Mulcair: stay or go?

1408 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24

So let's review the facts one more time: Mulcair leads a party at the top of the polls (not even in government so it doesn't have any tough baggage to have to carry) which craters into third place, and there's how many threads and posts over the issue of whether or not Mulcair should go? Why is there even a debate about this?

At least the Liberals and Conservatives know how to win and are willing to get the job done. If this is what passes for the NDP, perhaps the party isn't worth anyone's time any more, and it's best to either vote Liberal or build up an alternative.

Stockholm

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

I thought the "drift to the centre" by the NDP started when the party was foujnded in 1961 with the idea of being a more mainstream party that the CCF had been, or was in when Broadbent ditched all the old policies about withdrawing from NATO and nationalizing banks, or was it under MacDonough when she travelled to london in 1997 to learn about how she could apply Tony Blair's 3rd way strategy to the NDP...

Spoken like a true NDP partisan who thinks that if only we could convince the electorate that the NDP is a centrist middle class party they will vote us. All the party ends up doing is sounding insincere and power hungry. Mulcair tried to out-liberal the Liberals and the electorate said sorry we have a Liberal party already and their leader is way cuter and not such an old fuddy duddy.

Since you put the drift start at 1961, how many more decades to you think the NDP should spend drifting to the centre right while losing? Or are you one of those types who would rather try for power and lose than try to educate the electorate and lose.

I was not taking a position for or against any of this, I as simply pointing out that the idea of moving the NDP to a more moderate place on the political spectrum did not start with Tom Mulcair, in fact every leader of the party since MJ Coldwell has been moving in a more pragmatic direction. In fact jack Layton probably moved the NDP much more to the centre than Tom Mulcair ever did. I'm just pointing out the facts.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Ok, it may not be new, but it clearly hasn't worked much of the time.  Also, why assume "mainstream" or "pragmatic has to mean timid centrism with a "respectability" fetish?  Why not define it instead simply as ideas that gain widespread support(a form of "mainstreaming" that has included many radical ideas over the years)?

Wouldn't it be just as "mainstream" to work to gain popular backing(or to mobilize the popular backing that already exists in many cases)for a program of clear systemic and structural change?  To actually have some confidence in the public being open to(and in some cases aleady prepared for or even shouting demands for) a different vision of life?

This involves hard work and optimism, but isn't that supposed to be why a party like the NDP exists?  To work for an optimistic vision of ther future and to persuade people that in change lies hope?

BTW, the big problems with the CCF in the late 50's were that it had a largely small-town and rural sensibility(and, quite frankly, a rural white Protestant face) in a country that was becoming more urban, more unionized and more multicultural, multiracial, multicreed and increasingly secular.  It's way too simple to assume that it was simply seen as too left-wing.  It was much more that it was a 1930's party in a late 1950's world that was very little like Tommy Douglas' Dust Bowl Saskatchewan, a Farmer-Labour party in which labour(a much larger group of voters) seemed far less important to the party leadership than the rapidly dwindling bloc of populist family farmers .

 

Sean in Ottawa

There is pragmatic and there is unprincipled pandering and incompetence. Mulcair delivered the party into an election where the party was exposed as one panderng to the middle class without the courage to defend its key priorities while he personally claimed to be driven first and foremost by the middle class. Despite this he was unable to recognize what the middle class was or what it earned such that he missed the entire thrust of the Liberal so called "middle class" tax cut that missed the median income and went to the wealthy Canadians except for the top half of the 1%.

There is nothing pragmatic about being so incompetent that you cannot recognize how much Caandians make, how to read a tax promise, or pandering to a single so-called class while throwing out decades of being a social justice party. Mulcair is the worst NDP leader ever by far becuase he not only has fialed in an election, he has promoted a vision of the NDP that few poeple could support or want to see.

It does not matter if he can discover more petty scandals in appointments etc. He misses the point of what the NDP is and has severly damaged the NDP. He is the first NDP leader to damage the NDP so severely that after the election people are correctly asking what the party stands for and what purpose it has.

No, he has not  driven the party on the road to modern pargmatism, he drove it off a cliff and it is time NDP members see that. Layton, for all his pragmatism, never lost sight of what the NDP was, who it was for and the principles it had. It is an insult to every leader before Mulcair to pretend that Mulcair is following any trend. In fact, the trend Layton was a part of was one that may well have brought the NDP to power and brought change to the country. Mulcair is a man who sold the party's principles for the biggest election loss in the NDP's history when you consider that 2/3 of its sitting MPs failed in their re-election bids.

Now Mulcair has promoted a false choice to the NDP: leave the mainstream and no longer be a contender for power or imagine that you can be a contender while abandoning all principle and purpose the NDP ever stood for. The NDP needed a leader in the Layton tradition -- one who understood and kept to the principles of the party while bringing the party closer and closer to power. Mulcair proved that you can abandon your principles at the same time as take the party further away from power.

Mulcair is, himself, a false promise and will destroy the party entirely if left as leader beyond this year.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Stockholm wrote:

I was not taking a position for or against any of this, I as simply pointing out that the idea of moving the NDP to a more moderate place on the political spectrum did not start with Tom Mulcair, in fact every leader of the party since MJ Coldwell has been moving in a more pragmatic direction. In fact jack Layton probably moved the NDP much more to the centre than Tom Mulcair ever did. I'm just pointing out the facts.

I agree that Jack moved the party to the centre more than Mulcair. Of course for those of us active in the party who supported Jack based on his running for the leadership from the left that sticks in the craw even more.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

If a new(ish) leader of a formerly successful party manages to run that party into the ground, such that they experience a significant electoral loss, it's the duty of even those who support that party and their mission to ask the tough questions, and to not shy away from demanding real and honest answers to the question of why this happened. 

It's also not unreasonable to suggest that perhaps the crushing defeat might be a good time for that failed leader to step aside, in the interest of the principles that their party claims to stand for.  Craven attempts to hold on to power, at any cost, don't serve the electorate in any way.

ed'd to add:  whoops!  My bad.  Meant to post that here.

Debater

In the Nathan Cullen year-end interview that someone posted on another thread, Cullen seems to go out of his way to praise Mulcair and talk about how wonderful a campaign Mulcair ran and how perfect Tom is, etc.

The Huffington Post does quote several anonymous defeated NDP MP's who are critical of Mulcair, but it seems that Cullen & the rest of the elected NDP caucus aren't willing to hold Mulcair accountable.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Debater wrote:

In the Nathan Cullen year-end interview that someone posted on another thread, Cullen seems to go out of his way to praise Mulcair and talk about how wonderful a campaign Mulcair ran and how perfect Tom is, etc.

The Huffington Post does quote several anonymous defeated NDP MP's who are critical of Mulcair, but it seems that Cullen & the rest of the elected NDP caucus aren't willing to hold Mulcair accountable.

It is also possible that Cullen has been told privately that Mulcair will step down before the next election. In that case, he would have nothing to gain by taking gratuitous shots at Mulcair.

mark_alfred

I haven't noticed a lot of defeated NDP candidates being critical.  Craig Scott certainly isn't.  He's very supportive of Mulcair.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

I haven't noticed a lot of defeated NDP candidates being critical.  Craig Scott certainly isn't.  He's very supportive of Mulcair.

Too bad.

If the NDP want to be the "middle class" party Mulcair made them to be, they can go for it. This does not represent me and so they won't get my vote again so long as this is the case. Members will decide at some point and I can decide if the party is something I want to ever support again.

I am not as far left as most other options so if the NDP wants to abandon its social justice roots for the current leader and solidarity with the "middle class" then I won't find any great fit elsewhere. But those other options right now are a better fit than the one that sold out its principles. I won't say Mulcair's NDP does not have shiny new principles but I can see that they are not the same as mine.

Mulcair and his NDP voted for the Liberal tax cut for the well off. This is as gutless and unprincipled as the Liberal support for C-51. The NDP do not deserve the support of people who believe in social justice.

I understand the problem individual MPs are facing. I am fine if they want to keep quiet until the convention but if they then support Mulcair and what he represents, then I cannot support them. For now if someone calls me and asks about my vote, offering the top 4-5 parties I will say "other" as not one of them deserves my vote.

mark_alfred

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Mulcair and his NDP voted for the Liberal tax cut for the well off.

I thought  Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, had only gone to first reading so far.  I'm unaware of any votes on it yet.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Mulcair and his NDP voted for the Liberal tax cut for the well off.

I thought  Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, had only gone to first reading so far.  I'm unaware of any votes on it yet.

NDP voted for it in a Ways and Means motion in early December. The Liberals, with a majority, did not need the NDP's votes.

Mulcair voted for it probably for the same reason Trudeau voted for C-51: Due to lacking any spine OR principles. and not wanting to be seen to vote against due to supreme political gutlessness. That is the kind of "leadership" the NDP has right now.

And no -- the excuse that there was something to like is bullshit. There always is something to like. There was no legislative necessity to vote this way unless the NDP really does not give a shit for social justice or anyone not making a high income.

mark_alfred

I see.  In fairness to the NDP, they did advocate that the cut be applied to the first bracket rather than the second, which would have been a greater benefit to more of us riff-raff.  Anyway, I don't consider it anything equal to Bill C-51.  A piffle, in my opinion.  Best to pick your battles.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

I see.  In fairness to the NDP, they did advocate that the cut be applied to the first bracket rather than the second, which would have been a greater benefit to more of us riff-raff.  Anyway, I don't consider it anything equal to Bill C-51.  A piffle, in my opinion.  Best to pick your battles.

Nope. If fair taxation, dishonesty, and economic fairness from government is not a battle worth picking then what is?

The issues I am not comparing but the hypocrisy fits like a glove. The NDP had no need to vote for this bill. And the NDP is pretending that it can argue against it and vote for it? Seems just like the C-51 issue.

And this is not much of a fight. I am not an NDP supporter anymore. It is an establishment party with tons of rhetoric and no guts to stand up for its principles when it matters.

When it comes to giving another tax cut to those who do not need it paid for by people with less -- there is hardly anything you can imagine more representative.

When it comes to political hypocrisy and sellout, this is an example for the textbooks.

At least I can trust dogshit to smell like it really is.

In the past we used to have some politicians with principles who were able to muster the spine to vote against the unacceptable -- even if the single out soemthing positive to say about another portion of a bill. This is what I would have said to Trudeau na few months ago and what I have to say to Mulcair now. Except, I used to expect better from the NDP.

mark_alfred

Quote:

When it comes to giving another tax cut to those who do not need it paid for by people stronglywith less -- there is hardly anything you can imagine more representative.

Presumably it's a cut primarily benefiting those who don't really need it paid for by the uber rich, rather than paid for "by people with less".  That's the thing, when the Libs first announced this in the campaign, many here trashed the NDP for not having a similar scheme of their own.  Now, you're trashing them for not opposing it strongly enough.  The NDP cannot win here.  Anyway, everyone but the Conservatives voted for the Ways and Means motion.

I agree that this specific tax thingy is not a great policy move, but it's also not directly contradicting anything the NDP stands for.  For Conservatives, it is directly against their current stand of never raising taxes on anyone, which is why they opposed it.  But, for the NDP, the idea of taxing higher income brackets more to lower taxes on a lower income bracket isn't directly contradicting anything the NDP stands for.  So, I don't see it as hypocritical to approve the concept but to suggest a way to make it more meaningful.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:

When it comes to giving another tax cut to those who do not need it paid for by people stronglywith less -- there is hardly anything you can imagine more representative.

Presumably it's a cut primarily benefiting those who don't really need it paid for by the uber rich, rather than paid for "by people with less".  That's the thing, when the Libs first announced this in the campaign, many here trashed the NDP for not having a similar scheme of their own.  Now, you're trashing them for not opposing it strongly enough.  The NDP cannot win here.  Anyway, everyone but the Conservatives voted for the Ways and Means motion.

I agree that this specific tax thingy is not a great policy move, but it's also not directly contradicting anything the NDP stands for.  For Conservatives, it is directly against their current stand of never raising taxes on anyone, which is why they opposed it.  But, for the NDP, the idea of taxing higher income brackets more to lower taxes on a lower income bracket isn't directly contradicting anything the NDP stands for.  So, I don't see it as hypocritical to approve the concept but to suggest a way to make it more meaningful.

I like how you start with presumably. That is like one big flashing red light telling you that the post is about to go out on thin ice.

If the tax increase on the top half of the 1% were enough to fund the decrease on the 90-99% then this would merely be irrelevant from an economic point of view although still dishonest of the Liberals for selling it that way. But this is not the case.

The Liberal tax increase starts up in the stratosphere of the 1% and therefore does not come anywhere close to being enough to fund the tax cut for the non 1% wealthy. As such the decrease comes out of the overall budget meaning either that the rest of Canadians do with less from government to cope with the shortfall or there comes a new tax increase to make it up. The point is if a tax change among the very wealthy is less than revenue neutral and there is a cost we all pay for that. Perhaps that is not in new taxes but programs the government cannot afford, or oversight for things we care about. It really does not matter as the effect is the same.

As for traching the NDP -- it was recognized by a number of people to be a blunder (and it seems that it may have been given the result of the election and the fact that the Liberal promise was on heavy rotation during the middle of the campaign when the Liberals started to gain. And yes the NDP could have offered a tax policy to increase on the wealthy and providing an increased basic exemption. Just becuase one tax policy was terrible (the Liebral one) does not mean the NDP cannot be criticized for not having a better one.

As well both have served to do the same thing -- by not raising taxes on the wealthy (NDP) and the Liberals decreasing taxes on the wealthy (even partially offset by a measure at the very top), both have failed to propose policies to ensure that the Federal government has the fiscal room to provide the programs needed.

For the NDP to vote for a tax cut on the wealthy at a time of difficulty is a betrayal and symbolic of the brain-rot in the party. The excuse that there is a tax increase that will only partially offset the largess by the government is a pathetic sick joke.

There is no excuse for this anyway -- since we all attacked the Liebral party for saying it was against something and then voting for it. And this is what the NDP just did.

mark_alfred

I just watched Rabble's What's The Future (WTF) podcast.  Kinda interesting.  Good people there.  The message basically was we must stay engaged and active and demand change from this government.  NDP, NGOs, First Nations, unions, environmentalists, etc, must keep the pressure up on the government for progressive change.  Libby Davies was one of the panelists.  I was curious if there was going to be talk of a need to change the NDP or its leadership.  It wasn't really spoken of in this podcast.  Which is likely a good thing.  Best for activists to not begin infighting.  We'll see what happens at the next convention.

I'm reading Tom Mulcair's book Strength of Conviction.  Good book so far.  I'm at page 125 of 184.  The best chapter so far was Chapter 11, "Storm Clouds".  It's a short chapter about his actions as Minister of the Environment in Quebec and how these were increasingly annoying Jean Charest, leading Charest to eventually demote him.  There were some very decisive and bold actions, where he stood up to many powerful entities ranging from large property developers to the Coca-Cola corporation.

Debater

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Debater wrote:

In the Nathan Cullen year-end interview that someone posted on another thread, Cullen seems to go out of his way to praise Mulcair and talk about how wonderful a campaign Mulcair ran and how perfect Tom is, etc.

The Huffington Post does quote several anonymous defeated NDP MP's who are critical of Mulcair, but it seems that Cullen & the rest of the elected NDP caucus aren't willing to hold Mulcair accountable.

It is also possible that Cullen has been told privately that Mulcair will step down before the next election. In that case, he would have nothing to gain by taking gratuitous shots at Mulcair.

That's possible.

I wasn't saying that Cullen should take 'gratuitous shots' at Mulcair, but I was expecting that he and the other NDP MP's would engage in a little more constructive criticism of the NDP campaign performance & platform.

But the NDP MP's sound a lot like the Liberal MP's did after the 2006 & 2008 elections -- not really willing to engage in any serious soul-searching.  It wasn't until 2011 that the Liberal MP's finally started asking some tough questions.

I'm wondering when the NDP MP's will start doing that.

Debater

mark_alfred wrote:

I haven't noticed a lot of defeated NDP candidates being critical.  Craig Scott certainly isn't.  He's very supportive of Mulcair.

Here's what The Huffington Post says:

While some NDP MPs who lost their reelection bids told HuffPost confidentially that they place much of the blame for the party's election result on Mulcair, Cullen, who competed against the Quebec MP for the leadership three years ago, does not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/12/30/nathan-cullen-ndp-2015-thomas-mu...

mark_alfred

"some" could simply be one.  Perhaps it's Ryan Cleary.  Anyway, the article also quotes Nathan Cullen as saying,

Quote:

"Tom did really well. He performed well. So we can't say he dropped the football and that was the obvious moment. There was no moment that way."

While Mulcair faces a leadership vote, as per the party's constitution, in April, Cullen believes his leader should stick around and lead the party again in the 2019 election.

 Mulcair is "a strong, incredibly intelligent, incredibly principled voice that bridges the French and English divide," Cullen said. "All the things I am looking for in a leader, Tom meets.

"It's very much a mistake to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and it also isn't in our party's tradition necessarily. We tend to stick with people, especially people that we respect. And there is a great deal of respect for Tom within the party."

I notice too that a week after the election result Linda McQuaig spoke highly of the national campaign, saying that some errors were made, but she felt it was very progressive.  Her twitter page still has a picture of her with Tom.  Also, like I mentioned, Libby Davies in that podcast feels positive about the federal NDP. 

So I don't feel there's any brewing rebellion against Mulcair.  There's no Mulroney looking push Clark out.  No Martin planning a coup against Chretien. Instead, potential leadership replacements like Cullen are saying, "All the things I am looking for in a leader, Tom meets."  And Cullen is right.  Mulcair is "a strong, incredibly intelligent, incredibly principled voice" for the NDP.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

"some" could simply be one.  Perhaps it's Ryan Cleary.  Anyway, the article also quotes Nathan Cullen as saying,

Quote:

"Tom did really well. He performed well. So we can't say he dropped the football and that was the obvious moment. There was no moment that way."

While Mulcair faces a leadership vote, as per the party's constitution, in April, Cullen believes his leader should stick around and lead the party again in the 2019 election.

 Mulcair is "a strong, incredibly intelligent, incredibly principled voice that bridges the French and English divide," Cullen said. "All the things I am looking for in a leader, Tom meets.

"It's very much a mistake to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and it also isn't in our party's tradition necessarily. We tend to stick with people, especially people that we respect. And there is a great deal of respect for Tom within the party."

I notice too that a week after the election result Linda McQuaig spoke highly of the national campaign, saying that some errors were made, but she felt it was very progressive.  Her twitter page still has a picture of her with Tom.  Also, like I mentioned, Libby Davies in that podcast feels positive about the federal NDP. 

So I don't feel there's any brewing rebellion against Mulcair.  There's no Mulroney looking push Clark out.  No Martin planning a coup against Chretien. Instead, potential leadership replacements like Cullen are saying, "All the things I am looking for in a leader, Tom meets."  And Cullen is right.  Mulcair is "a strong, incredibly intelligent, incredibly principled voice" for the NDP.

Well let's have the vote and I can move on as an ex-NDP supporter.

I will not cast my vote for a party that sold out its principles to be one more party chasing the self-interest of the so-called middle class.

2019 might be the first time I have ever voted against the NDP in my life. I hope I have a good option to vote for but Mulcair has disqualified himself and if he is what the NDP want then they are just the same as the Liberals. I really hope there are some social justice advocates in the NDP left that still have spines attached. But of course I will accept the vote on the leadership and close off decades of support for the NDP if Mulcair is truly the best they can do.

The recent vote on the Liberal tax cut for the fairly wealthy means that the election campaign was no fluke: the NDP is no longer the party of fairness and justice. It is the party of pandering and opportunism.

As for Cullen -- his comments blew away a considerable amount of respect I had for him. I will still seek principle -- I just won't expect it to be draped in the colour orange.

mark_alfred

Centring the blame for the campaign exclusively on Tom is a mistake.  Nora Loreto has an excellent analysis of the failings of the campaign.  Granted, she does feel that if Tom had just been himself, rather than the front that he seemed to put on, then things would have been better.  But she feels the problems ran much deeper, and in fact the issues go beyond the campaign.  It's a very good article. 

Her main thesis is:

Quote:
Progressive politics must be built, not announced. Systems were in motion for too long for the NDP to have been able to change course for this election.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/nora-loreto/2015/10/untangling-hashtagfa...

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Centring the blame for the campaign exclusively on Tom is a mistake.  Nora Loreto has an excellent analysis of the failings of the campaign.  Granted, she does feel that if Tom had just been himself, rather than the front that he seemed to put on, then things would have been better.  But she feels the problems ran much deeper, and in fact the issues go beyond the campaign.  It's a very good article. 

Her main thesis is:

Quote:
Progressive politics must be built, not announced. Systems were in motion for too long for the NDP to have been able to change course for this election.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/nora-loreto/2015/10/untangling-hashtagfa...

It is incorrect to think that a positive campaign that is principled is more left. The abandonment of the NDP principleswas in some ways a shift to the right when you consider Mulcairs determination to deliver the message he was there for the "middle class." But there were elements of left in the platform. The problem was the leader did not seem to be emotionally attached to them. It is not as if the party went right. The leader did -- mostly on his own but he won't wear this loss as he and his supporters try to blame everything but him for it.

But the truth that sits in the middle of all of this is that a good many NDP supporters really did not get excited about deficit-busting, petty, Tom being PM. And a good many of those walked away in the latter part of the campaign.

The NDP brain trust was incompetent -- failing to present the platform, failing to recognize what Canadians were thinking, failing to promote NDP principles of justice and fairness for all not just those more likely to vote. And that same brain trust -- led by Mulcair -- is still in power within the NDP.

Some people are so much in denial about the last campaign that somehow they imagine Mulcair coming back from this even though such a return is so rare (if ever) that it is completely implasible. And for some reason people want to support this longshot from a guy who never seemed to warm up to wha tthe NDP was about. Why give a second chance to a guy who cannot promote what the NDP is? A guy who still thinks the NDP is a "middle class" party? A guy who just last month voted for a Liberal tax cut to the wealthy despite saying it was a bad idea.

What we are seeing is wholesale panic as New Democrats reach for the anchor instead of a life preserver or having the guts to swim to shore.

 

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Some people are so much in denial about the last campaign that somehow they imagine Mulcair coming back from this even though such a return is so rare (if ever) that it is completely implasible.

Sean, current polling has Trudeau's approval rating almost as high among NDP supporters as Mulcair. Are you aware of a precedent in Canadian politics where supporters of one party have almost as high an approval of a different leader as they do their own?

adma

May I say this: had we a 1957/8 situation where the Justin Grits got a minority and parlayed that into a supermajority a la Dief, given the way they're going about things, Team Mulcair would likely be reduced to single digit seat totals a la Coldwell, McLaughlin, Nick Clegg et al.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Some people are so much in denial about the last campaign that somehow they imagine Mulcair coming back from this even though such a return is so rare (if ever) that it is completely implasible.

Sean, current polling has Trudeau's approval rating almost as high among NDP supporters as Mulcair. Are you aware of a precedent in Canadian politics where supporters of one party have almost as high an approval of a different leader as they do their own?

I think the real story is the number of people who will not even be counted as NDP supporters now. The carcass of the party can pretend all they like that nothing is wrong and that they are now suddenly just a smaller party as if the rapture is part way through, but the reality is that likely it is 3/4 of what was the support for the NDP a few months ago that now prefers Trudeau and that does not even count people like me who have no use for Trudeau. I will never become a Liberal. Now I expect that I will look to the smaller parties to see if there is anything worthy of a vote.

Mulcair is either supremely selfish or delusional if he cannot see what he has done to the NDP. But really the effectiveness of it is that most people who used to care now don't and perhaps he has pissed off people to the point that his opposition will just leave the party to him rather than even both fighting him. We do know that much of what is left of the NDP seems to share the delusion. When he gets ten or fewer seats in 2019 hopefully people who used to care about the NDP will have built a new party.

nicky

If there ever were a time when polling should be ignored it is now. Trudeau is in his honeymoon, aided by an adulatory MSM. It is an artificial environment. Let' see what the polls say in a few months.
I remember when 67% said they would vote NDP during the Bob Rae honeymoon. Anyone remember how that worked out?

Sean in Ottawa

Ken Burch wrote:

I think that may have happened in the first months after Trudeau Pere won his majority, or again with him after the October Crisis(if PET had called a snap election on his handling of that situation, he'd likely have been re-elected with a sharply increased majority and the NDP miight have lost official party status for it's lonely, principled opposition to his tactics), but probably not with anyone since.

Yes-- we can remember the time when the NDP lost on principle. Now the party has proven that it can lose just as badly without having any principles at all.

And yes, we should include a whole host of people so drunk on the ddrug of the middle class that they missed the party positioning itself to no longer represent sopcial justice and equality to chase the middle class as its priority.

And if you think I am pissed this is a reaction from going to the NDP site a couple months ago to see Mulcair's quote saying the reason he was there was for the middle class.

So many in the party accept this trade of principles for unprincipled defeat. Fuck them all.And Fuckevery single NDP MP that voted for Trudeau's fraudulent gift to the wealthy

Hopefully there are enough people left in this country to build an option that rests on social justice and start again.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

(replying to the post about Justin's popularity among supporters of other parties)

I think that may have happened in the first months after Trudeau Pere won his majority, or again with him after the October Crisis(if PET had called a snap election on his handling of that situation, he'd likely have been re-elected with a sharply increased majority and the NDP miight have lost official party status for it's lonely, principled opposition to his tactics), but probably not with anyone since.

mark_alfred

Plenty of articles had the following (ranging from two days before the election to as long ago as a year before the election)

Quote:

Meanwhile, he says Conservatives and Liberals have doled out "tax cuts by the billions" to the largest, most profitable corporations — cuts he has promised an NDP government would roll back.

"Today, the only ones in our society not paying their fair share are corporations," Mulcair says.

[..]

Mulcair talked about fighting climate change, protecting health care and creating jobs. He promised to repeal Bill C-51, provide $15 per day child care and "make corporations pay their fair share."

IMO, that should have won the election.  Yet it didn't.  Would replacing Mulcair as the one delivering this message with someone else work?  I'm beginning to suspect not.  The message was consistent.  It's been the NDP's message for a long time.  Maybe Canadians will never accept such policies.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:
 

"Today, the only ones in our society not paying their fair share are corporations," Mulcair says.

This is 1) a lie, and 2) a subterfuge, and 3) a betrayal of the membership.

1) Rich individuals (not just "corporations") are also not paying their "fair share" - and the NDP swore not to increase their personal tax rates.

2) The promised "increase" from 15 to 17% was a joke. It was 21% when Harper took power in 2006. The NDP promised to raise it to 22% in 2008. The published platform for the 2015 election bragged that raising it to 17% would still leave combined federal and provincial corporate tax rates (averaging 28.3%) well below the U.S. rate of 39%. No kidding.

3) The 2013 convention (allegedly the supreme policy-making body of the party) called for capital gains to be taxed at the same rate as income. You will find no mention of capital gains in the 72-page published election platform.

I won't rehash some of the other campaign promises you mentioned. I'll only express my opinion that the problem goes way beyond the "messaging".

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Plenty of articles had the following (ranging from two days before the election to as long ago as a year before the election)

Quote:

Meanwhile, he says Conservatives and Liberals have doled out "tax cuts by the billions" to the largest, most profitable corporations — cuts he has promised an NDP government would roll back.

"Today, the only ones in our society not paying their fair share are corporations," Mulcair says.

[..]

Mulcair talked about fighting climate change, protecting health care and creating jobs. He promised to repeal Bill C-51, provide $15 per day child care and "make corporations pay their fair share."

IMO, that should have won the election.  Yet it didn't.  Would replacing Mulcair as the one delivering this message with someone else work?  I'm beginning to suspect not.  The message was consistent.  It's been the NDP's message for a long time.  Maybe Canadians will never accept such policies.

Not consistent: now Mulcair has voted for the Liberal tax cut to the wealthy.

Mulcair was also wrong on corporate tax -- he believed that a minor adjustment (that would keep the corporate tax below average of what it was during Harper's time) would be enough. Also he was wrong to not add a tax on the most wealthy. He is now wrong on agreeing to provide a tax break for the well off that we all know cannot be paid by an increase on the top sliver of super rich.

Muylcair is wrong on policy and he is wrong on principle. He is also incompetent on the file. He has no credibility to go after Trudeau on this now -- as I am sure Trudeau will delight in reminding him that he voted for the policy in the House.

Aristotleded24

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
What we are seeing is wholesale panic as New Democrats reach for the anchor instead of a life preserver or having the guts to swim to shore.

They saw how effectively the Manitoba NDP establishment squashed a party rebellion there and they think the same thing would happen were it to be tried federally.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
What we are seeing is wholesale panic as New Democrats reach for the anchor instead of a life preserver or having the guts to swim to shore.

They saw how effectively the Manitoba NDP establishment squashed a party rebellion there and they think the same thing would happen were it to be tried federally.

Effectively? The party is about to be wiped out in the province. Yep, I guess that is effective.

They burned the house down and that is exactly what they seem keen to do in Ottawa.

mark_alfred

nicky wrote:
If there ever were a time when polling should be ignored it is now. Trudeau is in his honeymoon, aided by an adulatory MSM. It is an artificial environment. Let' see what the polls say in a few months. I remember when 67% said they would vote NDP during the Bob Rae honeymoon. Anyone remember how that worked out?

True.  A good thing to keep in mind.  People did seriously flirt with the idea of an NDP government for a while.  So, after the shine wears from this government, which it will, anything could happen.  TM4PM in 2019! (or someone else for PM -- we'll see how the leadership convention goes)

Debater

nicky wrote:
If there ever were a time when polling should be ignored it is now. Trudeau is in his honeymoon, aided by an adulatory MSM. It is an artificial environment. Let' see what the polls say in a few months. I remember when 67% said they would vote NDP during the Bob Rae honeymoon. Anyone remember how that worked out?

nicky, of course people shouldn't believe everything they see in honeymoon polls.  Of course some of these numbers will change over time as the government goes through ups & downs.

But your own track record of predictions isn't so great.

You predicted that Trudeau would crash & burn and never become PM.

Your own bias is preventing you from seeing the valid points Sean is making about the NDP numbers.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Plenty of articles had the following (ranging from two days before the election to as long ago as a year before the election)

Quote:

Meanwhile, he says Conservatives and Liberals have doled out "tax cuts by the billions" to the largest, most profitable corporations — cuts he has promised an NDP government would roll back.

"Today, the only ones in our society not paying their fair share are corporations," Mulcair says.

[..]

Mulcair talked about fighting climate change, protecting health care and creating jobs. He promised to repeal Bill C-51, provide $15 per day child care and "make corporations pay their fair share."

IMO, that should have won the election.  Yet it didn't.  Would replacing Mulcair as the one delivering this message with someone else work?  I'm beginning to suspect not.  The message was consistent.  It's been the NDP's message for a long time.  Maybe Canadians will never accept such policies.

..once upon a time neoliberalism was something external trying to force it’s way into a state. today it is the definition of a captured state. canada is a neoliberal state and it has been captured. meaning all important state duties, functions, and departments are geared towards a neoliberal agenda. ie trade and natural resources. this doesn’t change when or if the ndp or any other party takes power in ottawa.

..so the struggle today is much more intense than any time in the past with much more devastating consequences. ie environment. a party today that claims to be progressive, imho, needs to be involved at a grassroots level from the beginning. it needs to be consulting, organizing and educating. not being aloof and tossing out campaign promises just so it can get elected. it needs to be a part of the struggle not a mediator between capital and the population. it needs to be democratic internally as well as externally.

..not to long ago podemos in spain came out and supported catalan self-determination. more recent they were not willing to join a coalition government because other parties demanded that support be dropped. this to me is a party being part the struggle. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..it's not enough any more to just say the ndp is better than the libs and cons. or even that the libs are better than the cons. you have to provide a real defence to the attack coming from capital. and then provide alternatives with a deadline. the ndp is not the best tool today. no matter what their potential is..it has to be today. the movements are where the real struggle is on the ground. and they are far from weak. an example : i posted this in the pipeline thread. no matter who you vote for join the movements as well if you aren't doing that already. if you want solutions to our problems this is where the main focus should be not parliment.

In the 2015 federal election the Conservatives experienced a net loss of fewer than 235,000 votes across the country. But they took heavy damage in British Columbia, especially in coastal communities. In fact, the Tories lost more votes (- 96,524) in ridings touching the Pacific Ocean than in the other nine provinces and three territories combined. Our research at Dogwood suggests the Harper government’s aggressive promotion of pipeline and oil tanker proposals was a significant factor in how the election played out in B.C.

Sean in Ottawa

epaulo13 wrote:

..it's not enough any more to just say the ndp is better than the libs and cons. or even that the libs are better than the cons. you have to provide a real defence to the attack coming from capital. and then provide alternatives with a deadline. the ndp is not the best tool today. no matter what their potential is..it has to be today. the movements are where the real struggle is on the ground. and they are far from weak. an example : i posted this in the pipeline thread. no matter who you vote for join the movements as well if you aren't doing that already. if you want solutions to our problems this is where the main focus should be not parliment.

In the 2015 federal election the Conservatives experienced a net loss of fewer than 235,000 votes across the country. But they took heavy damage in British Columbia, especially in coastal communities. In fact, the Tories lost more votes (- 96,524) in ridings touching the Pacific Ocean than in the other nine provinces and three territories combined. Our research at Dogwood suggests the Harper government’s aggressive promotion of pipeline and oil tanker proposals was a significant factor in how the election played out in B.C.

I agree with you on much of this.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..txs sean

Unionist

Me too.

quizzical

yup because we out here in BC think so much the same as all you back east.....oh right the Conservatives gained votes if not seats in QC.

off-the-radar

epaulo13 wrote:

..it's not enough any more to just say the ndp is better than the libs and cons. or even that the libs are better than the cons. you have to provide a real defence to the attack coming from capital. and then provide alternatives with a deadline. the ndp is not the best tool today. no matter what their potential is..it has to be today. the movements are where the real struggle is on the ground. and they are far from weak. an example : i posted this in the pipeline thread. no matter who you vote for join the movements as well if you aren't doing that already. if you want solutions to our problems this is where the main focus should be not parliment.

In the 2015 federal election the Conservatives experienced a net loss of fewer than 235,000 votes across the country. But they took heavy damage in British Columbia, especially in coastal communities. In fact, the Tories lost more votes (- 96,524) in ridings touching the Pacific Ocean than in the other nine provinces and three territories combined. Our research at Dogwood suggests the Harper government’s aggressive promotion of pipeline and oil tanker proposals was a significant factor in how the election played out in B.C.

Really great points, it is about us (the people) reclaiming our society through getting active and organized in movements. 

Great graphic by the way!  And that most of that loss was in BC's coastal/Island ridings.

mark_alfred

Thanks epaulo13.  Interesting post.  A lot of what you're saying echoes what Nora Loreto also said in her article on the NDP campaign that I posted above (link).  That being, building from the community upward.  The greater loss of the Cons in BC is interesting, and I'm sure you're right, that it is due to work from activists around the pipelines (though I'm surprised Dix lost, primarily, I understand, due to economic concerns that he would be too environmentally friendly and not promote enough resource based jobs -- I've likely got this wrong though, since I know little about BC).

My concern though is that the whole it (IE, the NDP) must be from the ground up approach seems a bit overbearing.  One thing Loreto said in her article was,

Quote:

The Liberals, as one of two governing parties in Ottawa, have the luxury to turn left or right at the whims of central command. They don't need to be in direct contact with their members. They can change their policies with the predictions of the pollsters and they won't be punished. In fact, they'll be lauded, if the gamble pays off.

The principal failure of the NDP was to form a strategy premised on the notion that they had this ability too. But they aren't the Liberals. They probably would have been skewered by the press if they had promised to run a $30 billion deficit.

It was the combination of a failure to communicate a progressive vision that was firm enough to convince Canadians that the NDP could beat Harper, and a failure of organizing between elections that sank the NDP.

You yourself mentioned,

epaulo wrote:
it [a progressive party] needs to be a part of the struggle not a mediator between capital and the population. it needs to be democratic internally as well as externally.

Okay, so, according to Loreto, the NDP allegedly tried to run a campaign centrally controlled like the Cons and Libs, rather than spending time working from the ground up.  Thus, the NDP were ignoring the fact the Cons and Libs don't originate from either labour unions or from the CCF, and thus these two parties can change shit on the fly during a campaign (or even after they're elected -- IE, Libs can toss their "Red Book" into the "Blue Box" and govern even more right than the Cons would have, and still get elected next time), whereas the NDP can't without pissing off a lot of members and subsequently incurring the notice of media.

Here's the image that comes to my mind:  there's a road race, and the Con and Lib runners put on their sweatshop running shoes, while the NDP runner puts on heavy work boots and wears a ball and chain for good measure.  Or, thought # 2 is evolution, where the species that can adapt the fastest to the environment will generally win.  So if the NDP (or another progressive party borne of community egalitarian efforts like the CCF or the CLC) needs to use more resources to get electoral support than its competition (IE, Cons or Libs), then it will never win.  And so far, the NDP hasn't.

I dunno.  I think it would make a huge difference to have the NDP win federally.  That is where the financial clout of the country is (rather than in the provinces w/ provincial gov'ts).  Provincial governments are more limited in what they can do (though certainly some good has come from NDP gov'ts provincially and some of the provincial gov'ts in Quebec too).  In the past it was possible for the NDP to occasionally pressure the Liberals into enacting progressive legislation.  Those days are gone.  The Liberals of today are way way way too right wing.

I see the example of BC results, where the Cons lost more than elsewhere in the country, due to activism against the pipelines.  I think when people have a vested interest in a result, and see that a party is not representing that interest, then they vote strongly against that party.  Activism obviously helped. 

For the Libs, they supplied kind of a quick vested interest in money now (tax cut, child benefit) while casting the NDP's child care program as being both unaffordable and much later.  So, quick cash payouts rather than services seems to be the friend of right-wing governments like the Libs and Cons (the infrastructure spending now via deficit financing also fit this). 

Hmm.  I dunno.  Hard things to tackle.  I appreciate your ideas, though I'm still not sure if the increased focus on a game from the ground up (IE, being a greater part of the struggle) is the way to go.  Like I said, seems like it could hinder electoral success even further.  To succeed, perhaps quicker adaptation to the public mood may be necessary.  I dunno.  I'm just kinda thinking out loud. 

The NDP game plan of focussing on the Cons only, and on their poor financial record (eight deficits in a row!) while ignoring the Liberals, with the NDP offering some very progressive change, seemed good.  The Libs quickly adapted by proclaiming deficits (aka investments) as the key, making it difficult to keep vilifying the Cons for their financial record, and thus difficult to keep the focus on the NDP as the alternative to the Cons.  So, low corporate taxes, along w/ the questionable commitments to the environment, CPP, electoral reform, and child care, continues.

Anyway, I do feel activism is important, and shall be volunteering with Fair Vote (and I've continued to support OCAP, an anti-poverty direct action group in Toronto).  Mind you, I'm a political junkie, so I do focus on political parties, and feel the NDP is a good potential tool for making society a better place.  Of course, they need to win once in a blue moon to do that.

Anyway, thanks again for your post.  I appreciate considering different ideas.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Thanks epaulo13.  Interesting post.  A lot of what you're saying echoes what Nora Loreto also said in her article on the NDP campaign that I posted above (link).  That being, building from the community upward.  The greater loss of the Cons in BC is interesting, and I'm sure you're right, that it is due to work from activists around the pipelines (though I'm surprised Dix lost, primarily, I understand, due to economic concerns that he would be too environmentally friendly and not promote enough resource based jobs -- I've likely got this wrong though, since I know little about BC).

My concern though is that the whole it (IE, the NDP) must be from the ground up approach seems a bit overbearing.  One thing Loreto said in her article was,

Quote:

The Liberals, as one of two governing parties in Ottawa, have the luxury to turn left or right at the whims of central command. They don't need to be in direct contact with their members. They can change their policies with the predictions of the pollsters and they won't be punished. In fact, they'll be lauded, if the gamble pays off.

The principal failure of the NDP was to form a strategy premised on the notion that they had this ability too. But they aren't the Liberals. They probably would have been skewered by the press if they had promised to run a $30 billion deficit.

It was the combination of a failure to communicate a progressive vision that was firm enough to convince Canadians that the NDP could beat Harper, and a failure of organizing between elections that sank the NDP.

You yourself mentioned,

epaulo wrote:
it [a progressive party] needs to be a part of the struggle not a mediator between capital and the population. it needs to be democratic internally as well as externally.

Okay, so, according to Loreto, the NDP allegedly tried to run a campaign centrally controlled like the Cons and Libs, rather than spending time working from the ground up.  Thus, the NDP were ignoring the fact the Cons and Libs don't originate from either labour unions or from the CCF, and thus these two parties can change shit on the fly during a campaign (or even after they're elected -- IE, Libs can toss their "Red Book" into the "Blue Box" and govern even more right than the Cons would have, and still get elected next time), whereas the NDP can't without pissing off a lot of members and subsequently incurring the notice of media.

Here's the image that comes to my mind:  there's a road race, and the Con and Lib runners put on their sweatshop running shoes, while the NDP runner puts on heavy work boots and wears a ball and chain for good measure.  Or, thought # 2 is evolution, where the species that can adapt the fastest to the environment will generally win.  So if the NDP (or another progressive party borne of community egalitarian efforts like the CCF or the CLC) needs to use more resources to get electoral support than its competition (IE, Cons or Libs), then it will never win.  And so far, the NDP hasn't.

I dunno.  I think it would make a huge difference to have the NDP win federally.  That is where the financial clout of the country is (rather than in the provinces w/ provincial gov'ts).  Provincial governments are more limited in what they can do (though certainly some good has come from NDP gov'ts provincially and some of the provincial gov'ts in Quebec too).  In the past it was possible for the NDP to occasionally pressure the Liberals into enacting progressive legislation.  Those days are gone.  The Liberals of today are way way way too right wing.

I see the example of BC results, where the Cons lost more than elsewhere in the country, due to activism against the pipelines.  I think when people have a vested interest in a result, and see that a party is not representing that interest, then they vote strongly against that party.  Activism obviously helped. 

For the Libs, they supplied kind of a quick vested interest in money now (tax cut, child benefit) while casting the NDP's child care program as being both unaffordable and much later.  So, quick cash payouts rather than services seems to be the friend of right-wing governments like the Libs and Cons (the infrastructure spending now via deficit financing also fit this). 

Hmm.  I dunno.  Hard things to tackle.  I appreciate your ideas, though I'm still not sure if the increased focus on a game from the ground up (IE, being a greater part of the struggle) is the way to go.  Like I said, seems like it could hinder electoral success even further.  To succeed, perhaps quicker adaptation to the public mood may be necessary.  I dunno.  I'm just kinda thinking out loud. 

The NDP game plan of focussing on the Cons only, and on their poor financial record (eight deficits in a row!) while ignoring the Liberals, with the NDP offering some very progressive change, seemed good.  The Libs quickly adapted by proclaiming deficits (aka investments) as the key, making it difficult to keep vilifying the Cons for their financial record, and thus difficult to keep the focus on the NDP as the alternative to the Cons.  So, low corporate taxes, along w/ the questionable commitments to the environment, CPP, electoral reform, and child care, continues.

Anyway, I do feel activism is important, and shall be volunteering with Fair Vote (and I've continued to support OCAP, an anti-poverty direct action group in Toronto).  Mind you, I'm a political junkie, so I do focus on political parties, and feel the NDP is a good potential tool for making society a better place.  Of course, they need to win once in a blue moon to do that.

Anyway, thanks again for your post.  I appreciate considering different ideas.

..dix lost because the ndp ran a shitty campaign. at the time at least half the caucus supported the kinder morgan pipeline. under pressure from those opposed in the ridings during the election dix made a decision to say no to that pipeline and this made the ndp look weak in the media. that was when i decided to vote ndp.

..what we need is a defence from neoliberalism. and an alternative way of making decisions. electorally that is closed to us it doesn't allow for a voice from below saying were taking a shit kicking and the politicians are not doing anything to protect us. today right now this is happening and has been for some time. the ndp is lost and undemocratic so not easy to change. so movements are taking the lead in building a defence. the heart of this is participatory democracy. we demand a voice at the table. they don't need to take parliment they need to force politicians and corps to be respectful. i think this is more possible more realistic than getting a party into parliment that will change all that. it’s a matter of the right tool for the right job.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

off-the-radar wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

..it's not enough any more to just say the ndp is better than the libs and cons. or even that the libs are better than the cons. you have to provide a real defence to the attack coming from capital. and then provide alternatives with a deadline. the ndp is not the best tool today. no matter what their potential is..it has to be today. the movements are where the real struggle is on the ground. and they are far from weak. an example : i posted this in the pipeline thread. no matter who you vote for join the movements as well if you aren't doing that already. if you want solutions to our problems this is where the main focus should be not parliment.

In the 2015 federal election the Conservatives experienced a net loss of fewer than 235,000 votes across the country. But they took heavy damage in British Columbia, especially in coastal communities. In fact, the Tories lost more votes (- 96,524) in ridings touching the Pacific Ocean than in the other nine provinces and three territories combined. Our research at Dogwood suggests the Harper government’s aggressive promotion of pipeline and oil tanker proposals was a significant factor in how the election played out in B.C.

Really great points, it is about us (the people) reclaiming our society through getting active and organized in movements. 

Great graphic by the way!  And that most of that loss was in BC's coastal/Island ridings.

..exactly!

off-the-radar

At last, public acknowledgement by an NDP MPP, Cheri DiNovo, that Mulcair should go. Finally naming the elephant in the room.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/01/06/ndp-angst-goes-public-as-m...

Nathan Cullen on the other hand seems just fine with Mulcair and does not directly acknowledge that the NDP federal campaign was the worst federal campaign ever. (Although almost identical to the unmitigated disastrous 2013 BC NDP campaign).
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/12/30/nathan-cullen-ndp-2015-thomas-mu...

The Globe and Mail's Ibbitson makes 2016 political predictions including that Mulcair will resign and would have been the best PM that Canada never had.  Nope, that would have been Robert Standfield or Ed Broadbent.  We had a damned luckly escape from Mulcair as PM.  A lot of NDP supporters were commenting during the election that Mulcair reminded them of Harper. Yikes!!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/predicting-the-year-ahead-i...

nicky

Can you share with us what your provinance in the party might be, Off the Readar?

Many of those calling for Tom's head never were supporters of the party so we can assess thyie comments in that light. You are new to Babble and it is hard  to discern whether you are part of the anti-NDP group that is so eager to give us advice on the leadership. If you have a history in the party  and have paid your dues  that would put you in a different category. 

Unionist

Hey off-the-radar, here on babble, we discuss and debate positions, ideas, proposals. We don't base our discussion on who we think someone is - except of course when trying to provide safe spaces for oppressed or marginalized people in various forums. What party you belong to, or "support", or vote for, or donate to, is your business. You're free to divulge all that if you want. But take note that hundreds of threads have been destroyed by speculating about people's political "allegiance" and namecalling on that basis, instead of discussing the substantive issues that bring us all together.

So if I didn't do so before, let me warmly welcome you to babble!

People here know my connections with Mulcair and the NDP, and I choose to recount them here:

During the leadership race, I opposed the pile-on against Mulcair by some - I appreciated his adherence and emphasis on the Sherbrooke Declaration - I voted for him consistently (in Outremont) since the first byelection he ran in - I saw zero difference between his economic ideas and those of the other candidates (except for some looneytunes like that pharmacist, forget his name) - I appreciated his strong stand right from 2007 on getting out of Afghanistan, when Layton was still waffling - and I despised his stand on Israel and his bullying and shaming of Libby Davies. I was also planning to re-join the NDP (to which I donate time and money), but hesitated when I saw that the membership declaration still required me to swear allegiance to some possible QC NDP that might be formed and relinquish my support for Québec Solidaire. Oh, in the interest of more disclosure, I gave up my NDP membership some decades ago because of the complete absence of internal democracy (ignoring convention decisions), the hounding of left-wing critics in the party, and the refusal to recognize Québec's right to self-determination (which of course officially changed in 2006).

When I first joined babble, I condemned the Ontario NDP for expelling Buzz Hargrove (Jack Layton and many others also opposed that stupid move, which led to the CAW withdrawing its official and financial support from the NDP). For that, I was called a "Liberal shill" by some brain-dead individuals, most of whom are no longer here. The atmosphere has improved since then, but there's lots of this crap still around. Don't let it get to you, and don't participate in it. If people say horrible things, don't be afraid to call those horrible things. But don't characterize the individuals here. "Ad hominem" is recognized as a poor debating style - and it is destructive to solidarity.

Debater

Andrew Perez: The NDP needs to stake out its territory if it's to survive

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/andrew-perez-the-ndp-needs-t...

Pages

Topic locked