Anne McGrath wants to know my priorities, and she's given me a list to choose from

281 posts / 0 new
Last post
Debater

Chantal Hébert says that in her discussions with NDP insiders, they don't want to acknowledge the need for a campaign post-mortem or a proper leadership review:

And yet, to listen to NDP insiders, Mulcair’s job is safe.

His assertion that he plans to lead the party in the 2019 campaign seems to barely raise an eyebrow and the prospect of a campaign post-mortem comes across as more of a formality than a necessity.

For all intents and purposes, it is as if the NDP’s establishment is determined to keep a lid on the post-election discussion and a de facto leadership review.

It may be that many New Democrats don’t believe Mulcair actually means to stay on for another four years, or that they can’t think of a suitable replacement or an alternative winning strategy.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/14/ndp-loss-still-a-win-for-p...

Stockholm

When have any parties in Canada ever had FORMAL post-election reviews after losing an election? The Liberals lost in 2006, 2008 and 2011 - I don't recall them having any "formal" inquiry as to why they lost. I don't believe that Conservatives have ever held a "royal commission" into why they lost an election either. Have the Ontario PCs ever had a "coroners inquest" on why they lost the last few Ontario elections?Did the NDP have any any inquest into why the party lost in 1974 or 1988 or 1993? I don't believe so.

The only example i can think of is the BC NDP having an internal inquiry/report on why they lost in 2013...it was basically an empty gesture to satisfy a few braying jackals who wanted to be able to blame someone and wante dto have a witch hunt - the report pointed out all the very obvious shortcomings and miscalculations of the campaign and leader and one would hope that people involved in the next campaign will learn from this... They could have saved a lot of time and money and not had a formal review at all - the reasons for the defeat were pretty obvious to anyone.

and good luck trying to "democratize" campaign communication strategy. How exactly would that work? Would you propose that all 120,000 NDP members in canada have a vote on what ad agency to hire for the election and that party members have regular referenda on which one out of three possible campaign ads is the best one to run with? How do you propose to involve the entire membership in the leaders debate preparation and strategy?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Ok, it may not have been done before, granted.  But wouldn't you agree that the inexusable disaster of this election(the loss of more than half the causus when the party started the campaign in the lead and therefore should at a minimum have been able to count on holding its ground in sests and votes) justifies, even demands, an investigation, a completely new strategy, and a total rethink?

And wouldn't you have to agree that Anne McGrath's "we're not going to change and we want you to tell us what you think is most wonderful about us" survey is a total insult to NDP supporters?

After a result like this, what, in the NDP status quo, could possibly be worth keeping?

Debater

Stockholm, one reasons there haven't usually been post-mortems for the Liberals & Conservatives in the past is because they dump leaders who fail, and therefore there is less reason to call an investigation.

Second, as Chantal Hébert said in her column today (and as Ken Burch says above), this is the largest number of seats the NDP has ever lost in one election before.

So while post-mortems may be unusual, one may be called for in a case like this.

(Btw, Liberal Party President Alfred Apps published a detailed & frank account of the Liberal Party's decline after the 2011 Election.)

JKR

Stockholm wrote:

When have any parties in Canada ever had FORMAL post-election reviews after losing an election? The Liberals lost in 2006, 2008 and 2011 - I don't recall them having any "formal" inquiry as to why they lost. I don't believe that Conservatives have ever held a "royal commission" into why they lost an election either. Have the Ontario PCs ever had a "coroners inquest" on why they lost the last few Ontario elections?Did the NDP have any any inquest into why the party lost in 1974 or 1988 or 1993? I don't believe so.

I think the NDP has to hold some kind or formal post-election review because no one has taken responsibility after losing the election. in the past party leaders of different political stripes have taken responsibility for major setbacks.

Sean in Ottawa

DaveW wrote:

jjuares wrote:
terrytowel wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Caissa wrote:

My priority is Mulcair's resignation. Once we have that in hand the discussion of the next forur years can begin.

Agreed.

And if NDP members vote to have Mulcair remain as leader in April, will disenfrachised NDP members stay home come the next election, or will they form another NPI party?

Good question. I see almost no support for him to remain though.

in Saturday 14th Star and Globe both Chantal Hebert and Adam Radwanski point out that the NDP has no plans for a thorough election review or leadership assesment

Carry on, Tom... the curtains to reality have been drawn at NDP HQ

If correct the party is finished.

It is only a matter of time (and not a long time) before other options on the left will be created. Mulcair has wrecked the NDP.

jjuares

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

jjuares wrote:

I want a change in leadership but I worry if we focus on that too much other needed changes will be missed. I believe we need to introduce democracy into the NDP. Now don't get me wrong I feel that the party is at least as democratic as the other three. However, that is indeed damning with faint praise. Candidate selection (and more importantly )deselection, platform development, communication strategy are just a few areas this party is woeful.

Imagine a party with the word democratic in its name actaually being a grass roots democratic organization. The NDP has never been a grass roots party. I have seen the party up close and personal in three provinces and the insiders control everywhere.  The string of elections I worked in Burnaby were a constant battle over messaging but our sitting MP's were strong enough to get to run an independent local campaign. We always had boxes of unused shit from the central campaign because the messaging was always meant to appeal to Ontario voters. The irony is that the federal party has never had a major breakthrough in Ontario.

If our Quebec MP's had been allowed to act like the community activists they were before being elected, like Svend and Libby used to in the '90's and '00's, I think the party would have held onto their seats. Instead the caucus got muzzled and told to look like a staid government in waiting.

I think we need regional campaigns with a broad central theme and we need to empower riding associations.  I think vetting needs to be done at the regional level and all facts presented to riding associations' executives and they should then get to decide whether a candidate is suitable to seek a nomination. All facts obtained during the vetting process should be made available to the membership for the nomination battle.

I know that the odds of this happening are in the remote possibility range. Sigh.

Thanks (both of you) for these comments. I am absolutely convinced that a change of leadership will change absolutely nothing.

Just think what it says about the nature of a party, when it can significantly change course just by changing someone at the helm - a leader, moreover, who is given no dictatorial powers by the party constitution. It is the apathy and frustration and illusions of the members which confer that dictatorial power - and the same apathy and frustration which guarantee that the party can never fundamentally correct its course.

So either do what krop says above... at the riding level... or waste the next few years looking for another perfect little leader.


I agree. For me replacing Mulcair is axiomatic and not really worth discussing. My focus is on the internal democracy or the lack of it in this party. This election I canvassed for two candidates, both of them were good individuals who worked hard and deserved better. From what I see the grassroots is shell shocked and not ready to consider much. The one good thing about this loss is that it might make the membership ready to start questioning some of the decisions made this campaign. I can give one personal example. The Palestinian issues isn't something I have focussed on. However, dumping these candidates who seemed to do nothing more than endorse the UN and Canada's position ( at least the official one) was outrageous. Somebody has to be accountable for these idiotic decisions. There has to be some clear direction and policy on candidates for any future leader.

Aristotleded24

jjuares wrote:
The one good thing about this loss is that it might make the membership ready to start questioning some of the decisions made this campaign. I can give one personal example. The Palestinian issues isn't something I have focussed on. However, dumping these candidates who seemed to do nothing more than endorse the UN and Canada's position ( at least the official one) was outrageous. Somebody has to be accountable for these idiotic decisions. There has to be some clear direction and policy on candidates for any future leader.

Even putting aside the issue of human rights, dumping these candidates may have actually drawn more negative attention to the party than anything else. Sometimes drawing attention to something makes it worse, and does not reflect well on you and the party.

Stockholm

Debater wrote:

Stockholm, one reasons there haven't usually been post-mortems for the Liberals & Conservatives in the past is because they dump leaders who fail, and therefore there is less reason to call an investigation.

Second, as Chantal Hébert said in her column today (and as Ken Burch says above), this is the largest number of seats the NDP has ever lost in one election before.

So while post-mortems may be unusual, one may be called for in a case like this.

(Btw, Liberal Party President Alfred Apps published a detailed & frank account of the Liberal Party's decline after the 2011 Election.)

In 1984 John Turner led the Liberals to their worst showing ever up to then. They were reduced to 40 seats and,lost over 100 seats despite being in the lead at the start of the campaign. There was no postmortem on the result and turner stuck around and led the liberals again in 1988.

Similar to what Alfred apps did in 2011, Anne McGrath is charged with reporting on what went wrong in this campaign. Knowing her, I expect she will be self-critical to a fault and will pull no punches in assessing what the short comings of the campaign were. If party members want to start a new leadership contest, all they have to do is vote for one at the convention in April. I'm sure it will be discussed at nauseum, though I'm sure it will never be enough for the braying jackals who want some sort of witch hunt with people burned in effigy.

Stockholm

JKR wrote:
Stockholm wrote:

When have any parties in Canada ever had FORMAL post-election reviews after losing an election? The Liberals lost in 2006, 2008 and 2011 - I don't recall them having any "formal" inquiry as to why they lost. I don't believe that Conservatives have ever held a "royal commission" into why they lost an election either. Have the Ontario PCs ever had a "coroners inquest" on why they lost the last few Ontario elections?Did the NDP have any any inquest into why the party lost in 1974 or 1988 or 1993? I don't believe so.

I think the NDP has to hold some kind or formal post-election review because no one has taken responsibility after losing the election. in the past party leaders of different political stripes have taken responsibility for major setbacks.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Pearson was crushed in 1958 and the liberal party happily let him lose again in 1962 before winning in 1963. As noted John Turner ran a horrifically bad campaign in 1984,no post mortem and he ran again in 1988. Bob Stanfield was supposed to win in 1968 for the Tories and was crushed by Trudeau, no post mortem and he was allowed to run again in two more elections. Joe Clark actually got a 67% confidence vote at the Tory convention in 1982 after he squandered power in 1980 and could have held on to his job if he had wanted to, but Joe ever the goof decided 67% wasn't enough and resigned to run for his own job and lost.

I'm not saying Mulcair shouldn't retire or that the NDP shouldn't do a post mortem...only pointing out that it's not the norm for parties to do that after losing an election

Debater

As Chantal Hébert said in her column today, this is the largest number of seats the NDP has ever lost before.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

In in almost all of those cases, the result of letting the badly-defeated leader stay on was at least one more defeat(another massive majority defeat in Turner's case)under that leader.  Not exactly a vindication of the idea.  Why should the NDP follow a tradition that history shows to have terrible results?

Why shouldn't the party takes this humiliating loss as a sign that a total housecleaning is needed?

If nothing else, would you at least agree that Brad Lavigne should never run another federal NDP campaign?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I thought dumping leaders was more of a Con, Reform, or PC thing(such as the infamous "Diefenmord" Dalton Camp orchestrated in 1966-67).

Didn't Turner, Dion, and Iggy just leave on their own?(Iggy kinda had to, having lost his seat and all).

Debater

Ken Burch wrote:

I thought dumping leaders was more of a Con, Reform, or PC thing(such as the infamous "Diefenmord" Dalton Camp orchestrated in 1966-67).

Didn't Turner, Dion, and Iggy just leave on their own?(Iggy kinda had to, having lost his seat and all).

Turner was allowed to stay for 1988, but was pushed out after only winning a little over 80 seats.  That's what caused Chrétien to return & become Liberal leader in 1990.

Dion was basically forced out by Iggy & his people in a coup.  If that hadn't of happened, Dion would have gone ahead with the coalition.  It's Iggy's fault it didn't happen.

As for Iggy, as Peter Mansbridge & Chantal Hébert said last month, Iggy was basically told the morning after the May 2, 2011 loss by Liberal elders that he would not be allowed to stay on.

jjuares

Ken Burch wrote:

In in almost all of those cases, the result of letting the badly-defeated leader stay on was at least one more defeat(another massive majority defeat in Turner's case)under that leader.  Not exactly a vindication of the idea.  Why should the NDP follow a tradition that history shows to have terrible results?

Why shouldn't the party takes this humiliating loss as a sign that a total housecleaning is needed?

If nothing else, would you at least agree that Brad Lavigne should never run another federal NDP campaign?


Absolutely. If a loss of this manitude doesn't cause you to lose your leadership what does? If the NDP doesn't get that we are worse shape than anyone can possibly imagine.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Debater wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

I thought dumping leaders was more of a Con, Reform, or PC thing(such as the infamous "Diefenmord" Dalton Camp orchestrated in 1966-67).

Didn't Turner, Dion, and Iggy just leave on their own?(Iggy kinda had to, having lost his seat and all).

Turner was allowed to stay for 1988, but was pushed out after only winning a little over 80 seats.  That's what caused Chrétien to return & become Liberal leader in 1990.

Dion was basically forced out by Iggy & his people in a coup.  If that hadn't of happened, Dion would have gone ahead with the coalition.  It's Iggy's fault it didn't happen.

As for Iggy, as Peter Mansbridge & Chantal Hébert said last month, Iggy was basically told the morning after the May 2, 2011 loss by Liberal elders that he would not be allowed to stay on.

Thanks for the info.  BTW, if Iggy hadn't been "basically told" he was out, do you think he'd have tried to stay on?

Debater

I'll have to do some more reading up on it, but on 2011 Election Night, it sounded as if Ignatieff wanted to stay on for a while.

But after losing his own seat and not being able to sit in Parliament anymore, the party realized that it needed an Interim Leader with a seat who could represent the party until the crisis was dealt with and a new Permanent Leader chosen.

Thus, Bob Rae became Interim Leader (with Marc Garneau finishing 2nd in the caucus vote, apparently).

Chantal Hébert said that Ignatieff was basically taken to a hotel room the next day for a meeting with Senior Liberals to have a "talk" and be set straight that life could not go on for Iggy as leader any more.

Hébet said she expected the same thing would happen to Mulcair after October 19, but obviously that hasn't happened as quickly yet since the NDP has a different culture for how it handles defeated leaders.

JKR

Stockholm wrote:
JKR wrote:
Stockholm wrote:

When have any parties in Canada ever had FORMAL post-election reviews after losing an election? The Liberals lost in 2006, 2008 and 2011 - I don't recall them having any "formal" inquiry as to why they lost. I don't believe that Conservatives have ever held a "royal commission" into why they lost an election either. Have the Ontario PCs ever had a "coroners inquest" on why they lost the last few Ontario elections?Did the NDP have any any inquest into why the party lost in 1974 or 1988 or 1993? I don't believe so.

I think the NDP has to hold some kind or formal post-election review because no one has taken responsibility after losing the election. in the past party leaders of different political stripes have taken responsibility for major setbacks.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Pearson was crushed in 1958 and the liberal party happily let him lose again in 1962 before winning in 1963. As noted John Turner ran a horrifically bad campaign in 1984,no post mortem and he ran again in 1988. Bob Stanfield was supposed to win in 1968 for the Tories and was crushed by Trudeau, no post mortem and he was allowed to run again in two more elections. Joe Clark actually got a 67% confidence vote at the Tory convention in 1982 after he squandered power in 1980 and could have held on to his job if he had wanted to, but Joe ever the goof decided 67% wasn't enough and resigned to run for his own job and lost.

I'm not saying Mulcair shouldn't retire or that the NDP shouldn't do a post mortem...only pointing out that it's not the norm for parties to do that after losing an election

In the cases of Pearson, Stanfield, and Turner, their predecessors bore most of the responsibility for their election losses. So St. Laurent was blamed instead of Pearson for the 1958 loss, Diefenbaker was blamed instead of Stanfield for the 1968 loss, and Trudeau was blamed instead of Turner for the loss in 1984. Clark's predecessor, Stanfield, was not blamed for the 1980 loss and thus Clark was given responsibility for the loss and thus he was not able to lead his party in the subsequent 1984 election. In the case of this election it is obvious that responsibility for the NDP's loss can't be ascribed to Jack Layton. So who, if anyone, will take responsibility for the NDP's loss in 2015? And if no one takes responsibility, what kind of ramifications will that have for the NDP?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Nobody is asking for burning in effigy. To say a leader who led the party in the wrong direction who still appears out of touch with what went wrong and expressing a desire to lead the party in the next election should go, does not deserve this characterization.

If you go back and check, you'll see that the Next Federal NDP Leader thread was started before polls had even closed.  Canadians were literally still voting.

Unionist

There are 317 other threads talking about how we need to dump Mulcair.

Can we try to keep attention focused here on the NDP's survey and/or other means it's using to assess the way forward?

Just a request.

By the way, I'm going to write to Anne McGrath again and ask whether the party will agree to make the survey results public - and I mean totally public (minus people's names of course) - it's easy to create a quick database linked from the party website where you can browse comments, or search for particular terms, etc.

Don't you think the NDP should do this exercise in public? Would be a good step in the direction of democracy and transparency.

I think that if it doesn't, the public will be doing its own assessment, and it won't be favourable.

Debater

Sean, I assume you know it was Stockholm who posted that?

Because you have my name in that quote.

The formatting is a bit messed up.

mark_alfred

Stockholm wrote:
Debater wrote:

Stockholm, one reasons there haven't usually been post-mortems for the Liberals & Conservatives in the past is because they dump leaders who fail, and therefore there is less reason to call an investigation.

Second, as Chantal Hébert said in her column today (and as Ken Burch says above), this is the largest number of seats the NDP has ever lost in one election before.

So while post-mortems may be unusual, one may be called for in a case like this.

(Btw, Liberal Party President Alfred Apps published a detailed & frank account of the Liberal Party's decline after the 2011 Election.)

In 1984 John Turner led the Liberals to their worst showing ever up to then. They were reduced to 40 seats and,lost over 100 seats despite being in the lead at the start of the campaign. There was no postmortem on the result and turner stuck around and led the liberals again in 1988. Similar to what Alfred apps did in 2011, Anne McGrath is charged with reporting on what went wrong in this campaign. Knowing her, I expect she will be self-critical to a fault and will pull no punches in assessing what the short comings of the campaign were. If party members want to start a new leadership contest, all they have to do is vote for one at the convention in April. I'm sure it will be discussed at nauseum, though I'm sure it will never be enough for the braying jackals who want some sort of witch hunt with people burned in effigy.

Indeed.  Though I assume this would be accomplished via showing up to riding associations and having a vote there to direct the delegate to vote accordingly at convention.

Sean in Ottawa

Stockholm wrote:

...though I'm sure it will never be enough for the braying jackals who want some sort of witch hunt with people burned in effigy.

You disgust me with words like this.

Using this characterization for people who disagree with you is horribly damaging to the party. and an insult to the people here who care about the movement. I also think it is a very misplaced loyalty. It is also a clear attack on other people on this site who disagree with you.

Nobody is asking for burning in effigy. To say a leader who led the party in the wrong direction who still appears out of touch with what went wrong and expressing a desire to lead the party in the next election should go, does not deserve this characterization.

If the core leadership wants to present this point of view and if this is how those who want a change in leadership will be received, people will just leave the party. It is possible to push people who feel as I do out of the party if the leadership so chooses. If you want a more obedient, yet much smaller party, Stockholm, you might just get it.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

Sean, I assume you know it was Stockholm who posted that?

Because you have my name in that quote.

The formatting is a bit messed up.

I am sorry about that -- I have fixed the formatting -- yes I knew it was him.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

There are 317 other threads talking about how we need to dump Mulcair.

Can we try to keep attention focused here on the NDP's survey and/or other means it's using to assess the way forward?

Just a request.

By the way, I'm going to write to Anne McGrath again and ask whether the party will agree to make the survey results public - and I mean totally public (minus people's names of course) - it's easy to create a quick database linked from the party website where you can browse comments, or search for particular terms, etc.

Don't you think the NDP should do this exercise in public? Would be a good step in the direction of democracy and transparency.

I think that if it doesn't, the public will be doing its own assessment, and it won't be favourable.

I agree about the second comment. I disagree with the first becuase I have no faith that the current leadership will do this properly. I now see a change in leadership as a prerequisite to a real examination of what has happened and where we need to go.

At first I wanted Mulcair gone on election night. Then I came round to the idea of him as a care-taker leader. Then upon hearing his post eleciton comments on what he though happened and his desire to stay to lead the party in the next election, I returned to wanting him gone all the more so.

I would be even happier if we had a caretaker leader doing this examination of the last campaign who was not a contender for the leadership. This was my reason for thinking briefly Mulcair could stay. I do not want the necessary examination tied up in leadership ambitions and it should come first. Unfortunately because Mulcair voiced a desire to keep the leadership and contest the next election as leader, he disqualified himself from being able to do this in my view.

For this reason, Mulcair is in the way of the kind of review we need and we cannot have a conversation about that reivew without his leadership being point one. Mulcair must either go or declare that he will no longer be leader by the next election. We should have a caretaker leader who does not want to lead the party in the next election guide this review. Then when the result of this review is coimpleted, the party should look to a new leader. The review is an important part of the next leadership -- as ending the current leadership ambitions is a part of the review.

If Mulcair wishes to contest the next leadership let him do so (I will not support him but others may) but do not let him guide the process if he wants to be leader in the next election.

quizzical

just want to say i love this thread title. i laugh everytime i've read it and it hasn't yet got old. it still rankles a bit i didn't get the survey though.

mark_alfred

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Unfortunately because Mulcair voiced a desire to keep the leadership and contest the next election as leader, he disqualified himself from being able to do this in my view.

For this reason, Mulcair is in the way of the kind of review we need and we cannot have a conversation about that reivew without his leadership being point one. Mulcair must either go or declare that he will no longer be leader by the next election. We should have a caretaker leader who does not want to lead the party in the next election guide this review. Then when the result of this review is coimpleted, the party should look to a new leader. The review is an important part of the next leadership -- as ending the current leadership ambitions is a part of the review.

If Mulcair wishes to contest the next leadership let him do so (I will not support him but others may) but do not let him guide the process if he wants to be leader in the next election.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  Mulcair was duly elected leader by the membership in accordance with the Constitution.  He can be removed by the membership too.  But until then he is the leader, pure and simple.  The idea that his leadership is in the way of a review is ridiculous.  The membership voted him in.  He's leader.  If the membership want him out, they have this option as spelt out in the Constitution.

NDP Constitution wrote:
At every convention that is not a leadership convention; a secret ballot vote will be held to determine whether or not a leadership election should be called. If 50% plus one delegate supports the calling of a leadership election, such an election will be held within one year of the convention vote.

Debater

Mark, I think the point people are making is that it's very difficult in our system to remove a leader.

In Canada, the caucus rarely dumps the leader the way they do in Australia, for example.

Some commentators have argued that it's better to get rid of a leader too quickly than have them hang on for long periods of time.

Look at the Selinger situation in Manitoba.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Mark, I think the point people are making is that it's very difficult in our system to remove a leader.

Sounds like it's just a vote.  What makes it any harder than that?  Conversely, what "should" make it easier than a vote?

Debater

Here's what Andrew Coyne wrote in September after the sudden dumping of Australian PM Abbott:

Better to dump a party leader too quickly than be stuck with one for an eternity

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/09/15/better-to-dump-a-party-leade...

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Mark, I think the point people are making is that it's very difficult in our system to remove a leader.

Sounds like it's just a vote.  What makes it any harder than that?  Conversely, what "should" make it easier than a vote?

We are talking about a vote and debating the merits of how we should vote.

That said, Mulcair does not have to leave this to a devisive vote that will harm the party more. He could choose to go now or stay for a time without ambition to lead the party in the next election. Not doing so is removing options for the membership.

Ideally, Mulcair would stay declaring no ambition for long-term leadership long enough to allow, among other things, the Conservatives to do their leadership first. He could even lead the party to a real examination of its future. He could take the leadership emphasis out of the mix. This is not possible if Mulcair is still thinking he can lead the party in the next election.

Lame duck leaders can accomplish great things internally because they have removed their ambition from the calculus. But so long as Mulcair holds on to the idea that he can run as leader in the next election, he is forcing a division on the party.

What would make it easier is a leader not to wait for a vote like that before attempting to unite a battered party. Not waiting to be forced in a damaging split but supporting renewal of leadership. Yeah, that.

swallow

Unionist wrote:

There are 317 other threads talking about how we need to dump Mulcair.

Can we try to keep attention focused here on the NDP's survey and/or other means it's using to assess the way forward?

Just a request.

Seconded. Goes double for posting the same link in all 317 threads. 

Unionist

Thanks, swallow. But it's hard to stop a tsunami.

During the 2011 NDP leadership campaign, I did my best to ridicule the fashion show, whose premise was that the leader we choose gets to do whatever the fuck they please.

That's the same premise of the tsunami here.

Does anyone support the proposal I made... that the NDP's survey responses should all be made public, so that we can draw our conclusions? Rather than Anne McGrath's conclusions?

I support my proposal. Anyone else?

Oh, does anyone know who the president of the NDP is (wasn't it Rebecca Blaikie??)? Because I'm writing to her to pitch this proposal. I think that addressing comments or requests to the LEADER (who has no status under the constitution to do anything) perpetuates the servile sheepish attitude that NDP members have shown for too long, with occasional but notable exceptions (like, the 2006 convention which adopted Sherbrooke and turfed Layton's support-the-Afghan-mission policy).

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
That said, Mulcair does not have to leave this to a devisive vote that will harm the party more. He could choose to go now or stay for a time without ambition to lead the party in the next election. Not doing so is removing options for the membership.

I think the membership still has the same two options:

1.  call for a leadership vote

2.  don't call for a leadership vote

If everyone thinks it's time for a new leader, what, specifically, is the "divisive" part?

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
That said, Mulcair does not have to leave this to a devisive vote that will harm the party more. He could choose to go now or stay for a time without ambition to lead the party in the next election. Not doing so is removing options for the membership.

I think the membership still has the same two options:

1.  call for a leadership vote

2.  don't call for a leadership vote

If everyone thinks it's time for a new leader, what, specifically, is the "divisive" part?

And the result is divisive.

If Mulcair limited his ambition to not running in the next election the membership woud be in a better position to keep him. Otherwise they might better just get rid of him now.

The option of keeping him for a short time is not on the menu unless Mulcair puts it there.

wage zombie

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Sounds like it's just a vote.  What makes it any harder than that?  Conversely, what "should" make it easier than a vote?

Because you have to fly across the country for a weekend in order to vote.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And the result is divisive

How?

Quote:
If Mulcair limited his ambition to not running in the next election the membership woud be in a better position to keep him. Otherwise they might better just get rid of him now.

So if he doesn't want to stay, the party is in a better position to keep him, but if he does want to stay they should toss him??

Quote:
The option of keeping him for a short time is not on the menu unless Mulcair puts it there.

Actually, it's totally on the menu if he stays until such time as the membership votes for someone else.

You seem to have some need to watch him commit seppuku for your benefit.

Just. Vote. Him. Out.

 

 

Unionist

I don't trust anyone's opinion who calls for Mulcair to be dumped, who wasn't calling for that 3 months ago. It's just their defeatism talking.

I'm talking about asking party members what their priorities are, and how to use that to assess the past and the future.

Some of you have zero interest in talking about anything except how the Dear Leader has to be dumped.

Take it to another thread, please. Please. It's boring. Worse yet, it's utterly diversionary from the work which actually needs to be done.

Cody87

Unionist wrote:

Thanks, swallow. But it's hard to stop a tsunami.

During the 2011 NDP leadership campaign, I did my best to ridicule the fashion show, whose premise was that the leader we choose gets to do whatever the fuck they please.

That's the same premise of the tsunami here.

Does anyone support the proposal I made... that the NDP's survey responses should all be made public, so that we can draw our conclusions? Rather than Anne McGrath's conclusions?

I support my proposal. Anyone else?

Oh, does anyone know who the president of the NDP is (wasn't it Rebecca Blaikie??)? Because I'm writing to her to pitch this proposal. I think that addressing comments or requests to the LEADER (who has no status under the constitution to do anything) perpetuates the servile sheepish attitude that NDP members have shown for too long, with occasional but notable exceptions (like, the 2006 convention which adopted Sherbrooke and turfed Layton's support-the-Afghan-mission policy).

Releasing the results would be alright, but I think there's would be a lot of self-selection bias where people wouldn't complete the survey because it's stupid.

One third of the questions are on topics the new majority government is very clear on such as "starting an inquiry into the problem of missing and murdered aboriginal women" for example. What do I put? It's important (because it is) or it's not (because Trudeau's about to do it)?

Another third of the questions are stupid because they are "spun" into a better light than they were in the election. For example, the question on national daycare. Yes, I support national daycare, but not if there is no plan to pay for it until 8 years down the road. So do I put it's important (because it would be nice) or it's not (because of issues not mentioned in the survey?). Frankly, questions like "protect our rights and freedoms by repealing bill C-51" are so loaded it's almost like these surveys the Conservatives were so fond of:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-flyers-survey-refugees-1.3...

And the other third was stupid because it was too weak, at least for the NDP. Do I support decrimilizing marijuana? Well, it depends what the option is...the status quo or legalization? Do I support "giving young Canadians better opportunities by increasing student grants, phasing out interest on federal student loans, and investing in training apprenticeships?" Yes, but could we look at free post secondary education/skills training for low income families instead? What are the NDP's plans to help students who don't qualify for OSAP because their parents make too much but can't get a student line from the banks because their parents don't qualify as co-signors?

So by the time I got to the end I just clicked the X rather than put "not important" to most of the things because it's either getting taken care of, loaded bullshit spin, or a half measure like decriminilization of marijuana. Seriously, does anyone who knows anything about the subject think decrim is good policy?

Unionist

Thanks for engaging the actual topic, Cody87.

My idea was rather to look at the comments people make in the feedback box(es), rather than the stupid multiple-choice questions based on NDP election promises.

 

Cody87

Unionist wrote:

Thanks for engaging the actual topic, Cody87.

My idea was rather to look at the comments people make in the feedback box(es), rather than the stupid multiple-choice questions based on NDP election promises.

Ah, I see. Well, what I put above is what I would have put in that box, so there you go :)

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

I don't trust anyone's opinion who calls for Mulcair to be dumped, who wasn't calling for that 3 months ago. It's just their defeatism talking.

I'm talking about asking party members what their priorities are, and how to use that to assess the past and the future.

Some of you have zero interest in talking about anything except how the Dear Leader has to be dumped.

Take it to another thread, please. Please. It's boring. Worse yet, it's utterly diversionary from the work which actually needs to be done.

I get that you only consider your views and priorities as not boring but give it a rest.

I don't need your trust.

I was skeptical of Mulcair for some time but gave the benefit of the doubt where I could although I certainly spoke out about many things. My feelings about the pettiness and the types of things Mulcair would speak about have been recorded here going back over a year. But I don't intend to ask your permission to express what I think on this. There are also others who expressed nothing but loyalty in spite of their misgivings because they did not want to contribute to the disaster. There were different appraoches to the same problem. This does not disqualify them from now expressing what they think any more than it does mine.

This thread is about asking members their priorities. Mine is to have a process that is not controled by a failed leader who wants another kick at the can. His leadership -- so long as he says he wants to run in the next election  -- is in the way of everything else. Disagree if you must but don't tell me that I have no right to express this opinion or that it is off topic. It bloody well is central to the issue. I think it is a prerequisite.

As I said I don't care if he goes now or a year from now but I do not want him as leader defedning his leadership and the last campaign in the context of a bid to keep the leadership into the next election. This will doom every other aspect of the examination of what went wrong.

If he has enough power to keep the party I would argue for another political chocie and yes, I want some time for that. I don't want the party to stay with Mulcair becuase by the time it is clear he is staying it is too late for other options. And I do not want members of the left community to have to support Mulcair in the next election becuase there are no other viable options for the same reason.

I don't know how you will vote in the next election. I am saying plainly I will not vote a second time for a Mulcair NDP. I want enough time to investigate other options either in the NDP or another party becuase I will not vote for him again.

You do not need to agree but please stop telling people their opinions have no place here.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Thanks for engaging the actual topic, Cody87.

My idea was rather to look at the comments people make in the feedback box(es), rather than the stupid multiple-choice questions based on NDP election promises.

 

I do agree those should be public. I disagree that this is anything other than a nonstarter if the leader is defending his leadership for the next election.

Call me out -- I predict there is zero chance that this will happen if Mulcair is still trying to remain leader for 2019.

swallow

Responses being public would be great. It'd show a transparent party trying to be accountable.

So, that won't happen.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:

2) that the priorities, work and decisions of the government reflect giving those ministers equal power to their colleagues.

This means that we see the weight of their portfolios influencing policy. One way may be to see what their departments or areas of work get in money come budget time.

Accountable to what, or to whom?

I'm not saying it would be a bad thing; I'm just unfamiliar with what's owed in this situation.

 

Debater

Here is the 79-page 2011 Liberal Post-Mortem:

http://www.liberal.ca/files/2011/11/BuildingaModernLiberalParty.pdf

It's probably the only good thing Alfred Apps ever did as President of the Liberal Party.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I get that you only consider your views and priorities as not boring but give it a rest.

I don't need your trust. [...]

You do not need to agree but please stop telling people their opinions have no place here.

You seem filled with resentment against me. I don't understand, given my efforts to keep you on this board. I was going to make this a private message, but it's getting more and more difficult to ignore your bizarre attacks on me.

And yeah, Sean, nothing whatsoever has changed about Mulcair since the election, during the campaign, before the campaign. I have no problem debating your sudden "hell hath no fury" disengagement with him - but you've started that self-same conversation in many threads. Try to discuss in a more orderly fashion. I don't want to ban your opinions. I just don't particularly feel like drowning in them.

Unionist

swallow wrote:

Responses being public would be great. It'd show a transparent party trying to be accountable.

So, that won't happen.

I agree. Which is why the members (if they give a damn) must speak out. And not, like, "WE WANT A NEW BOSS!!!". Rather: "We want our party back, please!"

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

2) that the priorities, work and decisions of the government reflect giving those ministers equal power to their colleagues.

This means that we see the weight of their portfolios influencing policy. One way may be to see what their departments or areas of work get in money come budget time.

Accountable to what, or to whom?

I'm not saying it would be a bad thing; I'm just unfamiliar with what's owed in this situation.

 

Pffft

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I get that you only consider your views and priorities as not boring but give it a rest.

I don't need your trust. [...]

You do not need to agree but please stop telling people their opinions have no place here.

You seem filled with resentment against me. I don't understand, given my efforts to keep you on this board. I was going to make this a private message, but it's getting more and more difficult to ignore your bizarre attacks on me.

And yeah, Sean, nothing whatsoever has changed about Mulcair since the election, during the campaign, before the campaign. I have no problem debating your sudden "hell hath no fury" disengagement with him - but you've started that self-same conversation in many threads. Try to discuss in a more orderly fashion. I don't want to ban your opinions. I just don't particularly feel like drowning in them.

The same discussion is occuring in a number of threads.

It is a priority as I have explained.

I find you really do go after not just the opinions you don;t like but the legitimacy of them as well. That is the reason I have responded more harshly to them. Have a look at the high handed way you write some of these. I write my opinions with passion and go after other people as well but I don't ask people to shut up which is really what you are doing. You have been doing this a lot. I don't think it serves your arguments well.

My "attacks" on you are not bizarre if you kindly refer to your previous post to see why. Imagine how your post would be taken. You seek all-to-often not just to disagree with opinions you do not like -- which I am all for -- but to delegitimize them. When you do this to me, I am liable to attack you.

Hope that helps.

You have said this thing about helping me stay on this board before -- do I owe you? You come out with this after some of the harshest statements that it seems you think I should accept becuase of I am not entirely sure what justification.

For what it is worth I don't attack you -- I return your fire. You need to go back and read a little to see.

Pages