Mulcair: stay or go?

Cody87 wrote:

If Mulcair had written something like this - even without officially ruling himself out of running in the next leadership convention - there would be a lot less people calling for this head - probably nobody who would be taken seriously. He's still got his head in the sand though, that's the problem.

Mulcair doesn't need to go right now. But he needs to express an understanding of his own faults and an appreciation of his opponent's strengths - preferably explicitly. He hasn't done either, though, not even implicitly.

I missed your post earlier. You are absolutely right. The fake "letter" you wrote was pitch perfect. Mulcair has had months to figure it out. It's too late now. I doubt he could deliver it convincingly. Mulcair is still convinced that the campaign was the problem. He still considers himself so superior to Trudeau he believes that the campaign was the problem. The problem is that Mulcair is a politicians politician. He is a career politician which is often said in a derogatory fashion but it shouldn't be. There is nothing wrong with considering politics a profession. Most of the time that is exactly what it is.

At this point in time people have never been more cynical about politics. Both the left and the right has spent decades convincing everyone not to trust politicians or the MSM. It worked. People are looking for real. They don't seem to care much what form it comes in. Ford, Trump, Sanders, Corbyn, they are picking outsiders. Anti-politicians.

It is ironic that Harper and Mulcair turned Trudeau, the ultimate political insider, into an outsider and an underdog allowing him to become the "anti-politician".  Trudeau is so "nice-guy-next-door" that he is corny but even that benefits him.

To beat Trudeau the NDP has to go big or go home.

All members of the Quebec caucus are backing Mulcair:

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201603/...

Perhaps more significant than the Socialist Caucus, or Debater, Pondering and Terryt...l's opposition.

nicky wrote:

Quebec caucus backs Tom:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/21/mulcair-gets-boost-from-qu...

Some perspective on the Socialist caucus:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jen-gerson-dont-bet-against-th...

The Socialist Caucus, for example, told The Globe and Mail it was meeting this week to discuss its coup — only three weeks before the convention and well after most of the delegates have been selected. Good job, guys. Mind you, if the “Socialist Caucus” doesn’t sound immediately familiar, that’s because it absolutely shouldn’t be. This is a group that was formed in 1998 solely to be publicly aggrieved about the NDP’s rightward tilt for the past 18 years. 

Notable accomplishments include this one, from 2000, in which the disillusioned batch felt so marginalized by then-leader Alexa McDonough that members felt the need to recuperate for two weeks in Cuba. All the the better soak up the glorious accomplishments of Socialism under Fidel Castro. Only in the fever dreams of Conservative activists could such a vacation be conceived.

In 2013, the group raised a commotion at the party’s convention in Montreal; members were incensed by the fact that an organizer for Barack Obama was chosen to speak to the crowd and used the opportunity to protest the U.S. president’s use of drones. Even the CBC used the term “Tiny socialist caucus” to describe the group. In its headline.

If Mulcair’s most devoted and straightforward detractors comprise a group that was only able to pull a handful of supporters to a convention in Montreal — Montreal! — it may be time to reconsider just how serious this anti-Mulcair coup really is. Finding 37 whiners to sign an open letter is easy. Now find 370 delegates fly to Edmonton to cast a ballot.

 

If the only opposition was coming from the Socialist Caucus (SC), then I'd be in complete agreement with Nicky. However, I think there are others in the party who may support a leadership review, not because Mulcair has betrayed the revolution that exists only in the minds of the SC, but because they believe that Tom just isn't the person to lead the party in 2019.

That is what will determine for me which way to go when it comes time to vote, not the predictable tirade from a tiny club whose existence depends entirely on remaining in the party. Were they not members of the NDP, the MSM would take no interest in them. Their role at convention will be to strengthen Tom's position by alienating delegates when they make their 'anti-imperialist' speeches. Mulcair is counting on their 'support', back-handed as it may be.