Tom Mulcair leadership review

Bryan · April 7, 2016

Far left... please define how he is "far left" and an "activist". Then we can have a discussion about it... as it is, the labels alone are completely meaningless.

Cullen is very popular in his riding, often receiving a majority of the votes in past elections. It was closer this past election with the Liberal candidate doing much better than in the past.

Pick virtually any "progressive" cause and by Canadian standards he's usually at the far left end of it. He promotes these things on his Facebook and Twitter all the time. As an activist, he promotes essentially the same agenda as the Council of Canadians and Greenpeace (often literally sharing their posts), and he actively shows up at the steady cycle of leftist protests.

I don't mean it as a label at all. The people in his riding like that and it's what they vote for. I just wonder if the NDP wants to move that far left. I wonder similar things about Max Bernier's bid to lead the CPC -- does the party really want to move as far right as he is? I like his fiscal policy, but I'm not sure it would win an election.

The_Squid · April 7, 2016

Still no actual example that can be discussed on its own merits.

Bike lanes?

Oil tankers?

If there are no actual examples of his potential policy direction, then it's just a label.

"He's far left"

Why?

"Because of his policies"

What policies?

"His far-left policies"

Bryan · April 7, 2016

Still no actual example that can be discussed on its own merits.

Again, Pick virtually any "progressive" cause and by Canadian standards he's usually at the far left end of it.

Vega · April 7, 2016

^{I think that he might actually fail the review if there was a credible opposition candidate waiting in the wings, or at least a decent stalking horse.}

cybercoma · April 8, 2016

Still no actual example that can be discussed on its own merits.

Bike lanes?

Oil tankers?

If there are no actual examples of his potential policy direction, then it's just a label.

"He's far left"

Why?

"Because of his policies"

What policies?

"His far-left policies"

You're talking to Bryan.

BC_chick · April 8, 2016

I've been very mixed about whether or not I would like to see Mulcair stay on. On the one hand, I was very disappointed with his debate performances which I thought started the downward trend even before the fateful niqab issue came along. Second, I've always questioned whether or not he really believes the things he says or if he does so because of party platform.

However, whether feasible or not, I admired that he was the only one even discussing balanced budget during the last election. Also, even though the grassroots of the party feel he's too right, I like that he continued the centrist trend within the party.

I love the Green Party and what they stand for, but in political spectrum, they are more left than me. Liberals are to the right of me, and even though I enjoyed the end of the Harper era, the honeymoon quickly faded with JT's antics which I find too boisterous and arrogant.

The NDP is the only party that is precisely in line with my values and it is under the current leadership that I say this. I hope Mulcair makes it through this weekend.

Edited April 8, 2016 by BC_chick

Smallc · April 8, 2016

A balanced budget was a fantasy. Anyone saying so in the last election was living in that fantasy.

BC_chick · April 8, 2016

Apparently so was a $10billion per year deficit.

BC_chick · April 8, 2016

At least Mulcair's 'fantasy' was to try and be more constrained.

Smallc · April 8, 2016

Apparently so was a $10billion per year deficit.

I think Harper would have had a deficit of about $10B.

cybercoma · April 8, 2016

At least Mulcair's 'fantasy' was to try and be more constrained.

The problem with Mulcair is that he not only led the party like Harper led the CPC, leaving no room for dissenting opinions, but he had the party arguing against its values. We had to not only support a fiscally conservative platform, but we also had to defend him not showing up to a women's rights debate and support his anti-legalization of marijuana position. He also failed at the one thing he was voted into leadership to do and that was to be a bulldog in the debates. Instead he stood there with his nauseatingly contrived smile and played it safe. That's not even to touch on the fact that long-term NDP MPs who had strongholds were overthrown in the election and the fact that he had no strategy for Québec this time. Mulcair doesn't belong in NDP leadership. Maybe he can try selling his services to the CPC again, now that they too are looking for renewal. He would probably fit in better over there.

Big Guy · April 8, 2016

There is no mystery of how to create a balanced budget.

It is only a matter of deciding what to subtract from spending and/or how to increase revenues.

The trick is to do it without having the folks outside the parliament buildings with torches and pitchforks.

BC_chick · April 8, 2016

Cybercoma, the debates were cringe-worthy, I know, I mentioned it too earlier. I was totally yelling at the TV and so embarrassed for him. He also did a lot I disagreed with, including the ones you mention - like anti-legalization and not showing up for debates.

Right after the election I was so angry that he didn't resign that that I started a thread about it expressing my view. As the time came closer, I've honestly been sitting on the fence about him and could go either way but the other day I was contemplating the future of the NDP if we move further to the left. The Green Party is already taken up a good chunk of the electorate there and JT is trying very hard to be the progressive party (wolf in sheep's clothing) and many are buying it.

The fact that Mulcair even considered the CPC is what I was saying earlier about whether or not I question his genuineness, but given the current political environment, there is no where for the NDP to be other than where but where Mulcair has led the party.

I agree, there is so much to dislike and so much baggage. Although I hope it works out given that one single reason I gave above, I would be very surprised and if it does I would get over it quickly if it doesn't.

Edited April 8, 2016 by BC_chick

Big Guy · April 8, 2016

Cybercoma, the debates were cringe-worthy, I know, I mentioned it too earlier. I was totally yelling at the TV and so embarrassed for him. He also did a lot I disagreed with, including the ones you mention - like anti-legalization and not showing up for debates.

Right after the election I was so angry that he didn't resign that that I started a thread about it expressing my view. As the time came closer, I've honestly been sitting on the fence about him and could go either way but the other day I was contemplating the future of the NDP if we move further to the left. The Green Party is already taken up a good chunk of the electorate there and JT is trying very hard to be the progressive party (wolf in sheep's clothing) and many are buying it.

The fact that Mulcair even considered the CPC is what I was saying earlier about whether or not I question his genuineness, but given the current political environment, there is no where for the NDP to be other than where but where Mulcair has led the party.

I agree, there is so much to dislike and so much baggage. Although I hope it works out given that one single reason I gave above, I would be very surprised and if it does I would get over it quickly if it doesn't.

Sounds to me like Mulcair is a leader looking for a party. Any party.

overthere · April 8, 2016

The NDP have to decide if they want to stick with leftist principles that ensure they will never be elected, or otherwise. Pre-convention the sentiment seems to be for the former, so bye bye Tom and thanks for the hard work.

The most interesting thing at the convention won't be the leadership business. It will the be the quiet war amongst delegates, which may not stay quiet. The choice of Edmonton is curious, since it will create a split from the outset. Everybody in attendance is a 'progressive' to a large or larger degree, and that means a proponent of all those lovely and costly social programs. There will be a large contingent of vocal supporters of the LEAP Manifesto, who want a dramatically different and dramatically more expensive society, but are very thin on how that gets paid for.. There will be a smaller bunch of Alberta NDP people, who tend to have a more pragmatic approach, specifically in developing and selling resources to pay for programs. Might be some fireworks. I expect the LEAPers to prevail, which means that the NDP nationally will have to resign itself to a decade or two longer in the wilderness.

BC_chick · April 8, 2016

Sounds to me like Mulcair is a leader looking for a party. Any party.

I don't buy that. When he came on board the possibility of an NDP opposition party was still beyond anyone's imagination. He's not that opportunistic.

cybercoma · April 8, 2016

The NDP have to decide if they want to stick with leftist principles that ensure they will never be elected....

Says the Conservative partisan. :rolleyes:

cybercoma · April 8, 2016

Right after the election I was so angry that he didn't resign that that I started a thread about it expressing my view.

I supported his decision not to resign and I still do, but the more I thought about it the more I think he's doing more harm than good for the party. He's great in QP, but he's not the social democrat that we need at the helm. NDP is a socialist party, has always been a socialist party, and should proudly stand behind that. It's pretty sad that Elizabeth May is the leader the NDP should have.

And honestly, I think if you look at it, a lot of NDP supporters have put their support with the Greens lately. I know in my riding that is exactly what happened, since Mulcair was ineffective and the local NDP candidate was just awful. She was confrontational and uninformed. Two qualities that made her impossible to vote for.

Edited April 8, 2016 by cybercoma

Smallc · April 8, 2016

The NDP have to decide if they want to stick with leftist principles that ensure they will never be elected, or otherwise.

So we end up with blue, red, and orange Liberals? That's actually just fine with me, to be honest.

overthere · April 8, 2016

Says the Conservative partisan.

Says 150 years of history and reality.

Every party except the NDP scraps over the middle, except the NDP and electoral results at the national level are clear what happens when you do that. Now the Liberals lurched to the left and are eating the NDPs lunch there as well. The NDP could have been dragged to the center and more success by Layton, and Mulcair tried to do it too. But he did not have the charisma to buffalo his own party, or the electorate. Layton had at least half that pairing. And the NDP don't have anybody else that can do it.

They have a big decision to make at this convention, and I expect them to make the one that takes them left, and ensure the status quo for the NDP: outside looking in. You can call it partisan, but that is the way it is from here.

overthere · April 8, 2016

Is it too late to nominate Svend Robbingstores or Bev Desjarlais?

cybercoma · April 9, 2016

Says 150 years of history and reality.

Seeing as the NDP formed in 1961, I think you're a tad confused.

Derek 2.0 · April 9, 2016

I don't know about Mulcair, but I almost feel sorry for Premier Notley and the Alberta NDP....... what with a mantra like keep "Alberta's oil in the ground", at a convention in Alberta.....what a dumpster fire

From the little coverage I've watched so far, to me, its seems they are consigned with not being reelected in Alberta and shrinking their federal footprint to the benefit of Trudeau.......oh well, I'm sure in 20-30 years, the previous mandate as the Official Opposition will be looked back as a high watermark like the Broadbent years....