As they don't have a winner's mentality, who cares who leads the NDP?

129 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
As they don't have a winner's mentality, who cares who leads the NDP?

+

NorthReport

The NDP will not be winning any election so who cares who leads them. They have become irrelevant.

R.E.Wood

It's not all about winning. Everyone here knows that much has been accomplished by the NDP in years past without being in power.

But it is about the NDP finding its purpose, which it has lost. If its reason for being is to be the New Liberal Party, then it is absolutely irrelevant. But if the NDP can redefine itself with clear social democratic principles again, then it could regain relevance.

A new leader could be part of the process of the party redefining its purpose, because there's no damn way any serious soul searching or change of direction is going to happen under the current leadership.

Pondering

R.E.Wood wrote:

It's not all about winning. Everyone here knows that much has been accomplished by the NDP in years past without being in power.

But it is about the NDP finding its purpose, which it has lost. If its reason for being is to be the New Liberal Party, then it is absolutely irrelevant. But if the NDP can redefine itself with clear social democratic principles again, then it could regain relevance.

A new leader could be part of the process of the party redefining its purpose, because there's no damn way any serious soul searching or change of direction is going to happen under the current leadership.

I agree with you, only I believe the NDP is more likely to win over the next decade if it becomes genuinely progressive and aims at the 99%, not a sub-class within it.

Syriza dropped the left/right language and got elected. If the NDP genuinely believes that it's policies would benefit the 99% then that is the argument they should be presenting. If the NDP sounds like a charity pitching for donations for the poor it will lose.

wage zombie

NorthReport wrote:

The NDP will not be winning any election so who cares who leads them. They have become irrelevant.

Haven't you been praising Mulcair since the leadership campaign started?

Weren't you advocating that Mulcair skip a bunch of debates so as not to be seen acknowledging the existence of the lowly third place party?

If the NDP is run by such losers, how is it they have such an iron grip on the party?

Sean in Ottawa

I agree with Pondering that the NDP is more likely to succeed by being progressive than centrist.

I think that the NDP is largely controlled by a small number of people who do not make it easy for the larger membership to participate in a meaningful way.

Ken Burch

What, might I ask, IS "a winner's mentality"?

quizzical

i always translate "winner mentality" to 'weiner mentality' cause usually they are.

scott16

can the mods change the name of this thread to something less biased?

If it's supposed to be a leadership thread maybe call it Possible Leadership Race or something like that.

JKR

R.E.Wood wrote:

It's not all about winning. Everyone here knows that much has been accomplished by the NDP in years past without being in power.

But it is about the NDP finding its purpose, which it has lost. If its reason for being is to be the New Liberal Party, then it is absolutely irrelevant. But if the NDP can redefine itself with clear social democratic principles again, then it could regain relevance.

A new leader could be part of the process of the party redefining its purpose, because there's no damn way any serious soul searching or change of direction is going to happen under the current leadership.

I think Lawrence Martin had a very good suggestion in yesterday's Globe & Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/mulcair-faces-tough-odds-in-...

Quote:

Instead of forever migrating to the centre, the New Democrats could return to their more social-democratic roots. They could go Scandinavian. They could advocate policies that promote full employment, free university tuition, that focus on the lower class, on a restoration of the tax base so as to facilitate social equality.

scott16

Hey Sean If I recall correctly you're hoping Niki Ashton runs for the leadership (if there is one) may I ask what her pros and cons are? In your opinion, of course.

I assume this is the new leadership thread.

pir pir's picture

Pondering wrote:
I believe the NDP is more likely to win over the next decade if it becomes genuinely progressive and aims at the 99%, not a sub-class within it.

Syriza dropped the left/right language and got elected. If the NDP genuinely believes that it's policies would benefit the 99% then that is the argument they should be presenting. If the NDP sounds like a charity pitching for donations for the poor it will lose.

I also agree that it's not all about winning, but...  Yes, what you said.  A party only advocating for the poor and downtrodden won't win in Canada, even though it can do good.  But the move to the middle class while casting off anything overtly socialist is a huge mistake IMO, because the NDP is losing its purpose (at least the way I've always seen it).  Sure, lose the language of the left if that helps (I think that helps more in the US than here, but whatever).  What the NDP needs to do instead is to wake up everyone in the 99% (which includes the middle class, the working class, and the ones who have totally fallen through the cracks) to the fact that they are the 99%, and that they ought to be running things instead of being pacified with bread and circus by the 1% who use us all as little cogs in the machine that benefits them most of all, often to the exclusion of most of us.

I used to think a truly progressive party can't win in Canada, because while Canada is sorta kinda centre-leftish, it's certainly not socialist overall, it has way too many conservative voters.  But I have changed my mind.  I think it can IF people recognize that progressive policies benefit them all.  How to make that happen, that will of course be the big question.  But we made a start by kicking the man who brought the language of divisiveness and pettiness and fear to the curb.  Trudeau is not my champion, but i am ever so grateful for him wanting to put an end to that.  We have a new opportunity here and I'd love for the NDP to grab ahold of that.

I admit, I don't know how to do it because I am not particularly successful in my own endeavours to communicate with people who're part of the 99% but are on the political right.  I also fear the NDP isn't interested.  But I don't see any other way, so maybe we first need to figure out how to stop fighting amongst each other (those of us generally on the progressive left), much like Syriza did.

lagatta

What on earth is a 'weiner mentality'?

The entire premise of this thread seems skewed to me.

Sean in Ottawa

scott16 wrote:

Hey Sean If I recall correctly you're hoping Niki Ashton runs for the leadership (if there is one) may I ask what her pros and cons are? In your opinion, of course.

I assume this is the new leadership thread.

Pros -- multi-languages language, youth, she comes across as a "real New Democrat" not too far in any direction about the centre of the party, enthusiasm.

Cons -- she looked somewhat immature in debating style in the last leadership campaign.

She was not the person in 2015 to bring the party to victory in my view. But I think she could be an outside shot at 2019 and a good person to rebuild the party over a couple more with a good chance at eventually governing. Her youth means that she can be in the role and growing for some time. I think she is also personable.

She needs to get away from cliché language etc. but I think much of this would change just in the last few years. Her speaking style has to become more fluid as it is often halting and wooden. I think this will come.

Ashton is not the only option for the NDP either to replace Mulcair.

 

 

josh

From Martin's column:

Quote:

The party has no shortage of high-quality potential successors. The names most often mentioned are Nathan Cullen from British Columbia, Quebec’s Alexandre Boulerice and Megan Leslie from Nova Scotia. A big question is whether any of them will make public a leadership challenge before review vote day.

I would hope that Peter Julian would also be among those being mentioned.

quizzical

lagatta wrote:
What on earth is a 'weiner mentality'?

The entire premise of this thread seems skewed to me.

winners who want to win at all costs leave a trail of human wreckage behind them. their whole winning streak is predicates on trampling over others, exploiting them, bad mouthing, destroying people who they think are in their way, the ends justify the means people.

their whole win is a composit of others destruction. much like a weiner is composed of the entrails in order for the meat companies to make even more money by selling shit to people.

lagatta

Think that's a wiener, no?

Wiener: someone or something (in this case a sausage) from Vienna. About the same thing as a Frankfurter.

Weiner: can have more than one origin in German (and in Yiddish), but the most common would be a wine-seller.

Whiner: well, you know.

kropotkin1951

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I agree with Pondering

I just had to highlight this seismic event in the babble sphere.

Innocent

I agree with both of them on this.

 

kropotkin1951

I am glad that this thread clearly sets out a prevalent view of many current NDP members. The object of the game of politics is to win.

It is one of the reasons I no longer suport the NDP with my time or money as I did for nearly two decades. I was foolish enough to believe that the object of the game was to change the dialogue to make space for left wing ideas to be discussed and over the long term help society keep moving forard and not regressing. Instead we now have a party run by people who are deathly afraid of the MSM and craft all their language to avoid attacks from that quarter. So the average voter who is not an NDP partisan could not tell the party apart from the Liberals or the Greens.

So what is the NDP's purpose? Imagine in this day and age a platform that had included no military missions abroad and a retreat from sanctions as a tool of state relations, that had embraced pot legalization, that had been consistently opposing every trade deal that included an investors rights clause (i.e all of them) The new voters would have flocked to them and those of us that still constitute the NDP's 20% base would have voted for them and they might have a minority. Instead the winning is everything attitude led to the soft peddle of the very reason for the existence of a left wing party.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I agree with Pondering

I just had to highlight this seismic event in the babble sphere.

Innocent

I agree with both of them on this.

 

Hopefully it will happen more often.

Agreement or disagreement should never be automatic.

In longer posts there are times when I have been very angry about one part but otherwise could have agreed with something else. So it is not as rare as it seems.

quizzical

lagatta wrote:
Think that's a wiener, no?

Wiener: someone or something (in this case a sausage) from Vienna. About the same thing as a Frankfurter.

Weiner: can have more than one origin in German (and in Yiddish), but the most common would be a wine-seller.

Whiner: well, you know.

 

you're right it's wiener...lol thank you

scott16

I'm starting to believe that picking a leader from outside caucus might be a good idea. They could let Mulcair be the house leader.

They would also have more time to be out meeting people.

swallow swallow's picture

How about one spokesperson in parliament and one outside? That's a good model. It's even used by one party. 

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:

The NDP will not be winning any election so who cares who leads them. They have become irrelevant.

Yeah, I feel the same frustration.  The NDP promised to raise corporate taxes, create national universal child care on the great Quebec model, institute national cap and trade with the standards of Layton's Climate Change Accountability Act, institute MMP, raise the federal minimum wage, reform Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program to allow TFWs to pursue citizenship, introduce anti-scab legislation, ensure the Canada Health Transfer is increased by at least 6% more a year (and perhaps greater -- this accompanied with promises for 7000 more doctors), create a National Housing Strategy, revamping the Consumer Protection Act to stop banks and cell phone companies putting in unfair service charges/roaming fees,....and more, all which fell on deaf ears.  It's hopeless.  Instead we're stuck with right-wing Liberal charlatans, who vow to keep corporate taxes low, commit to no standards for the environment or health care or labour or child care or proportional representation.  Sad.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

scott16 wrote:

Hey Sean If I recall correctly you're hoping Niki Ashton runs for the leadership (if there is one) may I ask what her pros and cons are? In your opinion, of course.

I assume this is the new leadership thread.

Pros -- multi-languages language, youth, she comes across as a "real New Democrat" not too far in any direction about the centre of the party, enthusiasm.

Cons -- she looked somewhat immature in debating style in the last leadership campaign.

She was not the person in 2015 to bring the party to victory in my view. But I think she could be an outside shot at 2019 and a good person to rebuild the party over a couple more with a good chance at eventually governing. Her youth means that she can be in the role and growing for some time. I think she is also personable.

She needs to get away from cliché language etc. but I think much of this would change just in the last few years. Her speaking style has to become more fluid as it is often halting and wooden. I think this will come.

Ashton is not the only option for the NDP either to replace Mulcair.

There are other strong candidates but I agree with Sean. For someone who is only 33 Ashton has an impressive resume. Trudeau's speaking ability has improved tremendously since he became leader. Niki Ashton's fundamentals are very strong.

From a marketing perspective the NDP is going to have to present a fresh party with a transformative but realistic vision. One that tells the public the NDP is the party best qualified to deal with the issues of climate change and income inequality.

quizzical

mark_alfred wrote:
Yeah, I feel the same frustration.  The NDP promised to raise corporate taxes, create national universal child care on the great Quebec model, institute national cap and trade with the standards of Layton's Climate Change Accountability Act, institute MMP, raise the federal minimum wage, reform Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program to allow TFWs to pursue citizenship, introduce anti-scab legislation, ensure the Canada Health Transfer is increased by at least 6% more a year (and perhaps greater -- this accompanied with promises for 7000 more doctors), create a National Housing Strategy, revamping the Consumer Protection Act to stop banks and cell phone companies putting in unfair service charges/roaming fees,....and more, all which fell on deaf ears.  It's hopeless.  Instead we're stuck with right-wing Liberal charlatans, who vow to keep corporate taxes low, commit to no standards for the environment or health care or labour or child care or proportional representation.  Sad.

it's beyond sad......

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

scott16 wrote:

Hey Sean If I recall correctly you're hoping Niki Ashton runs for the leadership (if there is one) may I ask what her pros and cons are? In your opinion, of course.

I assume this is the new leadership thread.

Pros -- multi-languages language, youth, she comes across as a "real New Democrat" not too far in any direction about the centre of the party, enthusiasm.

Cons -- she looked somewhat immature in debating style in the last leadership campaign.

She was not the person in 2015 to bring the party to victory in my view. But I think she could be an outside shot at 2019 and a good person to rebuild the party over a couple more with a good chance at eventually governing. Her youth means that she can be in the role and growing for some time. I think she is also personable.

She needs to get away from cliché language etc. but I think much of this would change just in the last few years. Her speaking style has to become more fluid as it is often halting and wooden. I think this will come.

Ashton is not the only option for the NDP either to replace Mulcair.

There are other strong candidates but I agree with Sean. For someone who is only 33 Ashton has an impressive resume. Trudeau's speaking ability has improved tremendously since he became leader. Niki Ashton's fundamentals are very strong.

From a marketing perspective the NDP is going to have to present a fresh party with a transformative but realistic vision. One that tells the public the NDP is the party best qualified to deal with the issues of climate change and income inequality.

Pondering I know Niki. Your assessment of her is baseless and offensive.

Pondering

pir wrote:
A party only advocating for the poor and downtrodden won't win in Canada, even though it can do good.  But the move to the middle class while casting off anything overtly socialist is a huge mistake IMO, because the NDP is losing its purpose (at least the way I've always seen it).  

The right has successfully separated the poor from everyone else. The poor are a burden and everyone else is a worker, including the insanely wealthy who earned their wealth or whose parents earned their wealth and passed it down which is everyone's right to do.  In effect the "99%" is everyone except the poor.

Picking the middle class is again choosing a sub-group, creating a division within the 99%.

What progressives have to do is separate the 1% or better still the .01%. 

 

pir wrote:
Sure, lose the language of the left if that helps (I think that helps more in the US than here, but whatever).
 

It's that the language is outdated and misunderstood so it just gets in the way.

pir wrote:
What the NDP needs to do instead is to wake up everyone in the 99% (which includes the middle class, the working class, and the ones who have totally fallen through the cracks) to the fact that they are the 99%, and that they ought to be running things instead of being pacified with bread and circus by the 1% who use us all as little cogs in the machine that benefits them most of all, often to the exclusion of most of us. 

Exactly, but that is not easy to do. The right has done an excellent job of creating all kinds of divisions between sub-groups of the 99%.

The best way to win over the middle class to all sorts of programs is to convince them the money doesn't have to come out of their pockets.

pir wrote:
I used to think a truly progressive party can't win in Canada, because while Canada is sorta kinda centre-leftish, it's certainly not socialist overall, it has way too many conservative voters.

And yet medicare is the most popular program in Canada and we don't question public education.

The right has chipped away at these programs by inferring that the middle class will have to pay higher taxes to improve service.

pir wrote:
But I have changed my mind.  I think it can IF people recognize that progressive policies benefit them all.  How to make that happen, that will of course be the big question. 

I don't think that can happen through a political party until the public is more knowledgable.

pir wrote:
  I admit, I don't know how to do it because I am not particularly successful in my own endeavours to communicate with people who're part of the 99% but are on the political right.  I also fear the NDP isn't interested.  But I don't see any other way, so maybe we first need to figure out how to stop fighting amongst each other (those of us generally on the progressive left), much like Syriza did.

Progressives need to learn how to market.

The environment movement figured it out and they need everyone's support more than ever. I'm starting a separate thread on the following.

A hard cap on oilsands emissions that became part of Alberta Premier Rachel Notley’s climate change plan was the product of secret negotiations between four top oilsands companies and four environmental organizations, the Financial Post has learned.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/secret-deal-on-albertas-oi...

Sean in Ottawa

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

scott16 wrote:

Hey Sean If I recall correctly you're hoping Niki Ashton runs for the leadership (if there is one) may I ask what her pros and cons are? In your opinion, of course.

I assume this is the new leadership thread.

Pros -- multi-languages language, youth, she comes across as a "real New Democrat" not too far in any direction about the centre of the party, enthusiasm.

Cons -- she looked somewhat immature in debating style in the last leadership campaign.

She was not the person in 2015 to bring the party to victory in my view. But I think she could be an outside shot at 2019 and a good person to rebuild the party over a couple more with a good chance at eventually governing. Her youth means that she can be in the role and growing for some time. I think she is also personable.

She needs to get away from cliché language etc. but I think much of this would change just in the last few years. Her speaking style has to become more fluid as it is often halting and wooden. I think this will come.

Ashton is not the only option for the NDP either to replace Mulcair.

There are other strong candidates but I agree with Sean. For someone who is only 33 Ashton has an impressive resume. Trudeau's speaking ability has improved tremendously since he became leader. Niki Ashton's fundamentals are very strong.

From a marketing perspective the NDP is going to have to present a fresh party with a transformative but realistic vision. One that tells the public the NDP is the party best qualified to deal with the issues of climate change and income inequality.

Pondering I know Niki. Your assessment of her is baseless and offensive.

Art -- what assessment of Pondering's? I think this was mine and I do not think it is offensive. What was offensive about it to you?

I would support her for leader right now if we had a vote (unless some other perosn I have not thought of offered)

Ashton's speaking is wooden but improving. She uses notes too often and she pauses too long when referencing them. She uses clichés in speeches and sounds way better on issues that she is more closely involved and passionate about. I think she sounds better when she is not delivering a speech and just thinks on her feet.

This is a question of practice. Happy to have her work on this as leader but it is an observable fact. I believe Ashton knows this. I think if she had that down in the last leadership she may well have been on the last ballot against Mulcair rather than Topp.

Otherwise, there is so much good that can be said about her -- and I have.

Niki Ashton has huge potential and the only negatives are things that can be fixed. Pondering agreed with me that these are things that can be fixed.

Sorry Art but I think you need to dial that one back or explain -- but I would be the one you would be arguing with -- a strong supporter of Ashton.

DaveW

quizzical wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
Yeah, I feel the same frustration.  The NDP promised to raise corporate taxes, create national universal child care on the great Quebec model, institute national cap and trade with the standards of Layton's Climate Change Accountability Act, institute MMP, raise the federal minimum wage, reform Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program to allow TFWs to pursue citizenship, introduce anti-scab legislation, ensure the Canada Health Transfer is increased by at least 6% more a year (and perhaps greater -- this accompanied with promises for 7000 more doctors), create a National Housing Strategy, revamping the Consumer Protection Act to stop banks and cell phone companies putting in unfair service charges/roaming fees,....and more, all which fell on deaf ears.  It's hopeless.  Instead we're stuck with right-wing Liberal charlatans, who vow to keep corporate taxes low, commit to no standards for the environment or health care or labour or child care or proportional representation.  Sad.

it's beyond sad......

 

Worth noting that the "deaf ears" above are those of the Canadian electorate.

Personally, I draw the conclusion that social democracy does not have a winning constituency in Canada.

That matches the evidence:

50 years after the founding of the NDP, it remains a 3rd party, despite making its pitch to the electorate in national elections on, what, a dozen occasions? The problem is not communication, everyone heard the mesage.

Any other interpretation welcome, but personally I conclude that my efforts are better spent elsewhere than accumulating moral victories. NDP is not going to win federal elections.

 

 

Pondering

DaveW wrote:

quizzical wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
Yeah, I feel the same frustration.  The NDP promised to raise corporate taxes, create national universal child care on the great Quebec model, institute national cap and trade with the standards of Layton's Climate Change Accountability Act, institute MMP, raise the federal minimum wage, reform Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program to allow TFWs to pursue citizenship, introduce anti-scab legislation, ensure the Canada Health Transfer is increased by at least 6% more a year (and perhaps greater -- this accompanied with promises for 7000 more doctors), create a National Housing Strategy, revamping the Consumer Protection Act to stop banks and cell phone companies putting in unfair service charges/roaming fees,....and more, all which fell on deaf ears.  It's hopeless.  Instead we're stuck with right-wing Liberal charlatans, who vow to keep corporate taxes low, commit to no standards for the environment or health care or labour or child care or proportional representation.  Sad.

it's beyond sad......

 

Worth noting that the "deaf ears" above are those of the Canadian electorate.

Personally, I draw the conclusion that social democracy does not have a winning constituency in Canada.

That matches the evidence:

50 years after the founding of the NDP, it remains a 3rd party, despite making its pitch to the electorate in national elections on, what, a dozen occasions? The problem is not communication, everyone heard the mesage.

Any other interpretation welcome, but personally I conclude that my efforts are better spent elsewhere than accumulating moral victories. NDP is not going to win federal elections.

The NDP hasn't been pitching social democracy for decades and they have failed to make the larger arguments on the two most important challenges facing progressives in Canada, climate change/environment and income inequality. They have some timid policies addressing those issues, but those issues should be the clarion call.

 

Stockholm

Actually, I thought one issue Mulcair was very passionate about and very aggressive about was climate change. The Liberals on the other hand essentially swept the issue under the rug, said a few nice things and then promised to go to Paris with Harper's cimate change plan (or lack thereof). We have seen this movie before. Under Chretien the Liberals said all the right things about climate change, they boasted about signing Kyoto...and then did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and Canada's emissions continued to go through the roof.

But the Liberals aren't stupid. They know that words are cheap and that as long as you SAY the right things - the chattering classes will forgive you if you never actually do anything.

off-the-radar

I certainly don't remember Mulcair as passionate about protecting the environment and addressing climate change.

He was passionate and dismissive about the niquab when he should have been measured like Trudeau.

He was passionate and adamant about abolishing the Senate which frankly just sounded stupid. Every Canadian knows senate abolition won't be happening given the constitutional barriers in the way.

He was passionate in attacking Trudeau.

He was NOT passionate about getting our Canada back and defeating Harper. Instead most of the time he was awkwardly playing at being Grandpa Tom. Except in the final week of the campaign when he passionately denounced the TPP.  Too little, too late, too fake and too absolute.

Mulcair is like a weather vane, swinging in what ever direction the wind blows.

And showed very little political acumen in this campaign, the most politically obtuse leader I have ever seen.

kropotkin1951

off-the-radar wrote:

I certainly don't remember Mulcair as passionate about protecting the environment and addressing climate change.

He was passionate and dismissive about the niquab when he should have been measured like Trudeau.

He was passionate and adamant about abolishing the Senate which frankly just sounded stupid. Every Canadian knows senate abolition won't be happening given the constitutional barriers in the way.

He was passionate in attacking Trudeau.

He was NOT passionate about getting our Canada back and defeating Harper. Instead most of the time he was awkwardly playing at being Grandpa Tom. Except in the final week of the campaign when he passionately denounced the TPP.  Too little, too late, too fake and too absolute.

Mulcair is like a weather vane, swinging in what ever direction the wind blows.

And showed very little political acumen in this campaign, the most politically obtuse leader I have ever seen.

Well said.

Stockholm

off-the-radar wrote:

He was passionate in attacking Trudeau.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. My view - and this is what most commentators have said as well - is that Mulcair erred by NOT attacking Trudeau and not taking him seriously until it was too late.

He spent the first 5 weeks of the campaign only attacking harper and ignoring the Liberals and never came up with a good line of attack against Trudeau (and there were plenty of openings). In fact the whole "debate about debates" stemmed from Mulcair wanting to focus entirely on debating with and attacking Harper and AVOIDING a debate between opposition leaders where they would just hurl abuse at each other while Harper would get off scot-free.

I only wish that Mulcair had been passionate in attacking Trudeau - things might have turned out differently. Instead Mulcair turned the other cheek and never laid a glove on Trudeau.

IMHO the biggest mistake of the NDP campaign was that they should have spent the first half of the campaign annhilating the Liberals and hammering a stake into the Liberal vampires heart so that we knew it was dead once and for all - instead of playing nice and giving the Liberals oxygen to stage a comeback.

DaveW

well, memories vary because the highlight of the first, August 6th leaders debate for many of us was the "Number" sparring between Mulcair and Justin over the Sherbrooke Declation, the majority needed and the Supreme Court -- in which Trudeau hammered on "nine, nine, nine" -- one of his first solid performances, reported the national press

Ken Burch

Stockholm wrote:

off-the-radar wrote:

He was passionate in attacking Trudeau.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. My view - and this is what most commentators have said as well - is that Mulcair erred by NOT attacking Trudeau and not taking him seriously until it was too late.

He spent the first 5 weeks of the campaign only attacking harper and ignoring the Liberals and never came up with a good line of attack against Trudeau (and there were plenty of openings). In fact the whole "debate about debates" stemmed from Mulcair wanting to focus entirely on debating with and attacking Harper and AVOIDING a debate between opposition leaders where they would just hurl abuse at each other while Harper would get off scot-free.

I only wish that Mulcair had been passionate in attacking Trudeau - things might have turned out differently. Instead Mulcair turned the other cheek and never laid a glove on Trudeau.

IMHO the biggest mistake of the NDP campaign was that they should have spent the first half of the campaign annhilating the Liberals and hammering a stake into the Liberal vampires heart so that we knew it was dead once and for all - instead of playing nice and giving the Liberals oxygen to stage a comeback.

Mulcair was passionate about attacking Trudeau on readiness for office(probably pissed off a lot of young people by addressing him as "Justin" and talking down to him personally...young voters hate seeing young people dissed, even young political leaders)but, because he seemed to choose to appear to be to Trudeau's right by leading with the #[email protected]! balanced budget thing, he made it impossible to attack Trudeau where he was weakest...on the historic difference between Liberal campaign promises and actual Liberal governance.

If Mulcair had led with the social justice/economic justice aspects of the platform(and had also avoided alienating activists by deposing candidates for committing truth about Palestine and forcing the party's final platform to refuse to acknowledge any fault on the part of the Israelis in that situation at all)he could have knocked Trudeau out of the box early in the going.

 

mark_alfred

Mulcair's approach during the election, whether you perceive it as unwarranted attacks or if you perceive it as unwarranted neglect of attack, was ineffective.  I think Mulcair will be effective if he just frees himself from excessive talking points and restrictions and expresses his opinions of Trudeau and the Liberals more freely.  He seems to be starting to do that recently.  After the Throne Speech, he expressed both kudos and criticisms about it.  That seems good.  If something is good, feel free to call it as such.  If something falls short, then also feel free to call it as such.  Both of which he did effectively after the Throne Speech. 

Sean in Ottawa

Stockholm wrote:

off-the-radar wrote:

He was passionate in attacking Trudeau.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. My view - and this is what most commentators have said as well - is that Mulcair erred by NOT attacking Trudeau and not taking him seriously until it was too late.

He spent the first 5 weeks of the campaign only attacking harper and ignoring the Liberals and never came up with a good line of attack against Trudeau (and there were plenty of openings). In fact the whole "debate about debates" stemmed from Mulcair wanting to focus entirely on debating with and attacking Harper and AVOIDING a debate between opposition leaders where they would just hurl abuse at each other while Harper would get off scot-free.

I only wish that Mulcair had been passionate in attacking Trudeau - things might have turned out differently. Instead Mulcair turned the other cheek and never laid a glove on Trudeau.

IMHO the biggest mistake of the NDP campaign was that they should have spent the first half of the campaign annhilating the Liberals and hammering a stake into the Liberal vampires heart so that we knew it was dead once and for all - instead of playing nice and giving the Liberals oxygen to stage a comeback.

I guess you did not see the campaign I did with the NDP and Liberals running ads more against each other than the government and the comments from Mulcair on Trudeau at every stop.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Mulcair's approach during the election, whether you perceive it as unwarranted attacks or if you perceive it as unwarranted neglect of attack, was ineffective.  I think Mulcair will be effective if he just frees himself from excessive talking points and restrictions and expresses his opinions of Trudeau and the Liberals more freely.  He seems to be starting to do that recently.  After the Throne Speech, he expressed both kudos and criticisms about it.  That seems good.  If something is good, feel free to call it as such.  If something falls short, then also feel free to call it as such.  Both of which he did effectively after the Throne Speech. 

This is what I found:

Speaking with reporters, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair lauded the Liberals for announcing they would put an end to omnibus bills, and “partisan” advertising on the public dime.

“It’s courageous, and I think it’s long overdue,” Mulcair said.

However, he said the government came up short in several areas. The speech, Mulcair said, made no mention of earlier promises such as reverting the retirement age back to 65 from 67, and restoring door-to-door mail delivery by Canada Post.

“Frankly, I was shocked that there’s not a single reference to childcare in the whole throne speech,” Mulcair said.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/warm-welcome-gg-kickstarts-42nd-parliamen...

 The Throne Speech does not mention every single thing a government intends to do or reiterate the platform.

The two measures Mulcair praised were in the NDP platform. Then he is SHOCKED to find there was no reference to childcare in the WHOLE speech. Why would there be? It wasn't part of Trudeau's platform and he didn't mention it in any speeches. I don't remember it being discussed in the debates. I don't understand why Mulcair was so sure childcare would be mentioned in the Speech to the Throne that he was shocked not to see it.

Mulcair was playing to the NDP base in his bid to pass the leadership vote or he is still campaigning as if there were no election.

No one who voted Conservative or Liberal expects a daycare plan. They are not going to think "oh rats, shouda voted for the NDP."

Trudeau is going to spend this four years keeping his campaign commitments and doing everything he can to burnish the Liberal government as wildly successful. In 2019 their campaign will likely include a daycare plan better than what the NDP offered.

Instead of focusing on making sure to add a criticism whenever they comment on the government make sure that the criticisms made forward the NDP agenda.

This would be the perfect time to highlight things in the speech the NDP does want to see:

To make sure that every vote counts, the government will undertake consultations on electoral reform, and will take action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.

For that I would say something along the lines of "We are happy the Liberals are following through on this pledge. Genuine proportional representation would ensure the views of all Canadians are represented instead of producing false majorities. We will definitely support the Liberals in this initiative.

The government will, as an immediate priority, deliver a tax cut for the middle class.

We applaud the tax cut for the middle class but doing it through raising the basic per-person exemption instead would help all the people making less than X (what's the cut off? 47K?) as well as the middle class.

And to give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons, the government will promote more open debate and free votes, and reform and strengthen committees.

We are also looking forward to more open debate and free votes that allow representatives to better reflect the views of their constituents.

Public input will be sought and considered. Environmental impacts will be understood and minimized. Decisions will be informed by scientific evidence. And indigenous peoples will be more fully engaged in reviewing and monitoring major resource development projects.

We are particularly delighted that in future projects that impact the environment will be informed by scientific evidence and will respect the rights of indigenous peoples.

Forget the NDP 2015 platform. It's over. The NDP will have to start fresh and authenticity is key. Being shocked that the Liberals didn't say anything about childcare in the Speech to the Throne is not authentic. It's ridiculous.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Mulcair's approach during the election, whether you perceive it as unwarranted attacks or if you perceive it as unwarranted neglect of attack, was ineffective.  I think Mulcair will be effective if he just frees himself from excessive talking points and restrictions and expresses his opinions of Trudeau and the Liberals more freely.  He seems to be starting to do that recently.  After the Throne Speech, he expressed both kudos and criticisms about it.  That seems good.  If something is good, feel free to call it as such.  If something falls short, then also feel free to call it as such.  Both of which he did effectively after the Throne Speech. 

This is what I found:

Speaking with reporters, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair lauded the Liberals for announcing they would put an end to omnibus bills, and “partisan” advertising on the public dime.

“It’s courageous, and I think it’s long overdue,” Mulcair said.

However, he said the government came up short in several areas. The speech, Mulcair said, made no mention of earlier promises such as reverting the retirement age back to 65 from 67, and restoring door-to-door mail delivery by Canada Post.

“Frankly, I was shocked that there’s not a single reference to childcare in the whole throne speech,” Mulcair said.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/warm-welcome-gg-kickstarts-42nd-parliamen...

 The Throne Speech does not mention every single thing a government intends to do or reiterate the platform.

The two measures Mulcair praised were in the NDP platform. Then he is SHOCKED to find there was no reference to childcare in the WHOLE speech. Why would there be? It wasn't part of Trudeau's platform and he didn't mention it in any speeches. I don't remember it being discussed in the debates. I don't understand why Mulcair was so sure childcare would be mentioned in the Speech to the Throne that he was shocked not to see it.

Mulcair was playing to the NDP base in his bid to pass the leadership vote or he is still campaigning as if there were no election.

No one who voted Conservative or Liberal expects a daycare plan. They are not going to think "oh rats, shouda voted for the NDP."

Trudeau is going to spend this four years keeping his campaign commitments and doing everything he can to burnish the Liberal government as wildly successful. In 2019 their campaign will likely include a daycare plan better than what the NDP offered.

Instead of focusing on making sure to add a criticism whenever they comment on the government make sure that the criticisms made forward the NDP agenda.

This would be the perfect time to highlight things in the speech the NDP does want to see:

To make sure that every vote counts, the government will undertake consultations on electoral reform, and will take action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.

For that I would say something along the lines of "We are happy the Liberals are following through on this pledge. Genuine proportional representation would ensure the views of all Canadians are represented instead of producing false majorities. We will definitely support the Liberals in this initiative.

The government will, as an immediate priority, deliver a tax cut for the middle class.

We applaud the tax cut for the middle class but doing it through raising the basic per-person exemption instead would help all the people making less than X (what's the cut off? 47K?) as well as the middle class.

And to give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons, the government will promote more open debate and free votes, and reform and strengthen committees.

We are also looking forward to more open debate and free votes that allow representatives to better reflect the views of their constituents.

Public input will be sought and considered. Environmental impacts will be understood and minimized. Decisions will be informed by scientific evidence. And indigenous peoples will be more fully engaged in reviewing and monitoring major resource development projects.

We are particularly delighted that in future projects that impact the environment will be informed by scientific evidence and will respect the rights of indigenous peoples.

Forget the NDP 2015 platform. It's over. The NDP will have to start fresh and authenticity is key. Being shocked that the Liberals didn't say anything about childcare in the Speech to the Throne is not authentic. It's ridiculous.

I stopped reading when I saw your comment about childcare. Again you are both hyper partisan AND wrong. The Liberals did have a child care committment -- not like the NDP spaces but funding for parents and it did not make the speech.

Odd you would forget since you harped on it here so much...

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/helping-families/

 

cco

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau is going to spend this four years keeping his campaign commitments and doing everything he can to burnish the Liberal government as wildly successful. In 2019 their campaign will likely include a daycare plan better than what the NDP offered.

Funny how the same Liberal partisans who have been all over the NDP for the past decade for voting to bring down the Martin government when they were totally! just about to! bring in the child care plan they'd been promising since 1993! are now saying all we have to do is wait until 2019, and we'll have something even! better!, by the year the newborns who would've been included in the original Red Book will be 26.

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

IMHO the biggest mistake of the NDP campaign was that they should have spent the first half of the campaign annhilating the Liberals and hammering a stake into the Liberal vampires heart so that we knew it was dead once and for all - instead of playing nice and giving the Liberals oxygen to stage a comeback.

I guess you wanted to have Conservative dominance in Canada long-term?  Because that's what you would have right now if the Liberals had been killed off.

Harper knew the NDP couldn't beat him and that's why he went after the Liberals.

We finally have a progressive government in Canada again thanks to Trudeau & the Liberals.

You remain a big cheerleader of Mulcair.

Centrist

off-the-radar wrote:
Mulcair is like a weather vane, swinging in what ever direction the wind blows.

And showed very little political acumen in this campaign, the most politically obtuse leader I have ever seen.

You could have also described the 2013 BC NDP campaign to a `T`. Even the Clarkistas had their own `weathervane ad`:

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Debater wrote:

I guess you wanted to have Conservative dominance in Canada long-term?  Because that's what you would have right now if the Liberals had been killed off.

Harper knew the NDP couldn't beat him and that's why he went after the Liberals.

We finally have a progressive government in Canada again thanks to Trudeau & the Liberals.

You remain a big cheerleader of Mulcair.

What nonsense. It is clear to any conscious primate that Harper was dead, and it was going to be either Mulcair or Trudeau as PM. Mulcair and the NDP team choked when the chips were down, or they'd be the government right now.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I stopped reading when I saw your comment about childcare. Again you are both hyper partisan AND wrong. The Liberals did have a child care committment -- not like the NDP spaces but funding for parents and it did not make the speech.

Odd you would forget since you harped on it here so much...

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/helping-families/

I see, you are referring to this:

We will cancel tax breaks and benefits for the wealthy – including the Universal Child Care Benefit – and introduce a new Canada Child Benefit to give Canadian families more money to raise their kids.

I was thinking of daycare, my mistake. If this is what Mulcair was referring to then it is even more bizarre. The Speech to the Throne doesn't mention every single platform item. If it isn't in the budget, or isn't the amount Trudeau promised, that would be the moment to highlight it. I expect it to be in the first budget don't you?  Do you think there is a reasonable chance that Trudeau won't introduce the Canada Child Benefit after putting it out in such a detailed manner that people can calculate how much they will get? 

That makes Mulcair's criticism just grumbling over nothing.

Debater

Michael Moriarity wrote:

What nonsense. It is clear to any conscious primate that Harper was dead, and it was going to be either Mulcair or Trudeau as PM. Mulcair and the NDP team choked when the chips were down, or they'd be the government right now.

Harper was not dead.  He got nearly ONE-THIRD of the vote despite a bad campaign and despite the massive turnout that Trudeau's formidable skills generated.

It's obvious looking at those numbers that Harper had a good shot at a Minority or even better if things had gone just a bit differently.

Stockholm

Harper never had ANY chance of staying in power with a minority unless the Liberals had a secret plan to support a CPC minority government. Harper was always going to be out unless he won another majority and that was never in the cards. 

Stockholm

mark_alfred wrote:

After the Throne Speech, he expressed both kudos and criticisms about it.  That seems good.  If something is good, feel free to call it as such.  If something falls short, then also feel free to call it as such.  Both of which he did effectively after the Throne Speech. 

Yeah well for the last few years Mulcair has been leading the opposition to Harper and let';s face it there has literally been NOTHING the Harper government ever did that was praiseworthy. it was all 100% evil garbage and deserved to be treated as such.

Stockholm

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I guess you did not see the campaign I did with the NDP and Liberals running ads more against each other than the government and the comments from Mulcair on Trudeau at every stop.

I guess not - the campaign I saw consisted of the Liberals running hard hitting ads that claimed that the NDP would bring in cuts and austerity - all total lies, while the NDP ran nothing but nebulous ads where Mulcair talked about himself sitting in a library on parliament hill. The only NDP ads i ever saw attacking the Liberals were in the last 5 days of the campaign about the TPP...and that was it. 

mark_alfred

Stockholm wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

After the Throne Speech, he expressed both kudos and criticisms about it.  That seems good.  If something is good, feel free to call it as such.  If something falls short, then also feel free to call it as such.  Both of which he did effectively after the Throne Speech. 

Yeah well for the last few years Mulcair has been leading the opposition to Harper and let';s face it there has literally been NOTHING the Harper government ever did that was praiseworthy. it was all 100% evil garbage and deserved to be treated as such.

Hey Stock, I quite like your posts.  But I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not with this one.  I admit that the NDP has always strove to find some common ground with adversaries, be it the Libs or Cons, and did even find some with the Cons -- that being on some consumer protection stuff, and on the removal of unfair taxes on women's hygiene products.  So, I don't mean to suggest that the NDP has been overly agressive in its opposition always.  They were effective and assertive in both opposing the Con government and in, on a rare occasion or two, working with them for progessive change (another example being the apology to Indigenous peoples over the residential schools.)  Regardless, seems a good approach now to continue with this and even be more open about pointing out good stuff that the Libs do, while also standing up for progressive causes.

Pages