Why is Thomas Mulcair trying to undermine Jagmeet Singh?

WWWTT wrote:

kropotkin wrote

I hadn't imagined you would be mining my rectum.

Thats real funny shyt!

But really now, all of you posters replying to montgomery should be trying to ignore more. I’m guilty lots of times of engaging instead of ignoring so I shouldn’t b preaching to anyone. Just a reminder 

Thanks for the reminder. I'm sorry I should know better but sometimes it is just too much fun to play with a mouse.

Ken Burch wrote:

(to clarify, this was meant to be in response to post #101, not to the post directly above it).

I'm not sure I want to talk to you in private right now.  You have ideas about my role on the board-such as the belief that I am somehow part of a diabolical conspiracy against you-that are far to disturbing to even try to unpack.

I tried, in what I communicated to you in private, simply to give you a handful of respectful thoughts on how you might better communicate with people on this board if you simply wished to present your ideas and get a fair hearing.  There was nothing in any of that that was an attack on you, or that would have in any way thwarted anything you were trying to do or say.  You started lashing out at me there for no comprehensible reason and I was actually relieved that you blocked me.

I'll just ask this:  Why have you chosen to immediately take such a confrontational approach towards people who were posting on this board at the time you came to it, when the normal thing for a newcomer is to observe how we communicate with each other?  Why have you repeatedly acted as though everybody is obligated to defer to your ideas and to defer to you as "the new face of the NDP"?  Why was it not enough simply to speak as one equal human being among others?

You have the right to present your ideas.  Others have the equal right to present and defend their ideas.  Everyone has a right to respond, respectfully, to each others' ideas.  It appears that you feel you should be above treating everybody else here as an equal mind.  If that is how you feel, why do you feel that way?  Also, why do you keep referencing MLW, when what happens on that board has no real connection to this board and when it's never appropriate for anyone even on the "center-left"-the identification I suspect you give yourself-to engage in redbaiting, and when, in a time when what you would think of as "red" essentially no longer exists in North Americal political discourse?

Ken, thanks for the support and the advice! But Ken, when you became so presumptious that you thought you could psychoanalze me, that's when I got my back up and decided to stop you by blocking you.

As to the issue at hand for Shine and Kropotkin, we'll work through this too. First with the silent treatment, and then when they get really nasty with the attempts to silence those who they find are a challenge to their status as being longtime members here. 

You will probably be pleased to hear that I'll just let them stew in their own juices for a while by ignoring them too. 

Accepting newcomers to this board is very difficult for some people Ken, as you may know. So I'll take it easy in my knowledge that I'm more NDP than they are. And I'll post some stuff that they will know is a challenge to them to try to out NDP me. For example Ken, there are a couple of posters on this board that are right in tune with international politics, and it ain't them. Read along in the international threads yourself, and express your views there too. I'm very interested to hear from everybody in order to determine if NDP'ers are ahead of the curve or they're back trying to catch up to the curve with the huge majority of the Canadian people.

Then of course, if it's not too presumptious of me to say, I'll really start trying to 'catch all the footdraggers up'!

That's my main mission here on babble Ken. Imparting some much needed international politics onto the board. I hope that's consistent with the aims of the NDP? I really don't think we can afford to waste more time now, with Trump moving the world ever closer to a nuclear war.

Quote:

 It appears that you feel you should be above treating everybody else here as an equal mind.  If that is how you feel, why do you feel that way?

I really don't feel that way Ken, but I'll spell it out very succinctly. I won't take a backseat to anybody I've met so far on this board when it comes to international politics!

Ken Burch wrote:

[

[/quote]

No Ken, that doesn't work, and here's why. I don't need to read this board for longer than I have to know that there is dissention against Nato, and also just who dissents, and to what degree, and the reasons why they do.

I also know very well that there is some definitive support for Nato, and some of the ones who are the supporters. You're way behind the curve with me on this issue Ken. 

Face the facts Ken, the problem with  what I've said has been taken to be a challenge of a couple of the oldtimers, and that's the reason why we'll play the mutual ignore game for a while. And now Ken, in the interest of finding a peaceful way forward, can we leave all discussion on the disagreement between me and those two, aside for a while? Stop trying to lay blame on me for failing to kowtow to bullshit.

R.E.Wood wrote:

Mulcair is at it again, suggesting NDP voters will be looking to the Green Party...

Former NDP leader predicts NDP voters might look to Green Party in 2019

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/former-ndp-leader-predicts-ndp-voters-mi...

Disgusting. Even though many of us were unsettled by Mulcair for a long time. There was an understanding. We would overlook these misunderstandings, while Mulcair would go on to win us the election. I also asked him a question about an issue very important to me in the lead-up to 2012 and he completely dismissed what I had to say. Before that evening, I could only support 3 candidates. After that evening, I made a point to fill out my ballot specifically to stop him. Not only did he fail to hold up his end of the deal, now he's going even further and still undermining the party whose philosophy and vision he never agreed with in the first place?

Charlie Angus just tweeted

I've known Tom Mulcair for a long time. I know he was really bitter about losing the support of the members at the convention. I think the bitterness is getting the better of him.

https://twitter.com/CharlieAngusNDP/status/1092184280091029506

robbie_dee wrote:

Mulcair should have read the writing on the wall and resigned promptly after losing the confidence vote at convention. However the caucus members share responsibility for letting him stay on for so long afterward. Erin Weir and Brian Masse were among the few caucus members to speak up in favour of ousting Mulcair as leader and replacing him with Nathan Cullen in 2016. Charlie Angus appears to have kept quiet. The CLC organizer, James Pratt, referenced in the piece below went on to work for Jagmeet Singh's leadership campaign.

Stephen Maher, "Canadian Labour Congress linked to failed attempt to oust Mulcair," iPolitics, June 16, 2017

It truly looks as though Mulcair deliberately stayed on until it was too late for anyone succeeding him as leader to have any real chance at making an impression with the voters.  What other possible excuse could there be for the man hanging onto the leadership for over a year after the party made it clear they wanted him out?  It's not as though he was owed the chance to stay on as lame-duck for as long as he wanted.

Chantal Hebert's new column today deals with the Mulcair issue:

Mulcair’s Green party musing exposes the NDP’s troubles

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/02/04/mulcairs-g...

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

What other possible excuse could there be for the man hanging onto the leadership for over a year after the party made it clear they wanted him out?

Didn't caucus ask him to stay until a new leader was elected?

Good memory. That's exactly right.

Mighty Middle wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

What other possible excuse could there be for the man hanging onto the leadership for over a year after the party made it clear they wanted him out?

Didn't caucus ask him to stay until a new leader was elected?

Good memory. That's exactly right.

No quite the opposite, most of the caucus wanted him to step down. And told him so in a meeting. But Mulcair held firm - he said he wasn't going anywhere until a new leader is chosen and he was willing to fight to keep his job as leader until then. So the caucus backed down.

Well on second thought - you might be right. I may be confusing my speculation of the time with fact. Out of curiosity, is there any reliable source for what actually happened with caucus? Not that it matters much today.

If you guys click on the link in my post #112 (and quoted in full by Ken in the next post #113) you’ll see an article that explains how a minority of the NDP caucus tried to push Mulcair out in the months following the negative vote at convention, but they could not get a majority because Mulcair held the backing of the vast majority of the Quebec MPs and others stayed on the fence, ultimately convincing the “Mulcair must go” crew to back off. 

Debater wrote:

What's ironic about that is that it's now the Quebec MPs who are most in danger of losing their seats.

I predict that after the fall election there will still be more NDP MPs from Quebec than from Saskatchewan.

Former NDP MP Dan Harris:

This is more or less what I've been saying for the past couple of weeks, bit partisans are too angry at Mulcair to see/heed the warnings.

What I see is that Tom has learned the lessons that brought him down (not heeding internal advice, mixed messages on pipelines etc..).

https://twitter.com/danharrisndp/status/1092555965143109632

Trudeau has certainly turned out to be more of a centrist than the progressive he claimed to be.

But many NDP voters will still vote Liberal because the NDP is in disarray right now and Trudeau is the only one who can keep Scheer out.

Debater wrote:

You may be right.  The NDP may lose the Erin Weir seat to the Cons, but hold the other 2 SK seats.

But according to Eric Grenier and other analysts who looked at the QC numbers today, the NDP is now at risk of falling into single digits in QC based on the Leger poll today.

If I were to predict a total of two NDP MPs elected between Saskatchewan and Quebec, would you take the over or the under?

montgomery wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:

Debater wrote:

You may be right.  The NDP may lose the Erin Weir seat to the Cons, but hold the other 2 SK seats.

But according to Eric Grenier and other analysts who looked at the QC numbers today, the NDP is now at risk of falling into single digits in QC based on the Leger poll today.

If I were to predict a total of two NDP MPs elected between Saskatchewan and Quebec, would you take the over or the under?

With as much as I know on the question, I am unable to choose over or under so that means I'm more comfortable with two. 

I'm of the opinion that Jagmeet Singh is the biggest issue that needs to be addressed, and I'm also of the opinion that addressing that issue would address Mulcair's main issue too. 

It's sad to see the party being ripped apart like this but judging from the bigotted attitudes of the oldtimers on this board, it's understandable what needs to change.

They've all got their extremist niches but none of them match the others. It's everything from Kropotkin's anarchy or Marxism to Ken's ignorance, to Sean's paranoia about not being the teacher,  to Michael's kneejerk following, to Paladin's outright stupidity that could be closet Conservatism!

What's an informed newcomer to do? Join the fukking Liberals? At least some of them are dyed in the woll socialists who are biding their time there. Waiting until it's politically safe for Justin Trudeau to lead the party left, in the tradion of his father. 

...My "ignorance"?  Where, exactly, are you going with all of this?  Are you going to keep on trying to discredit people on a personal basis until there's nobody left here who questions anything you say?  Sorry, pal, but that's not going to happen.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mulcair is criticizing Singh's decision to wait longer to get a seat, questionning his ability to stay leader depending on the result, speculating about NDP MPs not staying on to run. I think there are two parts of this:

1) the NDP is on the ropes in the polls and sensitive to comments like this that make it harder. The anger is understandable, if not justified, any time these types of comments come from a former leader. In some respects the NDP may be accused of being too sensitive.

I do not think all respects which leads me to the second issue.

2) Mulcair, you could argue, has a right to his new career as a pundit. However, he is doing this really too soon, and this is a fair argument. Mulcair is getting a package as MP, that he got from being MP for the party and this package is at least six months salary. While earning this, he is making life difficult for the party. This seems a little poor taste especially when the byelection has not even been held yet. Mulcair as leader had developed access, internal contacts, trust to hear things within the party. To be open about what is not yet public uses this access (like MPs who confided about not running). This is likely where some of the betrayal is coming from. Had he waited, say about a year after leaving politics, it would be easier to accept the reality that he no longer has any loyalty to the party and is willing to use his knowledge to profit himself as a pundit.

The second reason is why I raised the question of comparison of a person who was elected, was as senior as leader, and did this as soon as Mulcair. I see nobody who has done this all like that. Usually, they let their successor get into the job, before they do this unless the animosity is the point. New Democrats tend to feel that they gave him a chance, that he did not perform well and that he does not really have a moral right to shit the bed now -- so soon, after the position he held AND with the party in such bad shape.

Sure what he did is legal. It may not be the first time, although I have no comparison of the extend of this. But the party is not unjustified in screaming betrayal.

Frankly, I think Mulcair's poor judgment is showing here. He is not instantly going to be trusted by the other parties as an unbiased pundit. His main claim to fame as a pundit would be his connection and knowledge of the NDP. His behaviour at this point looks like it will shut him out of most NDP contacts so he might end up being a bright pundit without any useful contacts. He may not even be a reasonable choice to balance pro Conservative and Liberal pundits as he is coming off as one with anger and animosity to the NDP due to the speed of doing this.

Pundits without contacts are a dime a dozen. You can get a dozen on this site for free.

I think he could have been a great pundit had he waited a year. It was not necessary to rush. The time for him to surface as a pundit could have been the writ period of the 2019 election a few months from now. By starting now, before his succesor wins or loses his seat, before the party has a platform, before his replacement for his seat is taken, while receiving money from his position as MP, while holding still relevant private conversations within the party (because it is so soon), he is betraying the party. By waiting, the party might grumble but they would have no case to make.

What he is doing is controversial. Those here who hate the NDP may defend him and slam the party for being angry. Party loyalists might never accept his right to become a pundit. I do not expect him never to become a commentator as some may feel he should never be, but I think the party has a point given the way he did this.

Great post. 

Like that Liberal hack understood anything about the NDP's legacy. He is publicly becoming a petty little man who can't stand the fact that Singh is getting good press because he is such a breath of fresh air as a campaigner compared to Mister Balanced Budget when he lead the, We Promise to Go Slow Team.

Debater wrote:

Singh is doing a competent job in this campaign and is performing fairly well in the debates and on the campaign trail, but the party itself is still in a weaker position, particularly Quebec, compared to where it was under Mulcair.

So Mulcair has a point.

Anymore Liberal talking points for today?

I did not support Mulcair for the party leadership and in fact dropped my membership when he became leader.   He was the one candidate for the leadership at the time who had absolutely no historic connections to the labour and social movements whatsoever.   He was clueless.   He didn't get it.

I rejoined the very day the convention decided to give him the boot.

To some degree-and I'll rephrase this if anything I say below sounds like it is minimizing anyone's lived experience in their personal life-Mulcair's relationship to the NDP can be likened, to some degree, to that of an abuser to the victim who has escaped him.

He sees himself as the victim.

He refuses to accept that his removal from the relationship was in any way legitimate.

He constantly seeks to destroy the NDP's confidence in itself and to undermine its ability to believe it can go on without him.

He won't stop until the party has either totally collapsed-or at least loses every seat in Quebec-or until the party apologizes for removing him, begs him for forgiveness and invites him back, perhaps not as leader, but instead in the status of a revered elder statesmen whose approach to leadership is acknowledged as the officially "correct" one and the party under something like his effective control from behind the scenes with no accountability whatsoever.

Mulcair really does need to be seen as that relentless and that pathological.

Let us stop alternately demanding loyalty from Mulcair and claiming he was never a New Democrat. Take his words as they are and disagree with him if you want. He is not very influential and he is doing a job. Clearly loyalty to the NDP is not uppermost for him. Perhaps he is upset at how he was dumped. Why does this matter? Move on.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Its an election campaign so of course on babble we get to complain about assholes who are attacking progressive politicians.

Sure but why does he rate higher for our attention (obsession) than any other?

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.  

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.