Who will replace Mulcair? (NDP leadership)

[eternallyme]

At the NDP convention today, he only got 48% support, and that forces a leadership race. It could also be a battle for the soul between the Mulcair/Layton centre-left and the NDP base which is calling for pure socialism.

Mulcair COULD run again, but would likely lose. He expects to remain as interim leader though...

[*Stardust*]

Niki Ashton. She's bright and sharp as a tack.

Going left isn't going to help the NDP. They will alienate many centrist voters.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

Niki Ashton. She's bright and sharp as a tack.

Going left isn't going to help the NDP. They will alienate many centrist voters.

Like the Conservatives, they have a big challenge too.

They will never form government without the 10-15% of Canadians who tend to be far to the left. However, that won't even get them official party status in the current political setup given Trudeau's strength and the Bloc weakness. They will likely need to go to the left of Mulcair and get out of Trudeau's shadow, but not into Linda McQuaig territory. Just like the Conservatives need someone right around Harper ideologically (but calmer) - not a Tea Party type or a Red Tory.

[kwoldtimer]

I'd say that a hard left turn is their best shot at continued relevance, although not if they want to form a government. Should be a rather lively debate!

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I'd say that a hard left turn is their best shot at continued relevance, although not if they want to form a government. Should be a rather lively debate!

Agreed. Trudeau has them boxed in big time. The 10-15% of the electorate which is pure socialist would ensure the party has money and presence, but they wouldn't translate into much of anything in Parliament - not even official party status. Still, those votes are an absolute must to get the ball rolling. It's a big risk either way...

For the Conservatives, they have 25% or so of the electorate that is well to the right of the Liberals and a Red Tory leader would do nothing for. They would look silly trying to go too much into Trudeau's territory and watch a huge opening appear for a potential Reform party or western separatist party.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

For the Conservatives, they have 25% or so of the electorate that is well to the right of the Liberals and a Red Tory leader would do nothing for. They would look silly trying to go too much into Trudeau's territory and watch a huge opening appear for a potential Reform party or western separatist party.

I prefer my Tories to be just slightly to the right of the Liberals. Conservative enough to have a pro business agenda and a lower tax regime, but centrist enough to serve as a reasonable alternative to the majority of the electorate once the Liberals slip up and display their typical arrogance and corruption.

I agree, the Tories should move a shade to the left and let the progressive wing of the party have a chance at the reigns of power.

[*Stardust*]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I prefer my Tories to be just slightly to the right of the Liberals. Conservative enough to have a pro business agenda and a lower tax regime, but centrist enough to serve as a reasonable alternative to the majority of the electorate once the Liberals slip up and display their typical arrogance and corruption.

I agree, the Tories should move a shade to the left and let the progressive wing of the party have a chance at the reigns of power.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I prefer my Tories to be just slightly to the right of the Liberals. Conservative enough to have a pro business agenda and a lower tax regime, but centrist enough to serve as a reasonable alternative to the majority of the electorate once the Liberals slip up and display their typical arrogance and corruption.

I agree, the Tories should move a shade to the left and let the progressive wing of the party have a chance at the reigns of power.

How good is that though if the Reform Party is resurrected, or if western separatism becomes a top issue?

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I prefer my Tories to be just slightly to the right of the Liberals. Conservative enough to have a pro business agenda and a lower tax regime, but centrist enough to serve as a reasonable alternative to the majority of the electorate once the Liberals slip up and display their typical arrogance and corruption.

This is very very well said. It's also the opposite of the modus operandi of the Liberal Party: pander to the left in order to get elected, but preserve enough wiggle room to move to the right to build consensus with the business community and other interests. And, when they get too cozy with those interests and their government reaches its expiration date, the Tories have the responsibility to have positioned themselves as a centrist alternative. So a Red Tory is called for this time, though maybe not quite like a Joe Clark since a "hard turn to the left" (as if that's possible) would frighten some about the prospects of an upstart Western alternative.

On the NDP leadership: I agree with others that electing a "socialist" would be a mistake. Stephen Lewis spoke at the convention about "socialism." Does anyone know how successful the Lewis premiership in Ontario was? Exactly... Good for him to become opposition leader, but the other two parties have a knack for adopting NDP policy (and actually, you know, implementing it) and leaving the NDP with positions relatively unacceptable to mainstream voters.

If the federal NDP elects another centrist, they might have a shot at official opposition again (in a decade) and the ability to really influence government. If they go hard left, they'll win 15 or so seats for the next x elections, and their main question will be whether they get official party status.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Here in Saskatchewan, "The birthplace of the CCF" the NDP has completely lost the rural and suburban vote and the Sask Party is making inroads into the inner city and native north as well.
I have no idea how they are going to rise from the depths, maybe through the large bubble of native kids coming up could be their base in the future? I don't know and if they follow Avie Lewis and Naomi Klein then their goose is truly cooked.

[*Stardust*]

Maybe the 10-15% of the electorate that are pure socialist should start a new party of their own. (Perhaps a Canadian Labour Party?)

The New Democrats should keep aiming for the direction that Jack Layton started.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

Maybe the 10-15% of the electorate that are pure socialist should start a new party of their own. (Perhaps a Canadian Labour Party?)

The New Democrats should keep aiming for the direction that Jack Layton started.

It's an unlikely, but not impossible, scenario. Same with the Conservatives, I suppose.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

Maybe the 10-15% of the electorate that are pure socialist should start a new party of their own. (Perhaps a Canadian Labour Party?)

The New Democrats should keep aiming for the direction that Jack Layton started.

They missed their once in a generation chance to displace the Liberals as the main party of the center-left, as they did in 1988 with Ed Broadbent.

Jack had the ideal political conditions for a breakthrough: he was a highly seasoned and charismatic leader, there was a political vacuum in Quebec and the Liberals had a dreadful leader in Ignatieff.

Now Justin Trudeau's Liberals own that vote. And Trudeau is governing as a left-Liberal and has done nothing to alienate progressive voters to a significant degree. As long as they stay there - the differences between the two remain small and more voters would leak to the Liberals.

They're better off trying to be a "party of conscience" at this point. I don't think they'd do any better if they stuck with Mulcair and remained an imitation centrist liberal party.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

Maybe the 10-15% of the electorate that are pure socialist should start a new party of their own. (Perhaps a Canadian Labour Party?)

That is an enormous exaggeration. True socialists (i.e. old school, traditional, socialize the means of production socialists, i.e. Marxism/Leninism/etc) maybe make up 1% of the electorate. They are a fringe group, and have been at least since the 50's. I have met plenty of self-described "socialists", and once they bothered explaining their positions, only one had views that actually fit the term. The term is misused more often than not. The socialist movement has all but died off in almost every western country, which isn't surprising considering how badly centrally planned socialist economies failed in Eastern Bloc countries.

The 10-15% you are thinking of would be better described as social democrats (social democracies are very different from socialist states). Seeing as the NDP is essentially a social democratic party, they have no reason to form their own party.

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

Maybe the 10-15% of the electorate that are pure socialist should start a new party of their own. (Perhaps a Canadian Labour Party?)

The New Democrats should keep aiming for the direction that Jack Layton started.

Layton was considered to be on the left side of the party.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

Maybe the 10-15% of the electorate that are pure socialist should start a new party of their own. (Perhaps a Canadian Labour Party?)

The New Democrats should keep aiming for the direction that Jack Layton started.

How would you really distinguish between that 10-15% of the electorate that you say are "pure socialist", and the 5-15% of the electorate that also vote NDP but are more about the "direction that Jack Layton started", and the Trudeau Liberals?

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I'd say that a hard left turn is their best shot at continued relevance, although not if they want to form a government. Should be a rather lively debate!

I fully agree. They lost by going quasi-centrist. The Liberals will always own that space, should they want it. The NDP probably doesn't have a great chance at forming government outside of a minority situation no matter what, but if they want to be relevant and increase their seat total, they need to consider the type of issues that are electrifying progressives elsewhere- Sanders, Corbyn, in particular provide a path toward increasing their support, although I doubt that support would ever equate to nearly 40% of the vote.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by csbvan

I fully agree. They lost by going quasi-centrist.

I disagree. Going quasi-centrist actually enabled them to have a pretty high result by their historical standards -- by going quasi-centrist they achieved last October their second best result of all time, in fact (44 MPs). The center is where the votes are, not the far left.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by lio45

I disagree. Going quasi-centrist actually enabled them to have a pretty high result by their historical standards -- by going quasi-centrist they achieved last October their second best result of all time, in fact (44 MPs). The center is where the votes are, not the far left.

Second best result of all time is a bit of misnomer, first of all. There are more seats in the House than there were before. So a result like Broadbent's 43 seats in a 280-something seat House is a far more impressive result than Mulcair's. The 44 seats isn't a particularly great result for the NDP, but also not a particularly terrible result. However, any election strategy that takes you from unprecedented highs in the previous election to a historically middle of the road result is not a great strategy.

And yes, there are a lot of votes in the centre, centre-left in Canada. But the Liberals own that space. By 2020 the Liberals will have governed for some 80+ years between 1900 and that point. If the NDP decides to unhinge from its grassroots base and instead attempt to defeat one of the most prominent political parties in the Western Democratic world by occupying the same space on the political spectrum as them, I don't think that will be an effective strategy for ever being relevant. In fact, the party would no longer have any reason to exist. Moving back to the left is about the only way the NDP will remain relevant, and given the excitement being stirred up among younger generations in Britain and the US for further left politicians, it probably would be a better strategy for future growth.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

Niki Ashton. She's bright and sharp as a tack.

Perhaps, but she's too young and untested.

I think to remain relevant the NDP must at least meet the Liberals on the lower-left of the quadrant, and preferably exceed them into the corner at least a bit, if not ambitiously. Otherwise they have lost their traditional raison d'etre, which was to be Canada's social democrats. Canada needs a fire-and-brimstone leftist party to keep it honest.
Offhand, I can't think of a credible candidate with the gravitas and "charisma" to pull it off, which is why I think they should have hung onto Mulcair for the interim until someone emerged. An éminence grise like Sanders or Nader would be welcome here. Broadbent, but he's simply too old.
I have heard Avi Lewis's name bandied about, and he would be an intriguing aspirant. He has the lineage, and years in the trenches as a leftist media personality, but he has no political inexperience and is apparently not biting.