สูตรบาคาร่าป๋าเซียน_sbobet ฟรี เครดิต ล่าสุด_ดาวน์โหลดเกมสล็อตฟรี

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle
Some NDPers Claim Tom Mulcair Was Illegitimately Ousted As Party Leader

A former NDP candidate in Richmond, Dale Jackaman, chairs the campaign to bring back Mulcair.

Moreover, Jackaman wrote a 23-page report, last updated on September 28, which spells out his serious objections over?how Mulcair was ousted as leader.

Jackaman, who's a licensed private investigator, went into considerable detail about the delegate-selection process for the April 2016 convention in Edmonton. That's where Mulcair only received 48 percent support.

Read below

https://www.straight.com/news/1180441/return-tom-mulcair-some-new-democr...

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

A campaign to bring back Mulcair.? Because nothing could POSSIBLY make more sense right now than to bring back the leader who single-handedly cost the party more than half its seats in 2015. ?

Debater

Plus, I don't think Mulcair would want to come back anyway.

He's teaching at a University in Montreal now, and also working as a political commentator on TV.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

A campaign to bring back Mulcair.? Because nothing could POSSIBLY make more sense right now than to bring back the leader who single-handedly cost the party more than half its seats in 2015. ?

He lost most of his support for standing up for niqab rights. I admire him for that. Given the way the NDP treats Palestinian proponents you cannot say that it was his only choice. As for him coming back, that ship has sailed long ago. I don't dispute that his campaign instincts were not good.

WWWTT

The federal delegate selection as described in the above link is nothing new and as far as I’m aware is the norm. Members from ridings that have already reached their quota of delegates?that want to go are designated to represent ridings that are short on representation at the convention ? In fact, it would be odd to change common practice just because of the geography?

Part of me also feels a little sorry for Mulcair. Obviously Tom should have stepped down immediately ?when he saw that the NDP only came out with 44 seats, but really he shouldn’t have even ever became leader in the first place.?

The NDP’s problems all started with Jack Layton’s desire to hold on to the leadership. And arguably a little more?

From my understanding, Jack was aware he was going to die before the 2011 election, but he chose to stay and fight a ridiculously straining on the body campaign that probably took months off his life. This is a sign of selfish greed and a very poor decision! Poor decisions are the ultimate sign that you’re incapable of leading.?

Jack did a lot for the NDP, and so did Tom, their problem in my opinion was that their egos got in the way.?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

WWWTT wrote:

The federal delegate selection as described in the above link is nothing new and as far as I’m aware is the norm. Members from ridings that have already reached their quota of delegates?that want to go are designated to represent ridings that are short on representation at the convention ? In fact, it would be odd to change common practice just because of the geography?

Part of me also feels a little sorry for Mulcair. Obviously Tom should have stepped down immediately ?when he saw that the NDP only came out with 44 seats, but really he shouldn’t have even ever became leader in the first place.?

The NDP’s problems all started with Jack Layton’s desire to hold on to the leadership. And arguably a little more?

From my understanding, Jack was aware he was going to die before the 2011 election, but he chose to stay and fight a ridiculously straining on the body campaign that probably took months off his life. This is a sign of selfish greed and a very poor decision! Poor decisions are the ultimate sign that you’re incapable of leading.?

Jack did a lot for the NDP, and so did Tom, their problem in my opinion was that their egos got in the way.?

There is something to that.

lagatta4

I think Mulcair has absolutely no desire to return to active politics - he is very appreciated as a teacher at UdM.

There is certainly truth about Jack's choices; however there is not much choice arguing with someone who is dead.

WWWTT

Hi lagatta4

Not trying to argue with a dead man here. I'm just pointing out how that a decission based upon self interests will hurt the NDP in the long run.

This was a point that I was making about Jagmeet Singh that fell on deaf ears hear on babble.?

When posters here say that Jag is just a continuation of the NDP move to the right, started by Jack, it never really sits right with me because I think?what motivates the leadership candidate and their history within the party, that's really what members should be looking at when choosing the leader, among other things as well.

Preparing a eulogy for Jagmeet's political career in 2018 is just simply ridiculous! Now I'm not saying that Jag's above criticism, but he doesn't deserve to be buried right now. Albeit, he is making it hard not to!

As far as Mulcair making a come back as leader, I seriously doubt it.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??

Sean in Ottawa

Hindsight is very accurate.

Arguably Layton gave his life earlier to create an opportunity to the NDP. He would not have known that it would be lost. Had he not run we do not know if this would have put the NDP (then under 18% in the polls) into chaos and potentially losing party status. To say that his running becoming official opposition and dying was somehow selfish is very strange indeed.

The dramatic growth in the NDP was a Layton bump and quite possibly directly related to his illness in part (remember the cane).

All politicians are egotistical in thinking they would be chosen and they can make a difference. However, the calculation in running while sick is not necessarily that.

Also Layton knew he had cancer, I think, although this has been denied and there is no strong evidence either way. I do not believe he knew that he was terminal -- even if his doctors thought that likely.

Politicians tend to be optimistic about themselves. Goes with the ego. He probably knew he had a risk which he kept private and he probably thought he could beat it until his illness hit much harder after the election.

This is partly the thing about ego: it is almost a contradiction to say his ego led him to believe he was going to die and to run anyway. The ego that would have made him run anyway would also have beleived he could beat it.

Most people who have known a person with a big ego go through a serious disease can tell you that sometimes the ego can lead to them surviving against the odds by willpower. It will certainly increase the chance that they will believe they can.

I think the comments here to the effect that he knew he was dying and kept going anyway are deeply offensive and without foundation in any evidence.

There is not even any evidence that Layton's medical prognosis was known to be terminal to his doctors then (as opposed to serious risk) nevermind that he believed it.

Of course the people who say this are also the ones who are often Liberal or those who throw around the accusation that others are Liberals (protest to much?).

New Democrats on this site know that a common feature among actual longtime NDP supporters, members and candidates is extreme optimism. And hey the last message he endorsed (and presumably wrote much of) was typical NDP optimism.

This part of the thread accusing Layton is absolute BS. sure he is dead and you cannot hurt him but the poeple close to him you can.

Try to have some facts - once in a while.

pietro_bcc

WWWTT wrote:

The federal delegate selection as described in the above link is nothing new and as far as I’m aware is the norm. Members from ridings that have already reached their quota of delegates?that want to go are designated to represent ridings that are short on representation at the convention ? In fact, it would be odd to change common practice just because of the geography?

Part of me also feels a little sorry for Mulcair. Obviously Tom should have stepped down immediately ?when he saw that the NDP only came out with 44 seats, but really he shouldn’t have even ever became leader in the first place.?

The NDP’s problems all started with Jack Layton’s desire to hold on to the leadership. And arguably a little more?

From my understanding, Jack was aware he was going to die before the 2011 election, but he chose to stay and fight a ridiculously straining on the body campaign that probably took months off his life. This is a sign of selfish greed and a very poor decision! Poor decisions are the ultimate sign that you’re incapable of leading.?

Jack did a lot for the NDP, and so did Tom, their problem in my opinion was that their egos got in the way.?

Poor decision to stay on for who? He got the NDP their greatest result ever, so it wasn't the wrong decision for the party. The campaign may have taken some time off his life but its his life, his time to spend not our's or anyone else's. So who was it a poor decision for?

?

?

As for Mulcair, I respect the guy but he's a terrible politician who took advice from the wrong people. I still maintain that more than anything "smiling" Tom Mulcair is what lost the election. The Conservatives branded him as Angry Tom and he internalized it, he spent all his time trying to convince people that he wasn't "Angry" Tom, he was "smiling" Tom. And "smiling" Tom was so clearly fake that people were repulsed by him. His greatest strength was his anger and his authenticity and the Conservatives (to their credit I suppose) were so thoroughly successful in making Mulcair turn his back on his greatest strength, that they ended his political career.

Without "smiling" Tom Mulcair, he likely would still be leader.

Sean in Ottawa

I will add this:

pessimists on the left go to the Liberal party hoping to make a bit of a difference however they can - within the system. You have to be a massive optimist to go to the NDP and think you can beat the bigger parties and govern. Which Layton famously did.

It would not shock me to hear that Layton imagined he could survive until his last breath. I have no doubt he imagined he could win and beat Harper and have no doubt that he thought beating cancer was another long shot he could win.

I also think that while there is strong speculation he knew he had cancer there is no evidence that even the doctors knew he had it and was that serious. I also think that had he known it was going to kill him he might even have decided not to run to save his own life. People are like that - they like survival. Most people who do things risking their lives do so out of a belief that will not die. Call that optimism. Call that ego. Don't call that selfish becuase the decision making process is not based on a presumption of loss.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I'm saddened and puzzled that anyone who votes NDP would say that the Orange Crush was solely "a Layton surge".? There's no reason people on THIS board should be repeating what is essentially a Liberal Party talking point-should be repeating the canard that the 2011 NDP breakthrough somehow "doesn't count".? We don't KNOW if it might have been sustained under a different leader. We don't KNOW if if might have been sustained if the party had used its status as Official Opposition to actually provide a real alternative to the status quo, to give the voters a chance to vote for a clear break with the free-marker austerity consensus.

Has it never occurred to people that, even with the supposed moderation in Jack's message, the voters had actually engaged in "psychic freeing"?? That perhaps, perhaps, the minds of the voters were actually open and were willing to embrace a different set of possibilities...perhaps even including a break with Bush and Harper's militarism? I think they just needed to hear the party speaking of a different world and would have responded to that vision.? It's just that they weren't offered that vision, or ANY vision at all.? They were offered a balanced budget, which is a useless, meaningless commitment that no one but Bay Street billionaires would ever have demanded-everybody else would have voted NDP because they wanted non-billionaires to have their say in life for once.

Calling 2011 a "Layton bump" is NDP supporters self-delegitimizing the NDP and surrendering to the Liberal/Conservative "There Is No Alternative" narrative.? Can't see what good comes of that.

Sean in Ottawa

Ken Burch wrote:

I'm saddened and puzzled that anyone who votes NDP would say that the Orange Crush was solely "a Layton surge".? There's no reason people on THIS board should be repeating what is essentially a Liberal Party talking point-should be repeating the canard that the 2011 NDP breakthrough somehow "doesn't count".? We don't KNOW if it might have been sustained under a different leader. We don't KNOW if if might have been sustained if the party had used its status as Official Opposition to actually provide a real alternative to the status quo, to give the voters a chance to vote for a clear break with the free-marker austerity consensus.

Has it never occurred to people that, even with the supposed moderation in Jack's message, the voters had actually engaged in "psychic freeing"?? That perhaps, perhaps, the minds of the voters were actually open and were willing to embrace a different set of possibilities...perhaps even including a break with Bush and Harper's militarism? I think they just needed to hear the party speaking of a different world and would have responded to that vision.? It's just that they weren't offered that vision, or ANY vision at all.? They were offered a balanced budget, which is a useless, meaningless commitment that no one but Bay Street billionaires would ever have demanded-everybody else would have voted NDP because they wanted non-billionaires to have their say in life for once.

Calling 2011 a "Layton bump" is NDP supporters self-delegitimizing the NDP and surrendering to the Liberal/Conservative "There Is No Alternative" narrative.? Can't see what good comes of that.

Well no. absolutely not.

There is no way that saying that the opportunity that a connection makes means that what is connected is not legitimate. It also does not mean that it cannot be reproduced.

I am not really interested in puritans who want to pretend that we can all do well without a spokesperson with charisma. Fact is in our media politics you need this. Fact is it is rare. Fact is that you need that magical connection and it is very hard to do.

To say that I am insulting to say this is actually in itself an insult. If this did not matter you are suggesting some other reason for the NDP to have been so unsuccessful for the last 50 years.

I know we all want to live in a world where leaders are less important than policy and ideas. We do not live in that world.

Even a good leader needs that spark of connection that can happen for many reasons. It was not there for Layton in the early years becuase he was seen as fake by many people. It does not mean NDP policy is illegitimate but that they did not reach people and were not seen as an option. Layton with his cane was a symbol of humanity that resonated. The politics of the NDP aremore than any other major party related to humanity. This connected in Quebec as he was seen as real-down-to-earth adn courageous.

People turned to the NDP that the NDP had been unable to reach before.

These people having been connected are now available much more easily to connect.

So maybe Singh stumbles. Maybe he loses party status even. But the NDP after 2011 is different. It is capable becuase it has been listened to before -- Layton broke through the fog. Another leader with potential can break through more easily becuase Layton did before.

It is frankly delegitimizing of the value to the NDP and rarity in politics of what Layton did to say that recognition of that is a bad thing.

Your comments are part of the problem with the NDP some times being unable to recognize its successes and build on them becuase it is too busy pretending we live in an ideal world where we don't need any help to get through; pretending that the media either can never help the NDP and is always bad or that the media is capable of delilvering without this. Both can only lead to defeat.

People need to open their eyes to what Layton did. Be thankful for it. And work to reproduce it, a task made easier by what he did.

Crapping on it and saying that to recognize it, if a majority view is exactly how to make the NDP a perfect, pure, fourth party trhat can be the moral high ground and a good "conscience of the House" but otherwise no threat to power and really for the most part quite useless.

Your comments could not be taken more badly as you are taking a position that puts you exactly, in my view, where you were placing me. Among those who want the NDP to be really good at failing. Really good at being so unrealistic that it can never succeed. Good for nothing.

Sean in Ottawa

This place is making me sad. It is extremely fucked up. You have so many here who just want to come here and say why someone else is really a Liberal or helping the Liberals that any exchange of ideas is just taken down into this are you a real NDPer or not. What utter McCarthiest bullshit.

You say that we don't know whether the NDP would have been able to go on from opposition or not. No we don't. Thanks for the lecture. Read my post I said that already. That was part of my point. Layton was not selfish. He gave the NDP an opportunity. That opportunity was lost for the moment becuase of what came after.

If you think I am saying that the NDP is not legitimate then you need to put on your reading glasses and read more slowly.

It is not just you. It is most of the people here:

They read to find a point of attack not to excahnge any real ideas. They write their post without even caring to read and understand what they are replying to. They want to win a conflict. The lot on this place should just go to law school and argue their heads off. There in a court the process is to win any way possible. A conversation does not have to be like that. You don't need to tear down and shit on the previous comment and imply the person is either intentionally or unintentionally disloyal to add to the conversation.

Let's just for fun try to drop the McCarthiest purity tests and see if we can make that work from one whole week here?

Let's try to read a comment and just try to understand what the point someone was making instead of zeroing in something to come up with the best way to paint the person liberal read to de-legitimize their comment.

Let's try that.

Alerternately we can carry on and shred each other by calling each other Liberals and virtue signal aboutr ourselves as we speculate if we can get the NDP to be slightly more or less than party status and the best government that nobody will actually elect. Sound good?

Here is a joke: in this place we put the Liberal tag on everyone but the Liberals. We do this becuase it is used as an insult. Why insult a Liberal by calling them Liberal -- they will like that. Let's instead fill this place with wall to wall shit calling NDP members witting or unwitting agents of the Liberal party. After all the NDP is so popular that we can drive away and hack to bits any support the NDP has left. Right?

WWWTT

pietro_bcc wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

The federal delegate selection as described in the above link is nothing new and as far as I’m aware is the norm. Members from ridings that have already reached their quota of delegates?that want to go are designated to represent ridings that are short on representation at the convention ? In fact, it would be odd to change common practice just because of the geography?

Part of me also feels a little sorry for Mulcair. Obviously Tom should have stepped down immediately ?when he saw that the NDP only came out with 44 seats, but really he shouldn’t have even ever became leader in the first place.?

The NDP’s problems all started with Jack Layton’s desire to hold on to the leadership. And arguably a little more?

From my understanding, Jack was aware he was going to die before the 2011 election, but he chose to stay and fight a ridiculously straining on the body campaign that probably took months off his life. This is a sign of selfish greed and a very poor decision! Poor decisions are the ultimate sign that you’re incapable of leading.?

Jack did a lot for the NDP, and so did Tom, their problem in my opinion was that their egos got in the way.?

Poor decision to stay on for who? He got the NDP their greatest result ever, so it wasn't the wrong decision for the party. The campaign may have taken some time off his life but its his life, his time to spend not our's or anyone else's. So who was it a poor decision for?

?

?

As for Mulcair, I respect the guy but he's a terrible politician who took advice from the wrong people. I still maintain that more than anything "smiling" Tom Mulcair is what lost the election. The Conservatives branded him as Angry Tom and he internalized it, he spent all his time trying to convince people that he wasn't "Angry" Tom, he was "smiling" Tom. And "smiling" Tom was so clearly fake that people were repulsed by him. His greatest strength was his anger and his authenticity and the Conservatives (to their credit I suppose) were so thoroughly successful in making Mulcair turn his back on his greatest strength, that they ended his political career.

Without "smiling" Tom Mulcair, he likely would still be leader.

Ok ?I'm wrong to say that Jack knew he was going to die going into the election. At the very least, he knew he had to get rid of stress in his life to improve his odds.

He had hip surgery just days or weeks before the election call! From my research, he first thought he could "walk off" a fractured hip until he finally got tested out. That says something right there about his attitude towards?his personal health!

Now if he was just an MP, I can see him deciding to stay on. But as the?leader, he has to take into account the entire party, not just his own health. He had to consider the worst case scenario, his own death, no matter what the odds are.What would happen to the NDP if he died? Would the NDP be able to build? Who would build and maintain the party after he died? If he honestly believed it was up to him and only him, then that would be such a huge burden on him, for sure it would interfere with his chances? of fighting prostate cancer. If he felt there were members that could build the party, then why not let them? Why the lack of faith in his own party?

I'm trying to get inside his head or?his frame of mind at the time, and I honestly believe that he was acting very selfish, omnipotent and had one or more of arrogant/superiority/condescesion/egotism and perhaps narcissism.

Mulcair clearly had a couple of these that I have mentioned?

edited to add

Your body is the?only?thing that connects you to this world/reality! It must come first! The only exception would be family.

.

Debater

Ken Burch wrote:

I'm saddened and puzzled that anyone who votes NDP would say that the Orange Crush was solely "a Layton surge".? There's no reason people on THIS board should be repeating what is essentially a Liberal Party talking point-should be repeating the canard that the 2011 NDP breakthrough somehow "doesn't count".? We don't KNOW if it might have been sustained under a different leader. We don't KNOW if if might have been sustained if the party had used its status as Official Opposition to actually provide a real alternative to the status quo, to give the voters a chance to vote for a clear break with the free-marker austerity consensus.res would ever have demanded-everybody else would have voted NDP because they wanted non-billionaires to have their sayng the NDP and surrendering to the Liberal/Conservative "There Is No Alternative" narrative.? Can't see what good comes of that.

Ken, not everything can be called a Liberal talking-point.

It's been well-documented that the main reason many people voted NDP in 2011 was because of Jack's personal connection with voters.? This was particularly true in Quebec.

Many Quebec experts, including Chantal Hebert, observed that it was not the NDP that won Quebec -- it was Jack.? If you watch the 2011 CBC election night coverage you will hear where Chantal predicts that without Jack, the NDP can't count on Quebec, and that it might even vote Liberal.? And she turned out to be correct.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..election results are not a reflection what people really feel. federal elections are a set of limited options played out in a 3 ring circus. the leader plays a part but so do other matters. 2015 people hated harper and pre election weren't to crazy about trudeau. and this presented an opportunity for the ndp which they fucked up. my point is circumstance played the most important part in 2015. i don't see how this was different in 2011.?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

I'm saddened and puzzled that anyone who votes NDP would say that the Orange Crush was solely "a Layton surge".? There's no reason people on THIS board should be repeating what is essentially a Liberal Party talking point-should be repeating the canard that the 2011 NDP breakthrough somehow "doesn't count".? We don't KNOW if it might have been sustained under a different leader. We don't KNOW if if might have been sustained if the party had used its status as Official Opposition to actually provide a real alternative to the status quo, to give the voters a chance to vote for a clear break with the free-marker austerity consensus.

Has it never occurred to people that, even with the supposed moderation in Jack's message, the voters had actually engaged in "psychic freeing"?? That perhaps, perhaps, the minds of the voters were actually open and were willing to embrace a different set of possibilities...perhaps even including a break with Bush and Harper's militarism? I think they just needed to hear the party speaking of a different world and would have responded to that vision.? It's just that they weren't offered that vision, or ANY vision at all.? They were offered a balanced budget, which is a useless, meaningless commitment that no one but Bay Street billionaires would ever have demanded-everybody else would have voted NDP because they wanted non-billionaires to have their say in life for once.

Calling 2011 a "Layton bump" is NDP supporters self-delegitimizing the NDP and surrendering to the Liberal/Conservative "There Is No Alternative" narrative.? Can't see what good comes of that.

Well no. absolutely not.

There is no way that saying that the opportunity that a connection makes means that what is connected is not legitimate. It also does not mean that it cannot be reproduced.

I am not really interested in puritans who want to pretend that we can all do well without a spokesperson with charisma. Fact is in our media politics you need this. Fact is it is rare. Fact is that you need that magical connection and it is very hard to do.

To say that I am insulting to say this is actually in itself an insult. If this did not matter you are suggesting some other reason for the NDP to have been so unsuccessful for the last 50 years.

I know we all want to live in a world where leaders are less important than policy and ideas. We do not live in that world.

Even a good leader needs that spark of connection that can happen for many reasons. It was not there for Layton in the early years becuase he was seen as fake by many people. It does not mean NDP policy is illegitimate but that they did not reach people and were not seen as an option. Layton with his cane was a symbol of humanity that resonated. The politics of the NDP aremore than any other major party related to humanity. This connected in Quebec as he was seen as real-down-to-earth adn courageous.

People turned to the NDP that the NDP had been unable to reach before.

These people having been connected are now available much more easily to connect.

So maybe Singh stumbles. Maybe he loses party status even. But the NDP after 2011 is different. It is capable becuase it has been listened to before -- Layton broke through the fog. Another leader with potential can break through more easily becuase Layton did before.

It is frankly delegitimizing of the value to the NDP and rarity in politics of what Layton did to say that recognition of that is a bad thing.

Your comments are part of the problem with the NDP some times being unable to recognize its successes and build on them becuase it is too busy pretending we live in an ideal world where we don't need any help to get through; pretending that the media either can never help the NDP and is always bad or that the media is capable of delilvering without this. Both can only lead to defeat.

People need to open their eyes to what Layton did. Be thankful for it. And work to reproduce it, a task made easier by what he did.

Crapping on it and saying that to recognize it, if a majority view is exactly how to make the NDP a perfect, pure, fourth party trhat can be the moral high ground and a good "conscience of the House" but otherwise no threat to power and really for the most part quite useless.

Your comments could not be taken more badly as you are taking a position that puts you exactly, in my view, where you were placing me. Among those who want the NDP to be really good at failing. Really good at being so unrealistic that it can never succeed. Good for nothing.

I AM thankful for the last campaign Jack ran. ? I didn't say that Jack deserves no credit, OR that it doesn't matter who is leader or what attributes that leader might have.? Never ever thought such a thing.

I was simply responding to the idea that it was ONLY Jack and had nothing to do with what the party stood for.

Both things are needed.? You need a charismatic, eloquent and effective leader who presents with conviction and passion.? You also need the confidence as a party that you can actually win the argument. ?

You need to believe that it matters what you stand for and that it is possible to either persuade people that another possibility exists outside the status quo, or, more importantly, to be able to connect with those who are creating another vision from below that supporting your party is a way to work for what they want.

It's neither solely personality nor solely vision.? But neither can be disregarded.? We can thank Jack in all the ways he deserved to be thanked without embracing the Conservative/Liberal trope that it was ONLY Jack.? It was Jack and it was people's openness to change

Unionist

epaulo13 wrote:

..election results are not a reflection what people really feel. federal elections are a set of limited options played out in a 3 ring circus. the leader plays a part but so do other matters. 2015 people hated harper and pre election weren't to crazy about trudeau. and this presented an opportunity for the ndp which they fucked up. my point is circumstance played the most important part in 2015. i don't see how this was different in 2011.?

Thanks for the reality check, epaulo.

In 2011, Quebecers' greatest common wish was to get rid of Harper. They deserted the Bloc en masse, having entrusted it with their interests for almost 20 years, and finally realizing that the Bloc wasn't, like, running anyone outside QC, so they could never form the government - and even briefly as official opposition, it couldn't build the kind of coalition needed to stop the worst reactionary forces from taking power. So Quebecers tried a "federalist" option - it happened to be the NDP. It had nothing to do with the NDP's platform (which Quebecers weren't aware of). It had little to do with Jack Layton's personal appeal, except (in my analysis) that Jack had already tried a coalition to get rid of Harper, and didn't rule out the possibility of doing so again if need be (a fatal mistake that Ignatieff made, for example). I know workers and trade unionists that voted NDP but couldn't have told you what the letters stand for. They were previously all staunch BQ voters. And no one should underestimate Mulcair's significant role as chief organizer and deputy in QC. Respect for him was widespread.

The NDP lost QC in 2015 for the same basic reason it won in 2011. It was about Quebecers' motivation to defeat?Harper. Second time lucky.

?

Debater

Unionist, I respect your analysis, but there's also some other factors involved.

Yes, there was a strong anti-Harper feeling in Quebec, but a large part of the vote in Quebec was for Jack Layton's personal appeal.? Many Quebecers have said they voted for "Jack".? And as I mentioned above, Chantal Hebert and other Quebec experts have said that it was because of Jack Layton that the NDP won Quebec.

And part of the reason Trudeau & the Liberals finished 1st in Quebec in 2015 wasn't just an anti-Harper vote, but it was also because some Quebecers were attracted to Trudeau's personality and positive campaign.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Debater wrote:

Unionist, I respect your analysis, but there's also some other factors involved.

Yes, there was a strong anti-Harper feeling in Quebec, but a large part of the vote in Quebec was for Jack Layton's personal appeal.? Many Quebecers have said they voted for "Jack".? And as I mentioned above, Chantal Hebert and other Quebec experts have said that it was because of Jack Layton that the NDP won Quebec.

And part of the reason Trudeau & the Liberals finished 1st in Quebec in 2015 wasn't just an anti-Harper vote, but it was also because some Quebecers were attracted to Trudeau's personality and positive campaign.

OK, then...a possibly "sci-fi" question here:

Had Jack survived and stayed on as leader, how do you think it would have gone in Quebec in 2015? ?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

And thanks for your response, Unionist.? One thing I'd say is that, whatever else we could conclude it does seem clear that inin 2011, the NDP could never have taken the huge number of votes it took from the BQ had the NDP held on, rigidly, to the position it had always taken towards Quebec before:? the smug, dismissive "know your place-it's enough that you get to be just another province" thing.? Obviously, that approach would have guaranteed that the Dippers would never won another seat in QC outside of Outremont(and that they might not even have held on there).

Sean in Ottawa

To say that something is only becuase of one thing does not mean that it wasn't only becuase of something else as well. This is what prerequisite means. So no, I think without Layton the party would not have made a breakthrough in 2011. Not at all.

Yes I think that Layton would have held much of that vote had he recovered into 2015 and it would have been a close election three ways.

It takes a lot to win -- a lot has to go well. What Layton brought was essential and woudl not have happened without him. That is not to minimize any other value but to admit that those values would have gotten nowhere without that connection to Jack Layton.

Every star had to be in the right place for 2011 to happen. Layton's contribution was one of them and therefore essential.

the NDP has put together good platforms and said good things before since the 1960s. It was not just the party. There was the party, the opening of circumstances with the BQ in trouble and Harper unpopular etc. and there was this almost phenomenal connection Harper made. A great part of that connection was in how human he became as well.

The fact that it happened also means that it is easier for it to happen again so even if the party loses party status in 2019, this benefit will not go away completely.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The NDP was able to come back from losing official party status in 1993 because there were still at least vestiges of the socialist-or at least social democratic-tradition surviving in the party when that happened.? The party establishment, which was always paranoically antiradical and antisocialist-even in the Sixties and early Seventies when a clearly socialist orientation could only have added to its support-has spent the entire post-1993 period, no matter who was leader, erasing every last vestige of socialist-or even social democratic values-from the party's principles.? It has deluded itself that progressive, humane and egalitarian values can co-exist with neoliberal capitalism and "free market" hegemony, even though everything that has happened globally since the Reagan-Thatcher ascension has proved that that is categorically impossible.

If the NDP goes below official party status again in 2019, as a party whose core values have been erased, what possible case can be made, WITHOUT the party totally repudiating neoliberalism and austerity capitalism-which means admitting that balanced budgets are reactionary and pointless-for even keeping the party alive?? If it stays in the Third Way, if it refuses to break with "the consensus", if it refuses to be for a markedly different vision of Canada than the essentially idential visions offered by the Liberals and the Conservatives, if it continues to treat social movements like vermin...why even bother trying to bring it back?? Aren't TWO parties of the status quo enough?? How does the NDP ever recover from the current situation if, no matter who leads it, it refuses to offer something other than a slightly less nasty vision of the way things already are?? A vision that doesn't even include an end to cuts, unambiguous support of the labour movement and at least a somewhat independent approach towards the rest of the human race?
?

JKR

WWWTT wrote:

Ok ?I'm wrong to say that Jack knew he was going to die going into the election. At the very least, he knew he had to get rid of stress in his life to improve his odds.

He had hip surgery just days or weeks before the election call! From my research, he first thought he could "walk off" a fractured hip until he finally got tested out. That says something right there about his attitude towards?his personal health!

Now if he was just an MP, I can see him deciding to stay on. But as the?leader, he has to take into account the entire party, not just his own health. He had to consider the worst case scenario, his own death, no matter what the odds are.What would happen to the NDP if he died? Would the NDP be able to build? Who would build and maintain the party after he died? If he honestly believed it was up to him and only him, then that would be such a huge burden on him, for sure it would interfere with his chances? of fighting prostate cancer. If he felt there were members that could build the party, then why not let them? Why the lack of faith in his own party?

I'm trying to get inside his head or?his frame of mind at the time, and I honestly believe that he was acting very selfish, omnipotent and had one or more of arrogant/superiority/condescesion/egotism and perhaps narcissism.

Mulcair clearly had a couple of these that I have mentioned?

edited to add

Your body is the?only?thing that connects you to this world/reality! It must come first! The only exception would be family.

I think it should be remembered that before the 2011 election the Harper government was a precarious minority government that could have been defeated at any time so Layton resigning and leaving the NDP to be led in the 2011 election by an interim leader would likely have put the NDP in a very weak position in that election. It should also be remembered that one of the majour obstacles Ignatieff faced in the 2011 election was that he was coronated as leader by Liberal insiders. It would have been quite something if in the 2011 election both the NDP and Liberals had been led by leaders questionably chosen by their respective party's insiders!

My guess is that Layton would likely have resigned as NDP leader in 2011 due to having personal health issues if the Conservatives had had a majority government and if the next election had bern set for 2012 or 2013. But Layton did not have the luxury of being in that kind of stable position in 2011. I think the NDP would have been in a very weak position if they had been led in the 2011 election by an interim leader. Looking back at 2011 I see that Layton was faced with a very unstable personal health situation and a very unstable political possition and I think he handled the unenviable situation he found himself in admirably and he should be lauded for how he paid the ultimate sacrifice to meet those two very difficult challenges.

lagatta4

Huh! I'm against martyrdom cults, but many political and social leaders have made choices making it extremely likely that they would die for the cause and the people they believed in. I don't think biological family is necessarily more vital for people committed to a cause than their comrades are.

I didn't know Jack Layton well, but met him a couple of times at Alternatives retreats in Lanaudière, in particular because we both got up early; he jogged - I didn't, but did go for a good hike. He was certainly that sort of guy; certainly didn't strike me as remotely suicidal.

Yes, dissatisfaction with the Bloc was a factor, and the Bloc went very sour with its disgusting niqab = oil well add. Now, I'm no fan of niqab to put it mildly - I think there is a hell of a lot of difference between headscarves and the utter erasure of women - but the comparison was deeply misogynist and xenophobic. I knew Gilles when he was organising workers in sectors with a great many immigrants...

I wonder what former Bloc MP Osvaldo Nú?ez , also a former unionist (and once a senior civil servant in Allende's government) might be thinking now. He's probably in Chile now, as he has a residence there as well, and it is summertime!

WWWTT

JKR wrote:
WWWTT wrote:

Ok ?I'm wrong to say that Jack knew he was going to die going into the election. At the very least, he knew he had to get rid of stress in his life to improve his odds.

He had hip surgery just days or weeks before the election call! From my research, he first thought he could "walk off" a fractured hip until he finally got tested out. That says something right there about his attitude towards?his personal health!

Now if he was just an MP, I can see him deciding to stay on. But as the?leader, he has to take into account the entire party, not just his own health. He had to consider the worst case scenario, his own death, no matter what the odds are.What would happen to the NDP if he died? Would the NDP be able to build? Who would build and maintain the party after he died? If he honestly believed it was up to him and only him, then that would be such a huge burden on him, for sure it would interfere with his chances? of fighting prostate cancer. If he felt there were members that could build the party, then why not let them? Why the lack of faith in his own party?

I'm trying to get inside his head or?his frame of mind at the time, and I honestly believe that he was acting very selfish, omnipotent and had one or more of arrogant/superiority/condescesion/egotism and perhaps narcissism.

Mulcair clearly had a couple of these that I have mentioned?

edited to add

Your body is the?only?thing that connects you to this world/reality! It must come first! The only exception would be family.

I think it should be remembered that before the 2011 election the Harper government was a precarious minority government that could have been defeated at any time so Layton resigning and leaving the NDP to be led in the 2011 election by an interim leader would likely have put the NDP in a very weak position in that election. It should also be remembered that one of the majour obstacles Ignatieff faced in the 2011 election was that he was coronated as leader by Liberal insiders. It would have been quite something if in the 2011 election both the NDP and Liberals had been led by leaders questionably chosen by their respective party's insiders! My guess is that Layton would likely have resigned as NDP leader in 2011 due to having personal health issues if the Conservatives had had a majority government and if the next election had bern set for 2012 or 2013. But Layton did not have the luxury of being in that kind of stable position in 2011. I think the NDP would have been in a very weak position if they had been led in the 2011 election by an interim leader. Looking back at 2011 I see that Layton was faced with a very unstable personal health situation and a very unstable political possition and I think he handled the unenviable situation he found himself in admirably and he should be lauded for how he paid the ultimate sacrifice to meet those two very difficult challenges.

Agreed that Jack was faced with a very hard decision! Should also point out that prostate cancer has good odds of fighting ?not sure how good the odds were in 2010?

I still believe he made the wrong choice. So let’s just agree that we disagree?

pietro_bcc

If the NDP goes below official party status again in 2019, as a party whose core values have been erased, what possible case can be made, WITHOUT the party totally repudiating neoliberalism and austerity capitalism-which means admitting that balanced budgets are reactionary and pointless-for even keeping the party alive?

Nothing wrong with balanced budgets, the issue is how you reach a balanced budget. Mulcair gave no road map towards how to collect additional revenue. The only policy plank that raised revenue was a 2 point increase in corporate taxes which wouldn't have been enough to balance the budget or pay for the NDP's promises, this led people to reach the correct conclusion that those promises would either be abandoned, there would be cuts to social services or the balanced budget would be abandoned.

Fiscal prudence isn't a bad word, nor is balanced budgets. This should be the model for how progressives released their plans and how to pay for them https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ very simple, clear and easy to understand. A line for increased revenues, a line for increased spending, no vagueness. That way when the pundits say "well how will you pay for it" NDP politician can say "ndp .ca slash how we pay for it, next question" no stumbling or mumbling while trailing off, which is how most Canadian parties on the left answer that question.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

pietro_bcc wrote:

If the NDP goes below official party status again in 2019, as a party whose core values have been erased, what possible case can be made, WITHOUT the party totally repudiating neoliberalism and austerity capitalism-which means admitting that balanced budgets are reactionary and pointless-for even keeping the party alive?

Nothing wrong with balanced budgets, the issue is how you reach a balanced budget. Mulcair gave no road map towards how to collect additional revenue. The only policy plank that raised revenue was a 2 point increase in corporate taxes which wouldn't have been enough to balance the budget or pay for the NDP's promises, this led people to reach the correct conclusion that those promises would either be abandoned, there would be cuts to social services or the balanced budget would be abandoned.

Fiscal prudence isn't a bad word, nor is balanced budgets. This should be the model for how progressives released their plans and how to pay for them https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ very simple, clear and easy to understand. A line for increased revenues, a line for increased spending, no vagueness. That way when the pundits say "well how will you pay for it" NDP politician can say "ndp .ca slash how we pay for it, next question" no stumbling or mumbling while trailing off, which is how most Canadian parties on the left answer that question.

OK, I overstated there.? Balanced budgets, in and of themselves, are not the problem.? Making a balanced budget the CENTRAL, DOMINANT pledge of your campaign and, in the one televised leaders' debate you participate in, never mentioning ANY of the progressive items in your program, is the problem.? There was no reason for Mulcair to pretend to be to the right of Harper on fiscal issues.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..this is what's coming/is here to canada. while qs is well situated to benefit from this due to their ties to the movements..the ndp is not. this is not a matter that can be fixed with the "right policy".? the organizing, the struggles, the pitched battles have to be fought. there is no electoral solution until this takes place as those struggles define the way forward.

COP24: No Response to the?Crisis

quote:

In many respects, Katowice highlights the fact that we cannot wait for governments to act. This makes more and more people angry. This anger is based on a radical political impetus which no longer believes that ‘those above’ can solve the problem.

This is exactly what we find in many newer movement initiatives: the wave of school strikes that Greta Thunberg initiated, the extinction rebellion movement that began in the UK a couple of weeks ago and is spreading, Ende Gel?nde and the solidarity actions for Hambach Forst, the resistance against the tar sand Keystone XL pipeline, the climate camps, the alliance between the climate movement and the French ‘yellow vests’ (gilets jaunes) movement. The conviction that connects all these initiatives is that the radical challenges of climate change demand equally radical answers. We need to delegitimize fossil fuel capitalism – by means of strong grass roots movements.

DaleJack DaleJack's picture

You are correct on the federal delegate selection, this is nothing new and that was stated in the report we published.? That does not make the practice right and is certainly questionable ethically. The issue is the constitutionality of that process, something?we had vetted by a lawyer and confirmed by others.? And there were other important issues, notably the 1500+ members purged pre-convention by questionable methodology, and some that we have not yet made public.? Only 850 people voted in the actual leadership review vote and, as is obvious, it would not take many fake delegates to swing that small a number – nor was it representative of the NDP membership.? Tens of thousands of the rest of the membership were rightly pissed off to this day.

We do have more than enough evidence to?challenge the 2016 convention results, and in fact we seriously considered doing so at one point.? This has never been done in Canada but that would not have stopped us.? What did sway us in our decision making was the damage that would have done to the federal NDP.? We had some vague, and now vain hope, that the party would do?the right thing and at least acknowledge?what really happened.? We also asked for an apology to the membership and Tom, and to change future leadership review practises.? None of these happened so we, in the Bring Back Tom Mulcair Campaign are still here and very much active.??

We do realize that Tom may never come back.? The 2016 federal NDP convention destroyed the reputation and political career of a truly great Canadian, and perhaps our best leader ever.? This is something that our members are still, to this day, very angry about.? Obviously not everyone will agree with how we feel, but we are Tom Mulcair supporters, just over five-thousand in?number,?and growing.??We are far from done in our campaigns.?

It is unfortunate that the current party leader is caught in the cross-fire.? Most of us wish him well and know that he would make a great MP, one day.?

Dale Jackaman
Chair – The Bring Back Tom Mulcair Campaign

R.E.Wood

Mulcair is never coming back. He blew his chance by running a?horrible?election campaign, and is very far from being "perhaps our best leader ever." Many of us have long lists of reasons why. While he certainly had his supporters I firmly believe the will of the membership was accurately represented in Edmonton in ousting him. It's extremely unfortunate that he chose to hang on so long as a lazy lame duck leader who was virtually invisible from that point onward, dragging the party down even further. The NDP has had a number of very good leaders over the years, but I don't count Mulcair - or Singh - amongst them.

Nice shade thrown at Singh, though. "Most of us wish him well and know that he would make a great MP, one day" indeed. ;-) ?Unless of course you meant "PM", in which case polls clearly show most Canadians?don't agree.

NDPP

"I am a fervent supporter of Israel in all situations and circumstances." - Tom Mulcair

The continuing?support for Apartheid Israel and pro- Zionist politicians? should be unacceptable to any Canadian who claims to be 'progressive'.?

cco

If Tom felt that he'd been ousted by an unrepresentative few hundred members and had broad-based support among the longstanding grassroots, nothing prevented him from running again and winning the OMOV election. This idea of Tom as the hapless victim of Machiavellian maneuvering is truly laughable. As a delegate, I was repeatedly questioned by Tom's people before I ran for a slot. Tom's people showed up at all the nomination meetings trying to make his continued leadership a litmus test, and I was later harrassed on the phone by his supporters when I wouldn't commit to voting for him to stay on. Nobody in Edmonton was willing to publicly discuss (even amongst ourselves, let alone for the cameras) the vote we were all there for. Tom's handpicked party brass put it off until the last day (when in Montréal it'd been much earlier on the agenda), as well as nullifying (by declaring it required a 2/3rds supermajority) a majority vote to move directly to the vote on policy questions for which there was no opposition in order to get to the controversial resolutions that had been buried.

Tom's team ran that convention the same way Tom ran the party: with an iron fist. Now that our new leader is incompetent, it's tempting to look back nostalgically at Mulcair's dictatorship, where at least there was apparent management competence. At the recent Trois-Rivières Section QC convention, delegates were so poorly organized that on day 2, when it came time to hold elections, there was major concern over whether we even had quorum (because everyone showed up on day 1 to take selfies with Jagmeet and then just went home).

I have as many issues with Singh as most others on this board. That doesn't give me rose-coloured glasses about the Tom era. The man was a conservative who thought the only thing standing in the way of NDP victory was NDP members, and if a few votes had gone the other way and he'd decided to stay on with 51% support, the first thing he'd have done was jettison all the remaining progressive elements of our platform. Six years of his leadership and his team doing everything possible to make us right-wing gives me absolute confidence in that assessment.

Edmonton was a last gasp of internal party democracy (and if people are upset about the leadership vote, it's curious they aren't upset about the subsequent vote to extend the lame duck period, held when over half the delegates had walked out). It was a reminder that the membership, while it can't effectively hold a leader to its policy decisions, can still get rid of one when the need arises, even when the brass tries its best to make it difficult. It's a lesson I hope our current and future leaders don't forget.

Sean in Ottawa

I disagree that Mulcair is or was a conservative.

I think he lacked the necessary confidence and optimism with respect to social democratic values and for this reason I believe he wanted to "run from the centre" in order to have an opportunity to make a difference. Mulcair was also typical of a number of people I have known that are so careful to modify expectations that they are seen as very pessimistic while they are actually confident of exceeding them. Mulcair also misread the political mood and essentially ran against the Conservatives when he needed to run against the Liberals. This was serious in that his greatest threat as we now know was from the Liberals and ignoring them as Layton did in 2011 successfully was a critical mistake.

Specifically, the Liberals ran on their middle class message which was a transparent lie from the start and the NDP never challenged it. The Liberals released enough information about their tax plans for the NDP to blow them up as fiddling among the more wealthy than anythign for most working people.

I think Mulcair's advice was atrocious. I actually think he could well have become a decent leader with better advice on where Canadians were at the time and what things to campaign on. The emphasis on not running a deficit was a message good for previous campaigns aganst the Conservatives, perhaps. It was a dud against the Liberals.

Literally, Mulcair did not see the Liberals coming.

I fear that some of the people behind this poor advice are still in leadership.

Debater

Ken Burch wrote:

Debater wrote:

Unionist, I respect your analysis, but there's also some other factors involved.

Yes, there was a strong anti-Harper feeling in Quebec, but a large part of the vote in Quebec was for Jack Layton's personal appeal.? Many Quebecers have said they voted for "Jack".? And as I mentioned above, Chantal Hebert and other Quebec experts have said that it was because of Jack Layton that the NDP won Quebec.

And part of the reason Trudeau & the Liberals finished 1st in Quebec in 2015 wasn't just an anti-Harper vote, but it was also because some Quebecers were attracted to Trudeau's personality and positive campaign.

OK, then...a possibly "sci-fi" question here:

Had Jack survived and stayed on as leader, how do you think it would have gone in Quebec in 2015? ?

I think the NDP would have done better in Quebec in 2015 with Layton.

Trudeau & the Liberals wouldn't necessarily have finished 1st in QC if they were competing against Jack.

As Chantal Hebert said on 2011 Election Night, Quebecers voted for Jack, not really for the NDP.

WWWTT

Debate wrote:

As Chantal Hebert said on 2011 Election Night, Quebecers voted for Jack, not really for the NDP.

It only took 7 years and 4 elections for Quebecers to “vote for Jack and not really the NDP” Ok if you say so Chantal?

Debater

1.? Jack's breakthrough may not have happened over night, but the central point is that it was still mainly a vote for Jack.

2.? Chantal Hebert is considered very knowledgable about Quebec, and can probably be more objective than many of us here who have our own biases.

3.? There are other Quebec commentators who have made the same observations about the Jack effect, so it's not just Chantal.

Geoff

I was at the Edmonton convention and didn't see anything suspicious, unless someone stuffed the ballot boxes when I wasn't looking. Mulcair lost, fair and square. And there's no point re-hashing the last election. The next election is the one we should be focused on.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

If the issue was just that Alberta was more hostile to Mulcair than anyplace else in Canada, why would it have mattered if anti-Alberta Mulcair delegates were made part of different anti-Mulcair riding delegations OTHER than the anti-Mulcair riding associations for the anti-Mulcair ridings where they actually lived?? If the result was that Alberta had the same number of delegates it would have had anyway, how important WAS it that some anti-Muclair delegates attended at part of different riding associations than they technically should have?? And if the result had been that Mulcair had just barely won the vote rather than narrowly losing it, how credibile and effective a leader Mulcair could have been?? Look how it played out when the Manitoba NDP leader insisted on staying on after just barely scraping through a leadership review.?

pietro_bcc

Yeah. some people act as if it was close. If he would've won with 60% of the vote instead of lost with a little under 50% he still wouldn't be leader.

lagatta4

It is pointless anyway. People here who know Thomas Mulcair personally say he seems very happy indeed, and no way will he return to active politics (except supporting NDP candidates).? What bothers me is that there is no enthusiasm whatsoever here for Mr Singh, and the NDP can't win without Québec.

Trudeau has disappointed many here, and I really don't see a resurgence of the Bloc. Scheer repels people here, and what rural base might have gone for Bernier as un gars de chez nous* is utterly against his stance on supply management.

*from his notorious campaign jingle.

Sean in Ottawa

I doubt that any configuration of votes would have left Mulcair with the leadership.

Without rehashing it all, he was severely damaged. While I do not think he was a conservative, his judgment as leader was poor so the reasons he failed are largely academic, except that I would resist attempts to further damage his personal reputation as to pretend he was something he was not. From a tactical point of view having a consevative as leader is not a whole lot worse than having one (as I believe) without the confidence in the positions of the party such that he thought that looking more conservative was a good idea.

The party reached for Singh in part to show how inclusive it was rather than good reasons to belive he would be successful. I still believe Caron woudl have made a fantastic leader and the NDP would not be in this position. Better yet, I really wish some of the other people I mentionned here in terms of leadership would have run. It is not clear that they are interested in the party but these were examples of the kind of people the party could have done well with.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I would think that the Gulf Islands has about 4 delegate spots.? Lets assume that only 2 local members can afford to go.? It is often the case that the empty spots will get filled by people looking to attend.? So it is concievable that a very green riding would end up giving up delegate spots to pro pipeline delegates. How big was the problem?? Probably no one will ever know as the party would have no interest in quantifying it.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I doubt that any configuration of votes would have left Mulcair with the leadership.

Without rehashing it all, he was severely damaged. While I do not think he was a conservative, his judgment as leader was poor so the reasons he failed are largely academic, except that I would resist attempts to further damage his personal reputation as to pretend he was something he was not. From a tactical point of view having a consevative as leader is not a whole lot worse than having one (as I believe) without the confidence in the positions of the party such that he thought that looking more conservative was a good idea.

The party reached for Singh in part to show how inclusive it was rather than good reasons to belive he would be successful. I still believe Caron woudl have made a fantastic leader and the NDP would not be in this position. Better yet, I really wish some of the other people I mentionned here in terms of leadership would have run. It is not clear that they are interested in the party but these were examples of the kind of people the party could have done well with.

My own sense about the push for Singh was that a lot of those who pushed for him-and that includes everybody who was in the "there's no point in even having a contest-it just HAS to be Singh and it doesn't matter what he stands for or how he'd run the party because IT JUST HAS TO BE HIM!" crowd on this board was-in addition to the "he's got more charisma than Justin" thing that I think everybody would now have to concede has been totally discredited-was that he was the candidate who'd make the fewest changes.? Under Singh, the iron grip of the party insiders-the ones who'd rather seee the NDP get wiped off the electoral map than let the rank-and-file have a say or allow any NON-bland messaging to happen-would be totally unchallenged.? And that's how it's gone-no change, no ferment, no re-democratization, no meaningful outreach to the social movements even though they are the only part of the left side of the political spectrum where there is any energy or innovation or life. ?

If Mulcair had hung on in Edmonton, not only would nothing be better, it is entirely possible things might be getting worse.

And it looks as though the REAL motivation for the group we're discussing here is simply to make sure that there's no chance the NDP, under ANY other leader, could make even a respectable showing in this election.? They are wreckers and nothing more.

DaleJack DaleJack's picture

In my world, opinions are just opinions and carry little weight.? I read them but it's just blah, as there are so few people who are actually insiders to the real world of politics.? So much is obvious reading through the various?political blogs, of which I rarely participate as I find most of it just unreadable.?? ?I just see a nonsensical regurgitation of other opinions, notably those of pundits who think and guess that they?know the story but in fact are just buying into spin.? Professional spin doctors play their bevy of?reporters like violins knowing full well they are begging for stories, and it shows.??

The NDP is no different than any other political party with their assortment of spinners, most of whom have conflict of interest as their income depends on the success of said same?political party or a specific leader.? So real facts and real news gets buried in the morass of?fake or just badly researched news.? ?

Ninety percent of the investigative work I do is for litigation purposes, both civil and criminal, and the courts have much different standards when it comes to facts.? We in the private investigative world investigate politicians and political parties all the time and at all level of politics.? Often, we are requested to do so by the politicians themselves.? ?I am an NDPer myself, with an obvious bias as I'm also a four-time past candidate, and a federal campaign manager to boot,?but this is not the first time I've had a serious look at my own political party.? The results of which rarely hit the news, but we see the results?in other ways.? And with the drop in the number of investigative reporters out there, we in the industry are often tasked to investigate specifics by various interest groups and political parties (note the plural).? And since?we are licenced to investigate people while protecting our clients and sources, we can do so.??

The investigation done of the NDP Edmonton Convention was no different, we took that one on ourselves?in the public interest and have published a minimal report, minus names and actual quotes, and minus the material we have since gleamed from the thousands of supporters in the Bring Back Tom Mulcair Facebook campaign (most of it relates to a federal Liberal biased union active in Edmonton, story yet to be told - but yet another reason why the EDA system is broken).??

The?campaign was built to keep together a base of Tom supporters, most of whom left the party in droves post Edmonton, but also as an investigative intelligence gathering resource and a real world feel into the mood of the party and the public.? Regardless of what you think, roughly 75-80% of the NDP membership, past and present, want Tom Mulcair back.? So do a significant percentage of the voting public regardless of political stripe.? Why?? Because the voting public is getting tired of dumb?politicians.? Competence is hopefully starting to win over nice smiles,?pretty faces and buffoons like…well you know who I mean. ?

Regardless of what you think of Tom Mulcair, or any role you may think he had in loosing the last election, he is by far one of the most highly regarded politicians in recent Canadian history.? ?One could build an entirely new political party around him and it would do very well.? (I would not be surprised to see this happen) Those are facts as we see them with the not-insignificant intelligence resources we have at hand.? We probably know more about the NDP than the current NDP administration knows about itself.?

I have asked a couple of the major pollsters to add Tom into the mix of political polls and I hope they do so.? The results would be fascinating to see.??

I'm not here to debate, just don't have the time to do so.? My very non-political day job requires me?24x7.?

?

WWWTT

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The party reached for Singh in part to show how inclusive it was rather than good reasons to belive he would be successful.

In part my fucking ass! Singh aggresively fought to become leader by bringing in tens of thousands of new members. He was in no way going to rely on convincing long term members to vote for him.?

Now I believe there were lots of long time members who did vote for him. How many, I don't know??But I think it wasn't a great percentage?

Singh won the leadership fair and square! But he took big big risks and stepped on lots of toes! I still believe he deserves the backing of all the party. But if he fails in 10 months, it's very possible the whole Mulcair leadership issue will look like small potatoes.?

WWWTT

Pogo wrote:

I would think that the Gulf Islands has about 4 delegate spots.? Lets assume that only 2 local members can afford to go.? It is often the case that the empty spots will get filled by people looking to attend.? So it is concievable that a very green riding would end up giving up delegate spots to pro pipeline delegates. How big was the problem?? Probably no one will ever know as the party would have no interest in quantifying it.

From my understanding this was happening for a long long time. And there never was any problem. This is the first I have ever heard of any kind of complaint!

From my understanding, the convention organisers wanted to fill empty seats and have a big crowd to rally! Not to mention the ticket sales! Also, in the past, I never heard of this geopolitical devisive nature in the NDP?!?!?!?! This is very new strange and odd? I can't see how it's going to help the NDP at this point? Part of me really believes that members like Avi should zip it, or run as a candidate in the next election, and then when the oportunity presents itself, run for the leadership! In other words, put your fuckin money where your your mouth?is!

WWWTT

I should add that I always thought it was great that members that wanted to be at the convention can still go even though their riding delegates were full. I sincerely hope that the NDP organisers don't stop the practice just because of a few members complaining about Mulcair losing!

Debater

Ken Burch wrote:

If Mulcair had hung on in Edmonton, not only would nothing be better, it is entirely possible things might be getting worse.

Perhaps, but it's always difficult for parties to know whether they should have kept a leader or not.? There's never an easy answer.

It's true that Mulcair had liabilities, but he also had a couple of advantages that may have helped the NDP if he had stayd on for one more election:

1. Despite his other weaknesses, everyone agress Mulcair gave the NDP a strong voice in the House of Commons debates.? The new leader, Singh, is not able to do that because he has no seat.

2.? Although Mulcair took a big hit in Quebec in 2015 and finished 2nd to Trudeau, he still had a respectable result.? 25% of the vote and 16 seats.? Under Singh the NDP has dropped in QC down into the teens, and finished in single digits in the Chicoutimi by-election.? So keeping Mulcair might have given the NDP a better chance at retaining its support in QC.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Campaigning From the Left and Governing From the Right in Canada

Canadian MP Niki Ashton tells Paul Jay both the NDP and the Liberals have been guilty of making progressive promises during election campaigns and legislating from the center-right once in power

quote:

PAUL JAY: So you made a comment on the panel yesterday where you said, just sort of as an aside, that there’s people in Canada who have campaigned and run from the left, but have done things that sometimes are from the right, that even the right might not have been able to do. What were we talking about?

NIKI ASHTON: Well, I was talking about, first of all, the conversation is in the context of how do we–Yanis Varoufakis asked me, how do we build the kind of structures we need to achieve justice and dignity for people? And one of the comments I made beyond sort of, you know, the fact that we need leaders like Bernie Sanders, we need ideas like the ones that he and we in Canada have put forward, as we also need to hold our own movements accountable, our own progressive movements accountable. And you know, I have–you know, obviously I’m staunchly supportive of the movement I’m a part of, but I have seen ways in which, whether it’s provincial wings of the party or people within my own party have lost sight of the key principles we have. We’ve seen examples of when the NDP has won power it hasn’t lived up to its commitments. I mean, in Ontario that was that public auto insurance. In my own-

PAUL JAY: Bob Rae.

NIKI ASHTON: Yeah. And in my own province, you know, a highly problematic criminal justice agenda, which, not unlike some of the things we heard have happened here under Democrats. And you know, we’re certainly in disagreement with, for example, the provincial wing–the federal wing is in disagreement with the provincial wing of the NDP in Alberta around pipelines. So it’s, you know, so part of the work is what are we doing to engage people in our communities and in our country to build a progressive movement, but what, also, are the conversations we’re having as progressives? And the need to really stand up for principle.

quote:

PAUL JAY: The NDP in its beginnings in the CCF used to have a program that much more included nationalization. Public ownership. So while there’s a push back on privatization, there’s very little talk about expanding the public sector. And Bernie Sanders spoke yesterday on a panel, and he talked–concentrated wealth isn’t just about wealth. It’s about power. But I don’t hear from him, either, how do you actually confront the power? Because to my mind if you don’t build out economic public sector alternatives–for example, banking. Some people have suggested banking as a public utility. But we don’t challenge that power at its root, which is ownership. And I don’t hear that from the NDP. And honestly, I don’t hear it much in this country, either. The Mayor of Barcelona spoke on a panel yesterday. And she said, you know, it’s not enough, some of the reforms. And I believe she said they started a publicly-owned energy company.

NIKI ASHTON: Yeah. So I, in fact, I ran for leader in 2017 of the NDP nationally. And we advocated for public ownership, and we really put it in the frame of, you know, we’re constantly fighting privatization. We need to go further and propose public ownership. We talked about an example in my own constituency where we privatized a strategic asset, the only deepwater Arctic seaport which is in Churchill. Actually got a fair bit of American coverage. And it was privatized a year ago, put in the hands of an American billionaire who basically ran it into disrepair, put our communities in a very difficult situation, ended up shutting it down. And you know, unemployment, desperation. Just an awful, awful situation.

So we said, why doesn’t the federal government step in and nationalize the port and the railway? And you know, there was tremendous support for that position. Finally, our pressure contributed to it to getting rid of the American billionaire. But sadly, it is under corporate ownership once again. Fortunately, there are communities that are involved in managing the future of the port. But all to say that we are seeing a growing momentum around the idea of public ownership. We’ve talked about the need for a postal bank. You know, Canada is a country where many of our communities have no banking services. Smaller, rural, indigenous communities. You know, why don’t we look at bringing postal banking-

You know, we are also very–you know, I’m very interested in looking at public ownership in the telecom field, especially with, with Wi-Fi, and understanding that especially access to the Internet is not negotiable in this day and age. And many people, because of where they live or how much money they make, don’t have the same access as others. So we ought to be looking at that that option. And like I said, you know, we traveled across the country, and I would say that that was one of the three main areas that garnered the most support, was the desire to propose public ownership, to be proud of proposing it, and really make it clear that that is a way of getting at corporate greed and a way of, obviously, providing quality services.

Pages