Knives out for Mulcair, as expected

[The Green Barbarian]

Here's an editorial from a career NDP lifer-leftist. As usual when the NDP tries and fails to move closer to the center, he's blaming the move to the center as the problem. This can only mean one thing to me, and that's that the NDP wants to oust Mulcair. It's a sad-sack article, from a member of a sad-sack party.

GERALD CAPLAN

A good day for Canada, an awful one for NDP

Have you heard the one about what Stephen Harper faced when he awoke in Calgary yesterday morning? Naheed Nenshi is his mayor. Rachel Notley is his premier. And of course “Justin” is his Prime Minister. How can this be a bad day for Canada?

Any day that saw Paul Calandra lose his seat is a good day for Canadian democracy. Any day that saw Liberal candidate Dr. Jane Philpott defeat Paul Calandra is a very good day for Canadian democracy. Dr. Jane for Minister of International Cooperation?

Any day that saw Julian Fantino, Joe Oliver and Chris Alexander all get defeated is a triumph for simple old-fashioned decency in government.

Any day that saw the citizens of Canada end the “rotten culture” of the Harper government, as the Globe editorially described it this past weekend, is a victory for those who are fed up with Harperland and won’t take it any more.

Any day that sees a clean, hopeful, positive, sunny campaign – by the Liberals! – triumph in the face of the usual Conservative bully tactics is a day to celebrate.

So part of me is euphoric, ebullient, thrilled. My Canada is at least starting to come back.

But of course for New Democrats, the day was also a disaster. And the party’s role for the next four years is by no means obvious.

First, these rolling political waves are promiscuous. They sweep up all in its wake. So some of Canada’s best Members of Parliament, part of the minority that truly deserve to be called parliamentarians, have been swept away in the red tsunami.

The likes of Megan Leslie – surely a future NDP leader – Peter Stoffer, Paul Dewar, Peggy Nash and other defeated NDP MPs were an ornament to parliament, never ever descending to the gutter in which too many Conservative MPs seemed to be most comfortable. They were competent, thoughtful and knowledgeable and would have been an entirely constructive opposition to the new Liberal government. And every government, not least a new excited one, needs constructive opposition. Hey, maybe they can become Senators…

NDP expectations could hardly have been more cruelly shattered. The party lost not only the government it had the right to dream of. Its very role in Canada’s political process is now in doubt. There is no balance of power to hold. There is no coalition to join. There is, in fact, no one in Ottawa who needs to pay it the slightest attention.

The Trudeau government has its clear priorities, many of them embarrassingly more progressive than the NDP’s platform. The NDP caucus can hardly oppose any of them, but nor can it expect the Government to pay attention to NDP overtures. Why should they? To fight the dreaded Harperman, the Liberals, and specifically their leader, received nothing but abuse during the campaign, often gratuitously personal and always strategically dubious. The Liberals will hardly be grateful for NDP advice about the right way to run Canada.

Now that it can’t seriously pretend to be the government-in-waiting, the NDP must rethink its role in parliament and indeed in the country. For decades the NDP were policy pioneers, promoting social policies especially until the governing party was forced to accept them – old-age pensions, medicare, unemployment insurance, and much more. Where are the equivalent NDP policies of today? Where are the tough but realistic policies that would address Canada’s scandalous inequality?

The NDP campaign tried to prove how trustworthily conservative it was. But voters supported the real conservative party. The NDP campaign chose to allow the Liberals to present the most progressive platform. So voters looking for progressive change chose the more liberal platform.

Of course it’s also arguable that the NDP made the ultimate sacrifice: In the face of Harper cynically playing the anti-Muslim card, the NDP threw away votes on a matter of principle – supporting the right to wear a niqab – and indeed fully paid the penalty for doing so. It cost the party their Quebec base, and with it any reason why the large “Anyone But Harper” crowd across the country should think of supporting the NDP. The noise you heard in the last week of the campaign was of progressive ABH voters flocking in their tens of thousands to the Liberals.

And where does it leave the party now? That’s the question that New Democrats must start debating, the sooner the better. The answer is by no means preordained. For me, keeping the new government honest remains a pretty good cause.

Liberals notoriously like to campaign from the left and govern from the centre-right. They promised uneqivocally to change the electoral system before the next election can be held. Now that they have directly benefited from the first-past-the-post system, however, can they be trusted to keep their word? After all, they themselves got 54 per cent of the seats on Monday night but only 39 per cent of the vote. The NDP would have had considerably more seats in a proportional representation system. Keeping the Liberals to their commitment sounds like a good third-party priority.

As well, the last-minute Liberal scandal, featuring Trudeau campaign co-chair Dan Gagnier, reminded the world of the close ties between senior Liberals and the energy industry. As the government fleshes out its commitments to reduce global warming, it may well require New Democrats to point out this potentially very real conflict of interest.

Of course none of this is as thrilling as watching the first NDP federal cabinet get appointed. But there’s nothing to watch. The NDP needs new progressive ideas to fight for and a new government to keep a close eye on. It’s a crucial role that mustn’t be disdained.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e26901780/

[George+]

Unite or

get a Harper look alike bobble head, shortly.

[The Green Barbarian]

Unite or

get a Harper look alike bobble head, shortly.

The NDP will get a Harper lookalike bobble head? Is Adrian Dix available?

[Merry]

I didn't read that article as "having the knives out" for Mulcair, although I'm sure there are some NDP members who probably do feel that way. However, as those same people were most likely also the ones who didn't vote for him to be leader in the first place, I don't see what's changed.

Mulcair is the best thing that's happened to the NDP in a long, long time. Yes, mistakes were made during the campaign, but I'm not convinced they were all Mulcair's fault.

Regardless, there is absolutely nobody to replace him right now, and his excellent performance in the House is needed more than ever when we have a government that has such a huge majority.

I don't know if Mulcair will still be leading the NDP when the next election rolls around, because he'll be almost 65 by then but, for now and the next couple of years, his presence in the House, holding the Government's feet to the fire, will be of benefit to ALL Canadians, not just the NDP.

[alfred2]

he could not hold a candle to layton, he got in on laytons coat tails. He kept preaching get rid of harper until it became sicking.

[maryjane48]

he could not hold a candle to layton, he got in on laytons coat tails. He kept preaching get rid of harper until it became sicking.

and who won ? wasnt harpo

[George+]

The Cons. lost.

Get over it.

Get more Progressive.

[Gone_Fishin]

The Cons. lost.

Get over it.

Get more Progressive.

The NDP lost worse than anybody.

Get over it.

Get closer to planet earth.

[The Green Barbarian]

The Cons. lost.

Get over it.

Get more Progressive.

The NDP lost.

Get over it.

Get a party that is electable.

[alfred2]

harper lost but not as bad as tom, my boy won, get over it.

[Merry]

I think you ALL need to "get over it".

The election is over. Time to move on.

[George+]

Agree.

But why would the NDP want a Harper look alike anything? Not!

No plans for NDP leader replacement.
Big plans for Cons replacement.

[The Green Barbarian]

No plans for NDP leader replacement.
.

How do you know? Just because the BCTF hasn't sent you an email yet instructing you what to do and say, doesn't mean that the NDP isn't already planning Tom's demise. If they aren't planning it, then they're acting completely out of character.

Reid: The NDP has to put Mulcair's leadership on the table

It is happening again.

The federal New Democrats, in a rush to project an image of even-handed maturity, are plunging headlong into a monumental decision that will dictate their political future. But they’re doing it at the wrong time for the wrong reasons with insufficient consideration and debate.

Tom Mulcair will stay on as leader say senior New Democrats. Tom Mulcair should stay on as leader say senior New Democrats. Really? Has that been thought through? Is that a reflection or a reflex? And is the popular explanation offered so far – that he performed well during the campaign (demonstrably untrue) and that it’s a mark of modern panic for parties to ditch their leaders after only one turn (arguable, at best) – accurate and well-reasoned?

It seems the NDP learned exactly nothing from the ill-advised campaign pledge to deliver balanced budgets. That commitment also appeared to be guided by the sake of appearances – to project a certain image, an imagined idea of what people would see as the “responsible thing” instead of being shaped by the sensible, resonant and, yes, winning thing. During the campaign, NDP leadership told their partisans to show patience and aim for the political centre. But they soon discovered that the centre had shifted, Canadians were open to a more activist economic approach and the Liberals had already seized that territory with their deficit-spending program. It was a misjudgment that spelled the NDP’s ruin, the first real indication that the campaign’s core strategy was built on flawed assumptions and an inadequate reading of the political landscape.

Now, even before the dust has settled on Monday’s results, NDP stalwarts are moving precipitously again, declaring that there should be no question as to Mulcair’s future. He will continue in place and that’s that. Like running on budget balance, NDP rank and file are being told that it’s a matter of acting responsibly – of showing Canadians that the party won’t be rattled, that now’s the time to stay steady and to carry on.

The truth is that asking uncomfortable questions at this time is not the irresponsible thing to do. Failing to ask them is.

And so the first issue that should be debated openly and directly by New Democrats is this: Why keep Mulcair?

Was the NDP leader an asset or a hindrance during the 2015 election? How much responsibility should he bear for the campaign’s failures and the disastrous slide back to third party status? Is he well-positioned to rehabilitate the NDP in the eyes of voters? Or is he likely to repeat key mistakes and take the party further backward?

That’s just to start. There are other huge factors that weigh in the opposite direction. Is there a reasonable candidate for replacement? What would the costs and discomfort be of changing leaders at this time? What about their finances? Most fundamental of all is this brutal but simple test: Will Tom Mulcair give the NDP the best chance of winning more seats in the next election?

Reflecting on these questions should not be seen as sedition when they’re actually common sense. It is true that Mulcair has handed the NDP their second highest number of seats in history. It is even truer that he has led them to their most disappointing result of all time, losing more seats than any other leader working atop the NDP. A considered judgment of self-interest is surely owed the NDP caucus and membership before they’re told what will happen next.

What makes this issue particularly vital is that it can so enthusiastically be argued either way. The case for Mulcair is that he’s been tested by fire and has presumably emerged the tougher and wider for it. The party’s base, although shrunk, remains in Quebec where he continues to be their surest option, and BC, where his environmentalist credentials should continue to help.

The case against Mulcair is that Canadians had a long look at him standing next to Trudeau and thought better. To retrench, the party is going to have to redefine its place on the political spectrum and his faux-Liberal positioning looks unlikely to succeed. Most importantly, huge strategic errors were made during the campaign. Did he author them personally – in which case there should be cause for ongoing concern. Or did he simply err in accepting poor recommendations from his team – in which case he is responsible but not beyond recoverable.

In determining the way forward, the NDP could do worse than consider the example of the party that just sprang past them. Four years ago the Liberals were pounded like a nail. In response, they considered all options, everything from merging with the NDP (how foolish do those advocates look now) to pursuing a two-election strategy (never play to lose) to following the lure of a new but untested leader (we have a bingo). The Liberals were in worse condition than the NDP are now but they managed to recover. They debated openly for two years and in the end, they chose well. One choice they did not make was to curtail discussion or eliminate alternatives in deference to how things might look.

Like it or not, Mulcair should begin the process of rebuilding by explaining to his party why he is still their best bet to lead the NDP into the future. After October 19th, it is unclear why anyone would assume or accept that should be taken for granted.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/column ... -the-table

[The Green Barbarian]

Looks like "Angry Tom" has now morphed into "Sad Tom"...and "Absent Tom"...

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair’s public absence since his party was humbled in Monday’s federal election has left party officials scrambling to clear up speculation about his future.

Mulcair has not made any public appearances or spoken with the news media since he delivered a short concession speech after the election, in which the NDP lost dozens of seats across the country and finished third.

Party officials say he’s staying on as leader.

Mulcair was noticeably absent from Thursday’s service at the National War Memorial in Ottawa to mark the one-year anniversary of the terrorist attack at the cenotaph and on Parliament Hill.

Prime minister-designate Justin Trudeau and his wife, Sophie, sat next to outgoing Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his wife, Laureen, during the service, which honoured Cpl. Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. Green party Leader Elizabeth May also attended.

Mulcair, however, was at his home in Montreal, remaining out of sight for the third straight day, as questions about his political future swirled in Ottawa. NDP deputy leader David Christopherson represented the party at the ceremony. Mulcair issued a written statement, saying the “horrifying attacks shocked our country,” and paying tribute to Cirillo and Vincent.

The NDP’s dramatic fall from the top of the polls only a month ago to third-party status has some party insiders and political observers debating whether Mulcair should stick around for another election or resign the leadership.

The party saw its seat total more than cut in half down to 44 seats, as the NDP was completely wiped out of Toronto and Atlantic Canada and Trudeau’s Liberals captured a majority government.

With Mulcair silent about his future, it has been up to his political staffers to inform Canadians about his location and intentions.

“He is in Montreal. And yes, he is sticking around,” Mulcair’s press secretary George Smith said Thursday in an email.

“You’ll see him in the coming days.”

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/ ... -in-action

[George+]

Neither has Harpet.

It was a long campaign.