And the new leader of the NDP is...

[Axl Van Sixx]

Thomas Mulcair!

Thoughts from any Canadians out there? I'm disappointed, because Mulcair was the last person I wanted to see succeed Jack Layton as party leader. He's an ex-Liberal "centrist" that wants to make the NDP more pro-business. And I'm shocked that Niki Ashton and Peggy Nash (my choices) did so poorly.

 

[hippie_hunter]

It's probably for the best. Centrist leaders tend to be more preferable to the general populace and thus make the party more palatable elections.

Plus, getting a guy like this will just make the Liberals more ineffective and thus further cement NDP's future as one of the major parties without the Liberals getting in the way and siphoning votes away from the NDP. With less votes for the Liberals, the better the chances are for the NDP to be the majority party in Canada.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

These aren't normal times. People are really hurting and looking for alternatives. Voters explicitly rejected the Liberals in the last federal election and embraced the NDP because they were finally looking for something different...and now the NDP is going to run away from its roots and try to become like the Liberals?

People are tired of mushy, mealy-mouthed "centrism", which is what Mulcair provided in his lackluster, much-delayed victory speech tonight. They liked Jack Layton because he was a politician they thought they could trust. Mulcair, by contrast, seems like an opportunist.

It's pretty sad that Canada now has both an ex-NDPer leading the Liberal Party and an ex-Liberal leading the NDP.

 

[Pagan]

Looks like the corporatists are taking over Canada too.

 

[Pink Ranger]

To be fair, Jack Layton was a centrist, relative to New Democrats, in many ways as well.

 

[hippie_hunter]

These aren't normal times. People are really hurting and looking for alternatives.

Unless it's an instance of an extreme crisis like Great Depression Germany, voters typically don't go for extremes in regards to alternatives. While they want change, they also want something safe and stable.

Voters explicitly rejected the Liberals in the last federal election and embraced the NDP because they were finally looking for something different...

Can you really say that the NDP was embraced when Stephen Harper got the majority government that he was seeking? Almost all of the NDP's gains came at the expense of the Liberals and BC, but if the NDP wants to be the majority party in the future, they need to go beyond just the Canadian left.

and now the NDP is going to run away from its roots and try to become like the Liberals?

The NDP will never have a future as ruling party if they don't accept disaffected Liberals. If the NDP wants to solidify its future, it would be best for them to just put the Liberal Party in the shed and go Old Yeller on it. An NDP with the support of remaining Liberals will be a much stronger party than an NDP without them.

People are tired of mushy, mealy-mouthed "centrism",

Not really. People overall want balance. Most people see extreme political ideologies such as libertarianism and socialism to be unrealistic and would prefer governance from the center-left or center-right.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Unless it's an instance of an extreme crisis like Great Depression Germany, voters typically don't go for extremes in regards to alternatives. While they want change, they also want something safe and stable.

These aren't stable times and the crisis is getting worse with each passing day. People are looking for somebody to solve their problems, and a milquetoast, centrist government isn't going to do it.

Can you really say that the NDP was embraced when Stephen Harper got the majority government that he was seeking? Almost all of the NDP's gains came at the expense of the Liberals and BC, but if the NDP wants to be the majority party in the future, they need to go beyond just the Canadian left.

As we've seen with the robocalls scandal, the legitimacy of those election results may have been compromised somewhat. Don't forget, the majority of the Canadian electorate (60%) rejected Harper and the Conservatives.

People don't respect a party that seems to run away from its principles, and under Mulcair the NDP seems poised to do exactly that. This idea that the public won't support a party that offers a bold progressive agenda, as opposed to middling, "safe" centrist crap that inspires no one, is nonsense.

The NDP will never have a future as ruling party if they don't accept disaffected Liberals. If the NDP wants to solidify its future, it would be best for them to just put the Liberal Party in the shed and go Old Yeller on it. An NDP with the support of remaining Liberals will be a much stronger party than an NDP without them.

Not really. People overall want balance. Most people see extreme political ideologies such as libertarianism and socialism to be unrealistic and would prefer governance from the center-left or center-right.

What about the notion of standing by your principles? The substance of your post seems to be that the NDP should do whatever it thinks is necessary to succeed electorally, regardless of political content. You're locked into this notion of being "savvy", to the point where you're even dismissing your own political ideology as unrealistic.

Mulcair said in his first English interview as leader that he wanted to move the centre towards the NDP. It might just be political boilerplate, but I plan to hold him to that.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

To be fair, Jack Layton was a centrist, relative to New Democrats, in many ways as well.

He was, but still to the left of Mulcair.

I don't place my faith in any NDP leaders, honestly - I know they're reformists who will crumble when enough pressure is put under them by the bourgeoisie, just as happened under Bob Rae's 1990s Ontario NDP government, or with Georges Papandreou and PASOK in Greece.

The true strength of the NDP lies in its association with the organized working class through the unions, and the progressive Canadians who rally under its banner.

 

[hippie_hunter]

These aren't stable times and the crisis is getting worse with each passing day. People are looking for somebody to solve their problems, and a milquetoast, centrist government isn't going to do it.

Even when times aren't stable, people tend to go for what they know. They want safety and stability, not radical idealism.

As we've seen with the robocalls scandal, the legitimacy of those election results may have been compromised somewhat.

If there was any genuine malfeasance, it probably would have been risen up by now.

Don't forget, the majority of the Canadian electorate (60%) rejected Harper and the Conservatives.

When you have so many legitimate parties up for the ballot in an election, it's tough to ever get above 40%. 60% of the Canadian electorate voting for other parties doesn't mean that they think that they disapprove of who's in power. Harper's ratings are in the 40's, less than 25% disapprove of the Harper government, and over 60% think that Canada is headed in the right direction.

People don't respect a party that seems to run away from its principles, and under Mulcair the NDP seems poised to do exactly that. This idea that the public won't support a party that offers a bold progressive agenda, as opposed to middling, "safe" centrist crap that inspires no one, is nonsense.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see the next election result in more NDP seats at the expense of the Liberals. It's a strategy that works overall.

What about the notion of standing by your principles? The substance of your post seems to be that the NDP should do whatever it thinks is necessary to succeed electorally, regardless of political content. You're locked into this notion of being "savvy", to the point where you're even dismissing your own political ideology as unrealistic.

Because I accept the fact that my own political ideology is more along the lines of a fringe ideology. Do I believe that my ideology is the right one? Of course! But I'm not going to delude myself that the people are going to rise up and vote for a Ron Paul styled libertarian revolution like ETM. I mean seriously, look at how well my candidate is doing in the GOP primaries.

Political savvy is necessary in order to succeed. In order to be successful, a platform must be molded for the masses. Not molding to the masses is why the best the Canadian Communist Party has ever done is 2% of the vote back in the 1940's. Or why I made a bet to ETM that the Libertarian Party will not even get 1% of the vote in the upcoming Presidential election.

It's a sheer matter of practicality. It's better to have some things done and have some progress than nothing at all.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Political savvy is necessary in order to succeed. In order to be successful, a platform must be molded for the masses. Not molding to the masses is why the best the Canadian Communist Party has ever done is 2% of the vote back in the 1940's. Or why I made a bet to ETM that the Libertarian Party will not even get 1% of the vote in the upcoming Presidential election.

Funnily enough, last week I got into an argument with an ultra-left sectarian who was deriding me as a sellout because I orient towards the NDP. I mentioned exactly what you just did about the Canadian Communist Party.

Just thought it would be funny to mention a debate where I was the one on the right.

 

[Oerwinde]

I was hoping for Nathan Cullen. His policy of cooperating with the Liberals kept the spirit of Jack Layton's "new politics", would allow the NDP to succeed electorally, and allow they to keep their ideals. I didn't support his position on abolishing the monarchy, but more Canadians support the monarchy than support its abolishment and those in the middle tend to vote for the status quo so it wasn't a big issue. Unlike a lot of Canadians, I didn't swallow Harper's claim that multiple parties working together to govern the country "undemocratic".

 

[SV Fan]

I didn't support his position on abolishing the monarchy, but more Canadians support the monarchy than support its abolishment and those in the middle tend to vote for the status quo so it wasn't a big issue.

The whole monarchy is a stupid idea in all honesty. Let's be honest here Kings and Queens are so 16th century. Some lucky sperm basically wins the royal lottery and all of a sudden they should be treated like they something special, sort of defeats the purpose of a democracy. I understand why the Brits still celebrate having a figurehead for a Queen(ie. it's good for tourism) by why any other commonwealth countries put up with acting like the Queen has any importance is beyond me.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The whole monarchy is a stupid idea in all honesty. Let's be honest here Kings and Queens are so 16th century. Some lucky sperm basically wins the royal lottery and all of a sudden they should be treated like they something special, sort of defeats the purpose of a democracy. I understand why the Brits still celebrate having a figurehead for a Queen(ie. it's good for tourism) by why any other commonwealth countries put up with acting like the Queen has any importance is beyond me.

I really don't see a problem when the Queen has absolutely no power whatsoever. Not only that, but in keeping the British monarch, the Commonwealth nations keep some of their original ties with Britain.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Also, the Commonwealth Games (which exclude the USA, China, Germany and the former Soviet bloc) are Canada's only real shot at winning medals at summer sports. t:

 

[Oerwinde]

The whole monarchy is a stupid idea in all honesty. Let's be honest here Kings and Queens are so 16th century. Some lucky sperm basically wins the royal lottery and all of a sudden they should be treated like they something special, sort of defeats the purpose of a democracy. I understand why the Brits still celebrate having a figurehead for a Queen(ie. it's good for tourism) by why any other commonwealth countries put up with acting like the Queen has any importance is beyond me.

Well, basically in practice we get a figurehead leader with decades of experience and no ambition above representing our countries. Someone who is a unifying figure, immune to partisan politics, and a stable presence not matter the government situation. An elected official brings divisive partisan politics and personal ambition into the mix and thats anything but good. Plus we get the bonuses of tradition attached to it.

Also, the Commonwealth Realms (commonwealth members with the monarch as head of state) get a few extra perks that the other commonwealth members don't get, such as being able to use british embassies and consulates abroad if our home country doesn't have one available, and we can vote in british elections as long as we meet residence requirements.