I knew this when they dumped Mulcair. He was the most impressive parliamentarian of all parties, and he led the NDP to a strong showing. But your average dipper doesn't want to get power, they want to be pure, and having a white man as the leader doesn't help them feel morally superior. They aren't a serious party and don't deserve votes.
With respect, they were right to dump Mulcair. His decision to ditch the “angry Tom” persona and commit to balancing the budget in 2015 allowed Trudeau to outflank him from the Left and cause the NDP lose from both sides of their coalition; they lost Danforth and Nickel Belt. Though it is questionable that they let Singh stay for so long.
They also don’t want to be “pure”; they don’t want to do the hard work of politics. The best comment on their state came from someone on the CanadaPolitics subreddit who said the NDP is promoting 20th century values to a disinterested 21st century population. They don’t seem to be aware of how people have changed and how to respond. For what it’s worth, I think the lessons of the 20th century with respect to the institutions built to ward off economic and social insecurity are more relevant than ever. I think we need a party to say that we need to go back to the 20th century and re-appreciate their lessons on these matters (interesting that the far right is winning by in part promising a return to the past, although they are definitely not promoting the welfare state and economic security policies that the social democratic parties did at the time). In that sense, I don’t think the NDP needs to change what they believe. But they do need to argue for themselves, to fight for the relevance and justice of their ideas and Singh is not the person to do this. I don’t even know if there is a person left in the NDP who can do this. They don’t even have to have a blue collar background (Lord knows Poilievre and Ford don’t), but they do need to know how to argue and persuade.
the two parties strung together point is so interesting
it's true. actually, it might even be three or four.
my mp, heather mcpherson, has done incredible work (imo) as foreign affairs critic and is probably a leading *global* critic of israel and defendant of palestinians. i've tweeted that she's doing what the us college left can only wish out of aoc.
but she could never be leader, for the reasons you mention, plus as an edmonton-based mp leading what is seen as a generally anti-conventional energy / tax and spend ndp, she'd be in a similar position of failure trying to keep the edmonton or halifax seats, let alone expanding in montreal or the gta.
on a similar note - who is up next for the ndp? charlie angus? back to mulcair? olivia chow? the leading actual candidates are probably either nikki ashton or matthew green... can they bridge the gaps between the different factions of the party?
going the opposite way of the big tent parties and splitting into a couple or few different specific advocacy group parties would be very interesting, with some sort of understanding that they don't get in the way of the other former ndp groups. run the conservation party in powell river, and the serious housing party in hamilton. pro-labour and workers in london and windsor, pro-globalism/diversity in vancouver and montreal.
this way, the labour wing doesn't need to be "anti-energy". housing doesn't need to take a specific stance on israel. win more than 25 seats by figuring out which ridings are asking for each "progressive" platform and build an effective coalition that can actually apply pressure from the left
of course, the criticism will be that this just eats away at liberal votes against the conservatives in competitive ridings, but the cpc are never winning vancouver east or rosemont anyways. this might let the progressive option keep south okanagan and timmins.
if a real leader ever emerges from any of these causes, just band everyone together at that time and make a real run for government. but as it stands, they are neither a real opposition, nor an effective flank on any specific causes, and they don't seem to have the internal talent to convince anyone otherwise.
The day that Mr. Singh announced that the Federal government should intercede in health care with direct solutions he lost all cred with me. As a lawyer it was his intellectual duty to know that the provinces have the individual mandates as to how they deliver services. As a Parliamentarian he looked the complete idiot. To be polite, I don't think he and his team have much brain power. I vote NDP here in BC because our MP is a good man and because the Liberals will never get more than 10% of the vote around here.
For years, the NDP has had no vision for what it is supposed to be. Even it's traditional values of protecting labour's rights and social programs has been diminished. They can claim credit for the dental and pharmacare plans, but these were already promises in the Liberal platform. Programs that will be dismantled if the Conservatives are elected, which necessitates strategy voting.
I can’t stand him showing off his wealth all the time. The fancy car, watch, $3000 suit etc. Yet when anyone makes this obvious criticism - that he does not present as a “working person” - they’re told “well it’s different / complicated because he’s racialized.”
An NDP supporter said he didn't need my vote when discussing issues in the NDP and the country as a whole. Card carrying NDP loyalists are their own enemy within
I knew this when they dumped Mulcair. He was the most impressive parliamentarian of all parties, and he led the NDP to a strong showing. But your average dipper doesn't want to get power, they want to be pure, and having a white man as the leader doesn't help them feel morally superior. They aren't a serious party and don't deserve votes.
With respect, they were right to dump Mulcair. His decision to ditch the “angry Tom” persona and commit to balancing the budget in 2015 allowed Trudeau to outflank him from the Left and cause the NDP lose from both sides of their coalition; they lost Danforth and Nickel Belt. Though it is questionable that they let Singh stay for so long.
They also don’t want to be “pure”; they don’t want to do the hard work of politics. The best comment on their state came from someone on the CanadaPolitics subreddit who said the NDP is promoting 20th century values to a disinterested 21st century population. They don’t seem to be aware of how people have changed and how to respond. For what it’s worth, I think the lessons of the 20th century with respect to the institutions built to ward off economic and social insecurity are more relevant than ever. I think we need a party to say that we need to go back to the 20th century and re-appreciate their lessons on these matters (interesting that the far right is winning by in part promising a return to the past, although they are definitely not promoting the welfare state and economic security policies that the social democratic parties did at the time). In that sense, I don’t think the NDP needs to change what they believe. But they do need to argue for themselves, to fight for the relevance and justice of their ideas and Singh is not the person to do this. I don’t even know if there is a person left in the NDP who can do this. They don’t even have to have a blue collar background (Lord knows Poilievre and Ford don’t), but they do need to know how to argue and persuade.
the two parties strung together point is so interesting
it's true. actually, it might even be three or four.
my mp, heather mcpherson, has done incredible work (imo) as foreign affairs critic and is probably a leading *global* critic of israel and defendant of palestinians. i've tweeted that she's doing what the us college left can only wish out of aoc.
but she could never be leader, for the reasons you mention, plus as an edmonton-based mp leading what is seen as a generally anti-conventional energy / tax and spend ndp, she'd be in a similar position of failure trying to keep the edmonton or halifax seats, let alone expanding in montreal or the gta.
on a similar note - who is up next for the ndp? charlie angus? back to mulcair? olivia chow? the leading actual candidates are probably either nikki ashton or matthew green... can they bridge the gaps between the different factions of the party?
going the opposite way of the big tent parties and splitting into a couple or few different specific advocacy group parties would be very interesting, with some sort of understanding that they don't get in the way of the other former ndp groups. run the conservation party in powell river, and the serious housing party in hamilton. pro-labour and workers in london and windsor, pro-globalism/diversity in vancouver and montreal.
this way, the labour wing doesn't need to be "anti-energy". housing doesn't need to take a specific stance on israel. win more than 25 seats by figuring out which ridings are asking for each "progressive" platform and build an effective coalition that can actually apply pressure from the left
of course, the criticism will be that this just eats away at liberal votes against the conservatives in competitive ridings, but the cpc are never winning vancouver east or rosemont anyways. this might let the progressive option keep south okanagan and timmins.
if a real leader ever emerges from any of these causes, just band everyone together at that time and make a real run for government. but as it stands, they are neither a real opposition, nor an effective flank on any specific causes, and they don't seem to have the internal talent to convince anyone otherwise.
The day that Mr. Singh announced that the Federal government should intercede in health care with direct solutions he lost all cred with me. As a lawyer it was his intellectual duty to know that the provinces have the individual mandates as to how they deliver services. As a Parliamentarian he looked the complete idiot. To be polite, I don't think he and his team have much brain power. I vote NDP here in BC because our MP is a good man and because the Liberals will never get more than 10% of the vote around here.
For years, the NDP has had no vision for what it is supposed to be. Even it's traditional values of protecting labour's rights and social programs has been diminished. They can claim credit for the dental and pharmacare plans, but these were already promises in the Liberal platform. Programs that will be dismantled if the Conservatives are elected, which necessitates strategy voting.
I can’t stand him showing off his wealth all the time. The fancy car, watch, $3000 suit etc. Yet when anyone makes this obvious criticism - that he does not present as a “working person” - they’re told “well it’s different / complicated because he’s racialized.”
Ooooookkkkk.
Enjoy perpetual irrelevance.
An NDP supporter said he didn't need my vote when discussing issues in the NDP and the country as a whole. Card carrying NDP loyalists are their own enemy within