The Next Leader of the NDP

[Posc Student]

If there is one leader who will definitly be gone after this election it's Jack Layton, his health isn't great, he's not young, he's been leader a long time and now it seems he will be facing pressure within the party to leave. I don't know a whole lot about the NDP but I'm wondering who others think will be the next leader or who will run for the position. Right now it seems as though Thomas Mulcair would be the front-runner. I don't know a whole lot about him so I don't know where he stands on policy issues or what the caucus thinks of him but he seems popular and being a Quebecker I would think would help the NDP in his province. So is Mulcair the next leader of the party? Would he be able to easily sweep the race? Or will he even get re-elected in the next elecion?

[punked]

If there is one leader who will definitly be gone after this election it's Jack Layton, his health isn't great, he's not young, he's been leader a long time and now it seems he will be facing pressure within the party to leave. I don't know a whole lot about the NDP but I'm wondering who others think will be the next leader or who will run for the position. Right now it seems as though Thomas Mulcair would be the front-runner. I don't know a whole lot about him so I don't know where he stands on policy issues or what the caucus thinks of him but he seems popular and being a Quebecker I would think would help the NDP in his province. So is Mulcair the next leader of the party? Would he be able to easily sweep the race? Or will he even get re-elected in the next elecion?

Dark Horse Meagan Lesli.

[scouterjim]

If there is one leader who will definitly be gone after this election it's Jack Layton, his health isn't great, he's not young, he's been leader a long time and now it seems he will be facing pressure within the party to leave. I don't know a whole lot about the NDP but I'm wondering who others think will be the next leader or who will run for the position. Right now it seems as though Thomas Mulcair would be the front-runner. I don't know a whole lot about him so I don't know where he stands on policy issues or what the caucus thinks of him but he seems popular and being a Quebecker I would think would help the NDP in his province. So is Mulcair the next leader of the party? Would he be able to easily sweep the race? Or will he even get re-elected in the next elecion?

It doesn't matter who it is. They will NEVER be PM.

[scorpio]

It doesn't matter who it is. They will NEVER be PM.

Yeah, but in this minority government they hold the balance of power.

[Saipan]

If NDP changed leaders like underwear nothing of substance will really happen. They are the party of the 60's.

[Mr.Canada]

Libby Davies will be next leader, she's anti Semitic enough. They'd never vote Mulclair into leadership, he's a Jew and we know how the NDP feel about the Jews.

[kimmy]

The NDP used to be the voice of farmers and blue-collar workers, not politically-correct tree-huggers. Maybe they'd do better if they remembered their roots and chose a leader accordingly.

-k

[DrGreenthumb]

Wow what a bunch of idiot posters. Jack is VERY popular with the party AND with Canadians. He is a strong man and will recover from the Cancer. Calling the NDP antisemetic just makes you a liar, and a piece of steaming shit to boot. Saipan and MrCanada competeing to be the biggest MLW troll? The NDP have changed leaders less often than your masturbatory fantasy CON party. The Harpercrites have changed the name of their party more times in the last decade or so than the NDP have changed leaders. No matter what the Cons call their party they will always be backwoods hick, bible thumping morons just like you two douchebags.

[August1991]

Right now it seems as though Thomas Mulcair would be the front-runner.

Mulcair? Maybe Amir Khadir will accept a nomination. He's also a MNA, and he's from the Plateau. Cool guy.

The NDP used to be the voice of farmers and blue-collar workers, not politically-correct tree-huggers.

kimmy, you divide people. Edited March 15, 2011 by August1991

[SF/PF]

The NDP used to be the voice of farmers and blue-collar workers, not politically-correct tree-huggers. Maybe they'd do better if they remembered their roots and chose a leader accordingly.

-k

Exactly.

[DrGreenthumb]

The NDP used to be the voice of farmers and blue-collar workers, not politically-correct tree-huggers. Maybe they'd do better if they remembered their roots and chose a leader accordingly.

-k

They still are. Conservatives used to be fiscally Conservative. Oh wait, judging by their propensity for deficits , I guess they never were. How much IS the Harper deficit again?

[Mr.Canada]

The opposition pushed for the auto bail outs and they pushed for even MORE stimulus spending. Go back and read guys. Funny how selective the left wing memory is. The left pushed for both of these things everyday during question period and in the media.

The NDP praises Hamas and Hezbollah and boos Israel offending Jewish people in Canada including Mulclair who spoke out about it. More selective memory.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Mr.Canada

[bloodyminded]

If NDP changed leaders like underwear nothing of substance will really happen. They are the party of the 60's.

Uhh....wouldn't the parties that held Federal power in the 60s be, by definition, "the part[ies] of the 60's"?

[Shwa]

The opposition pushed for the auto bail outs and they pushed for even MORE stimulus spending. Go back and read guys. Funny how selective the left wing memory is. The left pushed for both of these things everyday during question period and in the media.

They had to "push" for it? Why? Wasn't the CPC competent enough to manage national finances on their own? No selective memory required, but thank God for "the left wing" otherwise we might be a severe depression. This is what you are basically saying.

[bloodyminded]

The NDP used to be the voice of farmers and blue-collar workers, not politically-correct tree-huggers. Maybe they'd do better if they remembered their roots and chose a leader accordingly.

-k

Well, leaving aside the incontestable fact that "politically-correct tree-huggers" are as much a part of the country as are (for example) Albertan "we are victims of Canada" Americaphiles, I do agree that the NDP has lost an important part of its old base, and that more highly-educated sectors of support are one of the reasons for this. And education is quite distinct from reason, wisdom, or good choices. But this isn't entirely the NDP's fault; the North American Left parties and organizations generally have lost out to a faux populist right wing movement, which has about as much in common with the working class folk who vote for them as John Travolta has with his ostensible heterosexuality. Originally, what we term "the left" was more of an umbrella movement; the concern was primarily with issues of class and equality, and social conservatives fit in there just fine. (I still know a couple of aged NDP'ers, and they are anything but liberal, much less leftwing.)

I suppose I can see how it happened: since "class" and "equality" have always been important to the Left, these very notions incredibly became more exclusive than inclusive, as indentity politics of gender and race overtook the other issues. It's a shame, because (as some have posited, and frankly I agree) to work on the issues in the old way was sufficient, because, as we've seen, gender and race issues have improved greatly anyway.

But the native disorganization, lack of focus, and infighting among the Left, while real enough, are not the only reasons for what's happened to them. The political Right is more savvy, and (in my opinion) more Machiavellian. They know how to recruit, they know how to campaign. They're better and smarter at it, and more disciplined. For a good recent example, the American neocons are very naturally a part of the American Republican Party--but they no more care about social conservatism, God, or abortion than does my cat. They are Public Relations animals through and through.

The Right generally has left much of the more liberal political class so scrambling and desperate to keep up that we see American Democrats and Canadian Liberals arguably more conservative than three-fourths of the populations, at least in many respects. (For example, Canadians and Americans--but especially Canadians--are far more likely to be pro-life, and supportive of gay marriage, than are their representatives, by percentage of population. That is, we don't have 70% of our elected leaders supportive of same sex marriage, not by a long shot; but that percentage, 70%, of the Canadian population is, at least according to a MacLean's poll...and MacLean's has a relatively conservative readership. Similarly, in the 2008 American primaries, one of the ten Democrat candidates supported

gay marriage...Kucinich, of course. Obviously, American public support for ssm, especially among Democrats, eclipses ten percent.)

More to the point of the class issues we're discussing, the political Right has managed to utterly hijack economic class and policy discussions...while the Left scratches its collective head and mutter imprecations about the global economy that are often quite beside the point of getting a toothed message across to people who already hate both conservative and Establishment liberal economic policies. It's actually funny, if we look at it dispassionately. We're at the point where Obama (Wall Street's Presidential choice, and a rational one from their perspective) is battling charges that he's a "socialist" (!!!!!); and the NDP are continually deemed "hard left"; which, by standards of Canadian opinion generally, does not seem to be true at all.

But then, the Canadian Right has more and more been working under the premise, unexamined to my knowledge, that ostensible American perspectives of "left" and "right" are the proper measurements of these words. Why? Fuck if I know--Canadian inferiority complex, for all I can tell. (In America itself, the "left" vs "right" issue is far more complex, as well, but that's a whole other subject.)

Where does this leave the NDP?

Well, if they're lucky, forever at 15-20% support, at best.

Because even if society moves soon in a leftwards direction--which is my prediction, incidentally--I think the Liberals and Conservatives will both shift leftwards and gobble up the slack.

Edited March 15, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Molly]

Awwww.

I feel like just.... applauding.

[bloodyminded]

Awwww.

I feel like just.... applauding.

Am I sensing some slight disagreement with some or all of my assertions?

[GWiz]

Well, leaving aside the incontestable fact that "politically-correct tree-huggers" are as much a part of the country as are (for example) Albertan "we are victims of Canada" Americaphiles, I do agree that the NDP has lost an important part of its old base, and that more highly-educated sectors of support are one of the reasons for this. And education is quite distinct from reason, wisdom, or good choices. But this isn't entirely the NDP's fault; the North American Left parties and organizations generally have lost out to a faux populist right wing movement, which has about as much in common with the working class folk who vote for them as John Travolta has with his ostensible heterosexuality. Originally, what we term "the left" was more of an umbrella movement; the concern was primarily with issues of class and equality, and social conservatives fit in there just fine. (I still know a couple of aged NDP'ers, and they are anything but liberal, much less leftwing.)

I suppose I can see how it happened: since "class" and "equality" have always been important to the Left, these very notions incredibly became more exclusive than inclusive, as indentity politics of gender and race overtook the other issues. It's a shame, because (as some have posited, and frankly I agree) to work on the issues in the old way was sufficient, because, as we've seen, gender and race issues have improved greatly anyway.

But the native disorganization, lack of focus, and infighting among the Left, while real enough, are not the only reasons for what's happened to them. The political Right is more savvy, and (in my opinion) more Machiavellian. They know how to recruit, they know how to campaign. They're better and smarter at it, and more disciplined. For a good recent example, the American neocons are very naturally a part of the American Republican Party--but they no more care about social conservatism, God, or abortion than does my cat. They are Public Relations animals through and through.

The Right generally has left much of the more liberal political class so scrambling and desperate to keep up that we see American Democrats and Canadian Liberals arguably more conservative than three-fourths of the populations, at least in many respects. (For example, Canadians and Americans--but especially Canadians--are far more likely to be pro-life, and supportive of gay marriage, than are their representatives, by percentage of population. That is, 70% of our elected leaders are not supportive of same sex marriage, not by a long shot; but that percentage, 70%, of the Canadian population is, at least according to a MacLean's poll...and MacLean's has a relatively conservative readership. Similarly, in the 2008 American primaries, one of the ten Democrat candidates supported

gay marriage...Kucinich, of course. Obviously, American public support for ssm, especially among Democrats, eclipses ten percent.)

More to the point of the class issues we're discussing, the political Right has managed to utterly hijack economic class and policy discussions...while the Left scratches its collective head and mutter imprecations about the global economy that are often quite beside the point of getting a toothed message across to people who already hate both conservative and Establishment liberal economic policies. It's actually funny, if we look at it dispassionately. We're at the point where Obama (Wall Street's Presidential choice, and a rational one from their perspective) is battling charges that he's a "socialist" (!!!!!); and the NDP are continually deemed "hard left"; which, by standards of Canadian opinion generally, does not seem to be true at all.

But then, the Canadian Right has more and more been working under the premise, unexamined to my knowledge, that ostensible American perspectives of "left" and "right" are the proper measurements of these words. Why? Fuck if I know--Canadian inferiority complex, for all I can tell. (In America itself, the "left" vs "right" issue is far more complex, as well, but that's a whole other subject.)

Where does this leave the NDP?

Well, if they're lucky, forever at 15-20% support, at best.

Because even if society moves soon in a leftwards direction--which is my prediction, incidentally--I think the Liberals and Conservatives will both shift leftwards and gobble up the slack.

From my point of view the entire Harper "strategy" is screw the "left" by a method of divide and conquer (NDP vs Liberals) which works out perfectly because the NDP fall for it every TIME...

Harper is FAR RIGHT to the point of extremism... Harper is Canada's Scott Walker one could even say... Harper is very anti-union and pro Corporations, like Walker in Wisconsin, by keeping the NDP busy fighting the Liberals, he's slowly but surely undermining the strength of unionism in Canada... Credit where credit is due, Harper's strategy is working better now than ever, 2000 posts on the Walker/Wisconsin thread is ample proof it's working here on MLW and the way the "media" up-plays Layton and the NDP in the news over Ignatieff and the Liberals proves it in "general public" terms...

"Some people are so heavenly minded they're no earthly good."

[Saipan]

Wow what a bunch of idiot posters.

Lefties are always allowed to do some diligent name calling, so don't be shy

Saipan and MrCanada competeing to be the biggest MLW troll?

What are you competeing for? #1 in Spelling Bee?

The Harpercrites have changed the name of their party

That must be eating you alive. Wouldn't work for NDP, rump party under any name.

No matter what the Cons call their party they will always be backwoods hick, bible thumping morons

We Buddhists love to thump bible every chance we get. Thumpity thump...... preferably on Parliament Hill

[bloodyminded]

From my point of view the entire Harper "strategy" is screw the "left" by a method of divide and conquer (NDP vs Liberals) which works out perfectly because the NDP fall for it every TIME...

Harper is FAR RIGHT to the point of extremism... Harper is Canada's Scott Walker one could even say... Harper is very anti-union and pro Corporations, like Walker in Wisconsin, by keeping the NDP busy fighting the Liberals, he's slowly but surely undermining the strength of unionism in Canada... Credit where credit is due, Harper's strategy is working better now than ever, 2000 posts on the Walker/Wisconsin thread is ample proof it's working here on MLW and the way the "media" up-plays Layton and the NDP in the news over Ignatieff and the Liberals proves it in "general public" terms...

"Some people are so heavenly minded they're no earthly good."

I'm not sure Harper is very far to the right. We can guess from his pre-leadership days that he's a bona fide right-winger (though not an "extremist"), but Canadian politics isn't too forgiving of anything too far to the Right, so he's adjusted accordingly. Or maybe his personal views (medicare bad; Iraq war awesome) have softened. Either way, I don't see him as extremist at all. Not my favourite guy by a long shot, but that doesn't matter to anyone but me.

[bloodyminded]

We Buddhists love to thump bible every chance we get. Thumpity thump...... preferably on Parliament Hill

???

I thought you contended that you weren't a Buddhist, after I offered evidence that the Dalai Lama is a leftwinger, a self-declared socialist and Marxist.

[Molly]

Am I sensing some slight disagreement with some or all of my assertions?

If you are, then that's about the only thing you got wrong.

Surprise, more like. The high points you touch are unconventional, but spot on.

If you look around you might find me commenting on how tough it was to tell the difference between Roy Romanow and Mike Harris.... (Kinda nice to feel like I'm not the only one who sometimes wonders if we slipped into Bizarro World).

[bloodyminded]

If you are, then that's about the only thing you got wrong.

Surprise, more like. The high points you touch are unconventional, but spot on.

Oh! You know, it was the little ninja smiley that threw me. I'm smiley-illiterate, obviously.

So...thanks for the nice compliment.

If you look around you might find me commenting on how tough it was to tell the difference between Roy Romanow and Mike Harris.... (Kinda nice to feel like I'm not the only one who sometimes wonders if we slipped into Bizarro World).

Yeah, well, one little spat we had aside, which was my overeaction anyway, I think we're inclined to see more or less eye to eye.

Edited March 15, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Molly]

From my point of view the entire Harper "strategy" is screw the "left" by a method of divide and conquer (NDP vs Liberals) which works out perfectly because the NDP fall for it every TIME...

Too, too, too toomuch credit. The strategy is "Be brazen; talk fast; assume the stupidity of your audience."

The liberals and the NDP are quite capable of dividing themselves from one another without any outside help. I would think they should both be a little insulted at being equated and assumed to be halves of the same whole.

[GWiz]

Too, too, too toomuch credit. The strategy is "Be brazen; talk fast; assume the stupidity of your audience."

The liberals and the NDP are quite capable of dividing themselves from one another without any outside help. I would think they should both be a little insulted at being equated and assumed to be halves of the same whole.

Not to disagree with you, and I basically don't, but don't underestimate Harper, he KNOWS how a divided front hurts a "side" which is todays "Conservative Party", which bears little resemblance to say the Clark led PCs if you know what I mean...

There is far too great a divide between the NDP and Liberals for any form of "joining" them, and you are absolutely right in saying that they can hurt their election chances enough without any outside interference...

I'm saying that because of it Harper reaps the benefit and will as long as the NDP keeps attacking the Liberals for the sake of a few extra seats beyond their "hardcore" base...

That's just a simple fact and nothing more...

"Once you have accepted yourself, it's so much easier to accept other people and their point of view."