Bring Back Tom Mulcair.....

Oh, I thought it was a Liberal campaign to reclaim Tom, after all he did for them.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

What exactly was undemocratic about Tom's exit?

Exactly.

In fact, what was "exit" about it?

He's still the leader, and nothing stops him running again if he wants to.

I believe far too much attention is paid to the "Leader", and far too little to finding effective means of empowering the members. But everyone already knows how I feel about that.

I wouldn't say the convention was undemocratic but a strong case can be made that it was not representative of the party's sentiment, any more than is the vehemence with which he is denounced by his haters in this forum.
Tom maintained a strong positive approval rate in the polls, even after the election, and particularly among NDP supporters. This was more pronounced in Quebec as was reflected in his unanimous support in the Quebec caucus, and is now reflected in the party's collapse in Quebec after his ouster.
He was at a considerable disadvantage because the convention was in Edmonton, which minimized Quebec attendance and maximized Alberta attendance.

nicky wrote:

I wouldn't say the convention was undemocratic but a strong case can be made that it was not representative of the party's sentiment, any more than is the vehemence with which he is denounced by his haters in this forum. Tom maintained a strong positive approval rate in the polls, even after the election, and particularly among NDP supporters. This was more pronounced in Quebec as was reflected in his unanimous support in the Quebec caucus, and is now reflected in the party's collapse in Quebec after his ouster. He was at a considerable disadvantage because the convention was in Edmonton, which minimized Quebec attendance and maximized Alberta attendance.

So now you have two cases to make -- your explanation as to why you think that the vote did not represent party sentiment.

AND

Why you think the poeple here who oppose Mulcair (many who previously supported him) don't reflect a wider sentiment.

I am very curious about how you will make that case.

nicky wrote:

... iT IS A MYTH THAT THE ELECTORATE VOTED AGAINST HIM PERSONALLY, ONLY THAT THEY WANTED RID OF hARPER AND FLOCKED TO THE lIBERALS TO ACHIEVE that... 

I think the question for NDP members is why did people flock to the Liberals to defeat Harper. Especially considering the NDP had almost three times the number of seats as the LIberals at the beginning of the election.

If the election truly was about 'Anybody But Harper', the NDP really has to wonder how they were eclipsed by the Liberals, when the Liberals spotted them 59 seats at the start.

If it was not the leader, what was it?

nicky wrote:

Well Rev, i've pointed to polling to make my case. Maybe you can point to a poll that showed the public's antipathy to Mulcair before the election. I dont think you can find one in which his positives were not substantially greater than his negatives.

However much people may have liked Mulcair, they didn't vote for him, and that is all that really matters. There will never be another chance like 2015, and if Mulcair couldn't win then, it is overwhelmingly likely that he can never win. You just refuse to acknowledge these obvious facts.

nicky wrote:

Well Rev, i've pointed to polling to make my case. Maybe you can point to a poll that showed the public's antipathy to Mulcair before the election. I dont think you can find one in which his positives were not substantially greater than his negatives.

I did not say the public was anti-Mulcair before the election. What I did was point out that if the election was truly 'Anybody But Harper', and the NDP started with a 59 seat advantage over the Lliberals, something went seriously wrong.

It may not have been Mulcair. It may have been the agenda he was trying to sell. But one way or the other, the NDP started out far ahead of the Liberals, and ended up in third place, not even close to the Liberals.

I mean, you have to agree that something went wrong. The only other option is to say that things went as planned.

So if something went wrong, what was it? That is the question for NDP members.

I think the suggestion that decisions made at Convention shouldn't count is opening Pandora's Box. Sorry the vote didn't go the way some folks wanted, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

I can't help but wonder if this FB page is the work of party poobahs who can't get over the fact that, for once, they were unable to control the floor of convention.

It's a lot like Elizabeth May trying to reverse the vote on BDS. Not very democratic, in either case.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Who could have prognosticated "Sunny Ways"?  And the importance of putting some "Sunny Ways" purchases on the public credit card?

Me, but that isn't why he won.

He won because he had a plan when he won the leadership and stuck with it no matter how low his numbers dropped. His strategy was to play his cards close to the chest while preparing for the campaign and to come in as the underdog. He totally suckered the Conservatives and the NDP. They fell into the trap of attacking him personally and turning him into a political outsider by emphasizing his lack of experience. Trudeau made some mistakes but ultimately it is his political instincts that delivered the win.

nicky wrote:

o pOLLING SHOWED ME HAD A 70% APPROVAL RATING AMONGS ndp SUPPORTERS AND  ABOUT A 40 TO 30% APPPROVAL WITH THE ELCTORATE AS A WHOLE.

We know that at least 2 of the MPs who defected under his watch complained that he was dictatorial and wanted to run the show himself. If people who felt this way gave up on the NDP in frustration, then it stands to reason that a large majority of people currently in the NDP support him.

Geoff wrote:

PS: How about a 'bring back Ed Broadbent' campaign?

How about a 'somebody...anybody?' campaign?

NorthReport wrote:

Like the Bushes, the Kennedys, and  probably the Clintons, Trudeau won because he is a Trudeau and not being an old fuddy duddy helped him as well

Trudeau was in third place before the election call. Neither his name nor his age changed during the time he went from third to first. Underestimating your enemy is never a good thing.

Tom Mulcair will never beat Trudeau. Mulcair doesn't have good political instincts and he is too much a man of the past and that is not entirely due to age. It will take an inspired and inspiring leader with good political instincts to defeat Trudeau in the next two elections.

I never saw the NDP policy book and as far as I know they haven't put it back up yet. This might be a good time to review, streamline and modernize it. Some policies that don't seem to be a net benefit should be put in sleep mode. As part of that the NDP should have a top three issues list. Get that stuff right first then choose a leader that fits the members vision of the party.

The Leap Manifesto happened because some people didn't feel heard within the party. Certainly no one listened to the expertise of marijuana advocates within the party. The NDP is stifling its talent instead of mining it. I'm not saying they should let talent dictate but they should use talent to inform themselves.

No R.E. I dont'disbieve this poll but it doesn't address the things I have raised. It asks about desirable traits for a leader in the abstract. A more interesting poll for our discussion might ask" do you approve or disapprove of Tom Mulcair?" Or Who would you support for NDP leader? With the various names, including Mulcair's listed.

I think the results might lead to your fervent disbelief.

This being said, I don't see Tom getting back into the race, nor do I see why he would want to. I am not suggesting resurrecting his leadership. but what I find appalling is the bloodlust on this thread by people who thought he was great when he was called " the best opposition leader in history" now jumping on his political corpse with such glee and venom.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

...They started out ahead of the Liberals based on what voters wanted in 2011, and what the parties had to offer in 2011.

Who could have prognosticated "Sunny Ways"?  And the importance of putting some "Sunny Ways" purchases on the public credit card?

And let's not EVEN TALK about Mulcair's lifelike, realistic Margaret Thatcher doll.

The NDP had two years with Trudeau as Liberal leader to gauge the man. In fact they had a lot more time than that. When Trudeau won his seat in 2008, Edward Greenspon (Eidtor-in-Chief - Globe & Mail) pointed out that:

Quote:

..."Trudeau would "be viewed as few other rookie MPs are—as a potential future prime minister—and scrutinized through that lens".

Let's face it. Muclair and the NDP campaign managers dropped the ball. One of the things any election campaign has to do is take note of the opposition. They failed miserably.

As far as Mulcair and his support for Thatcher, you can't laugh that one off. Thatcher was a terrorist supporting reactionary of the first water. My opinion is that one is allowed to change their mind, and I would extend that to Muclair.

However, I also think it's necessary to explain why one has changed their mind. In Mulcair's case, I don't think he did change his mind. I think he just realized that his statement on Thatcher was bad news politically, so he disavowed it. I think his disavowal could be put this way, "I have changed my mind on Thatcher because right now it looks bad on my resume."

By the way, I just looked up the 'sunny ways' thing. I'm usually the last to know, so forgive me, but the story is quite intriguing, and not at all what I thought. Trudeau mentioned 'sunny ways' as a nod to Wilfred Laurier. According to Quebec History:

Quote:

In the fall of 1895, as the federal conservative government moved progressively further toward compulsion on the Manitoba school issue, and the Remedial Order seemed to have failed to bring about an end to the controversy, Laurier enunciated for the first time his policy of the "Sunny Way". He used one of Aesop's fable as a metaphor for the current situation. In the fable, the sun and the wind are having an argument as to which is the more powerful. The matter is to be decided by attempting to disrobe a traveller coming along. To win, the wind, a metaphor for the conservative government, starts blustering to blow the coat away, but the more the wind blows, the more the man clings to his coat; in the end the wind is unsuccessful. The sun, for its part, shines brightly, warmly and gently on the individual who readily removes his coat; the soft touch and diplomatic ways of the sun came out the winner. So, presumably, would Laurier's suggestion that diplomacy, gentleness and compromise would win the day in resolving appropriately the school issue to the satisfaction of all concerned.

It was in Morrisburg, Ontario, on October 8, 1895, that Laurier first used the fable to illustrate his point. It was an image that caught the imagination and would have great success. He used it frequently in and out of the House of Commons.

I can honestly say I didn't know that was the source of 'sunny ways'.

I think Mulcair would have been well positioned to run again as leader if he had graciously taken responsibility for the election loss and resigned on election eve as is customary when a party suffers a huge election setback. I think Mulcair could still run a succesful leadership campaign if none of the other candidates perform well. If he is to run again he will have to resign as current leader.

nicky wrote:

No R.E. I dont'disbieve this poll but it doesn't address the things I have raised. It asks about desirable traits for a leader in the abstract. A more interesting poll for our discussion might ask" do you approve or disapprove of Tom Mulcair?" Or Who would you support for NDP leader? With the various names, including Mulcair's listed.

I think the results might lead to your fervent disbelief.

This being said, I don't see Tom getting back into the race, nor do I see why he would want to. I am not suggesting resurrecting his leadership. but what I find appalling is the bloodlust on this thread by people who thought he was great when he was called " the best opposition leader in history" now jumping on his political corpse with such glee and venom.

I agree h Mulcair's % would be bolstered by name recognition.

Would you agree that it wiould also be high because he still has a relatively high approval rating with the public as a whole, as well as NDP members?

From the Bring Back Tom Mulcair FB page, a poster there says that it has been, "alleged that some 800+ individuals came though the door at the Edmonton Convention with no legitimate riding association (EDA) status, and with alleged questionable membership status checks."  They don't say who alleges this, so it's safe to ignore the claim for now unless someone with actual knowledge steps up.

If Mulcair were to run again I likely would support him.  Given that he was Minister of the Environment in the Quebec government, and stood against powerful interests (Coca Cola, various land developers, and ultimately Charest) in taking a stand for the environment, I feel would make him a good leader to push a transformative Leap-inspired project, in my opinion.  In fact, given that the current government is sticking to the Conservative target of 30% reduction in GHG emissions below 2005 levels by 2030 rather than the target the NDP campaigned on last time of 80% reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 (same as what Sanders campaigned for), what the NDP campaigned on last time was pretty transformative (less than Leap's target, but still significant).  The tone was too cautious though.  Understandable to not want to scare people, but just not right for the last campaign.  Jon Ashworth, the Labour MP who spoke at the last NDP convention, wrote an interesting analysis of the last campaign (see here for the pdf file).

Sure, Tom Mulcair has weaknesses and all, but I think a lot of people are succumbing to outcome biases and focusing effects. But when the campaign took place, no one knew that the NDP would lose.

The party decided to join the "balanced-budget" charade because it would make them appear more mainstream, but failed to anticipate that the Liberals would outflank them by promising deficits. The niqab issue caused more problems for the NDP because it had more effect in Quebec. Showing a lack of respect for Trudeau backfired. Someone thought making Mulcair's showing up for the women's issues debate conditional on Harper's would highlight the Conservatives' refusal to show up , but many potential NDP supporters read it as a sign of NDP arrogance. A lot of people wanted to get rid of Harper and were going to pick the winner, and others just want to pick the winner.

The most comforting position on Tom Mulcair after he lost was that it all made sense--that he had flaws that made him unelectable somehow. There are good reasons to be suspicious of such conclusions.

nicky wrote:

I agree h Mulcair's % would be bolstered by name recognition.

Would you agree that it wiould also be high because he still has a relatively high approval rating with the public as a whole, as well as NDP members?

Yes, I agree he has had a "relatively high approval rating", but that doesn't (and didn't) translate into people voting for him. I can give a high approval rating to Elizabeth May (for a random example) without having any intention of ever voting for her or her party. His support is also considerably lower than in the immediate post-election period, and tracking downward (NDP itself down 6.7% since the election), and Mulcair himself is now in a net negative approval rating:

Tom Mulcair's disapproval rating has jumped by almost seven points to an average of 40.4 per cent. With an average approval of 36.2 per cent, that gives him a net negative rating — something Mulcair has not experienced outside of a few individual polls since first becoming leader of the NDP in 2012.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-quarterly-polls-aug2016-1.3741159

His numbers really aren't anything to be proud of, and apparently continue to get worse... The thing is, despite what Mulcair's supporters kept saying, the more people got to see and know Mulcair the less they liked him.

I don't know a single person under 40 who finds Mulcair inspiring, and most people I know under 40 voted NDP in the last election.

Thomas Mulcair will always be haunted by the decision over the debates. I don't think he will ever be leader again after this tactic.

Watch NDP & Anne McGrath FLIP FLOP Over 2015 Leaders Debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txt89kyUrYw

Two videos shown back to back. Where they say they will do the debates one month, then a month later say they won't be doing the debates.

That has tarnished Mulcair forever

Gonzaga wrote:

...Someone thought making Mulcair's showing up for the women's issues debate conditional on Harper's would highlight the Conservatives' refusal to show up , but many potential NDP supporters read it as a sign of NDP arrogance.

Personally I saw this not as arrogance, but extreme stupidity. A free chance to lambaste the Conservatives on issues in which they were already weak, all the while pointing out, with the 'empty chair', the Conservatives lack of interest in women's issues. That was a free gift to the NDP, which they turned down.

Whoever made this decision should be tossed out of the party, or sent to remedial political action school or something. It was so dumb it almost defies description. Anybody with an ounce of brains would have jumped at this opportunity in an instant.