Best current NDP leader in Canada

30 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brachina
Best current NDP leader in Canada

 I'm just curious who do you guys think is the best NDP leader in Camada is, federal or provincial?

 Is it John Horgan, Cam Broten, Andrea Horwath, Mulcair, Lorraine Micheals, a possible successor to Brian Mason, Greg Selinger, someone else?

Unionist

Andrea Horwath.

 

clambake

If I had to rank them:

Muclair

Horwath

Michaels

Broten

Selinger

and waaaay down the list: Cardy

 

Jury is still out on Horgan

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Ideologically, they all suck.

However Mulcair, like Layton, is very effective.

infracaninophile infracaninophile's picture

Unionist wrote:
Andrea Horwath.

Really? That surprises me (but I don't know much about some of the others), as I infer you are not overly impressed by her policial acumen as shown in the campaign (and before) so far....

 

In what way is Andrea the best of the lot? Apart from being attractive and personable, which are good things but not all that determinative.

swallow swallow's picture

Pierre Ducasse.

Rokossovsky

Thoma Mulcair. He is making the best of a bad situation in opposition against a majority.

Rokossovsky

OnTheLeft wrote:

Ideologically, they all suck.

However Mulcair, like Layton, is very effective.

Mulcair is clearly more effective, getting concessions from a governing majority, and shaking the foundation of Harper's reputation. Jack was only effective when working a minority, and never spooked Harper.

PrairieDemocrat15

I have to say Mulcair. He's too far to the right policy-wise for my taste, but is an excellent parliamentarian and smart as a whip. I'd say he's the smartest person to sit in the Leader of the Opposition's chair since PET.

NorthReport

Harper has finally met his match in Mulcair.

But when Mulcair has had enough, Andrea may well give Nathan Cullen a run for his money for the federal leadership.

I would say currently Mulcair and Horwath are 1 and 2 in that order, but others might just be lessor known.

Unionist

infracaninophile wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Andrea Horwath.

Really? That surprises me (but I don't know much about some of the others), as I infer you are not overly impressed by her policial acumen as shown in the campaign (and before) so far....

My apologies, infra, I was just being a tad childish. I think Horwath is hopeless. But more so, I found the thread topic to be vacuous. Why in God's name would one want to compare different NDP "leaders" in different jurisdictions, some in government, some not, etc.? And if you're going to do that comparison, why not "which party leader is the best?"

So I withdraw my comment, with apologies to Mme Horwath and anyone else who may have been confused by my apparent attribution to her of any qualities whatsoever. She may have 'em, but she ain't shown 'em yet.

Unfortunately, that goes for most of the others as well.

Caissa

Bob Rae

Aristotleded24

Rokossovsky wrote:

OnTheLeft wrote:

Ideologically, they all suck.

However Mulcair, like Layton, is very effective.

Mulcair is clearly more effective, getting concessions from a governing majority, and shaking the foundation of Harper's reputation. Jack was only effective when working a minority, and never spooked Harper.

To be fair, Jack wasn't around very long after Harper's majority, so he didn't really have a fair chance to deal with it.

Unionist

To A24's point, Jack put the fear of God into Harper in December 2008. It was only the capitulation and betrayal of Ignatieff and his party that saved Harper's ass. If Mulcair can do half that well, he'll be remembered.

 

Orangutan

The best current NDP leader is ironically the one from the least populated province or territory to have partisan elections - Liz Hanson of the Yukon NDP.  2nd place would go to Mike Redmond of the PEI NDP.  

Rokossovsky

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

OnTheLeft wrote:

Ideologically, they all suck.

However Mulcair, like Layton, is very effective.

Mulcair is clearly more effective, getting concessions from a governing majority, and shaking the foundation of Harper's reputation. Jack was only effective when working a minority, and never spooked Harper.

To be fair, Jack wasn't around very long after Harper's majority, so he didn't really have a fair chance to deal with it.

Of course. But Jack never made Harper sweat. Not once.

Aristotleded24

While we're talking about NDP leaders, I think Nycole Turmel deserves far more credit and recognition than she received. She took on the party leadership in very difficult circumstances, surrounding the illness and death of the popular Jack Layton. And in all the confusion, especially during the leadership race, she kept the party together and was very instrumental in the transition period.

Brachina

 After what's happened to the Newfoundland NDP I would not.count Micheal's as effective. She went from leading polls to burning and  crashing, she had a cacus revolt, although I find the revolters to be revolting floor crossers.

 

 Hanson I'm not really familiar with, what great qualities does she have?

 

 I like Adrea Horwath, she's good with people and has a great heart, but she has shit for advisers, a weak front bench with a few exceptions,.

 

 So here is my list. 

 

 1. Mulcair

 2. Horgan, I have good feeling about him.

 3. Hanson, I looked her up, and going from 1 seat and third place, to second and six seats is impressive.

 4. Andrea Horwath, Ontario isn't a an easy province to be a New Democract.

 5. Redmond, I think he'll push the PEI NDP to official opposition next time.

 Bad choices

 Cam Broten, sask NDP should have chosen Erin Weir, Cam Broten was a big mistake.

 Not really familiar with the rest.

Yogurt Baron

Aristotleded24 wrote:

In any case, here is my list (ranked geographically going west-east):

Effective:

Mulcair

Hanson

Mason

Horwath

Cardy

Redmond

Michaels

Ineffective:

Broten

Selinger

Jury's out:

Horgan

Ducasse

Mitchells

Longtime Babble reader, almost-never-time Babble poster. Had to delurk to ask: who's "Mitchells"? I have never heard of such a person. 

Debater

Rokossovsky wrote:

OnTheLeft wrote:

Ideologically, they all suck.

However Mulcair, like Layton, is very effective.

Mulcair is clearly more effective, getting concessions from a governing majority, and shaking the foundation of Harper's reputation. Jack was only effective when working a minority, and never spooked Harper.

Parliament is only a small part of being an effective political opponent.  The most important part is what happens at the ballot box - that thing called getting votes.

Thus far, Mulcair has not been able to take support away from the Conservatives (or the Liberals for that matter) and that's why Harper & the Conservatives view Trudeau & the Liberals as their biggest threat, as can be seen in the numerous attack ads against Trudeau.

Aristotleded24

Yogurt Baron wrote:
Longtime Babble reader, almost-never-time Babble poster. Had to delurk to ask: who's "Mitchells"? I have never heard of such a person.

My mistake, I meant Maureen MacDonald, the interim leader of the NDP in Nova Scotia.

Aristotleded24

In any case, here is my list (ranked geographically going west-east):

Effective:

Mulcair

Hanson

Mason

Horwath

Cardy

Redmond

Michaels

Ineffective:

Broten

Selinger

Jury's out:

Horgan

Ducasse

Mitchells

ETA: Thank you to Yogurt Baron for pointing out my mistake. By "Mitchells," I was referring to interim Nova Scotia NDP Leader Maureen MacDonald.

Debater

Is Maureen MacDonald related to Alexis MacDonald?

Hunky_Monkey

Debater wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

OnTheLeft wrote:

Ideologically, they all suck.

However Mulcair, like Layton, is very effective.

Mulcair is clearly more effective, getting concessions from a governing majority, and shaking the foundation of Harper's reputation. Jack was only effective when working a minority, and never spooked Harper.

Parliament is only a small part of being an effective political opponent.  The most important part is what happens at the ballot box - that thing called getting votes.

Thus far, Mulcair has not been able to take support away from the Conservatives (or the Liberals for that matter) and that's why Harper & the Conservatives view Trudeau & the Liberals as their biggest threat, as can be seen in the numerous attack ads against Trudeau.

The Consevatives ran ads against Mulcair or I should say they tried to.  Mulcair is an experienced politician with substance, gravitas and a respected term as an environment minister.  They couldn't really attack him so they came up with attacking individual NDP MPs... "Mulcair's Scary NDP".  It fell flat.  

Trudeau on the other hand is all fluff, not very bright and has an extremely thin resume.  The only reason he's polling well (downward trend though) is his last name.  Period.  So the Conservatives are going to define him.  Politics 101.  He's an EASY target and he keeps walking right into what they set out for him.  

Also, I would think Liberals like yourself wouldn't be too arrogant about the next election but I guess it's in your DNA.  The last election was a contest between Harper and Ignatieff.  The red door vs the blue door.  Poor Jack Layton couldn't even keep up and could only muster small crowds.  Even talk about the NDP losing seats.  Ignatieff had the perfect campaign and had the momentum especially after the first week.  How'd that turn out for you Liberals?

I have no doubt that once Canadian voters focus on the choices before them in the next election, Trudeau, a.k.a. Mr. Vacuous, will have great difficulty.  I'm just wondering how many deer caught in headlights moments we'll have with him.

Rokossovsky

Debater wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

OnTheLeft wrote:

Ideologically, they all suck.

However Mulcair, like Layton, is very effective.

Mulcair is clearly more effective, getting concessions from a governing majority, and shaking the foundation of Harper's reputation. Jack was only effective when working a minority, and never spooked Harper.

Parliament is only a small part of being an effective political opponent.  The most important part is what happens at the ballot box - that thing called getting votes.

Thus far, Mulcair has not been able to take support away from the Conservatives (or the Liberals for that matter) and that's why Harper & the Conservatives view Trudeau & the Liberals as their biggest threat, as can be seen in the numerous attack ads against Trudeau.

Liberal thinking demonstrated in a nutshell. The point is to get elected so that you can be effective. Mulcair has done both. So far Trudeau has only done the first. The only effective thng he has done is to his own party when he booted out a bunch of senators for "pretend".

This will read, when all is said and done, as the meteoric and unexpected rise of star politicians whose perspicacious instinct and ruthlessness took him from being a defrocked Quebec Liberal cabinet minister whose career seemed in the dumps in 2006 to being leader of the official opposition in just four years by taking a calculated but audacious leap to the federal NDP when it was at 5% in the polls in Quebec and then running in a riding that had consistently been a Liberal seat since 1935 only to win and then move on to become a deputy leader of his new party that led the charge to an upset victory in Quebec in the 2010 election, making the NDP the official opposition for the first time in its history and winning the position of its leader.

Mulcair may not lead the NDP to victory in the next election, but you are a fool if you think he can not do so.

nicky

I'm in complete agreement with Hunkey and Rokossovsky.

I don't know how the next election will play out but I think the party is in the best hands with Tom. His opponents will be foolish to discount him.

His brains and raw political talent make him a formidable contender who will maximimize his party's chances.

Tom's numbers are slowly rising to a point where his approval rating is about equal with Trudeau's. At the same time Tom' disapproval ratIngs are significantly lower. There is every prospect that this trend will continue. Tom has earned respect so it is solid. Trudeau's popularity is unearned, based mostly on his father's name. It is therefore vulnerable. If he had another surname only the Debaters of this world would take him seriously.

Remember Tomhas never lost an election. As we'll, he is the only federal leader in the NDP 's history who has won the leadership without the support of the party establishment. He did that by sheer ability.

Brachina

 I agree, but one person one vote did help Mulcair, a delagated convention may have been a lot harder.

Debater

1.  I didn't make any predictions about the next election.  I am not predicting a Trudeau win - it would be foolish to predict the future with so many variables affecting all leaders right now.

2.  Trudeau is not just successful because of his last name.  That is a common mistake that his opponents have made over the years.  Justin's brother Sacha has the same last name and is also a son of Pierre Trudeau.  But he has never gone into public office or had the same national impact.  Why?  He has the same name, afterall.  The answer is because you have to have some abilities and skills of your own to get elected to office and maintain support, even if you come from a political family.

3.  Mulcair may never have lost an election, but neither has Trudeau.  That doesn't really tell us very much.  I guess Harper is the only one who has lost an election (to Martin in 2004), but he may end up beating both Trudeau & Mulcair in 2015.  He remains a formidable opponent for both of them.

4.  You also seem to forget that Trudeau has had to take over a party that was in far worse shape than the one Mulcair inherited.  Does Trudeau not get any credit for taking a party from 3rd to 1st in the polls?  Or for rejuventating its fundraising appartus to the point where it is not only beating the NDP but also closing in on the Conservatives?  Or for improving the organizational structure of the party and improving its results in every riding over the past year?  I'm not sure Mulcair could have done as well re-building a party.

5.  The Conservatives don't run as many ads against Mulcair because he's not their main target - he's not in contention to win the next election yet.  He's been 3rd in the polls for nearly 2 years now.  He's 3rd in fundraising and he's struggled to get the NDP any momentum in the by-elections over the past 2 years under his leadership.  These things could change, but don't fool yourselves into thinking that it is just Liberal supporters who can be overly confident about their chances.

Btw, Independent MP Brent Rathgeber, former Conservative, and certainly no Liberal, predicts the next election will be either a Trudeau minority or a Harper minority.  He's just one view of course, but it's interesting that he's not predicting a Mulcair win:

----

“It’s going to be a Trudeau-led minority or a Harper-led minority."

 

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/brent-rathgebers-journey-to-polit...

swallow swallow's picture

Alexandre Trudeau has plenty of talent - he just hasn't chosen to spend it in electoral politics. 

DLivings

First, I won't do the comparative...   I don't know the national/provincial scene well enough.  I've met Hansen and she's sharp enough, I'm hopeful that there will be a sea change with Horgan (my home turf), and I don't understand all of the anti-Broten sentiment (my birth place where I still have ties.)  

What I can say is "ditto" to Hunky, Rokossovsky, nicky and Brachina regarding Mulcair's prospects.  I won't repeat all of their points.  I was undecided going into the federal leadership race following Jack's death, but it didn't take too long for Tom to stand out.  A little homework online regarding his exit from Quebec politics, how he's guided by a three-cornered sustainability concept (economy, environment, social), his experience in government, how nimble he is on his feet, how he can pick his battles...  my choice became easy.  I'm not disappointed.  I'm a fan of Tom Mulcair.