Why is Thomas Mulcair trying to undermine Jagmeet Singh?

158 posts / 0 new
Last post
Misfit Misfit's picture

For one thing, Mr. Singh has shown himself to be a good and effective leader.

Secondly. We need a very strong commitment to diversity within the party. With a strong and very effective leader, we need to show young Canadians of diverse backgrounds that their contribution matters. I believe that racism is playing a strong role in the NDP’s poll numbers. If we toss Mr. Singh out, we are sending s negative message that racism works and that racists can get their own way.

If he bombed in the debates or did something wrong where his skill as leader would have been thrown into question that is one thing, but he is the best and most effective leader on the national stage right now. The longer he remains the better it is for Canada and for young Canadians.

I was very angry with the way he handled the Erin Weir file. Now I am proud and honoured to have him as our national leader. If I can change then so can others. It just takes time and I hope the NDP gives him that.

Sean in Ottawa

Talk of dumping Singh is unrealistic. He likely is getting enough people to want to at least let him have a second election but even among those who would rather dump him, the reality that the party cannot afford another leadership race is sinking in.

He may not have been the best choice but without a clear better choice and the money to find out he is there for a while. Some of the NDP's hopes for the future need a few years yet before they can contest the leadership.

Singh is either a caretaker for two elections or a hope for growth. Many will probably be satisfied not making a decision on that for a couple years.

His job will be to unite the party, rebuild some kind of bridge to members, earn some respect in Quebec even if that is not many votes for now, and to rebuild the financial foundations of the party. One this is done, he will need to attract talent for candidates including ones that may eventually replace him.

Not sure if he is the best person for this but he is the only realistic option short of destruction of the party which is a realistic option even if not very palatable.


R.E.Wood wrote:

Mulcair's seat count went from 103 to 44, and it was his only election as leader.

Before the 2011 election, the NDP had one seat in Québec - in my riding - that was Tom Mulcair. First NDP win ever in a general election (2008 - after his byelection win in 2007).

In 2011, this happened:

1. Quebecers finally figured out that the Bloc, having risen to official opposition, could go no further - because they weren't running outside Québec. Specifically, they could not defeat the hated Harper government.

2. They abandoned the Bloc and decided to try a federalist party. Jack Layton seemed like a nice guy. Tom Mulcair, as deputy leader in Québec, was known and popular in many regions, plus he worked hard to assemble a credible team of candidates. We know the results: from 1 to 59 seats. Quebecers do stuff like that.

3. Election night 2011 - seems the rest of Canada didn't get the memo. Instead of voting NDP, they voted Liberal (the ones that hated Harper). So Orange Wave failed in its goal.

Thus, in 2015, Quebecers shifted massively again, as they are wont to do, held their collective nose and voted for Trudeau's Liberals. That worked - at least, it got rid of Harper.

But I only wanted to draw two small conclusions:

1. Don't underestimate Mulcair's role in unleashing the Orange Wave.

2. Don't blame Mulcair for losing all those Québec seats in 2015. Yes, he made a stupid niqab comment. Blame the rest of Canada for not voting NDP in 2011, if you like. In 2015, they needed to get rid of Harper, and they succeeded.

I could be wrong, but that's my reading from the ground.


The issue that tripped Mulcair up was the press were promoting that the Liberals were to the left of the NDP in 2015. I said press on purpose. Chances of the NDP forming the government are very slim to say the least. Jack Layton with the help of  Mulcair almost pulled it off, but unfortunately that was a one off which probably had little chance of being repeated unless the NDP get media backing of their own the same way the Liberals are backed by Canada’s national broadcaster the CBC and the Toronto Star

It’s time for the CLC to belly up to the bar

After the 2015 disaster there was too much disappointment following what happened in 2011 No matter who the leader was they would have paid the price Unfortunately Mulcair should have realized that a bit sooner and stepped down earlier  and then this friction between him and the NDP would have dissipated a long time ago



Not that the view of a Liberal is worth a a whole lot on the question of how long someone should be NDP leader but given that I have separately met Mulcair and Singh in a policy capacity and had a long-ago social encounter with Broadbent, I can tell you that I found Singh to be far and away the most endearing of the three.  He might give up a bit in raw intellect to Mulcair (and Broadbent I suppose, given that he was a LSE-educated political science professor) but I found Singh to be quick and incisive, while managing to be thoroughly friendly throughout.  

There isn't a big enough NDP base for the moment to build a plausible push for government, so you either need one or two other parties to commit seppuku or (probably and) you need someone to be able to reach effectively across party lines.  Jack Layton obviously had some of that capacity even though I was immune to it personally.  Based on admittedly limited familiarity, I would say that you could do a whole lot worse than Jagmeet Singh.


Aristotleded24 wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:
Misfit wrote:

I am very impressed with Jagmeet Singh and I hope that he stays on as leader after this election. Ed Broadbent and Jack Layton remained party leader after multiple defeats and I hope Jagmeet stays.

It's too early to talk about whether Singh might be able to follow the examples of Layton or Broadbent, rather than that of Mulcair and McLaughlin... we have a couple more weeks until we know the results of this election.

Layton's election results were consistent gains for the party in every election he was leader. His first election the NDP won 19 (up from 14), then continued to increase to 29, then 37, then 103 seats. Gains every time.

Broadbent's first election the party won 26 seats (up from 16), then 32, 30, and 43. Only one time did his seat count go down, and only by 2 seats.

McLaughlin's seat count went from 43 down to 9, and it was her only election as leader.

Mulcair's seat count went from 103 to 44, and it was his only election as leader.

If the NDP seat count drops substantially under Singh's leadership I can't see how he will be able to stay on as leader, or why anyone should be satisfied and accepting of such a result. I'm not talking about the loss of a few seats; I'm talking about a loss of +-50% of the party's seats. Unfortunately, that's still the result I see coming in a couple weeks: anything over 25 seats would be a miracle at this point, and far worse could yet happen.

I'd also add that under Alexa's watch, the NDP returned to Official Party status, and held ground throught her time as leader. She also presided over by-election breakthroughs in Windsor.

Yes, you're absolutely right. She also is the reason there was a breakthrough for the NDP in the Atlantic provinces as well. 


Yes, most of my fellow campaigners in RPP are young people who probably took part in the 2012 carrés rouges movement. And several are quite open about also belonging to QS and Projet Montréal. Yes, I feel like an old fartess, but that is a good thing.