Many Conservatives Op-Eds are lamenting NDP members turfing Mulcair

66 posts / 0 new
Last post
terrytowel
Many Conservatives Op-Eds are lamenting NDP members turfing Mulcair

===

Regions: 
terrytowel

I would post the articles and tweets I've seen, but babblers say they do not like to see right wing stuff on babble. So you just have to take my word for it that Conservatives are saying the party has made a big mistake.

Does that make you feel more justified in the decision to vote against Mulcair? That so many Conservatives have tweeted, posted and have written articles asking WHY? Have the NDP lost their minds to get rid of a great leader like Mulcair?

On the opposite side of the coin, the MSM seems to have narrative that it had to be done (ousting Mulcair).

Which might make people hefre feel it was the right choice, considering how many Conseratives are outraged over this.

quizzical

both conservatives and liberals think it's good. what should we gather from it?

terrytowel

quizzical wrote:

both conservatives and liberals think it's good. what should we gather from it?

From what I'm seeing Conservatives DO NOT think it is good, They are saying the NDP is making a HUGE mistake getting rid of Mulcair. That the NDP is shooting itself in the foot,

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Are you pretty sure they're saying it in good faith?

quizzical

quizzical wrote:

both conservatives and liberals think it's good. what should we gather from it?

terrytowel

quizzical wrote:

both conservatives and liberals think it's good. what should we gather from it?

Again Cons say the NDP are making a huge mistake turfing Mulcair.

quizzical

quizzical wrote:

quizzical wrote:

both conservatives and liberals think it's good. what should we gather from it?

terrytowel

terrytowel wrote:

quizzical wrote:

both conservatives and liberals think it's good. what should we gather from it?

Again Cons say the NDP are making a huge mistake turfing Mulcair.

Do you want links? I'll post them.

Rev Pesky

Headline in the National Post:

Quote:
A hard left turn to nowhere

Quote:
These New Democrats...have responded to last October's electoral disappoinment in a classically Liberal party way, first, by casting aside years of careful strategy in a desparate lunge for something they hope will be shiny and better, second, by dragging the losing leader out behind the barn and ignominiously putting him out of their (sic) misery, without so much as a thank you.

Quizzical couldn't have said it better...

terrytowel

I don't understand quizzical says "both conservatives and liberals think it's good." to turf Mulcair

But the articles Rev Pesky posted says the opposite.

cco

A Liberal MP was in the row behind me on the plane yesterday, quite audibly displeased, if that says anything.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

When it looked like Donald Trump couldn't possibly expect to become President, but also looked for all the world like he was going to make a big messy mess of the Republican Party and their chances, I kind of supported him.  Not him vs. whatever Democrat, but him vs. any other Republican who might actually win.

But I want to be clear that my "support" of Trump wasn't in good faith.  It was completely the opposite of good faith.  I hoped he'd keep on Trumping to the point that the Republicans would lose, not win.

So again, when a Conservative says "the NDP shouldn't have ditched Mulcair", I have to wonder if they're having a non-partisan moment, and offering up their real and genuine opinion, or whether they hoped Mulcair would stay on because they feel they could beat him again, or because he's "the evil they know".

terrytowel

cco wrote:
A Liberal MP was in the row behind me on the plane yesterday, quite audibly displeased, if that says anything.

Who was it?

terrytowel

Mr. Magoo wrote:

So again, when a Conservative says "the NDP shouldn't have ditched Mulcair", I have to wonder if they're having a non-partisan moment, and offering up their real and genuine opinion, or whether they hoped Mulcair would stay on because they feel they could beat him again, or because he's "the evil they know".

The narrative I'm reading from Conseravtives is that all the work the NDP has done to make the party electable & mainstream has gone down the drain by dumping Mulcair

josh

Makes sense. They want the most conservative NDP leader possible.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Or failing that, someone who vows to nationalize barbershops.

brookmere

josh wrote:
They want the most conservative NDP leader possible.

That's pretty much what they got in the election, and it didn't work out too well for the Conservatives.

 

JKR

quizzical wrote:

both conservatives and liberals think it's good. what should we gather from it?

That Conservatives and Liberals agree with NDP'ers that Mulcair is just not up to being a successful federal party leader? In 2011 everyone from all the political parties seemed to think Ignatieff did not have what it took to win so why should it come as a surprise that people from all political parties now think Mulcair does not have what it takes to win?

terrytowel

JKR wrote:
quizzical wrote:

both conservatives and liberals think it's good. what should we gather from it?

That Conservatives and Liberals agree with NDP'ers that Mulcair is just not up to being a successful federal party leader? In 2011 everyone from all the political parties seemed to think Ignatieff did not have what it took to win so why should it come as a surprise that people from all political parties now think Mulcair does not have what it takes to win?

I don't understand quizzical POV on this. The point of this thread is the OPPOSITE. Conservative writers have writting OP-ED saying Mulcair is a fantastic leader and that the NDP has just shot itself in the foot by turfing him. Unlike the NDP they feel Mulcair has what it takes to win.

Misfit Misfit's picture

The Conservatives need a moderately strong NDP to split the non-Conservstive vote so that they can slip up the middle. They just watched the NDP strive for the absolute gutter in national support with controversial moves and policies which has them nervous. If these moves by the NDP backfires, then the Conservstives have a harder road ahead in the next election.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

If the NDP had voted to keep Mulcair, the Conservative rags would be attacking them for THAT, too.  They would have attacked the NDP with equal passion for ANY choice they could possibly have made this weekend...even if the NDP had voted to merge with the Conservatives.

terrytowel

Ken Burch wrote:

If the NDP had voted to keep Mulcair, the Conservative rags would be attacking them for THAT, too.  They would have attacked the NDP with equal passion for ANY choice they could possibly have made this weekend...even if the NDP had voted to merge with the Conservatives.

Not true. When the attacks started years ago about Trudeau being 'Not up to the job' and "Just not ready" they would always write glowingly about Mulcair, about his leadership skills.They might rip apart the NDP policies, but when it came to the leadership question they always had high marks for Mulcair leadership skills and political savvy. Always dismissing Trudeau as a lightweight.

One has to wonder why, and maybe it was becuase a higher NDP means Cons coming up the middle in key battleground ridings.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

It pretty much goes without saying that the Right would prefer the NDP to keep the leader who had just cost the party more than half its seats.

For that matter, the competitors of the White Star Line probably thought the Titanic had an excellent navigator.

terrytowel

Ken Burch wrote:

It pretty much goes without saying that the Right would prefer the NDP to keep the leader who had just cost the party more than half its seats.

For that matter, the competitors of the White Star Line probably thought the Titanic had an excellent navigator.

The narrative from the right-wing is this. How can someone who got the NDP its second highest seat count be deemed a failure?

Stockholm

This reminds me a lot of the attitude towards Bob Rae. the whole time he was premier, the press and pundits attacked him relentlessly either as an unrepentent Marxist (yes) or as out of his depth and incompetent. btw: The Toronto Star joined in the feeding frenzy and never missed an opportunity to shit on him. Then the moment he quit as NDP leader (with a bit of a push from the inside) in 1996 - you should have seen the hosannas about what a wonderful leader he was.

One thing I have noticed with Mulcair is that he was quite popular with people who would never vote for him (ie: conservative pundits at the National Post).

terrytowel

Shockingly Conservative writers have said if Harper had to gom they'd rather have Tom Mulcair win than Justin Trudeau! As they felt Mulcair was a man of 'substance'.

Debater

terrytowel wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

It pretty much goes without saying that the Right would prefer the NDP to keep the leader who had just cost the party more than half its seats.

For that matter, the competitors of the White Star Line probably thought the Titanic had an excellent navigator.

The narrative from the right-wing is this. How can someone who got the NDP its second highest seat count be deemed a failure?

It's not really the 2nd-highest seat count.

44 seats out of 338 is a smaller percentage than the 43 out of 282 in 1988 that Broadbent won.

It's been a bit disingenous of the Mulcair leadership team to keep spinning how this was the 2nd-best NDP result because we have a much larger House of Commons now than we did in 1988.

So the electoral weight of the NDP seats in the House is actually smaller than it was in 1988.  Plus the popular vote is only the 4th best.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

terrytowel wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

It pretty much goes without saying that the Right would prefer the NDP to keep the leader who had just cost the party more than half its seats.

For that matter, the competitors of the White Star Line probably thought the Titanic had an excellent navigator.

The narrative from the right-wing is this. How can someone who got the NDP its second highest seat count be deemed a failure?

Why should anyone in the NDP care what the narrative from the right-wing is?  Nobody on the right had anything good to say about Mulcair before this.  And it's in the interest of the right-wing to talk trash about the NDP and predict bad things for it(the party was at 12% in the polls before Mulcair was voted out, a support level that already guaranteed there was no chance of an NDP electoral recovery as long as Mulcair stayed in the job), so we can pretty much assume they would have belittled or condemned any decision the NDP made in Edmonton.

Why don't you just cut to the chase and tell us(as you inevitably will at some point in this thread)why you think the vote against Mulcair makes "strategic voting" an obligation at the next federal election?  You know you're itching to do that...just get it out of your system already.

terrytowel

Ken Burch wrote:

 Nobody on the right had anything good to say about Mulcair before this.

Do you want me to provide links?

Debater

Here's an editorial by John Snobelen in The Sun lamenting the fall of Mulcair:

 

Mulcair deserved better than a knife in the back

Friday, April 15, 2016

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/04/15/mulcair-deserved-better-than-a-knif...

nicky

In a couple years there will be many non-conservative Op-Eds lamenting NDP members turfing Mulcair.

josh

Yeah, liberal op-ed writers when the NDP returns to relevance as a Social Democratic Party.

josh

Debater wrote:

Here's an editorial by John Snobelen in The Sun lamenting the fall of Mulcair:

 

Mulcair deserved better than a knife in the back

Friday, April 15, 2016

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/04/15/mulcair-deserved-better-than-a-knif...


The clown ought to look up knife-in-the back. Mulcair was totally knifed in the front. But maybe he was so proud of regurgitating the "latter day hippie" phrase that he didn't notice.

JKR

nicky wrote:
In a couple years there will be many non-conservative Op-Eds lamenting NDP members turfing Mulcair.

Why do you think NDP members turfed Mulcair and do you think Mulcair bears any responsibility in this?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

If the title to this thread is true,this proves Mulcair was not the person for the job.

I'd like a true leftist leader that will pull us respectfully leftward.

But the majority of the populace relies on the corporate bought MSM. Case in point,the reptilian Barry Wilson of Montreal CTV News (pulse for those of us a certain age) latest rant about the NDP and social democracy.

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/postscript-it-s-all-gone-to-the-dogs-1.2860926

This is shit the public gets fed and they seem to have a real taste for it. But fear not,they will continue to live in blissful ignorance until it finally effects them personally.

Gotta love humanity!

cco
Aristotleded24

Debater wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

It pretty much goes without saying that the Right would prefer the NDP to keep the leader who had just cost the party more than half its seats.

For that matter, the competitors of the White Star Line probably thought the Titanic had an excellent navigator.

The narrative from the right-wing is this. How can someone who got the NDP its second highest seat count be deemed a failure?

It's not really the 2nd-highest seat count.

44 seats out of 338 is a smaller percentage than the 43 out of 282 in 1988 that Broadbent won.

It's been a bit disingenous of the Mulcair leadership team to keep spinning how this was the 2nd-best NDP result because we have a much larger House of Commons now than we did in 1988.

So the electoral weight of the NDP seats in the House is actually smaller than it was in 1988.  Plus the popular vote is only the 4th best.

Not only that, but the clear trajectory of NDP support towards the end of the last election was downwards with no chance of going the other way. The only reason the NDP held as many seats as it did is because of the specific point when the election happened on that trajectory. Another week would have seen the NDP seat count somewhere in the 20s, after that the party would have lost official status.

Unionist

JKR wrote:
nicky wrote:
In a couple years there will be many non-conservative Op-Eds lamenting NDP members turfing Mulcair.

Why do you think NDP members turfed Mulcair and do you think Mulcair bears any responsibility in this?

Allow me to reply:

1. They turfed Mulcair because the NDP lost the election (after irrational exaggerated expectations of victory).

2. Mulcair bears very little responsibility. The responsibility lies with the members of the party, who put blind sheeplike loyalty over their own consciences and principles and convention policy and history. With tiny exceptions, they never breathed a word of concern when the convention policies were unceremoniously dumped; when the anonymous party bosses imposed a shameful election platform; when they started presenting Mulcair as a PM in waiting, too important and busy to do anything but debate with Harper; when they banned excellent candidates for not being sufficiently pro-Israel (or in one case - Stefan Jonasson - for criticizing an ultra-right-wing Jewish sect for its misogyny); and all the rest, allowing the Liberals to appear as the "real" alternative to Harper's dictatorship.

3. Mostly, I blame the NDP candidates and MPs, to whom many look for guidance, for allowing this travesty to go on uncriticized. The only ray of occasional hope came from the youth, who publicly took the party to task for tearing up its policy on Palestine and failing to oppose the occupation and the slaughter in Gaza. That actually had some effect. Otherwise, it was "follow the Leader" (and I don't mean Mulcair - I mean, the invisible hand). Not the stuff of which activists are made, people who are determined to change the world.

Yes, that's right, I blame them all. And I'm not convinced anything will change in the near term. Why? Because they're still obsessively looking for a different Leader to tell them what to do and think.

Someone needs to stand up and challenge that world view. No one in the party has done so yet. Except Avi Lewis, as far as I can see. He spoke of the need for "collective leadership". That's better than nothing.

 

JKR

Unionist wrote:

JKR wrote:
nicky wrote:
In a couple years there will be many non-conservative Op-Eds lamenting NDP members turfing Mulcair.

Why do you think NDP members turfed Mulcair and do you think Mulcair bears any responsibility in this?

Allow me to reply:

1. They turfed Mulcair because the NDP lost the election (after irrational exaggerated expectations of victory).

2. Mulcair bears very little responsibility. The responsibility lies with the members of the party, who put blind sheeplike loyalty over their own consciences and principles and convention policy and history. With tiny exceptions, they never breathed a word of concern when the convention policies were unceremoniously dumped; when the anonymous party bosses imposed a shameful election platform; when they started presenting Mulcair as a PM in waiting, too important and busy to do anything but debate with Harper; when they banned excellent candidates for not being sufficiently pro-Israel (or in one case - Stefan Jonasson - for criticizing an ultra-right-wing Jewish sect for its misogyny); and all the rest, allowing the Liberals to appear as the "real" alternative to Harper's dictatorship.

3. Mostly, I blame the NDP candidates and MPs, to whom many look for guidance, for allowing this travesty to go on uncriticized. The only ray of occasional hope came from the youth, who publicly took the party to task for tearing up its policy on Palestine and failing to oppose the occupation and the slaughter in Gaza. That actually had some effect. Otherwise, it was "follow the Leader" (and I don't mean Mulcair - I mean, the invisible hand). Not the stuff of which activists are made, people who are determined to change the world.

Yes, that's right, I blame them all. And I'm not convinced anything will change in the near term. Why? Because they're still obsessively looking for a different Leader to tell them what to do and think.

Someone needs to stand up and challenge that world view. No one in the party has done so yet. Except Avi Lewis, as far as I can see. He spoke of the need for "collective leadership". That's better than nothing.

 

Isn't Mulcair fully supportive of our current top-down, leader-centred approach to governance? As leader he seemed to have a relatively strong go-it-alone approach. I think if we are to move toward a "collective leadership" model of governance, a concrete proposal for such a new system will be required. Paradoxically I think it may require a person running for the leadership of a party to champion such an initiative in order for it to be implemented. Maybe Avi Lewis is the person to do this. Maybe someone running for the NDP leadership will propose switching to a collective leadership system. I doubt if Mulcair would have ever supported moving to such a progressive model. In any case there's nothing stopping him from proposing it. As the current leader of the NDP, he is in the best position now to move the party to a collective leadership system.

Unionist

I don't know, JKR, but I think the spirit of what you're saying is precisely the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying, the members need to stop looking for a Hero to tell them what to do. You're saying, maybe the current or a new Hero would be best positioned to tell them to stop following Heroes. That's way too dialectical for me. Real change always comes from below. The world has a sad history of big shots, heroes, messiahs, vanguards, telling the humble masses that they are the real heroes. It's usually a marketing ploy, often with tragic consequences.

Aristotleded24

Stockholm wrote:
This reminds me a lot of the attitude towards Bob Rae. the whole time he was premier, the press and pundits attacked him relentlessly either as an unrepentent Marxist (yes) or as out of his depth and incompetent. btw: The Toronto Star joined in the feeding frenzy and never missed an opportunity to shit on him. Then the moment he quit as NDP leader (with a bit of a push from the inside) in 1996 - you should have seen the hosannas about what a wonderful leader he was.

No kidding! I'm not in Ontario but I believe you.

JKR

Unionist wrote:

I don't know, JKR, but I think the spirit of what you're saying is precisely the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying, the members need to stop looking for a Hero to tell them what to do. You're saying, maybe the current or a new Hero would be best positioned to tell them to stop following Heroes. That's way too dialectical for me. Real change always comes from below. The world has a sad history of big shots, heroes, messiahs, vanguards, telling the humble masses that they are the real heroes. It's usually a marketing ploy, often with tragic consequences.

How can party members force their leader to conform to their wishes if that person does not seem to want to? I think Mulcair's tone-deaf speech at the convention showed the members that Mulcair did not have the capacity to listen to the membership as his speech did not contain anything specific about how he was going to change and start listening more to the membership. I think that's why the majority of the delegates revoked their support for his continuation as leader. I think Mulcair's inability to say how he was going to change spoke volumes about his character. He wanted the members to stand with him when he was unable to say how he was going to stand up for the members. His speech was all about how the NDP should stand up for him and not about how he was planning to stand up for the NDP.

jjuares

JKR wrote:
Unionist wrote:

I don't know, JKR, but I think the spirit of what you're saying is precisely the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying, the members need to stop looking for a Hero to tell them what to do. You're saying, maybe the current or a new Hero would be best positioned to tell them to stop following Heroes. That's way too dialectical for me. Real change always comes from below. The world has a sad history of big shots, heroes, messiahs, vanguards, telling the humble masses that they are the real heroes. It's usually a marketing ploy, often with tragic consequences.

How can party members force their leader to conform to their wishes if that person does not seem to want to? I think Mulcair's tone-deaf speech at the convention showed the members that Mulcair did not have the capacity to listen to the membership as his speech did not contain anything specific about how he was going to change and start listening more to the membership. I think that's why the majority of the delegates revoked their support for his continuation as leader. I think Mulcair's inability to say how he was going to change spoke volumes about his character. He wanted the members to stand with him when he was unable to say how he was going to stand up for the members. His speech was all about how the NDP should stand up for him and not about how he was planning to stand up for the NDP.


Yes, he had one line about opening up the party. His speech was about the Cons and the Liberals. What he needed to talk about was democracy in the NDP and how he as going to help restore it. As for the leadership question you do need to have leaders. However, leadership in a healthy organization should not be restricted to a few positions. It should be fluid and consist of both formal and informal leadership positions.There should also be robust and honest communication throughout. Sadly none of this describes the current NDP.

abnormal

terrytowel wrote:

quizzical wrote:

both conservatives and liberals think it's good. what should we gather from it?

Again Cons say the NDP are making a huge mistake turfing Mulcair.

Depends if you think their statements are self-serving or not.

JKR

jjuares wrote:
JKR wrote:
Unionist wrote:

I don't know, JKR, but I think the spirit of what you're saying is precisely the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying, the members need to stop looking for a Hero to tell them what to do. You're saying, maybe the current or a new Hero would be best positioned to tell them to stop following Heroes. That's way too dialectical for me. Real change always comes from below. The world has a sad history of big shots, heroes, messiahs, vanguards, telling the humble masses that they are the real heroes. It's usually a marketing ploy, often with tragic consequences.

How can party members force their leader to conform to their wishes if that person does not seem to want to? I think Mulcair's tone-deaf speech at the convention showed the members that Mulcair did not have the capacity to listen to the membership as his speech did not contain anything specific about how he was going to change and start listening more to the membership. I think that's why the majority of the delegates revoked their support for his continuation as leader. I think Mulcair's inability to say how he was going to change spoke volumes about his character. He wanted the members to stand with him when he was unable to say how he was going to stand up for the members. His speech was all about how the NDP should stand up for him and not about how he was planning to stand up for the NDP.


Yes, he had one line about opening up the party. His speech was about the Cons and the Liberals. What he needed to talk about was democracy in the NDP and how he as going to help restore it. As for the leadership question you do need to have leaders. However, leadership in a healthy organization should not be restricted to a few positions. It should be fluid and consist of both formal and informal leadership positions.There should also be robust and honest communication throughout. Sadly none of this describes the current NDP.

I think Mulcair would have received over 70% of the vote if he had just clearly mentioned in his speech what his shortcomings have been and how he is going to rectify them. I thought his speech was just a rerun of his campaign speeches and the delegates did not want to return back there. What I got from his speech was that he is not very capable of admitting his mistakes and changing. In his speech he should have at least mentioned that the NDP's policies are not subject to maintaining surplus budgets. As long as the NDP says it will set a top priority to balanceing budgeting, its other policies will seem to be suspect to voters especially when the Liberals say they are open to having deficits in order to keep their promises.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

That's the problem with Mulcair's whole approach here:

He totally refused, both in the speech and in his entire pattern of conflict since the election, to acknowledge any need whatsoever for any significant change in the way he led the party or the way the party should present itself in terms of organization, governance, tactics or policies.

This is why it became clear to the majority of those who voted that Mulcair could not stay in the job:  If he stayed, he was never going to change and he was never going to ALLOW any change.

And if Conservative rags are complaining about Mulcair being removed, it can only mean that Conservative propagandists thought the their party would make its best possible showing in 2020 if Mulcair stayed in the leadership.  It's absurd to think that the Conservative press would be lamenting Mulcair's departure if they thought it would somehow help their cause.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Where are you going with this, terry?  It's not as though the party could reverse itself and beg Mulcair to come back-or that the voters would reward the NDP for doing such a thing.

Besides, at 19% nationally, there were no votes a Mulcair-led NDP pulled that the party could not pull with any OTHER leader.

And the question remains...how could a leader who cost the party more than half its seats in ONE election ever lead that party to a comeback later?

It's not as though there was ever any chance that the electorate was going to change its mind about Mulcair. 

What possible case would there have been for staying with a leader who was incapable of changing and incapable of learning from his mistakes?  And, most importantly, incapable of ever cutting the ties between the NDP and Hill and Knowlton?

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

Where are you going with this, terry? 

I don't think he is going anywhere with it. It's just a topic for conversation.

 

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Unionist wrote:

I don't know, JKR, but I think the spirit of what you're saying is precisely the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying, the members need to stop looking for a Hero to tell them what to do. You're saying, maybe the current or a new Hero would be best positioned to tell them to stop following Heroes. That's way too dialectical for me. Real change always comes from below. The world has a sad history of big shots, heroes, messiahs, vanguards, telling the humble masses that they are the real heroes. It's usually a marketing ploy, often with tragic consequences.

Unionist, I'd love for the NDP to get to a place where who leads the party doesn't matter -- at least from a policy perspective; how effective the leadership is a communicating what the party stands for will always matter.

Reality is that's not where the NDP is; and your comments seems to naively suggest that it can get there if the membership would only stop caring about who leads the party.

If NDP members had stopped caring who leads the party prior to the convention leadership vote, Mulcair would have retained his leadership and would lead us into the 2019 election with another platform crafted by him and his close advisors/Ottawa cabal.

ETA: Who the next leader of the NDP will matter, even if we think it shouldn't matter. Lest we be stuck with a horrible leader -- a centrist wannabe Liberal sycophant, or someone with no charisma; or someone with zero appeal in Quebec ect. -- it would behoove us to care.

Unionist

Left Turn wrote:

Reality is that's not where the NDP is; and your comments seems to naively suggest that it can get there if the membership would only stop caring about who leads the party.

Well then, you haven't read my comments over the years.

I never said the members shouldn't care who "leads" the party.

I believe the members should lead the party.

For starters, when the "leadership" betrays the members' decisions and principles, the members should stand up and say "no". If there are no effective internal forums for that to happen (and of course, there are none), then they should dare to say "no" publicly. If anyone responds, "but but but you'll hurt the party by criticizing it publicly", they should reply: "Too late - the so-called Leader has hurt the party by betraying us publicly."

Interesting note: Several babblers who are dumping on Mulcair today, regularly dumped on anyone who breathed a word of criticism of the NDP's treacherous election platform before the election.

Get it? Their philosophy is, "Follow the Leader". Once the Leader is discredited? "Destroy the Leader!!" Solution? "Pick a new Leader!!"

No change is possible until a few members get some backbone.

Pages