Mulcair's decision to not resign

BC_chick · November 2, 2015

I get that it's usual for the NDP to maintain its leadership after third-party results because they have historically been a third party, with one exception in 2011. I'm also aware that Mulcair managed to get more seats than Layton did 2008 and that's something to be commended.

However, what makes this election unique is that Mulcair's leadership was strategic in the sense that the NDP were trying to fill the centrist void left after the LPC's implosion with Ignatieff.

NDP recently labelled itself as the 'progressive opposition', but under Mulcair that's not necessarily true. Many left-wing NDP'ers were unhappy about having Mulcair as their party leader because he was seen as too centrist.

Personally, I think Mulcair should have resigned and allowed the NDP to go back to its roots because he obviously can't compete with the LPC for the centrist vote and he stands to alienate the NDP base.

Does anyone think it's good that he stayed on?

angrypenguin · November 2, 2015

I hope he continues staying on

BC_chick · November 2, 2015

Why? If NDP maintains its leadership and alienates its base without resonating with the centrists, you realize it's just going to be more powerful Liberal governments, don't you?

segnosaur · November 2, 2015

Why? If NDP maintains its leadership and alienates its base without resonating with the centrists, you realize it's just going to be more powerful Liberal governments, don't you?

You said yourself that they got more seats this time around than in at least one of Layton's elections.

Perhaps some people feel that the Liberals have a good chance of self-destructing like they did last time after chretien, and by moving the party closer to the center they might seem like a viable alternative. On the other hand, tying themselves to extreme left would result in a party that would be condemned to be a 3rd party forever, and that should the liberals falter, the conservatives would be seen as the only alternative.

BC_chick · November 2, 2015

I don't know any more than anyone else, but I think the fact that the NDP got more seats than 2011 had to do with early polling where NDP was seen as the best to defeat the CPC.

As for remaining in the centre with the hopes of another LPC implosion, I think it would be a pretty stupid strategy because they are competing with an incumbent centrist party. It's long-term thinking with possible catastrophic short-term results if their base abandons them.

The fact that they want to be the 'progressive opposition' goes to show that they want to maintain their left-wing roots but at the same time they want to keep their centrist leader who will not be helping this image at all.

I would really like to hear more positive feedback as to why he's good for the party. There have been many instances of people on this board putting things in a way that changed my perspective and I like Mulcair. I'm trying to see if anyone has anything to say that could make me see the good that can be accomplished by him staying.

overthere · November 2, 2015

I think the OP is some kind of agent provocateur, keeping the NDP in their traditional pigeonhole........and therefore no threat to Trudeau Jr.

The NDP is at its usual leadership and membership crossroads: do they want to rule or not?

BC_chick · November 2, 2015

That is one of the weirdest accusations I've ever heard and I'm not sure why I'm answering, but for what it's worth I think JT stands to benefit a lot from having Mulcair stay on because the NDP base has vocal in their unhappiness about Mulcair and the electorate is clearly more at ease with JT leading the centrist pack than Mulcair.

The end result will be a lot less vote-splitting for the LPC.

And while I openly admit that JT is a huge step up from Harper, I have not voted the Liberal party in the last two elections.

ToadBrother · November 2, 2015

Personally, I think Mulcair should have resigned and allowed the NDP to go back to its roots because he obviously can't compete with the LPC for the centrist vote and he stands to alienate the NDP base.

Does anyone think it's good that he stayed on?

Let's just think about this for a second. A lot of what damaged the NDP was the niqab issue, a blow that wasn't even intended for the NDP, but rather to bolster the Tories' chances in Quebec. The NDP were the unintended victims of this attack, and their collapse was in no small part what cost the Tories the election.

I can't see how any other NDP leader could have prevented this meltdown. The 2011 Orange Crush was never really as deep as the NDP desired, and they were always going to be vulnerable. In other words, none of it was Mulcair's fault.

Not that the NDP's campaign didn't have its flaws, chief among the belief through the first half of the campaign that they had at least a minority in the bag. I literally overheard NDP supporters talking about who would be in a Mulcair cabinet. I also think they must have pushed Mulcair through some sort of bizarre Focus Group Political Makeover Machine that tried to convert him into Mr. Friendly. I think Mulcair would have been better off just playing himself.

I see no need for leaders to just automatically fall on their swords after a defeat, and in this case, whatever the NDP think of Mulcair, there's no one in the wings, particularly after the loss of what amounts to the best caucus the party has ever had in Parliament, who has Mulcair's breadth of skill as a parliamentarian and as a political strategist. I think he is wise not to resign, and I think the party would be foolish to force him out.

BC_chick · November 3, 2015

I see no need for leaders to just automatically fall on their swords after a defeat, and in this case, whatever the NDP think of Mulcair, there's no one in the wings, particularly after the loss of what amounts to the best caucus the party has ever had in Parliament, who has Mulcair's breadth of skill as a parliamentarian and as a political strategist. I think he is wise not to resign, and I think the party would be foolish to force him out.

Thanks TB. As I mentioned earlier, I started this thread with the hopes that I can be persuaded to see the good in Mulcair staying on and your quote above is a pretty good reason even though it's unfortunate that it comes down to he may not be the best for the party but he is the best there is presently.

I also agree that he tried too hard to be someone that he's not so hopefully without so much at stake next time, he can be himself once again.

Edited November 3, 2015 by BC_chick

segnosaur · November 3, 2015

I don't know any more than anyone else, but I think the fact that the NDP got more seats than 2011 had to do with early polling where NDP was seen as the best to defeat the CPC.

People cast their votes for a variety of reasons.

While some may have done so strategically, I don't think you can say that nobody was influenced by their move to the center.

As for remaining in the centre with the hopes of another LPC implosion, I think it would be a pretty stupid strategy because they are competing with an incumbent centrist party.

The fact that the Liberals are an "incumbent centrist party" does not mean that they will always have a lock on power. Scandals do add up, and many of Trudeau's promises will be difficult if not impossible to implement. Eventually voters will look for an alternative.

It's long-term thinking with possible catastrophic short-term results if their base abandons them.

And just where do you think their "base" is going to go?

Even if they do move towards the political center, they will still probably be further to the left than the Liberals. Any hardcore unionist or left-leaning nutcase will still be more likely to support a center-left NDP than a Centeralist liberal.

This is part of the reason the conservatives had the success they had. For all the complaints about the "radical" conservatives, many of their policies were far from the "right wing" extremes that many thought... (They didn't really do much with abortion, gay marriage, etc.) So, they absorbed at least a few centrist votes while at the same time keeping their voter base.

All in all though, I do have trouble seeing them as a "centerist" party at all... While they did promote a balanced budget, they also had some pretty big spending plans... public daycare, infrastructure spending, paid for in part by corporate tax hikes.

segnosaur · November 3, 2015

I see no need for leaders to just automatically fall on their swords after a defeat, and in this case, whatever the NDP think of Mulcair, there's no one in the wings, particularly after the loss of what amounts to the best caucus the party has ever had in Parliament, who has Mulcair's breadth of skill as a parliamentarian and as a political strategist. I think he is wise not to resign, and I think the party would be foolish to force him out.

I seem to remember prior to the election, political commentators pointing out that Mulcair did the best job as the opposition leader, but every time he managed to score poitical points against the conservatives, it was Trudeau who benefited.

Topaz · November 3, 2015

I like Mulcair and he's a good opposition leader and IF he had been in the lead in the polls, he would have probably gotten the PMO. I believe that voters wanted Harper gone so they voted for the party in the lead at election time.

BC_chick · November 3, 2015

Even if they do move towards the political center, they will still probably be further to the left than the Liberals. Any hardcore unionist or left-leaning nutcase will still be more likely to support a center-left NDP than a Centeralist liberal.

This is part of the reason the conservatives had the success they had. For all the complaints about the "radical" conservatives, many of their policies were far from the "right wing" extremes that many thought... (They didn't really do much with abortion, gay marriage, etc.) So, they absorbed at least a few centrist votes while at the same time keeping their voter base.

All in all though, I do have trouble seeing them as a "centerist" party at all... While they did promote a balanced budget, they also had some pretty big spending plans... public daycare, infrastructure spending, paid for in part by corporate tax hikes.

You make a fair point in the last paragraph, the policies are still left-leaning but he has tried very hard to brand himself also as a centrist which is kind of where I think he's a detriment to the party. He is a bit of contradiction whereas Layton was more appealing to the base. I'm more involved in the NDP community and this is something I saw time and time again. Many just don't feel Mulcair represented them the way Layton did.

Regarding the base voting for NDP no matter what, it's interesting because earlier today I was reading this on 308:

More people voted in 2006 than in 2008 or 2011, meaning that a lot of people who voted in the 2006 election stayed home in the next two elections as the Liberals plummeted in public support. The Liberals did attract a lot of first-time voters in this campaign, but they were also successful in bringing back a lot of voters that just stayed home in 2008 and 2011.

It's very true that members of a a party base could be so disillusioned by their party that they stay home on election day. That could explain why LPC supporters voted Paul Martin but stayed home for Dion and Ignatieff. Same thing could happen to the NDP.

Edited November 3, 2015 by BC_chick

Big Guy · November 3, 2015

I get that it's usual for the NDP ...

Does anyone think it's good that he stayed on?

I believe that Mulcair is a loyal Canadian and an exceptional parliamentarian. He is an asset in the House and his experience should not be wasted. I am one of those Canadians who do not believe that the NDP could or would ever take power in Canada. The NDP plays an essential part as the "conscience" of Canadian politics and if/when proportional representation (in some form) is implemented as a promise of the Liberals then the NDP will be guaranteed a large influence in the future of Canada.

BC_chick · November 3, 2015

Thanks BG, I agree with everything you say about the role of the NDP in Canadian politics as well as their future chances in Parliament. Unfortunately I don't think their policies appeal to enough Canadians.

poochy · November 3, 2015

We already have two centrist parties, more or less, if the NDP wants to be one of them it might as well join the liberals, otherwise it can be that further to the left party it always has been, in which case it will always be treated as the party that is too far to the left. I would much prefer if Mulcair was the liberal leader, in fact I would have voted for the liberals in that case, I dont think the result of this election is about him, they ended up back right about where they were before a very charismatic Jack Layton took great advantage of a specific set of circumstances that didn't exist this time. The NDP was never going to win this election, probably not under any circumstance, but certainly not with the heir apparent running for the liberals, most of us just think they are too far left, but that is what they are and there is no room for them to be anything else.

Edited November 3, 2015 by poochy

G Huxley · November 3, 2015

Mulcair is a disgrace to the party for his smarmy anti-democratic stance/tactics this election. At least Layton had the sense to backtrack when he tried to do the same thing initially.

ToadBrother · November 3, 2015

Mulcair is a disgrace to the party for his smarmy anti-democratic stance/tactics this election. At least Layton had the sense to backtrack when he tried to do the same thing initially.

And what exactly did he do that was anti-democratic. He tried to steer the NDP close enough to the center that they might have a shot at winning. It's not his fault that the Tories' niqab baiting overshot the mark and cut the NDP's support out from under them in Quebec. Actually, it's to his credit, and surely one of the most noble sacrifices in modern political history, that he refused to give an inch, and rather held his ground. The NDP lost, but lost with honor, which is saying a lot in this day and age.

And where will the NDP go after Mulcair? What bright spark is going to improve the party's lot? Driving back towards the left isn't going to deliver the party power, even with another electoral system.

Mulcair ran an unimaginative campaign, but that's not why the NDP lost. Frankly, short of violating one of the core principles of the party, and siding with the Tories on the niqab, I think the NDP would have been screwed no matter what. Trudeau had the advantage, and the NDP and the Tories just had way too much time to burn themselves down.

G Huxley · November 3, 2015

His anti-democratic move was to not participate in the normal debates so that other parties would be sidelined as a result of those debates being called off.

Edited November 3, 2015 by G Huxley

ToadBrother · November 3, 2015

His anti-democratic move was to not participate in the normal debates so that other parties would be sidelined.

If that's the worst he did, that's a pretty small crime. And, quite frankly, with the Greens ever dwindling support, I think we can safely ignore them, even in a non-FPTP electoral system. I think Elizabeth May has got far more attention than she ever earned.

-1=e^ipi · November 3, 2015

I think you are thinking about this wrong. There's more than just left vs right.

NDP can win if they just have sane policies based upon evidence and try to explain why their policies are justified and aren't just based on what is popular.

The Liberals are ideologically bankrupt. They just move to whatever position they think will get them the most votes in the short term. They are led by a not very bright individual who got the party leadership position with zero policies and a fancy last name.

Also, the NDP's policy recommendations differ quite a bit from more successful socialist political parties in Scandinavia (which try to work with the market rather than control everything like control freaks). Take the issue of CO2 emissions, the NDP absolutely hates taxing CO2 emissions because they somehow don't understand that it can be used to reduce emissions and instead prefer cap-and-trade. Yet cap-and-trade is simply a more expensive option to get the same result, and that's why Norway, Sweden, the Green Party, James Hansen, David Suzuki and basically every economist prefer CO2 emission taxation. Or take the issue of the sales tax. Tax shifting towards a higher consumption tax and lower income tax would be beneficial for our country since it would increase the physical capital stock in the long run and smart countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark have a 25% VAT. Even things like the minimum wage, it would make far more sense to push a basic income than keep increasing a minimum wage to push people out of the labour market; but the NDP's continued ideological adherence to dumb policy just shows how economically illiterate they are.

Edited November 3, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

cybercoma · November 3, 2015

I think a big part of his problem was his opposition to Trudeau in this election. That same problem will be a strength in the next election as the NDP takes on the role of the only progressive alternative to the Liberals.

cybercoma · November 3, 2015

Having said that, this still isn't going to help his personality and character. He's no Jack Layton and people just aren't going to be inspired by him like they were by Jack. Nathan Cullen would be a far better alternative, but in the leadership race he wanted to work with the Liberals at the riding association level and the party wasn't having any of that.

ToadBrother · November 3, 2015

The Liberals are ideologically bankrupt. They just move to whatever position they think will get them the most votes in the short term. They are led by a not very bright individual who got the party leadership position with zero policies and a fancy last name.

The Liberals have used this technique to be the dominant party in Canadian politics since Laurier.

And at this point, the Liberals' opponents are still attacking Trudeau's intelligence?