Possible NDP leadership thread

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

scott16 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

quizzical wrote:

i was actually comparing his intent and focused gaze to Trudeau's (same age) who always looks like he's on his way to the fair without a care in the world.

There is something kinda vacuous about him.  It's odd.  The smiling zombie.

In fairness I have a good friend who always looked younger and was never taken seriously although he really was thoughtful and experienced. He grew a beard. I have known several women who were extremely qualified and intellegent. I remember one person calling one of these women a lightweight -- but when pressed could provide no evidence. She actually was extremely good at her job but lacked the look. In her case there was heavy sexism unlike my other now-bearded friend who just had a baby face.

This is something that would be said about Ruth Ellen Brosseau I think. That's if she wanted to run for the leadership.

This is in large part becuase the right look has traditionally meant male or looking as male as possible.

When we consider leadership and appearance we have to recognize the role sexism plays in what we might not think that closely about. I have spent much of my life watching people near me and noticing how the women have to earn every shred of respect that men get just from a shave, a tie, a jacket and good shoes. This is one of the elephants in the room when talking about change and equality and progress.

Younger women in particular often have a harder time -- no matter how accomplished -- getting the respect they have already earned and this is in many circumstances including politics. Younger men can often just look handsome and be presumed to be intelligent.

For the NDP leadership I don't want to indulge in this. I don't mind a leader who on examination has all the right stuff but does not have the traditional establishment look. I am okay with a leader who will earn that respect and I think we can look past the traditional stereotypes of what a leader must look and act like. But we should dig deep for substance and we do have people with it as well as those who look good in a tie or a sweater.

What is important has to be what the person says. And, for this job, how they say it as great communication skills are going to be important. Bilingualism is essential (does not mean no accent but the ability to engage not just read something).

nicky

Terryt...l suggested Joe Cressy as leader a few weeks back. Enough said.

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:
quizzical wrote:
i was actually comparing his intent and focused gaze to Trudeau's (same age) who always looks like he's on his way to the fair without a care in the world.

There is something kinda vacuous about him.  It's odd.  The smiling zombie.

In fairness I have a good friend who always looked younger and was never taken seriously although he really was thoughtful and experienced. He grew a beard. I have known several women who were extremely qualified and intellegent. I remember one person calling one of these women a lightweight -- but when pressed could provide no evidence. She actually was extremely good at her job but lacked the look. In her case there was heavy sexism unlike my other now-bearded friend who just had a baby face.

in fairness we know Justin is NOT thoughful, nor experienced.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:
quizzical wrote:
i was actually comparing his intent and focused gaze to Trudeau's (same age) who always looks like he's on his way to the fair without a care in the world.

There is something kinda vacuous about him.  It's odd.  The smiling zombie.

In fairness I have a good friend who always looked younger and was never taken seriously although he really was thoughtful and experienced. He grew a beard. I have known several women who were extremely qualified and intellegent. I remember one person calling one of these women a lightweight -- but when pressed could provide no evidence. She actually was extremely good at her job but lacked the look. In her case there was heavy sexism unlike my other now-bearded friend who just had a baby face.

in fairness we know Justin is NOT thoughful, nor experienced.

Yes, we have some evidence of that don't we.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Stockholm wrote:

I don't know the guy - as i said ON PAPER he seems good - from BC, lived in Quebec for many years, has had many front bench positions in caucus etc...and yet everytime i mention his name as a leadership possibility - the reaction from people from left to right within the party is always either to roll their eyes or to wrinkle their nose. I honestly don't know what ther issue is? is he personally abrasive? is he thought not to possess the "royal jelly" to be able to lead - I dunno. All I'm saying is that there seems to be something about him that people don't like and its doesnt appear to be connected to ideology.

Peter is no good at working a crowd and is not very out going, that could be part of it.  He is also a rather mediocre speaker, even in English.  However he seems to be very competent in all the roles he has taken on and knows his subjects when he speaks.  He is more of an Ed Broadbent without the ability to work a crowd, although I think Ed learnt that skill. He is certainly no Trudeau or Vander Zalm when it comes to oozing charisma while working a crowd.

Notalib

Shortly after the election, Robin Sears came out in the Nation's largest newspaper and stated that anyone questioning the wisdom of Mulcair's continued leadership will be "very publicly slapped."

This explains the caucus discipline on this issue but it apparently has not trickled down as this particular board has kicked around the continuation of Mulcair's leadership ever since with very little repercussion aside from the partisan bickering among board contributers whom favour one of the major governing parties over the other and work to bend the NDP into a tool to leverage success for their team.

However, while there has been considerable discussion about how "blame" is to be shared among the apparatchik that surrounded Tom and steered the war room, what is hardly discussed is the simple fact that the longer Mr Mulcair remains the more entrenched the apparatchik that delivered the last election results become and thus the more successful their successorship planning will be- with or without Mulcair.

This is an important point. No matter what your post election analysis one thing is clear, serious change is required, a break from the folks who delivered devastating losses in BC, Nova Scotia, and Ontario (successive Olivia Chow's runs and on and on the list goes.) is an imperative. This will not occur with the current path the party is on and, in fact, Mulcair's moves have simply ensured that this now longstanding cadre of high level operatives will continue to drive the party and its electoral fortunes, which based on their track record, is clearly not a desirable outcome - at least for NDPrs.

Anyone interested in authentic renewal recognizes this and understands that the window for real change is closing, the only means of succeeding would have been ensuring Mr Mulcair did what was appropriate on election night and step down - or very shortly thereafter. An interim leader with neutral staff is the best means of ushering in a new era for the NDP.

Waiting until convention is precisely what the current and overly entitled lot of undersirables, desires. That is indeed a win for them regardless of whether Mulcair stays on until the next election or not. Personally I don't seem him doing that, but rather the people around him need everyone to allow him to carry the ball long enough for them to let their succesorship strategy play out. Mulcair stating he is around forever discourages anyone else organizing against them while at the same time ensuring the success of their agenda.

Personally I say let them enjoy the fruit of their labour and ship them all the to the Lone Tar Province so they can ride into the sunset over the next 3 and a bit years, while allowing the NDP to finally free itself from their grip and get on with the business of filling the huge political void that exists in this country.

 

 

 

 

 

Debater

nicky wrote:
Terryt...l suggested Joe Cressy as leader a few weeks back. Enough said.

Yes, it was Terry Towel who suggested Joe Cressy for NDP Leader.

I'm not sure whether TT was being serious, or just being mischevious.

Joe Cressy is obviously not a realistic option, and I don't think he would even consider it.

He does not speak French and has never been elected to Parliament.

He has only been on Municipal Council for one year.  He obviously needs to make a name for himself at the Municipal level before he runs Federally for MP again.

takeitslowly

can we vote for possible strategists  for the NDP ? I recommend bribing liberal insiders and strategists so they can work for the NDP instead of the liberals.

Debater

That's a good point, actually.

The NDP needs an equivalent to Gerald Butts.

Butts has a brilliant strategic mind, and although there was the odd mistake by the Liberals over the past year (eg. Eve Adams, not handling Bill C-51 properly, etc.) on the whole the LPC benefitted from some great strategists, Butts chief among them.

Unionist

Notalib wrote:

Shortly after the election, Robin Sears came out in the Nation's largest newspaper and stated that anyone questioning the wisdom of Mulcair's continued leadership will be "very publicly slapped."

This explains the caucus discipline on this issue but it apparently has not trickled down as this particular board has kicked around the continuation of Mulcair's leadership ever since with very little repercussion aside from the partisan bickering among board contributers whom favour one of the major governing parties over the other and work to bend the NDP into a tool to leverage success for their team.

However, while there has been considerable discussion about how "blame" is to be shared among the apparatchik that surrounded Tom and steered the war room, what is hardly discussed is the simple fact that the longer Mr Mulcair remains the more entrenched the apparatchik that delivered the last election results become and thus the more successful their successorship planning will be- with or without Mulcair.

This is an important point. No matter what your post election analysis one thing is clear, serious change is required, a break from the folks who delivered devastating losses in BC, Nova Scotia, and Ontario (successive Olivia Chow's runs and on and on the list goes.) is an imperative. This will not occur with the current path the party is on and, in fact, Mulcair's moves have simply ensured that this now longstanding cadre of high level operatives will continue to drive the party and its electoral fortunes, which based on their track record, is clearly not a desirable outcome - at least for NDPrs.

Anyone interested in authentic renewal recognizes this and understands that the window for real change is closing, the only means of succeeding would have been ensuring Mr Mulcair did what was appropriate on election night and step down - or very shortly thereafter. An interim leader with neutral staff is the best means of ushering in a new era for the NDP.

Waiting until convention is precisely what the current and overly entitled lot of undersirables, desires. That is indeed a win for them regardless of whether Mulcair stays on until the next election or not. Personally I don't seem him doing that, but rather the people around him need everyone to allow him to carry the ball long enough for them to let their succesorship strategy play out. Mulcair stating he is around forever discourages anyone else organizing against them while at the same time ensuring the success of their agenda.

Personally I say let them enjoy the fruit of their labour and ship them all the to the Lone Tar Province so they can ride into the sunset over the next 3 and a bit years, while allowing the NDP to finally free itself from their grip and get on with the business of filling the huge political void that exists in this country.

Very thoughtful first post. Welcome to babble, notalib!

 

Debater

The move by Robin Sears to shut down public discussion of Mulcair's leadership was interesting.

Why does Robin Sears think he has the right to play God anyway?

scott16

What would be the pro's and cons of a Ruth Ellen Brosseau candidacy?

Pro- bilingual, personable, can rise to the occasion, fired from a cleaning job for trying to unionize, once had two jobs, comes across as a real person (more than Trudeau)

Cons -could face sexism -probably won't be taken seriously -might not want the leadership

Anyone can add ones I missed

Stockholm

Why would there ever be any "repercussions" for private citizens posting anonymously on babble about the NDP leadership in the first place?

Stockholm

You don't pick a leader just because someone checks off some demographic boxes and has an inspiring life story. A leader also has to - you know - LEAD. What evidence is there that Brosseau has leadership qualities within caucus and in managing a staff of hundreds of people? Maybe she does maybe she doesn't. What evidence is there that she has total MASTERY of macro and micro economic policy, energy policy, constitutional policy, hunter national trade policy etc... To be leader you have to be extremely intelligent and well versed in all major public policy files And have a well thought out philosophy on where you want to take Canada.

If we are just going to start picking names out of a hat to be potential leaders, why not the MP for jonquiere after all she used to be a letter carrier therefore she aphas all the qualifications she needs to be leader of a major party

progressive-patriot

Again, I think we should stick with Tom (the NDP's drubbing was 60% not his fault, and he remains popular and effective); however, were the Party to pick somebody else it is absolutely imperative that the person have name recognition and street cred. 

 

Ruth Ellen Brousseau is well liked in Quebec because she overcame low expectations and sexist inuendo; however, she is a bit green, and beyond having been an MP for four years (and a good one at that), she doesn't have any other professional experience. Progressive voters would never look at her as a potential prime minister, and that is a problem. Likewise with Joe Cressy, he's well-liked in his Toronto neighbourhood, but his national profile is far too low and his experience is limited. But who knows, maybe in ten years either of them would be decent candidates.

 

If Tom does indeed decide to step down, which I really hope that he doesn't becajuse he's still our best hope, party members would be wise to narrow their search to candidates with high profiles and a semblence of political experience (Megan Leslie, Nathan Cullen, Paul Dewar, Alexandre Boulerice, Nikki Ashton, and possibly Georgina Jolibois or Erin Wier - they both have interesting experience, but admittedly their national profiles are a bit low, for now).

But again, the fact that even defeated incumbents are uniformly saying that Tom should stay is noteworthy. His campaign made the mistake of hugging the centre too much because they surged much earlier than expected and understandably were worried about holding onto a lead when A. Ontario is not used to viewing the NDP as a government in waiting B. the meda was shifting its critical gaze entirely towards Mulcair and C. there were two and a half months to go until E-Day. It would have been a difficult situation for any NDP leader to navigate through. 

 

 

 

 

 

progressive-patriot

I'm not trying to absolve Mulcair and his advisors of any responsibility, but it is fair to say that A. the media picked up a negative narrative about the NDP and ran with it B. because they had exposed Trudeau to greater scrutiny before the campaign, at the beginning of the campaign they focused their sights mainly on Mulcair. By extension, Trudeau got away with some hypocritical flip-flops and policies that didn't really make sense (his tax shift, for example), and C. there was a strong desire amongst most self-declared Liberal and NDP supporters to oust the Conservatives at all costs. Had Mulcair's strategy worked, it is likely that Liberal voters would have abandoned Trudeau in an equally dramatic fashion.  

 

 

scott16

I will also add that in the last Parliament she was elected vice caucus chair by her colleagues. REB that is.

Notalib

I will respond to a few comments in this post, I am not familiar enough with the board to pull the quotes or respond to the exact points, but I will address them here.

First off, thanks Unionist for the warm welcome.

The Sears quote is here SendPM :http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/10/20/ndp-will-let-tho...

I was going by memory, so I may have implied he authored the piece, which he did not. I apologize for leaving that impression, but he clearly made the quote which was published in the T Star the day after the election. A nuance to be sure.

" Repercussions" for countering leaders within the NDP are well known, Stockholm. Of course those are limited to party members and activists as their reach beyond that is clearly limited.

I think it is important to keep in mind the NDP achieved its best results when recruiting a leader outside of the party with no seat.

 

 

 

 

Notalib

I will respond to a few comments in this post, I am not familiar enough with the board to pull the quotes or respond to the exact points, but I will address them here.

First off, thanks Unionist for the warm welcome.

The Sears quote is here SendPM :http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/10/20/ndp-will-let-tho...

I was going by memory, so I may have implied he authored the piece, which he did not. I apologize for leaving that impression, but he clearly made the quote which was published in the T Star the day after the election. A nuance to be sure.

" Repercussions" for countering leaders within the NDP are well known, Stockholm. Of course those are limited to party members and activists as their reach beyond that is clearly limited.

I think it is important to keep in mind the NDP achieved its best results when recruiting a leader outside of the party with no seat.

 

 

 

 

mark_alfred

;

Stockholm

Notalib wrote:

"Repercussions" for countering leaders within the NDP are well known, Stockholm. Of course those are limited to party members and activists as their reach beyond that is clearly limited.

This is not limited to the NDP. I would say that in EVERY party - spekaing out publicly against the leader tends to be a career limiting move. When as the last time you heard any Tories publicly denounce Harper or any Liberals publicly denounce Trudeau (even when the latter was in trouble in the polls and was potentially a liability). Hell even, the Green Party tends to quickly rid itself of anyone who isn't part of the Elizabeth May personality cult.

Its conceivable that there could be "repercussions" for caucus members or people working directly for the party or caucus if they publicly denounced the leader etc... (i.e. they might get seated in the backbench or if they are on the party/caucus payroll i suppose that they could have their jobs on the line...) - but beyond that very small number of people - everyone else can say whatever the hell they want.

I think that when Sears talks about "repercussions' he is likely referring to people who might have leadership ambitions and how invariably, people who try to topple the king virtually never get to wear the crown...(e.g. notice that none of the 13 NDP MLAs who toppled Carole James even ran for the leadership after she was forced out - instead it was a three way race between people who had been loyal to her). Even after the 1980 debacle when virtually everyone in the PC party could see that Joe Clark was a total liability - all the people who wanted to succeed him such as Brian Mulroney publicly declared their loyalty to Clark (while secretely hoping he would fail)

My suspicion is that within the inner circles its known that Mulcair will retire at a later date and the people who aspire to succeed him and quietly letting him take his time because they would each rather wait a year or two before running for the leadership...It's not as if there is any one potential leadership candidate who sees it as being in their interest to have a snap leadership contest...

mark_alfred

It's harmful for parties to air divisions openly.  Look at how the Liberals suffered after Martin began undermining Chretien publicly.  Stuff like that is the last thing the NDP, or any political party for that matter, needs. 

Stockholm

mark_alfred wrote:

It's harmful for parties to air divisions openly.  Look at how the Liberals suffered after Martin began undermining Chretien publicly.  Stuff like that is the last thing the NDP, or any political party for that matter, needs. 

But to play devil's advocate - if no one in party party is EVER to express the view that the leadership needs to change - then its another way of saying that when a Canadian political party elects a new leader - it is electing a "leader for life" and that there can never be any pressure on a leader to quit - even when that person has cleraly become a liability.

That would imply that the PCs would have had to stick with Diefenbaker even after he was clearly unhinged - right up to the day he died in 1979!

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

It's harmful for parties to air divisions openly.  Look at how the Liberals suffered after Martin began undermining Chretien publicly.  Stuff like that is the last thing the NDP, or any political party for that matter, needs. 

I disagree completely with this.

I think the nature of the divison may be toxic -- whether it is opened publicly or not.

I also think not airing divisions that exist make people lose confidence, make parties become complacent and out of touch.

You can have strong differences and air them without those being destructive but trying to paper them over will only make them grow and become more dangerous for the party

I hope the NDP does not think like you have in the post -- if they do, then the party is doomed to a much longer struggle.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

Why would that hurt Nathan Cullen?

Many progressive voters want to see the parties at least be open to working with one another in some way.

This comment shows how tone deaf you are Debater. Your party is simply another 1%er controlled, Bay Street, lackey that will do whatever the pwoer elites want them to do. If the NDP merged with the Liberals, we'd start another NDP. You are so arrogantl Your party is going to sign the TPP as is and it won't matter what else it does beause the Corproations will call the shots.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

The move by Robin Sears to shut down public discussion of Mulcair's leadership was interesting.

Why does Robin Sears think he has the right to play God anyway?

Debater, why are you posting on a thread about the NDP leadership. You're a Liberal. I don't care what you think.

Sean in Ottawa

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Debater wrote:

The move by Robin Sears to shut down public discussion of Mulcair's leadership was interesting.

Why does Robin Sears think he has the right to play God anyway?

Debater, why are you posting on a thread about the NDP leadership. You're a Liberal. I don't care what you think.

In fairness we would comment on a Liberal leadership thread.

mark_alfred

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Debater wrote:

The move by Robin Sears to shut down public discussion of Mulcair's leadership was interesting.

Why does Robin Sears think he has the right to play God anyway?

Debater, why are you posting on a thread about the NDP leadership. You're a Liberal. I don't care what you think.

In fairness we would comment on a Liberal leadership thread.

Jokingly I might.  But I would announce that I was kidding around and wish those who take the Liberal party seriously the best in their decision.  But I would never go in with mock seriousness and disingenuously say, "I think you should pick the leader who's clearly unqualified with the least political and leadership experience of the lot because he's a winner with Kryptonite!"  Of course, ironically they did pick that leader, but that's besides the point.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Here is a clip of Peter Julian in question period. He has been working on his delivery since the last time I watched him.

Kinder Morgan is an issue that could cost the Liberals most of their Lower Mainland seats. This is a MAJOR broken promise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5thORg7Cp-k

quizzical

kropotkin, i liked his mannerism and i've been saying TM is a done deal for a long time now no matter the party. and it was reaffirmed to  me the minute they said no changes to the NEB on what was before them now.

do you realize the NEB controls the Fraser and it's whole watershed areas right from here to the coast? once this was done there's no going back.

scott16

scott16 wrote:

I will also add that in the last Parliament she was elected vice caucus chair by her colleagues. REB that is.

I know this is off topic but what does a caucus chair and a vice-chair do and are they both elected?

mark_alfred

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Here is a clip of Peter Julian in question period. He has been working on his delivery since the last time I watched him.

Kinder Morgan is an issue that could cost the Liberals most of their Lower Mainland seats. This is a MAJOR broken promise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5thORg7Cp-k

I'm curious how the Liberals responded to his question.  I'm guessing they ignored it or gave the typical Trudeau-non-answer.

ETA:  was this from today?  I couldn't find it in the Hansard.

Centrist

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Kinder Morgan is an issue that could cost the Liberals most of their Lower Mainland seats. This is a MAJOR broken promise.

Not that cut and dry though. Kinder Morgan is also what cost the BC NDP the 2013 BC election. Remember the "Kinder Morgan Surprise"? Cost the BC NDP popular vote share in almost every seat in BC's interior, the Fraser Valley, and Metro Vancouver. Even in the 4 Burnaby ridings, the BC NDP saw its popular vote share decrease over 2009.

Only within the inner Van City proper ridings did the BC NDP see its popular vote share increase (as well as on the North Shore as all border Burrard Inlet directly).

Again. Not that politically cut and dry albeit it is an issue that is obviously dear to your heart. 

 

 

 

Stockholm

My impression is that the problem wasn't with Dix's actual position on Kinder Morganh - the substance of which was popular - but more the fact that it represented a sudden switch of position and was depicted as a flip flop

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Centrist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Kinder Morgan is an issue that could cost the Liberals most of their Lower Mainland seats. This is a MAJOR broken promise.

Not that cut and dry though. Kinder Morgan is also what cost the BC NDP the 2013 BC election. Remember the "Kinder Morgan Surprise"? Cost the BC NDP popular vote share in almost every seat in BC's interior, the Fraser Valley, and Metro Vancouver. Even in the 4 Burnaby ridings, the BC NDP saw its popular vote share decrease over 2009.

Only within the inner Van City proper ridings did the BC NDP see its popular vote share increase (as well as on the North Shore as all border Burrard Inlet directly).

Again. Not that politically cut and dry albeit it is an issue that is obviously dear to your heart. 

I remember that stupid analysis of why the BC NDP lost that election. I don't care how many right wing pundits repeat it over and over again it is not right. You want to know when the NDP lost the election watch the debate and Dix's, deer caught in the headlights, reaction to the inevitable question about THE MEMO.

Anyone who was in the Lower Mainlaad and the Fraser Valley knows that for the the last three weeks of the election attack ads from third party groups over Dix's forged memo were on every radio station every hour, sometimes two or three times an hour, if it was peak listening time. It didn't matter the language of broadcast or  genre of music or audience profile it was relentless and nonstop.  The most corrupt government BC has seen in generations and its collaborators were allowed to paint the NDP as the corrupt politicians.  That is what lost the NDP the elction.

 

Pondering

R.E.Wood wrote:
I like Niki Ashton  - although I didn't like her last leadership campaign, I think she truly may be one who could grow the party over the course of Trudeau's time in office and be ready to make the NDP a serious contender again... And of course there are others. The NDP has no shortage of potential leaders, all with their own strengths and faults. But one thing is for sure - I'd like to see a generational shift in the leadership.

Ashton is only 33 now, so she was really young during the last leadership campaign. She will be 37 in 2019. I don't think anyone can beat Trudeau in 2019 unless he does worse than Harper which is difficult to imagine. Looking at Canadian history it does seem true that governments in Canada aren't beat, they defeat themselves. Ashton will be 41 in 2013.

It is impossible to truly predict 2019 nevermind 2023 but it is possible to foresee what type of person might defeat him and the Liberals.

It's very unlikely that another boomer will ever lead Canada. Some have mentioned that it took a long time for Mulcair to gain recognition throughout Canada. I think a female leader would have higher visibility just by virtue of being female.

It would be great if Mulcair would stay on as interim leader for two or three years to give the party time to find and groom a new leader.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

It would be great if Mulcair would stay on as interim leader for two or three years to give the party time to find and groom a new leader.

I guess you have no concept of party democracy. What cabal do you think should be doing the finding and grooming before the coronation?

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It would be great if Mulcair would stay on as interim leader for two or three years to give the party time to find and groom a new leader.

I guess you have no concept of party democracy. What cabal do you think should be doing the finding and grooming before the coronation?

Trudeau was found and groomed in a democratic fashion while Rae was serving as interim leader of the Liberal party. I have no doubt that the NDP can do the same.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It would be great if Mulcair would stay on as interim leader for two or three years to give the party time to find and groom a new leader.

I guess you have no concept of party democracy. What cabal do you think should be doing the finding and grooming before the coronation?

Trudeau was found and groomed in a democratic fashion while Rae was serving as interim leader of the Liberal party. I have no doubt that the NDP can do the same.

LMAOROF

To reiterate!!  You have no concept.

swallow swallow's picture

Hehe. "Groomed." 

How about the NDP tries to lure away a current Liberal cabinet minister to be their next leader? 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It would be great if Mulcair would stay on as interim leader for two or three years to give the party time to find and groom a new leader.

I guess you have no concept of party democracy. What cabal do you think should be doing the finding and grooming before the coronation?

Trudeau was found and groomed in a democratic fashion while Rae was serving as interim leader of the Liberal party. I have no doubt that the NDP can do the same.

LMAOROF

To reiterate!!  You have no concept.

Trudeau's election as leader was the most democratic process that I have ever witnessed. He was further groomed after winning the leadership the party and went on to lead the party to victory. If the NDP duplicated their success it would be they who end up dancing in the streets.

Debater

progressive-patriot wrote:

If Tom does indeed decide to step down, which I really hope that he doesn't becajuse he's still our best hope, party members would be wise to narrow their search to candidates with high profiles and a semblence of political experience (Megan Leslie, Nathan Cullen, Paul Dewar, Alexandre Boulerice, Nikki Ashton, and possibly Georgina Jolibois or Erin Wier - they both have interesting experience, but admittedly their national profiles are a bit low, for now)

Megan Leslie -> Recently took a job with the WWF fund, and according to some posters from Atlantic Canada like Ken S., isn't planning to get back into politics for a while. (Being without a seat makes it a bit awkward to run for leader).

Nathan Cullen -> Definitely a good possibility.

Paul Dewar -> Planning to leave politics according to his interview last month, although he has agreed to help participate in Mulcair's election post-mortem. (And even if Dewar wanted to run again, the emergence of Catherine McKenna in Ottawa Centre would make it more challenging).

Alexandre Boulerice -> As Stockholm says, Boulerice would probably have to back away from some of his strong Quebec Nationalism history, but I do think Boulerice is one of the strongest orators the NDP has in the House.

Nikki Ashton -> A possibility, although she is not totally safe in her riding and had a close race with the Liberal candidate this year.  The Liberals could win Churchill in 2019 if they focus more resources there.

Georgina Jolibois -> Narrowly elected, so will want to focus on building a stronger profile first and establishing roots within the NDP.

Erin Wier -> Same as above.

Sean in Ottawa

If Ashton could win this year as leader there is no question she would be considered very ahrd to beat. Your logic makes little sense on that point.

KenS

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau was found and groomed in a democratic fashion while Rae was serving as interim leader of the Liberal party. I have no doubt that the NDP can do the same.

And l have some bridges l can give you a deal on.

quizzical

oh where was Trudeau found? Montreal's SPCA? Vancouver's?

 

nicky

Some who are calling for Tom's head seem to assume that his personal popularity has collapsed as a result of the recent campaign.

The EKOS poll released a day or two ago undermines this lazy assumption. It puts his approval rating at 60'% and his disapproval at 40%.

The accompanying chart shows that his numbers have been pretty consistent for about the last year and have not been eroded even during the Trudeau honeymoon.

http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/12/national-mood-soars-as-dir...

josh

And the party number?

brookmere

It puts (Mulcair's job) approval rating at 60'% and his disapproval at 40%.

While Trudeau's approval rating is 70% and May's is 78%, both up substantially in the last year and at all time highs. Mulcair's all time high was over a year ago.

In any case it's clear this kind of approval rating doesn't correlate with popular vote or winning seats.

 

nicky

So Brookmere are you saying we should pick someone with a lower approval rating in order to win more votes?

R.E.Wood

The Conservatives appear to be looking for potential leadership talent outside the elected MP pool, as per this (I can't believe I'm linking to Sun News) article: 

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/12/12/caroline-mulroney-lapham-could-be-tories-heir-apparent

Why can't the NDP consider this also? At the very least, the idea of a leader who comes from outside the elected federal caucus should be on the table for consideration.

I also don't buy the concern about someone like Erin Weir's (for example) profile being too low as a reason to not consider him as potential leadership material. Public profile can rise quickly. And - despite Nicky's reasoning - a candidate who starts with a lower approval rating can become very popular once people get to know them. The fact is that people across the country do know Mulciar and clearly don't want him as Prime Minister. We just had the ultimate and only truly accurate poll on that subject: an election.

Pages

Topic locked