Possible NDP leadership thread

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.  

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.

;

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. 

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

Hehe. "Groomed." 

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.