Mulcair: stay or go?

quizzical wrote:

i've never bought the idea Canada is helpless when it comes to trade deals.

Canadians believe it though because of the poor self-esteem we all have when it comes to economics and trade.

i don't get the disconnect. it'd better get resolved soon before they start selling off our water for even less.

I don't know anyone who believes that. Not one person.

So, along with attacking the NDP and unions, the Socialist Equality Party is now also attacking John Clarke of OCAP.  I note many Liberal sycophants here really love to try to promote this tendency of leftists to fight and judge one another.

At 23.6 cents per kWh. Ontario is helpless at the bargaining table.

There still doesn't seem to be any answer to the question in the title of this thread, after all these weeks.

mark_alfred wrote:

.... Also this article was written before the Libs accepted Conservative Tony Clement's motion on stifling free speech by condemning those who support the BDS movement.

Not to forget that the NDP considered support for Palestinian human rights a firing offense going into the last election. Paul Manly must have got an bit of a chuckle out of the NDP's parlimentary stand considering he wasn't even allowed to run for a nomination.

Rev Pesky wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

.... Also this article was written before the Libs accepted Conservative Tony Clement's motion on stifling free speech by condemning those who support the BDS movement.

Not to forget that the NDP considered support for Palestinian human rights a firing offense going into the last election. Paul Manly must have got an bit of a chuckle out of the NDP's parlimentary stand considering he wasn't even allowed to run for a nomination.

I agree that it sounds like the vetting process was way overzealous, just like the Libs did with Christine Innes or Ala Buzreba who resigned (and I'm sure did so after facing an ultimatum from the Libs -- I mean tweets from a 16 year old, come on!).  Anyway, regardless of the Libs or NDP's overzealous vetting, this should not be used to excuse the Lib's adopting as public policy the stifling of free speech and voting in support of the Cons' motion!  I hope you're not excusing the Liberals for the stand they've taken.  I don't think there's any excuse for it.

That's a reasonable opinion, Debater.  Very few people have the charisma thing though.  I recall seeing Trudeau debate Marc Garneau, and Trudeau easily answered (or deflected) Garneau's criticisms of Trudeau not having enough experience.  It was interesting to see later how Trudeau did this with Mulcair as well.  That said, it was Mulcair's first outing.  When Dalton McGuinty first tried in Ontario, he was soundly defeated, yet the party wisely stuck with him.  Things can turn around.  And while Trudeau easily deflected 'the not enough experience' criticism last time (by presenting himself as the new and fresh alternative backed by the trusted Liberal brand), he will have a far harder time deflecting criticism of his government's performance in the next campaign, especially when the criticism comes from someone who is, as you say, 'intelligent in many ways and a solid performer in Question Period'.  The challenge for the NDP is to build trust as a competent, reliable brand while simultaneously capturing the imagination of people.  A tall order, and one which the NDP have not successfully done yet.  But they've been getting closer.  The public did give serious consideration to them last time, and could easily do so again next time, I feel.

mark_alfred wrote:

That's a reasonable opinion, Debater.  Very few people have the charisma thing though.  I recall seeing Trudeau debate Marc Garneau, and Trudeau easily answered (or deflected) Garneau's criticisms of Trudeau not having enough experience.  It was interesting to see later how Trudeau did this with Mulcair as well.  That said, it was Mulcair's first outing.  When Dalton McGuinty first tried in Ontario, he was soundly defeated, yet the party wisely stuck with him.  Things can turn around.  And while Trudeau easily deflected 'the not enough experience' criticism last time (by presenting himself as the new and fresh alternative backed by the trusted Liberal brand), he will have a far harder time deflecting criticism of his government's performance in the next campaign, especially when the criticism comes from someone who is, as you say, 'intelligent in many ways and a solid performer in Question Period'.  The challenge for the NDP is to build trust as a competent, reliable brand while simultaneously capturing the imagination of people.  A tall order, and one which the NDP have not successfully done yet.  But they've been getting closer.  The public did give serious consideration to them last time, and could easily do so again next time, I feel.

Unfortunately, I think most of the public will see the Conservatives as being the primary alternative to the governing Liberals. As Leader of the Opposition, the new Conservative leader will have an advantage over Mulcair who now leads a 3rd party. On the other hand, if electoral reform happens, the NDP and Mulcair will benefit. Even instant runoff voting would help Mulcair and the NDP as it would allow people to vote for the NDP without worrying about vote splitting. P.r. would help Mulcair and the NDP even more.

mark_alfred wrote:

That's a reasonable opinion, Debater.  Very few people have the charisma thing though.  I recall seeing Trudeau debate Marc Garneau, and Trudeau easily answered (or deflected) Garneau's criticisms of Trudeau not having enough experience.  It was interesting to see later how Trudeau did this with Mulcair as well.  That said, it was Mulcair's first outing.  When Dalton McGuinty first tried in Ontario, he was soundly defeated, yet the party wisely stuck with him.  Things can turn around.  And while Trudeau easily deflected 'the not enough experience' criticism last time (by presenting himself as the new and fresh alternative backed by the trusted Liberal brand), he will have a far harder time deflecting criticism of his government's performance in the next campaign, especially when the criticism comes from someone who is, as you say, 'intelligent in many ways and a solid performer in Question Period'.  The challenge for the NDP is to build trust as a competent, reliable brand while simultaneously capturing the imagination of people.  A tall order, and one which the NDP have not successfully done yet.  But they've been getting closer.  The public did give serious consideration to them last time, and could easily do so again next time, I feel.

1.  Now that Trudeau is Prime Minister, he won't have to worry about the 'not enough experience' argument any longer.  The same thing benefitted Harper when he became Prime Minister.  Look at how the PM index gap between Trudeau and Mulcair/Ambrose has widened since the election.  Trudeau now has higher Leadership Index numbers than he did when he was running for the job.  (This could change over time, but for now it's an advantage).

2.  It's important to note that there are differences between provincial and federal politics.  Provincial leaders may be given certain chances and opportunities for multiple shots at winning an election that a Federal leader may not get, (although this is not always the case).

3.  And again, we come back to the generational/age issue.  There's a difference between a Dalton McGuinty or a Jack Layton not being successful the first time out vs. Mulcair not being successful in his first election.  Mulcair was 60 (almost 61) by the time of his first campaign as leader in 2015.  That is much older than the average age for a leader in their first election, which means that unlike many younger leaders, Mulcair probably needed to win his first time out.  I think Layton was almost 10 years younger than Mulcair for his first election in 2004.  Jeffrey Simpson commented on Mulcair's age in his recent column, and that's because Mulcair will probably be the oldest leader again since the new Conservative leader will likely be younger than Mulcair.

Re: post #869

You should just drop the age argument.  It's a stupid argument to make.

mark_alfred wrote:

Re: post #869

You should just drop the age argument.  It's a stupid argument to make.

I don't know how the generational/age issue can be ignored as a factor.

Anyway, I thought today's interview with NDP riding President Alain Charbonneau above was interesting because he basically says the same thing I've been saying -- Mulcair is a good Parliamentarian, but not someone who is a good salesperson when it comes to delivering a message to voters.

Maybe the NDP should ditch Mulcair and the entire concept of leadership — a failed, primitive model — and go egalitarian. Have all major decisions decided by members: direct democracy.

Humans were originally egalitarian. The northern barbarian races reverted back to the patriarchal model — same as the chimps use. (Our sister species. We both inherited leadership from a common ancestor species, Hominini, 6 MYA. Humans emerged 200 kYA: the egalitarian model with its perfect levels of trust fostered an explosion in human evolutionary development.)

When agriculture was invented 10 kYA, large populations could be supported on a relatively small amount of land. The result was an explosion of levels of hierarchy. A tiny minority of humans were given levels of power and wealth they were completely unprepared to handle. (Nature designed leadership for small nomadic tribes with populations of around 20 to 50.) The outcome? A 10,000 year war that ends in the apocalyptic implosion of a 7-billion population world.

Marx was the idiot who f*cked it all up. He was not only ignorant of our egalitarian past, but of everything it means to be human. Egalitarianism is about personal freedom, democracy and equality. The dystopian nightmare Marx created really did a number on the world. His ignorant prejudice against religion helped Reagan come to power in a social/economic conservative coalition and usher in the past 35-year Friedmanian era that culminated in global economic collapse. (Last time this happened, world war followed.)

F*ck leadership. F*ck socialism. Egalitarianism is the future, if there is to be any future. (And no, egalitarianism is not about forcing equality. Or forcing people to be egalitarian. Or forcing equality of income and wealth. Or forcing values. It's all about human development, which, if measured in prices — and there's no reason it shouldn't be — manifests itself in a subset of GDP; new human development, a subset of GDP growth: G = D + E: GDP equals human development plus externality [i.e., stealing, looting, or gambling with other people's money or future.]) 

Quote:

If he were like Sanders his age wouldn't matter but he isn't so it does.

What specific things has Sanders laid out in his platform of promises that Mulcair should emulate so as to make us all forget that he's now over 60?  Support for single-payer health care?

He's a whole five years older than Harper, and exactly the same age as Elizabeth May.

ed'd to add:  oh, and 7 years younger than Gilles Duceppe.  Does the idea that Mulcair is high on Ben-Gay fumes hold water?

Quote:

As for Bernie Sanders, while he is popular with younger Democrats, that may be more about Hillary's lack of appeal to the younger generation than anything unique about Sanders himself.

Both are older than Mulcair.  And just for the fun of it, so's Trump.

Quote:

Regardless, Mulcair is competing against Canadian leaders, so while Sanders may be older than Mulcair, it doesn't change the situation Mulcair faces here.

Of competing against a younger Liberal, an unknown Con, a Green Leader exactly the same age, and a Bloc leader seven years older.

Here's hoping the electorate has more sense than to say "let the youngest man WIN!!"

i know mark_alfred it's disgusting on many levels.

Sanders wasn't hurt by his age because he has a lifetime of activism behind him which established his authenticity. People are looking for authenticity and Trudeau was the closest thing to it. I could see right from the beginning that Trudeau's "gaffes" would help him not hurt him. Those "gaffes" sent a message of authenticity and openness. Someone who just says what they think. 

It is why Ford won and Sanders and Trump have done well regardless of how far they make it. They all "tell it like it is" or give that impression. Voters don't want slick. Mulcair can't win because he doesn't have authenticity, or doesn't show it. 

quizzical wrote:

lmaoooooooooooooooooooo pondering.....

Okay well what is your explanation. So far you don't seem to know much about advertising. How would you promote Mulcair?

On another topic, what are people's responses to the comments made by NDP riding President Alain Charbonneau?

And the column by Gerald Caplan?

anyone see the Voice tonight?

i loved the way Adam handled Blake's propaganda blathering.

"frdnngh, nnghty, gyelnfy grnmop. syknyu fghurn".

it's about all the self-centered Blake blathering was worth. imv about the same measure is do to the self-serving Liberal propaganda here.

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

If he were like Sanders his age wouldn't matter but he isn't so it does.

What specific things has Sanders laid out in his platform of promises that Mulcair should emulate so as to make us all forget that he's now over 60?  Support for single-payer health care?

He's a whole five years older than Harper, and exactly the same age as Elizabeth May.

ed'd to add:  oh, and 7 years younger than Gilles Duceppe.  Does the idea that Mulcair is high on Ben-Gay fumes hold water?

Sanders popularity is not based on specific policy commitments. It is based on him blaming Wall Street and the big banks for growing income inequality.

There were numerous reasons Trudeau won but the main points were "tax the 1%" and "massive infrastructure spending" "bigger child benefits for the poor and none for the rich". 

Now what he won on doesn't even matter just like Harper's promise of greater transparency and prudent fiscal management was the exact opposite of what he did in office. 

Age is one of many factors that impact electibility including who the opponents are and how long the incumbent has been in power.

In 2019 Trudeau will have been in power for only 4 years. I don't see him doing a worse job than Harper did. If you look at Canadian history Trudeau will have a huge advantage in 2019 and for sometime thereafter. A single term PM is rare. Harper kept winning in part because people prefer stability. As long as Trudeau seems to be running things reasonably well he will be difficult to unseat. 

Mulcair didn't renounce his Liberal past and his admiration of Margaret Thatcher on joining the NDP nor when he was challenged on it last year. He side-stepped. At the end of the campaign when he was losing he suddenly said that of course the NDP supports full legalization of marijuana as though he had been supporting it all along. His opposition of TPP based on dairy and auto industries also became must stronger that last week. He heavily promoted Energy East for years as an alternative to Keystone to keep jobs in Canada. Mulcair doesn't seem to be a man of conviction. He won't be convincing as a reformer. That is Sander's strong suit. He has been a reformer all his life. There are clips of him demonstrating in college. 

Liberal lite is not going to cut it anymore. 20 years of NDP strategy almost worked but that's over now. The Liberals are strong as ever. There is no need for another Liberal party or one just a tinsy bit left of the Liberals. The only way the NDP can win is if they take up the cause of the 99%. Maybe Mulcair's talents could make him a strong defender of the 99% but I don't think he has it in him. I think in his heart he thinks the system just needs some tweaking. Mulcair's authentic self is old-fashioned so he can't come across as an authentic reformer. 

To win the NDP has to appear as though it has gone through a period of reflection and renewal. Members need to feel empowered and respected. So far Mulcair has done neither. He announced he was staying on as leader for the next election the very night he lost. He didn't just say he wasn't stepping down, he said he was leading the party into the next election. Then he went into seclusion for a week. Then he didn't invite the losing MPs to the first post-election caucus gathering which he could have. It would have given them an opportunity to congratulate the winners and to get some closure. When Mulcair took full responsibility for the loss he still deflected and blamed it on the campaign. Just a guess, but I don't think many members agree with him. Even if he manages to stay leader I doubt he will lead the NDP into the next election. If he does the NDP will lose badly. 

 

As a card-carrying New Democrat activist, all I can say is yes, yes and yes. I have said much the same thing, myself. He might get his 70% at convention, but if he cares about the party, he'll step down soon enough for a new leader to be chosen and for the party to undergo a serious renewal. Anything less than that and, indeed, the NDP will lose the next election, even more badly than the last one.

Read them both.  Charbonneau struck me as shallow.  Caplan's blog entry was interesting.  He feels social democracy is bereft of new ideas right now (and he includes Sanders in this analysis) and hopes Mulcair, whom he expects to be reaffirmed in the leadership review, can help revitalize the party by having the party engage in "open forums for presentations and debates based on the latest thinking taking place on the democratic left."  This is happening.  There was recently a meeting of riding associations in Toronto where people expressed ideas for moving forward.

We live in an ageist society. Comments about how age makes a politician less electable only perpetuate the mythology that we become less effective and therefore less useful as we age.

MegB wrote:

We live in an ageist society. Comments about how age makes a politician less electable only perpetuate the mythology that we become less effective and therefore less useful as we age.

Assuming, for a moment, that (whether we like it or not) a person's age does in fact impact their electablity, this still doesn't mean that people think older leaders are potentially less effective or less useful. For the record, I don't believe a person's age affects their electability (although an impression of poor health might - as a possible example see John McCain in 2008).

Rather, it could be that young people look at the systems in place today, the mess of an economy, of income inequality, of home and rent prices, our outdated infrastructure, and far more, they look at all these things wrong on so many levels and so many ways, and are looking for someone to address these issues. The first criteria a politician needs to fulfill to be a contender for these voters, is to A. clearly demonstrate they know there is a problem and B. be convincing in a professed desire to want to fix the broken system. Clinton could change the system, if she wanted to. Rubio could. Mulcair or Trudeau or even Harper or Ted Cruz could. It's not an issue of being able to change the system...it's an issue of who is perceived to want to change the system in the first place.

Now, as an older politician, this isn't impossible by any stretch of the imagination - just look at Bernie Sanders. He has a lot of "cred" which is more than sufficient to be trustworthy - and therefore electable - even at his age. It's pretty clear that the full weight of the "Democratic party" establishment is backing Clinton, and without that advantage it's hard to see how she would possibly beat Sanders.

So, insofar as being of an older age is a factor, it is only an issue if one accepts the stereotype of being part of the establishment like Mulcair did. Don't rock the boat. Don't make any sudden moves. Change as little as possible. Baby steps. Pretty much sums up the NDP campaign and is utterly uninspiring.

If an (older) politician wants to succeed, at least with the progressive youth vote, they need to be perceived as against the establishment. This is why age is not an issue for Bernie Sanders, but probably is for Mr. Mulcair.

Go and look up any article on any newspaper in North America that relates to "Generation X's more likely to move back in with parents/put off getting married/not be able to buy a house/have to relocate for a living wage/puts off having kids/etc" and go to the comments section. There is a massive amount of animosity between the many young people who blame boomers for the mess we're in and believe boomers had it easier especially in respect to getting good jobs and house prices and mortgage availability, and the many boomers who think young people are lazy and unmotivated and would be able to succeed if they just tried a bit harder.

In high school, I had grades in the low 90's in the most difficult math and science courses I could find. High 90's in computer programming. Didn't help me much because I couldn't afford to go to post-secondary for any of the programs I was particularly talented in, as they were all in-demand and rent and food are expensive. So instead, I worked 60-70 hour weeks, 7 days a week, juggling 2-3 part time, minimum wage jobs, for 5 years straight, just to survive. Just rent and food and bus and train fares and things like that.

I eventually got a lucky break, and now work one (dull, but that's okay) full time job (as a contractor - no benefits, no job security) where I make around $50k as long as I pick up some overtime and I even get a good amount of weekends off. I pay more in taxes in a year than my family's entire annual income was growing up. After a year and a bit of still living like I was literally being paid peanuts, I was able to save up enough for a downpayment on a (very old and cheap) house, which I now rent out 3 of the 4 rooms in. It's been about 3 years now since I've had my current job, and I'm praying I'll be able to squeeze 5 more years out of it before it gets replaced by technology. If it does I should have enough saved and enough equity in the house to - worst case scenario - send myself to school for whatever math/science program I think will give me the best prospects. I'm turning 29 this year. My most probable best plan for my life is to keep my nose to the grindstone for the next 5 years, then go to school for 4 more, and start a career at 38 - and I'm one of the lucky ones. Do you think job security will be better for me then than it is now? Maybe then I'll have the time and money to have kids.

Every young person who has any sort of story like that and posts it on social media will invariably be told someting along the lines of "I was married and had a house at 20. Try harder at life and maybe you'll succeed, but young people are so lazy these days and just like to complain about everything." I can't say who is right or wrong, but I can say that comments like that hurt. Like many young people, I would have loved the opportunity to walk out of high school and into GM, and be able to buy a house within a year or two. To be told I'm lazy because I didn't even have the sorts of opportunities the generation before me did is...distressing.

Now, I don't hate boomers by any stretch of the imagination. But if I'm evaluating which leader is most likely to look out for what's best for me and people like me, a necessary quality in that leader is that they appear like they understand that there is, in fact, a problem with the costs of education, the value of education once a degree is obtained (for ex. I would be strictly worse off now if I had gone to school for a liberal arts degree and racked up 40k+ in debt instead of working and at least breaking even), and other prospects for young people including those who for whatever reason do not pursue post secondary, for which there are several valid reasons.

So, it is crucial for a progressive boomer such as Mr. Mulcair seeking higher office to not appear like part of the establishment. Mulcair's platform of do nothing important, change nothing that matters, and make no change that will affect anyone's life in a meaningful way is why he was rejected by voters and in the context of this discussion, young voters.

A very long story short is, it is very easy for an older politician to be perceived as out of touch with the problems faced by ordinary people and especially younger people. Being any given age isn't an issue, but being out of touch is and Mulcair clearly was and continues to be.

making excuses for ageism....lolol