singh in part to show how inclusive it was rather than good reasons to belive he would be successful. I still believe Caron woudl have made a fantastic leader and the NDP would not be in this position. Better yet, I really wish some of the other people I mentionned here in terms of leadership would have run. It is not clear that they are interested in the party but these were examples of the kind of people the party could have done well with.

My own sense about the push for Singh was that a lot of those who pushed for him-and that includes everybody who was in the "there's no point in even having a contest-it just HAS to be Singh and it doesn't matter what he stands for or how he'd run the party because IT JUST HAS TO BE HIM!" crowd on this board was-in addition to the "he's got more charisma than Justin" thing that I think everybody would now have to concede has been totally discredited-was that he was the candidate who'd make the fewest changes.  Under Singh, the iron grip of the party insiders-the ones who'd rather seee the NDP get wiped off the electoral map than let the rank-and-file have a say or allow any NON-bland messaging to happen-would be totally unchallenged.  And that's how it's gone-no change, no ferment, no re-democratization, no meaningful outreach to the social movements even though they are the only part of the left side of the political spectrum where there is any energy or innovation or life.  

If Mulcair had hung on in Edmonton, not only would nothing be better, it is entirely possible things might be getting worse.

And it looks as though the REAL motivation for the group we're discussing here is simply to make sure that there's no chance the NDP, under ANY other leader, could make even a respectable showing in this election.  They are wreckers and nothing more.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The party reached for Singh in part to show how inclusive it was rather than good reasons to belive he would be successful.

In part my fucking ass! Singh aggresively fought to become leader by bringing in tens of thousands of new members. He was in no way going to rely on convincing long term members to vote for him. 

Now I believe there were lots of long time members who did vote for him. How many, I don't know? But I think it wasn't a great percentage?

Singh won the leadership fair and square! But he took big big risks and stepped on lots of toes! I still believe he deserves the backing of all the party. But if he fails in 10 months, it's very possible the whole Mulcair leadership issue will look like small potatoes. 

I should add that I always thought it was great that members that wanted to be at the convention can still go even though their riding delegates were full. I sincerely hope that the NDP organisers don't stop the practice just because of a few members complaining about Mulcair losing!

Campaigning From the Left and Governing From the Right in Canada

Canadian MP Niki Ashton tells Paul Jay both the NDP and the Liberals have been guilty of making progressive promises during election campaigns and legislating from the center-right once in power

quote:

PAUL JAY: So you made a comment on the panel yesterday where you said, just sort of as an aside, that there’s people in Canada who have campaigned and run from the left, but have done things that sometimes are from the right, that even the right might not have been able to do. What were we talking about?

NIKI ASHTON: Well, I was talking about, first of all, the conversation is in the context of how do we–Yanis Varoufakis asked me, how do we build the kind of structures we need to achieve justice and dignity for people? And one of the comments I made beyond sort of, you know, the fact that we need leaders like Bernie Sanders, we need ideas like the ones that he and we in Canada have put forward, as we also need to hold our own movements accountable, our own progressive movements accountable. And you know, I have–you know, obviously I’m staunchly supportive of the movement I’m a part of, but I have seen ways in which, whether it’s provincial wings of the party or people within my own party have lost sight of the key principles we have. We’ve seen examples of when the NDP has won power it hasn’t lived up to its commitments. I mean, in Ontario that was that public auto insurance. In my own-

PAUL JAY: Bob Rae.

NIKI ASHTON: Yeah. And in my own province, you know, a highly problematic criminal justice agenda, which, not unlike some of the things we heard have happened here under Democrats. And you know, we’re certainly in disagreement with, for example, the provincial wing–the federal wing is in disagreement with the provincial wing of the NDP in Alberta around pipelines. So it’s, you know, so part of the work is what are we doing to engage people in our communities and in our country to build a progressive movement, but what, also, are the conversations we’re having as progressives? And the need to really stand up for principle.

quote:

PAUL JAY: The NDP in its beginnings in the CCF used to have a program that much more included nationalization. Public ownership. So while there’s a push back on privatization, there’s very little talk about expanding the public sector. And Bernie Sanders spoke yesterday on a panel, and he talked–concentrated wealth isn’t just about wealth. It’s about power. But I don’t hear from him, either, how do you actually confront the power? Because to my mind if you don’t build out economic public sector alternatives–for example, banking. Some people have suggested banking as a public utility. But we don’t challenge that power at its root, which is ownership. And I don’t hear that from the NDP. And honestly, I don’t hear it much in this country, either. The Mayor of Barcelona spoke on a panel yesterday. And she said, you know, it’s not enough, some of the reforms. And I believe she said they started a publicly-owned energy company.

NIKI ASHTON: Yeah. So I, in fact, I ran for leader in 2017 of the NDP nationally. And we advocated for public ownership, and we really put it in the frame of, you know, we’re constantly fighting privatization. We need to go further and propose public ownership. We talked about an example in my own constituency where we privatized a strategic asset, the only deepwater Arctic seaport which is in Churchill. Actually got a fair bit of American coverage. And it was privatized a year ago, put in the hands of an American billionaire who basically ran it into disrepair, put our communities in a very difficult situation, ended up shutting it down. And you know, unemployment, desperation. Just an awful, awful situation.

So we said, why doesn’t the federal government step in and nationalize the port and the railway? And you know, there was tremendous support for that position. Finally, our pressure contributed to it to getting rid of the American billionaire. But sadly, it is under corporate ownership once again. Fortunately, there are communities that are involved in managing the future of the port. But all to say that we are seeing a growing momentum around the idea of public ownership. We’ve talked about the need for a postal bank. You know, Canada is a country where many of our communities have no banking services. Smaller, rural, indigenous communities. You know, why don’t we look at bringing postal banking-

You know, we are also very–you know, I’m very interested in looking at public ownership in the telecom field, especially with, with Wi-Fi, and understanding that especially access to the Internet is not negotiable in this day and age. And many people, because of where they live or how much money they make, don’t have the same access as others. So we ought to be looking at that that option. And like I said, you know, we traveled across the country, and I would say that that was one of the three main areas that garnered the most support, was the desire to propose public ownership, to be proud of proposing it, and really make it clear that that is a way of getting at corporate greed and a way of, obviously, providing quality services.