Bring Back Tom Mulcair.....

412 posts / 0 new
Last post
Notalib
Bring Back Tom Mulcair.....

The NDP delegates supported the ‘Leap Manifesto’ at their convention but rejected Tom Mulcair as the leader. He left the stage went behind the curtain and then shortly re-emerged with the news that he was not going anywhere.

The new plan was to have him stay for a year or more while the party sorted itself out and prepared for a leadership convention. In the meantime, Tom Mulcair stays in place, never mind that the convention delegates gave him the pink slip.

Of course, it was orchestrated from the convention floor with a pre-arranged plan B and it worked.

They handed Mulcair a pink slip but he is still in place.

They handed Mulcair a pink slip but he is still in place.

The outrageous is becoming the norm. Democracy has been hijacked in what is left of the NDP.

In governments at every level and apparently within the ranks of the NDP, the senior bureaucrats and staffers control the play.

The Green Party delegates, much like the NDP conventioneers, also passed a motion against the wishes of their leader.....

 

Cont reading: http://richardhughes.ca/the-ndp-and-the-green-party-seem-to-be-reading-o...

 

 

Notalib

Facebook page for the Bring back Tom Mulcair Campaign:

 

https://www.facebook.com/bringbackTomMulcair/

 

quizzical

yep lol

 

Geoff

Oh, I thought it was a Liberal campaign to reclaim Tom, after all he did for them. Innocent

swallow

Wow, those photos have a lot of fingering.

Bring back Tom's index finger! Wag, poke, gesticulate. 

Notalib

Here is the latest....

 

Please note: The "Bring Back Tom Mulcair Campaign" does not have an official Twitter or any other social media presence. We are keeping this campaign inside the NDP membership fold as much as is possible. We don't have access to party membership lists so we're doing this on Facebook exclusively, for now.

If people wish to bring this campaign up with their local federal riding association then please do so. Share this campaign with local or regional Facebook pages as well. If you do have access to local mailing lists, please let them know about this campaign. Not everyone is on Facebook.

Mailing lists are important as the party lost a lot of very angry and disappointed members after Tom's undemocratic exit in Edmonton. We need those members back in our fold.

Most of all, send a letter to Tom asking him to rethink his future in the party and think seriously about running again for leader. We are all here to support him. We obviously have significant numbers and have zero doubt that Tom would win any such leadership contest hands down. This is why we are here.

Thank you

Sean in Ottawa

Notalib wrote:

Here is the latest....

 

Please note: The "Bring Back Tom Mulcair Campaign" does not have an official Twitter or any other social media presence. We are keeping this campaign inside the NDP membership fold as much as is possible. We don't have access to party membership lists so we're doing this on Facebook exclusively, for now.

If people wish to bring this campaign up with their local federal riding association then please do so. Share this campaign with local or regional Facebook pages as well. If you do have access to local mailing lists, please let them know about this campaign. Not everyone is on Facebook.

Mailing lists are important as the party lost a lot of very angry and disappointed members after Tom's undemocratic exit in Edmonton. We need those members back in our fold.

Most of all, send a letter to Tom asking him to rethink his future in the party and think seriously about running again for leader. We are all here to support him. We obviously have significant numbers and have zero doubt that Tom would win any such leadership contest hands down. This is why we are here.

Thank you

What exactly was undemocratic about Tom's exit?

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

What exactly was undemocratic about Tom's exit?

Exactly.

In fact, what was "exit" about it?

He's still the leader, and nothing stops him running again if he wants to.

I believe far too much attention is paid to the "Leader", and far too little to finding effective means of empowering the members. But everyone already knows how I feel about that.

 

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

What exactly was undemocratic about Tom's exit?

Exactly.

In fact, what was "exit" about it?

Good one Unionist!Laughing

nicky

I wouldn't say the convention was undemocratic but a strong case can be made that it was not representative of the party's sentiment, any more than is the vehemence with which he is denounced by his haters in this forum.
Tom maintained a strong positive approval rate in the polls, even after the election, and particularly among NDP supporters. This was more pronounced in Quebec as was reflected in his unanimous support in the Quebec caucus, and is now reflected in the party's collapse in Quebec after his ouster.
He was at a considerable disadvantage because the convention was in Edmonton, which minimized Quebec attendance and maximized Alberta attendance.

Geoff

nicky wrote:
I wouldn't say the convention was undemocratic but a strong case can be made that it was not representative of the party's sentiment, any more than is the vehemence with which he is denounced by his haters in this forum. Tom maintained a strong positive approval rate in the polls, even after the election, and particularly among NDP supporters. This was more pronounced in Quebec as was reflected in his unanimous support in the Quebec caucus, and is now reflected in the party's collapse in Quebec after his ouster. He was at a considerable disadvantage because the convention was in Edmonton, which minimized Quebec attendance and maximized Alberta attendance.

If we're going to revisit decisions made at Convention, why not scrap conventions and just let the party appartchiks make all the decisions for us. After all, what do convention delegates know.

Alternatively, let's revisit some other decisions made at previous conventions such as dropping "socialism" from the preamble of the Constitution. 

PS: How about a 'bring back Ed Broadbent' campaign?Laughing

Sean in Ottawa

nicky wrote:
I wouldn't say the convention was undemocratic but a strong case can be made that it was not representative of the party's sentiment, any more than is the vehemence with which he is denounced by his haters in this forum. Tom maintained a strong positive approval rate in the polls, even after the election, and particularly among NDP supporters. This was more pronounced in Quebec as was reflected in his unanimous support in the Quebec caucus, and is now reflected in the party's collapse in Quebec after his ouster. He was at a considerable disadvantage because the convention was in Edmonton, which minimized Quebec attendance and maximized Alberta attendance.

So now you have two cases to make -- your explanation as to why you think that the vote did not represent party sentiment.

AND

Why you think the poeple here who oppose Mulcair (many who previously supported him) don't reflect a wider sentiment.

I am very curious about how you will make that case.

nicky

I think I've made the case in several posts, some with links to various polls.

thERE WERE ONLY 1600 DELEGATES IN eDMONTON, A LITTLE MORE THAN HALF OF WHOM VOTED AGAINST tOM. tHIS CONTRASTS WITH 30,000 WHO VOTED FOR HIM AS LEADER.

 

tHE GEOGRAPHY OF The CONVENTION MINIMIZED qUEBEC ATTENDENACE WHERE HE WAS STRONg AND MAXIMIZED aLBETRTA ATTENDANCE WHERE HE WAS B NOT.

 

o pOLLING SHOWED ME HAD A 70% APPROVAL RATING AMONGS ndp SUPPORTERS AND  ABOUT A 40 TO 30% APPPROVAL WITH THE ELCTORATE AS A WHOLE.

 

iT IS A MYTH THAT THE ELECTORATE VOTED AGAINST HIM PERSONALLY, ONLY THAT THEY WANTED RID OF hARPER AND FLOCKED TO THE lIBERALS TO ACHIEVE that.

All that plus anecdotal evidence from numerous acquaintances that he was still held in high regard and that we made a terrible mistake rejecting him.

You must understand that the public is not a bunch of Corbynites.

Excuse the capitals. I am not a touch typist and don't have the time now to retype.

Rev Pesky

nicky wrote:
... iT IS A MYTH THAT THE ELECTORATE VOTED AGAINST HIM PERSONALLY, ONLY THAT THEY WANTED RID OF hARPER AND FLOCKED TO THE lIBERALS TO ACHIEVE that... 

I think the question for NDP members is why did people flock to the Liberals to defeat Harper. Especially considering the NDP had almost three times the number of seats as the LIberals at the beginning of the election.

If the election truly was about 'Anybody But Harper', the NDP really has to wonder how they were eclipsed by the Liberals, when the Liberals spotted them 59 seats at the start.

If it was not the leader, what was it?

nicky

Well Rev, i've pointed to polling to make my case. Maybe you can point to a poll that showed the public's antipathy to Mulcair before the election. I dont think you can find one in which his positives were not substantially greater than his negatives.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

nicky wrote:

Well Rev, i've pointed to polling to make my case. Maybe you can point to a poll that showed the public's antipathy to Mulcair before the election. I dont think you can find one in which his positives were not substantially greater than his negatives.

However much people may have liked Mulcair, they didn't vote for him, and that is all that really matters. There will never be another chance like 2015, and if Mulcair couldn't win then, it is overwhelmingly likely that he can never win. You just refuse to acknowledge these obvious facts.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
There will never be another chance like 2015, and if Mulcair couldn't win then, it is overwhelmingly likely that he can never win.

Maybe not, but who the hell knows what 2019 will bring?  Was 2015 already foretold in 2011?

As I see it, if Tom had promised to tax the rich to their graves, break diplomatic ties with Israel, turn the Tar Sands into a safe injection site and instute a GAI and then lost, the narrative would be "it was a perfect storm of Sunny Ways!!" or "blame FPTP, not Tom!!" or "because MSM!!!" or whatever. 

The narrative would certainly NOT be "evidently those ideas failed to interest the electorate and they voted for Trudeau instead".

Rev Pesky

nicky wrote:

Well Rev, i've pointed to polling to make my case. Maybe you can point to a poll that showed the public's antipathy to Mulcair before the election. I dont think you can find one in which his positives were not substantially greater than his negatives.

I did not say the public was anti-Mulcair before the election. What I did was point out that if the election was truly 'Anybody But Harper', and the NDP started with a 59 seat advantage over the Lliberals, something went seriously wrong.

It may not have been Mulcair. It may have been the agenda he was trying to sell. But one way or the other, the NDP started out far ahead of the Liberals, and ended up in third place, not even close to the Liberals.

I mean, you have to agree that something went wrong. The only other option is to say that things went as planned.

So if something went wrong, what was it? That is the question for NDP members.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But one way or the other, the NDP started out far ahead of the Liberals, and ended up in third place, not even close to the Liberals.

They started out ahead of the Liberals based on what voters wanted in 2011, and what the parties had to offer in 2011.

Who could have prognosticated "Sunny Ways"?  And the importance of putting some "Sunny Ways" purchases on the public credit card?

And let's not EVEN TALK about Mulcair's lifelike, realistic Margaret Thatcher doll.

Geoff

I think the suggestion that decisions made at Convention shouldn't count is opening Pandora's Box. Sorry the vote didn't go the way some folks wanted, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

I can't help but wonder if this FB page is the work of party poobahs who can't get over the fact that, for once, they were unable to control the floor of convention.

It's a lot like Elizabeth May trying to reverse the vote on BDS. Not very democratic, in either case.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think the suggestion that decisions made at Convention shouldn't count is opening Pandora's Box. Sorry the vote didn't go the way some folks wanted, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Exactly.  Mulcair should either be replaced at the next leadership convention, or else voted in (if he chooses to run, and that's what happens) at the next leadership convention.

But was a decision made that he should step down before that, and can you tell us more about that decision?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Who could have prognosticated "Sunny Ways"?  And the importance of putting some "Sunny Ways" purchases on the public credit card?

Me, but that isn't why he won.

He won because he had a plan when he won the leadership and stuck with it no matter how low his numbers dropped. His strategy was to play his cards close to the chest while preparing for the campaign and to come in as the underdog. He totally suckered the Conservatives and the NDP. They fell into the trap of attacking him personally and turning him into a political outsider by emphasizing his lack of experience. Trudeau made some mistakes but ultimately it is his political instincts that delivered the win.

mark_alfred

Quote:

I think the suggestion that decisions made at Convention shouldn't count is opening Pandora's Box. Sorry the vote didn't go the way some folks wanted, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

I can't help but wonder if this FB page is the work of party poobahs who can't get over the fact that, for once, they were unable to control the floor of convention.

I've seen the page and I don't think anyone there suggests the decision at Convention shouldn't count (though they do suggest it was a mistake).  Rather, they're hoping to convince Mulcair to run again.  I personally feel they should just let it rest and respect Mulcair's decision to not run again.  Mulcair's final speech (after the vote) at the convention was very decent and preached unity, and that's what NDP members now should be working toward, IMO.  ETA:  and from what I've seen, most are.  ETA2:  The page was made only 5 days ago and has over 1000 likes.  Not huge, but not insignificant either.

Aristotleded24

nicky wrote:
o pOLLING SHOWED ME HAD A 70% APPROVAL RATING AMONGS ndp SUPPORTERS AND  ABOUT A 40 TO 30% APPPROVAL WITH THE ELCTORATE AS A WHOLE.

We know that at least 2 of the MPs who defected under his watch complained that he was dictatorial and wanted to run the show himself. If people who felt this way gave up on the NDP in frustration, then it stands to reason that a large majority of people currently in the NDP support him.

NorthReport

Like the Bushes, the Kennedys, and  probably the Clintons, Trudeau won because he is a Trudeau and not being an old fuddy duddy helped him as well

 

bekayne

Geoff wrote:

PS: How about a 'bring back Ed Broadbent' campaign?Laughing

How about a 'somebody...anybody?' campaign?

 

nicky

Aristotle, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the complaints of two disgruntled MPs, particularly if one was the peculiar Bruce Hyer.
If the views of two MPs are so consequential, what about those of
80% of the caucus who supported Tom?
It is a little ironic that some of Tom's detractors here are also fervent Corbyn supporters in another forum, notwithstanding 80% of Labour MPs want rid of him.

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

Like the Bushes, the Kennedys, and  probably the Clintons, Trudeau won because he is a Trudeau and not being an old fuddy duddy helped him as well

Trudeau was in third place before the election call. Neither his name nor his age changed during the time he went from third to first. Underestimating your enemy is never a good thing.

Tom Mulcair will never beat Trudeau. Mulcair doesn't have good political instincts and he is too much a man of the past and that is not entirely due to age. It will take an inspired and inspiring leader with good political instincts to defeat Trudeau in the next two elections.

I never saw the NDP policy book and as far as I know they haven't put it back up yet. This might be a good time to review, streamline and modernize it. Some policies that don't seem to be a net benefit should be put in sleep mode. As part of that the NDP should have a top three issues list. Get that stuff right first then choose a leader that fits the members vision of the party.

The Leap Manifesto happened because some people didn't feel heard within the party. Certainly no one listened to the expertise of marijuana advocates within the party. The NDP is stifling its talent instead of mining it. I'm not saying they should let talent dictate but they should use talent to inform themselves.

R.E.Wood

Despite what I'm sure would be nicky's fervent disbelief, here's a new poll from Abacus that shows that NDP supporters would substantially prefer a leader who doesn't quite resemble Mulcair... ie: we want someone considerably younger, and more than half would prefer someone who's female. 

(I'd also like someone with flexible political instincts, decent debating skills, and who's capable of projecting basic likeability/human warmth... none of which describe Mulcair.)

http://abacusdata.ca/what-do-we-look-for-in-a-political-leader/

 

nicky

No R.E. I dont'disbieve this poll but it doesn't address the things I have raised. It asks about desirable traits for a leader in the abstract. A more interesting poll for our discussion might ask" do you approve or disapprove of Tom Mulcair?" Or Who would you support for NDP leader? With the various names, including Mulcair's listed.

I think the results might lead to your fervent disbelief.

This being said, I don't see Tom getting back into the race, nor do I see why he would want to. I am not suggesting resurrecting his leadership. but what I find appalling is the bloodlust on this thread by people who thought he was great when he was called " the best opposition leader in history" now jumping on his political corpse with such glee and venom.

R.E.Wood

Well, I was never a Mulcair supporter.

I do, however, acknowledge that he was very effective in a prosecutorial role in the HoC against Harper, but that was a narrow skill-set that may have had him dubbed "the best opposition leader in history", while simultaneously leaving him woefully inadequate on most other fronts required for successful campaigning across this country, and unable to connect with people who simply didn't trust him (I don't believe most of what he says, and find him an unconvincing, fake political speaker -- and that's what I heard over and over from others as well (anecdotal, I know, but you submitted your own anecdotal evidence in his favour, so mine's just as valid), in addition to their dislike of his angry, blustery demeanor and negative campaign (ETA: and fake smile!) - all tone-deaf and out of touch with what people were longing for in the wake of 10 years of Harper). 

Ah well, such is politics. You say. I say. But ultimately, the delegates at Convention were the voices that mattered.

To the question posed by the thread title, "Bring him back?" I just wish he'd LEAVE already. 

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:
...They started out ahead of the Liberals based on what voters wanted in 2011, and what the parties had to offer in 2011.

Who could have prognosticated "Sunny Ways"?  And the importance of putting some "Sunny Ways" purchases on the public credit card?

And let's not EVEN TALK about Mulcair's lifelike, realistic Margaret Thatcher doll.

The NDP had two years with Trudeau as Liberal leader to gauge the man. In fact they had a lot more time than that. When Trudeau won his seat in 2008, Edward Greenspon (Eidtor-in-Chief - Globe & Mail) pointed out that:

Quote:
..."Trudeau would "be viewed as few other rookie MPs are—as a potential future prime minister—and scrutinized through that lens".

Let's face it. Muclair and the NDP campaign managers dropped the ball. One of the things any election campaign has to do is take note of the opposition. They failed miserably.

As far as Mulcair and his support for Thatcher, you can't laugh that one off. Thatcher was a terrorist supporting reactionary of the first water. My opinion is that one is allowed to change their mind, and I would extend that to Muclair.

However, I also think it's necessary to explain why one has changed their mind. In Mulcair's case, I don't think he did change his mind. I think he just realized that his statement on Thatcher was bad news politically, so he disavowed it. I think his disavowal could be put this way, "I have changed my mind on Thatcher because right now it looks bad on my resume."

By the way, I just looked up the 'sunny ways' thing. I'm usually the last to know, so forgive me, but the story is quite intriguing, and not at all what I thought. Trudeau mentioned 'sunny ways' as a nod to Wilfred Laurier. According to Quebec History:

 

Quote:
In the fall of 1895, as the federal conservative government moved progressively further toward compulsion on the Manitoba school issue, and the Remedial Order seemed to have failed to bring about an end to the controversy, Laurier enunciated for the first time his policy of the "Sunny Way". He used one of Aesop's fable as a metaphor for the current situation. In the fable, the sun and the wind are having an argument as to which is the more powerful. The matter is to be decided by attempting to disrobe a traveller coming along. To win, the wind, a metaphor for the conservative government, starts blustering to blow the coat away, but the more the wind blows, the more the man clings to his coat; in the end the wind is unsuccessful. The sun, for its part, shines brightly, warmly and gently on the individual who readily removes his coat; the soft touch and diplomatic ways of the sun came out the winner. So, presumably, would Laurier's suggestion that diplomacy, gentleness and compromise would win the day in resolving appropriately the school issue to the satisfaction of all concerned.

It was in Morrisburg, Ontario, on October 8, 1895, that Laurier first used the fable to illustrate his point. It was an image that caught the imagination and would have great success. He used it frequently in and out of the House of Commons.

I can honestly say I didn't know that was the source of 'sunny ways'.

 

mark_alfred

A lot of this discussion is very leader focused. The NDP itself is moving away from that (though perhaps out of necessity, but regardless, they're moving away from it).  Including the membership at the riding level in a grassroots sort of way via the Renewal process, the focus is more on the team as a whole.  You know, it's better for mice to be running mouseland rather than cats sort of thing.

http://www.ndp.ca/meet-former-electrician-bar-manager-and-assembly-line-...

 

JKR

I think Mulcair would have been well positioned to run again as leader if he had graciously taken responsibility for the election loss and resigned on election eve as is customary when a party suffers a huge election setback. I think Mulcair could still run a succesful leadership campaign if none of the other candidates perform well. If he is to run again he will have to resign as current leader.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

If a light bulb burns out in my house, and I have a new one to replace it, I remove the old one and I replace it.

If I don't have one to replace it then I don't remove the old one, until I have a replacement.  What's my hurry to look at an empty socket?

josh

nicky wrote:
No R.E. I dont'disbieve this poll but it doesn't address the things I have raised. It asks about desirable traits for a leader in the abstract. A more interesting poll for our discussion might ask" do you approve or disapprove of Tom Mulcair?" Or Who would you support for NDP leader? With the various names, including Mulcair's listed.

I think the results might lead to your fervent disbelief.

This being said, I don't see Tom getting back into the race, nor do I see why he would want to. I am not suggesting resurrecting his leadership. but what I find appalling is the bloodlust on this thread by people who thought he was great when he was called " the best opposition leader in history" now jumping on his political corpse with such glee and venom.


I never thought he was in any way great. Not a fan of Blairites or Thatcher admirers.

R.E.Wood

nicky wrote:
A more interesting poll for our discussion might ask ... Who would you support for NDP leader? With the various names, including Mulcair's listed. I think the results might lead to your fervent disbelief.  

This warrants a response. Actually, nicky, it would be almost completely valueless to guage support for potential leadership candidates in a poll, including Mulcair's name, until after the campaign is well and truly under way.

Until such time as leadership candidates launch capaigns, put forward proposals for the direction of the party, and raise their profiles amongst potential supporters, nicky's idea of a poll would only be a measure of name recognition. And obviously Mulcair's name is a lot more widely known than - say - Alexandre Boulerice, or Jagmeet Singh ... Such a hypothetical poll would be worthless in measuring support for candidates who haven't even launched campaigns yet, its results would be predictable based on existing name recognition, and as such it would be biased in Mulcair's favour (which, presumably, would be your point nicky, right?).

nicky

I agree h Mulcair's % would be bolstered by name recognition.

Would you agree that it wiould also be high because he still has a relatively high approval rating with the public as a whole, as well as NDP members?

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If a light bulb burns out in my house, and I have a new one to replace it, I remove the old one and I replace it.

If I don't have one to replace it then I don't remove the old one, until I have a replacement.  What's my hurry to look at an empty socket?

How many NDPer's does it take to change a light bulb?

None. They leave the burnt out bulb in place until they find one that works.

mark_alfred

From the Bring Back Tom Mulcair FB page, a poster there says that it has been, "alleged that some 800+ individuals came though the door at the Edmonton Convention with no legitimate riding association (EDA) status, and with alleged questionable membership status checks."  They don't say who alleges this, so it's safe to ignore the claim for now unless someone with actual knowledge steps up.

If Mulcair were to run again I likely would support him.  Given that he was Minister of the Environment in the Quebec government, and stood against powerful interests (Coca Cola, various land developers, and ultimately Charest) in taking a stand for the environment, I feel would make him a good leader to push a transformative Leap-inspired project, in my opinion.  In fact, given that the current government is sticking to the Conservative target of 30% reduction in GHG emissions below 2005 levels by 2030 rather than the target the NDP campaigned on last time of 80% reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 (same as what Sanders campaigned for), what the NDP campaigned on last time was pretty transformative (less than Leap's target, but still significant).  The tone was too cautious though.  Understandable to not want to scare people, but just not right for the last campaign.  Jon Ashworth, the Labour MP who spoke at the last NDP convention, wrote an interesting analysis of the last campaign (see here for the pdf file).

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mulcair sat in a Charest lead cabinet. Charest is a Mulroney era conservative and also a Thatcherite. To me that is the BC equivalent of having served as Environment Minister for Gordon Campbell.

Gonzaga

Sure, Tom Mulcair has weaknesses and all, but I think a lot of people are succumbing to outcome biases and focusing effects. But when the campaign took place, no one knew that the NDP would lose.

The party decided to join the "balanced-budget" charade because it would make them appear more mainstream, but failed to anticipate that the Liberals would outflank them by promising deficits. The niqab issue caused more problems for the NDP because it had more effect in Quebec. Showing a lack of respect for Trudeau backfired. Someone thought making Mulcair's showing up for the women's issues debate conditional on Harper's would highlight the Conservatives' refusal to show up , but many potential NDP supporters read it as a sign of NDP arrogance. A lot of people wanted to get rid of Harper and were going to pick the winner, and others just want to pick the winner.

The most comforting position on Tom Mulcair after he lost was that it all made sense--that he had flaws that made him unelectable somehow. There are good reasons to be suspicious of such conclusions.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:

How many NDPer's does it take to change a light bulb?

None. They leave the burnt out bulb in place until they find one that works.

I suppose the other option would be to try a Christmas tree light, or an automobile headlight, or a flashlight bulb.  Better than cursing the darkness, right?

R.E.Wood

nicky wrote:

I agree h Mulcair's % would be bolstered by name recognition.

Would you agree that it wiould also be high because he still has a relatively high approval rating with the public as a whole, as well as NDP members?

Yes, I agree he has had a "relatively high approval rating", but that doesn't (and didn't) translate into people voting for him. I can give a high approval rating to Elizabeth May (for a random example) without having any intention of ever voting for her or her party. His support is also considerably lower than in the immediate post-election period, and tracking downward (NDP itself down 6.7% since the election), and Mulcair himself is now in a net negative approval rating:

Tom Mulcair's disapproval rating has jumped by almost seven points to an average of 40.4 per cent. With an average approval of 36.2 per cent, that gives him a net negative rating — something Mulcair has not experienced outside of a few individual polls since first becoming leader of the NDP in 2012.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-quarterly-polls-aug2016-1.3741159

His numbers really aren't anything to be proud of, and apparently continue to get worse... The thing is, despite what Mulcair's supporters kept saying, the more people got to see and know Mulcair the less they liked him.

R.E.Wood

And here's another source, telling a similar tale, showing Mulcair with the lowest net ratings (highest disapprovals and lowest approvals) of any of the federal leaders (including Ambrose and May)...

Source: http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2016/06/bold-is-back/

Next, we come to Thomas Mulcair who earns a ‘C’. While a 45 per cent approval rating is still a respectable showing by Canadian standards, the party’s misfortunes seem to be taking their toll. His approval rating has dropped nearly 15 points over the last year and he has – by far – the lowest in-party approval rating of any leader, with just 68 per cent of NDP supporters singing his praises.

 

wage zombie

I don't know a single person under 40 who finds Mulcair inspiring, and most people I know under 40 voted NDP in the last election.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
As far as Mulcair and his support for Thatcher, you can't laugh that one off.

I can laugh at anything I want.  I made jokes about almost dying.

But without Googling, who said this?:

Quote:
A time of death is not a time to offer a full critique of the life that just ended. It is a time to reflect generously on that life’s effect on all of us. I shall never forget the feeling of admiration for the way she addressed the House of Commons, of her formidable defence of her government and her philosophy (which was, in my estimation, that much more impressive given that both her government and her philosophy were indefensible). If I delve a little more (see below) on her contradictions, it is not out of an urge to diminish Mrs Thatcher; in fact, I believe deeply that we are all contradictory creatures and that the greater our ambition the greater the antinomies within us. And by golly, did Mrs Thatcher display great ambition and, thus, great contradictions!

Was it Tom?  Or some hero of the left?  Guesses?

Mighty Middle

Thomas Mulcair will always be haunted by the decision over the debates. I don't think he will ever be leader again after this tactic.

Watch NDP & Anne McGrath FLIP FLOP Over 2015 Leaders Debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txt89kyUrYw

Two videos shown back to back. Where they say they will do the debates one month, then a month later say they won't be doing the debates.

That has tarnished Mulcair forever

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
As far as Mulcair and his support for Thatcher, you can't laugh that one off.

I can laugh at anything I want.  I made jokes about almost dying.

But without Googling, who said this?:

Quote:
A time of death is not a time to offer a full critique of the life that just ended. It is a time to reflect generously on that life’s effect on all of us. I shall never forget the feeling of admiration for the way she addressed the House of Commons, of her formidable defence of her government and her philosophy (which was, in my estimation, that much more impressive given that both her government and her philosophy were indefensible). If I delve a little more (see below) on her contradictions, it is not out of an urge to diminish Mrs Thatcher; in fact, I believe deeply that we are all contradictory creatures and that the greater our ambition the greater the antinomies within us. And by golly, did Mrs Thatcher display great ambition and, thus, great contradictions!

Was it Tom?  Or some hero of the left?  Guesses?

It was the same person who said this:

Quote:
...As the tributes fly in, following the announcement of Mrs Thatcher’s death, perhaps this small tribute from someone who opposed almost everything she stood for, and certainly her main economic, social and foreign policies, may be of some significance. Indeed, Mrs Thatcher was the sort of person that would appreciate a sworn enemy’s eulogy a lot more than the platitudes of the many sycophants that are piling up.

...While I abhorred both her convictions and her historical take of the past, at least she had convictions and did base her thinking on an historical take that extended beyond the past… week of events. This combination is sorely missed in our current predicament when politicians are mere market research-driven simulations, and in which to have convictions is considered outdated, a sign of weakness, a relic of an antiquated past.

...She was the first woman Prime Minister but had little sympathy for the suffragettes (and the women’s movement in general) that broke the barriers to women’s progress, thus allowing her to rise up. She wanted to liberate Britons from the state but ended up granting Whitehall (Britain’s London-based functionaries) hitherto unheard of authoritarian powers. She sought to impose libertarian values, only to discover that she needed an autocratic state in order to do so (which explains nicely her fondness for, and defence of, General Pinochet). She preached judiciousness, on matters economic, and thrift, yet her government built the ‘British Miracle’ on the twin bubbles of real estate and the City created by spivs who worshipped her. She was keen to see the end of the old Etonian ruling circle but, unwittingly, created the conditions for the resurgence of that aristocratic clique (just take a look at the present cabinet). She championed a ‘share owners’ democracy’ but delivered a Britain in which ownership of businesses (and wealth) is more concentrated in the hands of a minority than at the time she became Prime Minister. She campaigned against totalitarianism in Moscow while insisting that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist who deserved to languish in gaol. Above all other contradictions, she argued passionately about a return to the Victorian moral life but gave rise to a regime in which it was impossible to imagine anything good being done for its own sake (as opposed to for profit).

Now, if Muiclair had expressed his thoughts as this person did, I would have some respect for him. But he didn't, and it's still not clear to me that Mulcair was fully opposed to anything Thatcher did.

How many NDP party hacks does it take to change a lightbulb? None. They just tell everyone that the 'dark' has a pretty good approval ratiing, and who knows, maybe the old lightbulb will start working again.

Rev Pesky

Gonzaga wrote:
...Someone thought making Mulcair's showing up for the women's issues debate conditional on Harper's would highlight the Conservatives' refusal to show up , but many potential NDP supporters read it as a sign of NDP arrogance.

Personally I saw this not as arrogance, but extreme stupidity. A free chance to lambaste the Conservatives on issues in which they were already weak, all the while pointing out, with the 'empty chair', the Conservatives lack of interest in women's issues. That was a free gift to the NDP, which they turned down.

Whoever made this decision should be tossed out of the party, or sent to remedial political action school or something. It was so dumb it almost defies description. Anybody with an ounce of brains would have jumped at this opportunity in an instant.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
How many NDP party hacks does it take to change a lightbulb? None. They just tell everyone that the 'dark' has a pretty good approval ratiing, and who knows, maybe the old lightbulb will start working again.

Q:  How many "old stock" NDP stalwarts does it take to finally convince the lightbulb to get the fuck out of the socket?

A:  All of them.  Better that the burned out lightbulb be replaced with a potato.  A good, honest, working class potato that's working very hard on its French.

Pages