Mulcair: stay or go?

1408 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

TPP is the one to oppose given what I've heard about big pharma and the jeopardizing of any potential future pharmacare program.  And I certainly trust Mulcair far more than Trudeau or Freeland on it.  Don't you agree Pondering that Trudeau and Freeland aren't nearly as trustworthy on this issue as Mulcair?  There's no comparison!

No. Mulcair would sign it if the US does because he would be afraid of not getting re-elected. That's why he shut up about ISDS. Maybe he would up the pay-off to the dairy and auto industries.

He wouldn't even table it.  And you know full well from the CETA thread that the NDP is questioning the negotiator of CETA about ISDS.  A direct quote from the Hansard.  Now, the answer was interesting, and certainly presents some issues.  But obviously the NDP are asking these questions.  And clearly neither Freeland nor Trudeau or the Liberals are directing the negotiator away from ISDS.  You've seen that exchange.  It's right in the thread.

I don't know which thread on CETA you are referring to. I have repeatedly stated that Freeland is pushing CETA and Canada is standing in the way of dropping or changing the ISDS chapter. That is why it is urgent that the NDP gets loud on CETA which I have now been saying for years. If the NDP had done so I would have voted for Mulcair not Trudeau.

mark_alfred

I was referring to the CETA is Coming Are You Scared Yet thread, post #126.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

i've never bought the idea Canada is helpless when it comes to trade deals.

Canadians believe it though because of the poor self-esteem we all have when it comes to economics and trade.

i don't get the disconnect. it'd better get resolved soon before they start selling off our water for even less.

I don't know anyone who believes that. Not one person.

NDPP

Canada's Pseudo Left Silent on Trade Unions Support For Liberal Government

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/26/cana-f26.html

"Canada's 'socialist' pseudo-left groups have spent the four months since the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau came to office fostering illusions about its 'progressive' character while covering up their own role, and that of the trade unions and New Democratic Party (NDP) in helping it to power..."

mark_alfred

So, along with attacking the NDP and unions, the Socialist Equality Party is now also attacking John Clarke of OCAP.  I note many Liberal sycophants here really love to try to promote this tendency of leftists to fight and judge one another.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

So, along with attacking the NDP and unions, the Socialist Equality Party is now also attacking John Clarke of OCAP.  I note many Liberal sycophants here really love to try to promote this tendency of leftists to fight and judge one another.

Get some guts and name them.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

At 23.6 cents per kWh. Ontario is helpless at the bargaining table.

mark_alfred

Good article by Karl on Parl on the current dynamics of the House of Commons. 

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2016/01/first-nations-mig...

Quote:

If you were to listen to Conservative attacks you'd think the Trudeau government was soft on Islamic State terrorism, indifferent to the economic travails of the oil and gas industry, too ready to make nice with nasty Iran, insufficiently friendly to Israel, and not as supportive of Ukraine vis-à-vis Russia as it should be.

Conservatives also disapprove of deficits and are not too pleased with the idea of reforming the voting system without a referendum.

Listen to the NDP and you get a completely different story.

Tom Mulcair's third party focuses on the hazards of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, on a federal environmental assessment process that the Environment Commissioner just thoroughly lambasted, on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's upholding of Cindy Blackstock's argument that child welfare services on First Nations are underfunded, and on the big gaps in Employment Insurance* (after the Conservatives raised the number of hours of work required to qualify).

For good measure, the NDP also brings up home delivery of mail, and reminds the Liberals of their promise to restore it. Or is that what they actually promised?

The Liberals seem to like being in the middle and, so far, have not engaged more than necessary in partisan rhetoric.

[..]

And yet, in this still young Parliament, the Liberals and New Democrats look more often like neighbours or even partners than adversaries.

The NDP will continue to hammer the Liberals on their many promises and commitments.

But that hammering looks a bit like flailing when the Liberals, in essence, agree with their New Democrat questioners, as Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould did on the Blackstock decision.

___

ETA:

* the Liberals just recently rejected the NDP's motion to fix EI, so while Karl's assertion of "But that hammering looks a bit like flailing when the Liberals, in essence, agree with their New Democrat questioners", rings true sometimes, there are still very significant differences.  Also this article was written before the Libs accepted Conservative Tony Clement's motion on stifling free speech by condemning those who support the BDS movement.

Debater

There still doesn't seem to be any answer to the question in the title of this thread, after all these weeks.

mark_alfred

As I said back in post #s 40, 44, 46, and elsewhere, I feel he should stay.  So, how about you Debater?  As someone who in the past has voted NDP (if I remember correctly) but has more centrist leanings toward the Liberals (though not glued to them, as last election your vote was with the Greens to protest the Lib's stance on C-51), what is your opinion on whether Mulcair should stay or go?  I'm curious what a centrist leaning voter who occasionally switches allegiances thinks.

Rev Pesky

mark_alfred wrote:
.... Also this article was written before the Libs accepted Conservative Tony Clement's motion on stifling free speech by condemning those who support the BDS movement.

Not to forget that the NDP considered support for Palestinian human rights a firing offense going into the last election. Paul Manly must have got an bit of a chuckle out of the NDP's parlimentary stand considering he wasn't even allowed to run for a nomination.

Rev Pesky

mark_alfred wrote:

So, along with attacking the NDP and unions, the Socialist Equality Party is now also attacking John Clarke of OCAP.  I note many Liberal sycophants here really love to try to promote this tendency of leftists to fight and judge one another.

Considering the leader of the NDP is a liberal, both small 'l', and formerly large 'L', natterig away about Liberal sycophants is really shooting oneself in the foot.

mark_alfred

Rev Pesky wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
.... Also this article was written before the Libs accepted Conservative Tony Clement's motion on stifling free speech by condemning those who support the BDS movement.

Not to forget that the NDP considered support for Palestinian human rights a firing offense going into the last election. Paul Manly must have got an bit of a chuckle out of the NDP's parlimentary stand considering he wasn't even allowed to run for a nomination.

I agree that it sounds like the vetting process was way overzealous, just like the Libs did with Christine Innes or Ala Buzreba who resigned (and I'm sure did so after facing an ultimatum from the Libs -- I mean tweets from a 16 year old, come on!).  Anyway, regardless of the Libs or NDP's overzealous vetting, this should not be used to excuse the Lib's adopting as public policy the stifling of free speech and voting in support of the Cons' motion!  I hope you're not excusing the Liberals for the stand they've taken.  I don't think there's any excuse for it.

Debater

mark_alfred wrote:

As I said back in post #s 40, 44, 46, and elsewhere, I feel he should stay.  So, how about you Debater?  As someone who in the past has voted NDP (if I remember correctly) but has more centrist leanings toward the Liberals (though not glued to them, as last election your vote was with the Greens to protest the Lib's stance on C-51), what is your opinion on whether Mulcair should stay or go?  I'm curious what a centrist leaning voter who occasionally switches allegiances thinks.

I wouldn't describe myself as a 'centrist' -- I'm more of a progressive/leftist.

I have supported the Liberals more often than the NDP historically because I liked Pierre Trudeau and because the Liberals have usually been best-positioned to defeat the Conservatives (as turned out to be the case again in 2015, even though I didn't vote Liberal in October).

I often agree with the NDP on certain issues more often than I do with the Liberals.  But I am a realist and a pragmatist, though, and like millions of other progressive voters over the years, I have come to see that Canada has a more conservative environment than Europe or Scandinavia, and may not be willing to elect the NDP federally.

As for Mulcair, while I think that he still posesses certain skills & strengths, I don't see him as ever being able to become PM.  There are several reasons for that, but one of the most obvious, IMO, is the generational issue that confronts him.  There is also the baggage from his confused attempt to be both a centrist & a progressive at the same time.  It will also probably take at least a couple of elections to put the NDP in contention for government again.

I think that Mulcair is probably looking at the type of scenario that a Marc Garneau leadership would have achieved for the Liberals -- an intelligent, respectable 3rd-place figure that lacks the leadership & inspirational skills to mobilize the necessary movement to re-build the party.

The NDP needs its own version of a Justin Trudeau -- what it has now is a Marc Garneau/Bob Rae -- someone who is intelligent in many ways and a solid performer in Question Period, but not someone who has the inspirational skills or imagination to galvanize a new generation of Canadian voters.

mark_alfred

That's a reasonable opinion, Debater.  Very few people have the charisma thing though.  I recall seeing Trudeau debate Marc Garneau, and Trudeau easily answered (or deflected) Garneau's criticisms of Trudeau not having enough experience.  It was interesting to see later how Trudeau did this with Mulcair as well.  That said, it was Mulcair's first outing.  When Dalton McGuinty first tried in Ontario, he was soundly defeated, yet the party wisely stuck with him.  Things can turn around.  And while Trudeau easily deflected 'the not enough experience' criticism last time (by presenting himself as the new and fresh alternative backed by the trusted Liberal brand), he will have a far harder time deflecting criticism of his government's performance in the next campaign, especially when the criticism comes from someone who is, as you say, 'intelligent in many ways and a solid performer in Question Period'.  The challenge for the NDP is to build trust as a competent, reliable brand while simultaneously capturing the imagination of people.  A tall order, and one which the NDP have not successfully done yet.  But they've been getting closer.  The public did give serious consideration to them last time, and could easily do so again next time, I feel.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

[IMG]http://i67.tinypic.com/1zh0kk0.jpg[/IMG]

You can believe this, because it was on the Internet.

JKR

mark_alfred wrote:

That's a reasonable opinion, Debater.  Very few people have the charisma thing though.  I recall seeing Trudeau debate Marc Garneau, and Trudeau easily answered (or deflected) Garneau's criticisms of Trudeau not having enough experience.  It was interesting to see later how Trudeau did this with Mulcair as well.  That said, it was Mulcair's first outing.  When Dalton McGuinty first tried in Ontario, he was soundly defeated, yet the party wisely stuck with him.  Things can turn around.  And while Trudeau easily deflected 'the not enough experience' criticism last time (by presenting himself as the new and fresh alternative backed by the trusted Liberal brand), he will have a far harder time deflecting criticism of his government's performance in the next campaign, especially when the criticism comes from someone who is, as you say, 'intelligent in many ways and a solid performer in Question Period'.  The challenge for the NDP is to build trust as a competent, reliable brand while simultaneously capturing the imagination of people.  A tall order, and one which the NDP have not successfully done yet.  But they've been getting closer.  The public did give serious consideration to them last time, and could easily do so again next time, I feel.

Unfortunately, I think most of the public will see the Conservatives as being the primary alternative to the governing Liberals. As Leader of the Opposition, the new Conservative leader will have an advantage over Mulcair who now leads a 3rd party. On the other hand, if electoral reform happens, the NDP and Mulcair will benefit. Even instant runoff voting would help Mulcair and the NDP as it would allow people to vote for the NDP without worrying about vote splitting. P.r. would help Mulcair and the NDP even more.

brookmere

mark_alfred wrote:
I agree that it sounds like the vetting process was way overzealous

Ironically appropriate choice of words, since it seemed to focus primarily on eliminating those who offended conservative Israeli or Jewish interests.

Debater

mark_alfred wrote:

That's a reasonable opinion, Debater.  Very few people have the charisma thing though.  I recall seeing Trudeau debate Marc Garneau, and Trudeau easily answered (or deflected) Garneau's criticisms of Trudeau not having enough experience.  It was interesting to see later how Trudeau did this with Mulcair as well.  That said, it was Mulcair's first outing.  When Dalton McGuinty first tried in Ontario, he was soundly defeated, yet the party wisely stuck with him.  Things can turn around.  And while Trudeau easily deflected 'the not enough experience' criticism last time (by presenting himself as the new and fresh alternative backed by the trusted Liberal brand), he will have a far harder time deflecting criticism of his government's performance in the next campaign, especially when the criticism comes from someone who is, as you say, 'intelligent in many ways and a solid performer in Question Period'.  The challenge for the NDP is to build trust as a competent, reliable brand while simultaneously capturing the imagination of people.  A tall order, and one which the NDP have not successfully done yet.  But they've been getting closer.  The public did give serious consideration to them last time, and could easily do so again next time, I feel.

1.  Now that Trudeau is Prime Minister, he won't have to worry about the 'not enough experience' argument any longer.  The same thing benefitted Harper when he became Prime Minister.  Look at how the PM index gap between Trudeau and Mulcair/Ambrose has widened since the election.  Trudeau now has higher Leadership Index numbers than he did when he was running for the job.  (This could change over time, but for now it's an advantage).

2.  It's important to note that there are differences between provincial and federal politics.  Provincial leaders may be given certain chances and opportunities for multiple shots at winning an election that a Federal leader may not get, (although this is not always the case).

3.  And again, we come back to the generational/age issue.  There's a difference between a Dalton McGuinty or a Jack Layton not being successful the first time out vs. Mulcair not being successful in his first election.  Mulcair was 60 (almost 61) by the time of his first campaign as leader in 2015.  That is much older than the average age for a leader in their first election, which means that unlike many younger leaders, Mulcair probably needed to win his first time out.  I think Layton was almost 10 years younger than Mulcair for his first election in 2004.  Jeffrey Simpson commented on Mulcair's age in his recent column, and that's because Mulcair will probably be the oldest leader again since the new Conservative leader will likely be younger than Mulcair.

Debater

Tom Mulcair slammed by Montreal riding president ahead of leadership vote

Feb 29, 2016

---

Alain Charbonneau, who became president of the Lasalle—Ville-Émard—Verdun riding association last week, is planning to vote against Mulcair in the review, saying last year's election loss was "devastating" for the party.

"We lost so much," he told CBC Montreal's Daybreak.

"He was hired, basically — voted in as leader — because he was supposed to be the one who could win. That was his mission. He failed."

. . .

"I'm not saying he's bad for the party or a bad parliamentarian. He's an excellent parliamentarian," said Charbonneau.

"He's just not a good salesperson."

---

Full article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/tom-mulcair-ndp-quebec-dissent-1....

mark_alfred

Re: post #869

You should just drop the age argument.  It's a stupid argument to make.

Pondering

If he were like Sanders his age wouldn't matter but he isn't so it does. 

Given that Harper ruled for 10 years despite all the horrible things he did it is likely that Trudeau will maintain his post for at least 8 years if not more. The only way that won't happen is if someone else captures the imagination of voters. 

Debater

mark_alfred wrote:

Re: post #869

You should just drop the age argument.  It's a stupid argument to make.

I don't know how the generational/age issue can be ignored as a factor.

Anyway, I thought today's interview with NDP riding President Alain Charbonneau above was interesting because he basically says the same thing I've been saying -- Mulcair is a good Parliamentarian, but not someone who is a good salesperson when it comes to delivering a message to voters.

Debater

How does the NDP begin its climb back to relevance?

Gerald Caplan

Monday, Feb. 29, 2016

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-does-the-ndp-begin-its-...

White Cat White Cat's picture

Maybe the NDP should ditch Mulcair and the entire concept of leadership — a failed, primitive model — and go egalitarian. Have all major decisions decided by members: direct democracy.

Humans were originally egalitarian. The northern barbarian races reverted back to the patriarchal model — same as the chimps use. (Our sister species. We both inherited leadership from a common ancestor species, Hominini, 6 MYA. Humans emerged 200 kYA: the egalitarian model with its perfect levels of trust fostered an explosion in human evolutionary development.)

When agriculture was invented 10 kYA, large populations could be supported on a relatively small amount of land. The result was an explosion of levels of hierarchy. A tiny minority of humans were given levels of power and wealth they were completely unprepared to handle. (Nature designed leadership for small nomadic tribes with populations of around 20 to 50.) The outcome? A 10,000 year war that ends in the apocalyptic implosion of a 7-billion population world.

Marx was the idiot who f*cked it all up. He was not only ignorant of our egalitarian past, but of everything it means to be human. Egalitarianism is about personal freedom, democracy and equality. The dystopian nightmare Marx created really did a number on the world. His ignorant prejudice against religion helped Reagan come to power in a social/economic conservative coalition and usher in the past 35-year Friedmanian era that culminated in global economic collapse. (Last time this happened, world war followed.)

F*ck leadership. F*ck socialism. Egalitarianism is the future, if there is to be any future. (And no, egalitarianism is not about forcing equality. Or forcing people to be egalitarian. Or forcing equality of income and wealth. Or forcing values. It's all about human development, which, if measured in prices — and there's no reason it shouldn't be — manifests itself in a subset of GDP; new human development, a subset of GDP growth: G = D + E: GDP equals human development plus externality [i.e., stealing, looting, or gambling with other people's money or future.]) 

quizzical

i like your post. mainly. i don't know much about marx but i disagree with any hierarchial structure pushing.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If he were like Sanders his age wouldn't matter but he isn't so it does.

What specific things has Sanders laid out in his platform of promises that Mulcair should emulate so as to make us all forget that he's now over 60?  Support for single-payer health care?

He's a whole five years older than Harper, and exactly the same age as Elizabeth May.

ed'd to add:  oh, and 7 years younger than Gilles Duceppe.  Does the idea that Mulcair is high on Ben-Gay fumes hold water?

Debater

The fact that Mulcair was not only older than Trudeau, but older than Harper too, was probably an issue in the last election.

It wasn't the central issue by any means, but it probably complicated the challenges he already had connecting with younger voters.

It will likely be an even bigger issue in 2019, as once again, Mulcair will probably be the oldest leader.

We don't know who the next Conservative leader will be, but it's a safe bet that it will be someone under 60.

As for Bernie Sanders, while he is popular with younger Democrats, that may be more about Hillary's lack of appeal to the younger generation than anything unique about Sanders himself.

And since Hillary is now pulling ahead after her wins in Nevada & South Carolina, the strong results Sanders had in Iowa & New Hampshire may not be enough to propel his movement forward.

Regardless, Mulcair is competing against Canadian leaders, so while Sanders may be older than Mulcair, it doesn't change the situation Mulcair faces here.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
As for Bernie Sanders, while he is popular with younger Democrats, that may be more about Hillary's lack of appeal to the younger generation than anything unique about Sanders himself.

Both are older than Mulcair.  And just for the fun of it, so's Trump.

Quote:
Regardless, Mulcair is competing against Canadian leaders, so while Sanders may be older than Mulcair, it doesn't change the situation Mulcair faces here.

Of competing against a younger Liberal, an unknown Con, a Green Leader exactly the same age, and a Bloc leader seven years older.

Here's hoping the electorate has more sense than to say "let the youngest man WIN!!"

mark_alfred

Seriously.  These moronic ageist posts from these two are tiring.

quizzical

i know mark_alfred it's disgusting on many levels.

Rev Pesky

White Cat wrote:
...Marx was the idiot who f*cked it all up. He was not only ignorant of our egalitarian past, but of everything it means to be human. Egalitarianism is about personal freedom, democracy and equality. The dystopian nightmare Marx created really did a number on the world. His ignorant prejudice against religion helped Reagan come to power in a social/economic conservative coalition and usher in the past 35-year Friedmanian era that culminated in global economic collapse...

I'm not sure how someone who professes the greatness of egalitarianism can at the same time seem to endorse religion. In fact religion is the perfect example of a non-democratic, non-equal, hierarchical system that expressly denies personal freedom. Perhaps I should differentiate between religion and 'organized religion'. I suppose it is possible to be a deist, as Thomas Paine was, and stay away from churches, but that's more the exception than the reality.

One of the tenets of Marxism was the withering away of the state. As expressed by Engels:

Quote:
The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away.

And again by Engels:

Quote:
The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong—into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax.

That sounds suspicioiusly like the egalitarianism you are endorsing.

 

 

 

 

Pondering

Sanders wasn't hurt by his age because he has a lifetime of activism behind him which established his authenticity. People are looking for authenticity and Trudeau was the closest thing to it. I could see right from the beginning that Trudeau's "gaffes" would help him not hurt him. Those "gaffes" sent a message of authenticity and openness. Someone who just says what they think. 

It is why Ford won and Sanders and Trump have done well regardless of how far they make it. They all "tell it like it is" or give that impression. Voters don't want slick. Mulcair can't win because he doesn't have authenticity, or doesn't show it. 

quizzical

lmaoooooooooooooooooooo pondering.....

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

lmaoooooooooooooooooooo pondering.....

Okay well what is your explanation. So far you don't seem to know much about advertising. How would you promote Mulcair?

Debater

mark_alfred wrote:

Seriously.  These moronic ageist posts from these two are tiring.

So you don't think Mulcair's age is an issue?  Because many, many other people (including in the NDP) have been quoted as saying it is.

Why not refute the age issue rather than calling it 'moronic'?

For example, you could provide a list of Canadian Prime Ministers who were elected for the first time at age 61+.

Debater

On another topic, what are people's responses to the comments made by NDP riding President Alain Charbonneau?

And the column by Gerald Caplan?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If he were like Sanders his age wouldn't matter but he isn't so it does.

What specific things has Sanders laid out in his platform of promises that Mulcair should emulate so as to make us all forget that he's now over 60?  Support for single-payer health care?

He's a whole five years older than Harper, and exactly the same age as Elizabeth May.

ed'd to add:  oh, and 7 years younger than Gilles Duceppe.  Does the idea that Mulcair is high on Ben-Gay fumes hold water?

Sanders popularity is not based on specific policy commitments. It is based on him blaming Wall Street and the big banks for growing income inequality.

There were numerous reasons Trudeau won but the main points were "tax the 1%" and "massive infrastructure spending" "bigger child benefits for the poor and none for the rich". 

Now what he won on doesn't even matter just like Harper's promise of greater transparency and prudent fiscal management was the exact opposite of what he did in office. 

Age is one of many factors that impact electibility including who the opponents are and how long the incumbent has been in power.

In 2019 Trudeau will have been in power for only 4 years. I don't see him doing a worse job than Harper did. If you look at Canadian history Trudeau will have a huge advantage in 2019 and for sometime thereafter. A single term PM is rare. Harper kept winning in part because people prefer stability. As long as Trudeau seems to be running things reasonably well he will be difficult to unseat. 

Mulcair didn't renounce his Liberal past and his admiration of Margaret Thatcher on joining the NDP nor when he was challenged on it last year. He side-stepped. At the end of the campaign when he was losing he suddenly said that of course the NDP supports full legalization of marijuana as though he had been supporting it all along. His opposition of TPP based on dairy and auto industries also became must stronger that last week. He heavily promoted Energy East for years as an alternative to Keystone to keep jobs in Canada. Mulcair doesn't seem to be a man of conviction. He won't be convincing as a reformer. That is Sander's strong suit. He has been a reformer all his life. There are clips of him demonstrating in college. 

Liberal lite is not going to cut it anymore. 20 years of NDP strategy almost worked but that's over now. The Liberals are strong as ever. There is no need for another Liberal party or one just a tinsy bit left of the Liberals. The only way the NDP can win is if they take up the cause of the 99%. Maybe Mulcair's talents could make him a strong defender of the 99% but I don't think he has it in him. I think in his heart he thinks the system just needs some tweaking. Mulcair's authentic self is old-fashioned so he can't come across as an authentic reformer. 

To win the NDP has to appear as though it has gone through a period of reflection and renewal. Members need to feel empowered and respected. So far Mulcair has done neither. He announced he was staying on as leader for the next election the very night he lost. He didn't just say he wasn't stepping down, he said he was leading the party into the next election. Then he went into seclusion for a week. Then he didn't invite the losing MPs to the first post-election caucus gathering which he could have. It would have given them an opportunity to congratulate the winners and to get some closure. When Mulcair took full responsibility for the loss he still deflected and blamed it on the campaign. Just a guess, but I don't think many members agree with him. Even if he manages to stay leader I doubt he will lead the NDP into the next election. If he does the NDP will lose badly. 

 

quizzical

anyone see the Voice tonight?

i loved the way Adam handled Blake's propaganda blathering.

"frdnngh, nnghty, gyelnfy grnmop. syknyu fghurn".

it's about all the self-centered Blake blathering was worth. imv about the same measure is do to the self-serving Liberal propaganda here.

mark_alfred

No I didn't see the Voice.  I'll have to check it out.

Geoff

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If he were like Sanders his age wouldn't matter but he isn't so it does.

What specific things has Sanders laid out in his platform of promises that Mulcair should emulate so as to make us all forget that he's now over 60?  Support for single-payer health care?

He's a whole five years older than Harper, and exactly the same age as Elizabeth May.

ed'd to add:  oh, and 7 years younger than Gilles Duceppe.  Does the idea that Mulcair is high on Ben-Gay fumes hold water?

Sanders popularity is not based on specific policy commitments. It is based on him blaming Wall Street and the big banks for growing income inequality.

There were numerous reasons Trudeau won but the main points were "tax the 1%" and "massive infrastructure spending" "bigger child benefits for the poor and none for the rich". 

Now what he won on doesn't even matter just like Harper's promise of greater transparency and prudent fiscal management was the exact opposite of what he did in office. 

Age is one of many factors that impact electibility including who the opponents are and how long the incumbent has been in power.

In 2019 Trudeau will have been in power for only 4 years. I don't see him doing a worse job than Harper did. If you look at Canadian history Trudeau will have a huge advantage in 2019 and for sometime thereafter. A single term PM is rare. Harper kept winning in part because people prefer stability. As long as Trudeau seems to be running things reasonably well he will be difficult to unseat. 

Mulcair didn't renounce his Liberal past and his admiration of Margaret Thatcher on joining the NDP nor when he was challenged on it last year. He side-stepped. At the end of the campaign when he was losing he suddenly said that of course the NDP supports full legalization of marijuana as though he had been supporting it all along. His opposition of TPP based on dairy and auto industries also became must stronger that last week. He heavily promoted Energy East for years as an alternative to Keystone to keep jobs in Canada. Mulcair doesn't seem to be a man of conviction. He won't be convincing as a reformer. That is Sander's strong suit. He has been a reformer all his life. There are clips of him demonstrating in college. 

Liberal lite is not going to cut it anymore. 20 years of NDP strategy almost worked but that's over now. The Liberals are strong as ever. There is no need for another Liberal party or one just a tinsy bit left of the Liberals. The only way the NDP can win is if they take up the cause of the 99%. Maybe Mulcair's talents could make him a strong defender of the 99% but I don't think he has it in him. I think in his heart he thinks the system just needs some tweaking. Mulcair's authentic self is old-fashioned so he can't come across as an authentic reformer. 

To win the NDP has to appear as though it has gone through a period of reflection and renewal. Members need to feel empowered and respected. So far Mulcair has done neither. He announced he was staying on as leader for the next election the very night he lost. He didn't just say he wasn't stepping down, he said he was leading the party into the next election. Then he went into seclusion for a week. Then he didn't invite the losing MPs to the first post-election caucus gathering which he could have. It would have given them an opportunity to congratulate the winners and to get some closure. When Mulcair took full responsibility for the loss he still deflected and blamed it on the campaign. Just a guess, but I don't think many members agree with him. Even if he manages to stay leader I doubt he will lead the NDP into the next election. If he does the NDP will lose badly. 

 

As a card-carrying New Democrat activist, all I can say is yes, yes and yes. I have said much the same thing, myself. He might get his 70% at convention, but if he cares about the party, he'll step down soon enough for a new leader to be chosen and for the party to undergo a serious renewal. Anything less than that and, indeed, the NDP will lose the next election, even more badly than the last one.

Debater

Mark, have you had a chance to read the interview with NDP riding President Alain Charbonneau and the column by Gerald Caplan?

mark_alfred

Read them both.  Charbonneau struck me as shallow.  Caplan's blog entry was interesting.  He feels social democracy is bereft of new ideas right now (and he includes Sanders in this analysis) and hopes Mulcair, whom he expects to be reaffirmed in the leadership review, can help revitalize the party by having the party engage in "open forums for presentations and debates based on the latest thinking taking place on the democratic left."  This is happening.  There was recently a meeting of riding associations in Toronto where people expressed ideas for moving forward.

terrytowel

mark_alfred wrote:

Read them both.  Charbonneau struck me as shallow. 

Charbonneau is taking it one step forward by making his case on TV that Mulcair has got to go. Link below

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=819815

MegB

We live in an ageist society. Comments about how age makes a politician less electable only perpetuate the mythology that we become less effective and therefore less useful as we age.

Geoff

MegB wrote:

We live in an ageist society. Comments about how age makes a politician less electable only perpetuate the mythology that we become less effective and therefore less useful as we age.

I think there are good reasons to question whether or not Tom Mulcair should lead the NDP into the next election; his age isn't one of them. We can address ageist comments in two words: Bernie Sanders. 

Cody87

MegB wrote:

We live in an ageist society. Comments about how age makes a politician less electable only perpetuate the mythology that we become less effective and therefore less useful as we age.

Assuming, for a moment, that (whether we like it or not) a person's age does in fact impact their electablity, this still doesn't mean that people think older leaders are potentially less effective or less useful. For the record, I don't believe a person's age affects their electability (although an impression of poor health might - as a possible example see John McCain in 2008).

Rather, it could be that young people look at the systems in place today, the mess of an economy, of income inequality, of home and rent prices, our outdated infrastructure, and far more, they look at all these things wrong on so many levels and so many ways, and are looking for someone to address these issues. The first criteria a politician needs to fulfill to be a contender for these voters, is to A. clearly demonstrate they know there is a problem and B. be convincing in a professed desire to want to fix the broken system. Clinton could change the system, if she wanted to. Rubio could. Mulcair or Trudeau or even Harper or Ted Cruz could. It's not an issue of being able to change the system...it's an issue of who is perceived to want to change the system in the first place.

Now, as an older politician, this isn't impossible by any stretch of the imagination - just look at Bernie Sanders. He has a lot of "cred" which is more than sufficient to be trustworthy - and therefore electable - even at his age. It's pretty clear that the full weight of the "Democratic party" establishment is backing Clinton, and without that advantage it's hard to see how she would possibly beat Sanders.

So, insofar as being of an older age is a factor, it is only an issue if one accepts the stereotype of being part of the establishment like Mulcair did. Don't rock the boat. Don't make any sudden moves. Change as little as possible. Baby steps. Pretty much sums up the NDP campaign and is utterly uninspiring.

If an (older) politician wants to succeed, at least with the progressive youth vote, they need to be perceived as against the establishment. This is why age is not an issue for Bernie Sanders, but probably is for Mr. Mulcair.

 

Go and look up any article on any newspaper in North America that relates to "Generation X's more likely to move back in with parents/put off getting married/not be able to buy a house/have to relocate for a living wage/puts off having kids/etc" and go to the comments section. There is a massive amount of animosity between the many young people who blame boomers for the mess we're in and believe boomers had it easier especially in respect to getting good jobs and house prices and mortgage availability, and the many boomers who think young people are lazy and unmotivated and would be able to succeed if they just tried a bit harder.

In high school, I had grades in the low 90's in the most difficult math and science courses I could find. High 90's in computer programming. Didn't help me much because I couldn't afford to go to post-secondary for any of the programs I was particularly talented in, as they were all in-demand and rent and food are expensive. So instead, I worked 60-70 hour weeks, 7 days a week, juggling 2-3 part time, minimum wage jobs, for 5 years straight, just to survive. Just rent and food and bus and train fares and things like that.

I eventually got a lucky break, and now work one (dull, but that's okay) full time job (as a contractor - no benefits, no job security) where I make around $50k as long as I pick up some overtime and I even get a good amount of weekends off. I pay more in taxes in a year than my family's entire annual income was growing up. After a year and a bit of still living like I was literally being paid peanuts, I was able to save up enough for a downpayment on a (very old and cheap) house, which I now rent out 3 of the 4 rooms in. It's been about 3 years now since I've had my current job, and I'm praying I'll be able to squeeze 5 more years out of it before it gets replaced by technology. If it does I should have enough saved and enough equity in the house to - worst case scenario - send myself to school for whatever math/science program I think will give me the best prospects. I'm turning 29 this year. My most probable best plan for my life is to keep my nose to the grindstone for the next 5 years, then go to school for 4 more, and start a career at 38 - and I'm one of the lucky ones. Do you think job security will be better for me then than it is now? Maybe then I'll have the time and money to have kids.

Every young person who has any sort of story like that and posts it on social media will invariably be told someting along the lines of "I was married and had a house at 20. Try harder at life and maybe you'll succeed, but young people are so lazy these days and just like to complain about everything." I can't say who is right or wrong, but I can say that comments like that hurt. Like many young people, I would have loved the opportunity to walk out of high school and into GM, and be able to buy a house within a year or two. To be told I'm lazy because I didn't even have the sorts of opportunities the generation before me did is...distressing.

Now, I don't hate boomers by any stretch of the imagination. But if I'm evaluating which leader is most likely to look out for what's best for me and people like me, a necessary quality in that leader is that they appear like they understand that there is, in fact, a problem with the costs of education, the value of education once a degree is obtained (for ex. I would be strictly worse off now if I had gone to school for a liberal arts degree and racked up 40k+ in debt instead of working and at least breaking even), and other prospects for young people including those who for whatever reason do not pursue post secondary, for which there are several valid reasons.

 

So, it is crucial for a progressive boomer such as Mr. Mulcair seeking higher office to not appear like part of the establishment. Mulcair's platform of do nothing important, change nothing that matters, and make no change that will affect anyone's life in a meaningful way is why he was rejected by voters and in the context of this discussion, young voters.

 

A very long story short is, it is very easy for an older politician to be perceived as out of touch with the problems faced by ordinary people and especially younger people. Being any given age isn't an issue, but being out of touch is and Mulcair clearly was and continues to be.

Debater

MegB wrote:

We live in an ageist society. Comments about how age makes a politician less electable only perpetuate the mythology that we become less effective and therefore less useful as we age.

I don't think that is the main reason that people are looking at the age factor in Canadian politics.  It's not because people are assuming an older leader is going to lose their marbles.

In the Parliamentary system (eg. Canada) where Federal elections usually take place every 4 years and where a leader may need to be around for multiple elections in order to become Prime Minister, or to rebuild a party, etc. the leaders are normally younger, on average, than in the American Presidential system.

In the American system, a person is chosen as Presidential nominee, and the person learns that year whether or not they will become President.  So older leaders (eg. 60+) are more common in America than in Canada.  However, in Canada, someone who enters their first election at age 60 normally needs to be successful the first time out because the next election may not be for another 4 years, and the chance at power may take another 8 years.  (eg. the current situation the NDP & the Conservatives could be in).

quizzical

making excuses for ageism....lolol

Pondering

MegB wrote:

We live in an ageist society. Comments about how age makes a politician less electable only perpetuate the mythology that we become less effective and therefore less useful as we age.

Acknowledging the way things are is not the same as agreeing with it not to mention that age is a strength for Sanders while being a drawback for Mulcair. Trudeau had to have his hair cut to appear older. Pretending that age isn't a factor in evaluating electoral chances is just being in denial. If Trudeau had been female it is unlikely he would have won the Liberal leadership and would certainly not have been elected PM. The only reason Trudeau was able to overcome his CV is because he is male but he still had to get his hair cut. Same goes for Harper. Any woman hoping to be PM would have to have a stellar resume far beyond what is required of a man. Acknowledging that sexism exists isn't sexism. Acknowledging that agism exists isn't agism. 

Factors of electability include appearance, sex, age, and race as well as name recognition, charisma and resume. There is no question that Trudeau's name opened doors for him. When choosing a leader electibility is a key factor. That's just the reality. 

Pages

Topic locked