Sacre Bleu-I didn't see that coming!

Today PKP announced his resignation as leader of the Parti Quebecois and Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition for the National Assembly of Quebec.  For those not familiar with Quebecois acronyms; PKP stands for Pierre-Karl Peladeau owner-operator and largest shareholder of Quebecor a multimedia conglomerate comprising newspapers, cable companies and media interest primarily in Eastern Canada. The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney is chairman of the board Quebecor shares rose nearly 2%, 65 cents on news their former chairman and largest shareholder was ending his political career.

I don't think anybody saw this coming from the PQ caucus to Phillippe Couillard to Rheal Fortin and Mario Beaulieu. The parliamentary leader and party president of the Bloc Quebecois. Never mind the news media usually Chantal Hebert or Lysianne Gagnon at the Globe and mail catch a whiff of intrigue and write a hypothetical column or produce conjecture about the reasons M. Peladeau would want to stick around or not.  Today nothing.  Alas Pierre-Karl we hardly knew ye.  We really didn't he hadn't made a mark except on the PQ's poll numbers still consistently lower than the increasingly unpopular government of Phillippe Couillard and the Quebec Liberal Party. On the left PKP was getting hammered by the arch-socialists of Quebec Solidaire and the significant union presence within the PQ itself while his right flank was nearly entirely taken by the fiscally prudent nationalism of Francois Legault.  The poll numbers don't lie since, the creation of the CAQ with Legault as leader the PQ has suffered failing to reach 40% (and the theoretical line to win a majority government) in every opinion poll.

PKP has called for a unity amongst the sovereignty camp, political mergers perhaps or maybe a shared nomination processes, something, anything, that would somehow by hook or through crook make the Parti Quebecois competitive against the governing Liberals at the next election in two years time.  It was not to be. Simply put there were not many takers. Peladeau did boost PQ fortunes for a time but has since fallen into a trading range between 25-35%. The CAQ and Francois Legault are not interested as they have nearly equal; support to the PQ and Quebec Solidaire apart from not wanting to sully their socialist credentials through coalitions with a capitalist billionaire have seen their support increase since the last election.

PKP's resignation does tell us something mainly things are not well with the PQ and sovereigntist camp. The Independence movement has officially split with fiscal and traditional conservatives the so called "soft nationalist" voting for the Coalition Avenir Quebec and left-wing sovereigntists divided between Quebec Solidaire and the Parti Quebecois.  I'm sure PKP saw the hopelessness of his position without a unified movement he would never be premier and a man of his talent and wealth has better things to do than stand in the National Assembly everyday criticising minutiae of government policy.  Running Quebec as premier is one thing being a lowly opposition leader forced into endless travel to rally the troops away from home and family for a prize he is unlikely to win must have seemed like a poor trade-off.  Peladeau made the right choice. Family is always the correct choice. One only gets about 70 years in this life-good ones anyway.  Time is the greatest challenge of all and with an election in two short years not on the PQ's side.  Alexandre Cloutier who finished second to Peladeau in the last leadership race seems like a good bet to succeed him. An accomplished lawyer from the staunchly nationalist Lac-St-Jean region at 38 he is young enough to have a few campaigns in him. Perhaps time enough to land in the premier's office.    

It's Bernie or Bust

Bernie or bust in my mind. Either America faces reality and elects somebody who will enact radical needed change or will it slip into the depths of indebtedness and greed where a billion dollars is the starting price for the presidency where money is the be all and end all.  America needs a good dose of socialism.   It is not as if America is a terrible place or a good dose of socialism would make America infinitely better but, it may smooth out some rough edges.

I would not vote for Hilary Clinton, I simply do not trust her.  I am sure her heart is in the right place but, I do not like the ideas of dynasties.  The only dynasty I support is the House of Windsor. If a society or civilisation is to concentrate power into the hands of subsequent generations of the same families then it becomes necessary to incorporate those traditions within a constitutional framework. Those families pick up responsibilities to go with great wealth and power, we refer to this institution as the aristocracy and while it is much in decline today in places such as the United Kingdom and Ireland it has in the past been an important feature of governments from the Greeks to the mid-twentieth century when Lord Home renounced his peerage to become prime minister of the U.K. as Sir Alec Douglas-Home.

America was designed as an aristocratic republic on the Roman model by a group of wealthy eighteenth century country gentry. Many of those aristocratic features remain in America's democracy today and it is those features that perpetuate the dynastic legacy of American politics. The primary system is designed so that all states hold equal weight in the process hence a small state like New Hampshire can not compete with California in terms of population so, they hold the first primary of the season and in this way their influence far exceeds what their population, economy or social influence would normally entail.  The electoral college is another example over-rewarding small states relative to their share of the population and disregarding the popular vote entirely-Does anybody recall that Al Gore received more votes than Dubya? He did not that it matters.

So it is that to become president a campaign will need to raise at least a billion dollars. To be senator from a large state such as California or New York costs well in excess of one hundred million dollars. To be a humble congressperson will cost in the millions even more if the race is highly competitive and so it goes down to state governors, state senators, state houses, county executive, sheriff, county clerk and judge. Money wins elections and at these prices only the aristocracy can afford to compete. So we have it that the multi-millionaire Hilary Clinton, graduate of Wellesley, spouse of a former president, public speaker for Goldman Sachs, sometime senator for New York will go up against multi-billionaire Donald J. Trump graduate of Warton, thrice married, property developer, reality T.V. actor, celebrity, producer, non-traditional politician. Will go head-to-head in the 2016 general election in November.

It is kind of like when Baseball goes on strike and one must pick a side between the billionaire owners of baseball teams and their multi-millionaire employees-the players.  At the end of the day the strike will ruin the season and the fans are left to wonder; do they(Major League Baseball)  care about us at all?   In the end the owners usually win because at the end of the day making several hundred thousand dollars a year or earning millions of dollars per year to play baseball is a very good deal and a good life. The fans instead of punishing the owners always return.  No punishment is meted for cancelling the baseball season or truncating it.  Spring training rolls around shortly after Christmas and all is forgotten.  Clinton should heed the message though:  billionaires rarely lose to millionaires.

This is not the corrupt-influence peddling, cliquey semi-aristocratic oligarchy most Americans want.  The success of Bernie Sanders and Donald J. Trump demonstrate how divided the American people are when it comes to their political system and politics. A majority of voters, Trump+ Sanders want major even radical change and believe only a non-establishment type can meaningfully change the paradigm to make it more accessible, equal and democratic for Americans.  Nobody believes Hilary Clinton can deliver such reform.   In a Hilary Donald match-up my money is on Trump. Not only will he hit below the belt, by commenting on Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, Benghazi and more,he has a better record:  Hilary Clinton as First Lady did not succeed in healthcare reform, As Secretary of State she made life-costing errors on Syria and Libya, the evidence of several hundreds of thousands of dollars suggest she has too close an association with investment bankers. Her credentials are what exactly?  She married well?  She will only secure the a majority of Democratic delegates through her aristocratic connections known as "super delegates" she may not win a majority of elected delegates.   In an anti-establishment year the anti-establishment candidate should be favoured-that's Mr. Trump not Mrs. Clinton. He has more money, a better message "Make America Great Again"!, and is more believable given what the American people know about Hilary Clinton her role in Benghazi and her personal e-mail server-never mind Whitewater or what she really knew when in the Monica Lewinsky affair. All these things could easily be overlooked had Hilary put together a message and reason why she should be president-instead people are left to vote for her simply because she is a women.  Had she put it as articulately as Justin Trudeau that it is time for a women president "because it is 2015" she may have a claim but, she fails to do so time and again and we are left with the proposition that she deserves the office and title due to family connections not merit or skills or vision. It is very sad but, it is the truth, Hilary is just not very likable.  She will lose to Donald J. Trump. I do not care what the polls say at the moment.  Americans passed their verdict on Hilary way back in 2008 and Barack Obama won. Times have changed of course but the sentiment the unlikability of Hilary as a candidate for president have not dissipated. For the good of the Democratic Party Hilary Clinton should take the honourable course and suspend her campaign and allow Bernie Sanders become the nominee as he has better general election poll numbers and a stronger chance of winning against any and all Republican candidates.

Where does the NDP go after Manitoba?

With the NDP's loss in Manitoba last night the bad news for the party has ended for the time being. Their next major challenge will be a year from now when the B.C. general election kicks-off.  An election they should win but, which at the moment the polls say is leaning toward the Liberals. Should they lose it would make for five consecutive defeats; 2001, 2005, 2009, 2013, 2017.  The current record is seven from 1952 until Dave Barrett's victory in 1972.

For the B.C. NDP where they go from here is unclear. If the NDP is going to split anywhere over the LEAP manifesto it will be in British Columbia where labour and environmentalism meet on the front lines-the forests and traditional territories of First Nations people. Scenic beauty, ecology and environmental sustainability stability our economic well being derived from both natural resource extraction and tourism are significant industries in British Columbia particularly Vancouver Island where the NDP heartland is located.

John Horgan in B.C. hasn't shown much wherewithal in the House failing to generate significant headlines or remove the Liberals from their good news pedestal of a surplus budget and relatively scandal free governance.  It's not for lack of trying, the Ministry of Children and Families continues to produce headlines of incompetence, poor planning and systemic failures of under-funding yet, the public most of whom have few interactions with the MCFD seem content to let conditions deteriorate so long as it doesn't affect their lives or taxes too much.

Horgan has two different approaches for the Party excluding the LEAP manifesto.  Either play up his credentials as a responsible government-in-waiting; Make policy announcements but, nothing too radical with or without large infrastructure investment.  Or Horgan could campaign on a platform of deficit and increased program spending to the MCFD among others or on large scale capital spending-infrastructure; more roads, a subway line to UBC, expanded bus service in the Capital Regional District and the return of the E&N Railway or at least converting the track from Langford- downtown into a commuter train.  The problem with this strategy past history suggests the British Columbia New Democratic Party does not have a good record when it comes to infrastructure renewal particularly transportation projects where an underused Skytrain Line (Metro) and Fast ferries that couldn't handle the protective swells between vancouver Island and the Mainland are its legacy. In short contracts to Union supporters and cost-over-runs and underused infrastructure for taxpayers.

If they take the Government-in-waiting route and restrict themselves to a status quo campaign they run the risk of being deprived of ideas, of the party who fails to dream big, the party of "NO".  It is hard to run a campaign of change for that is what the NDP must run, campaign to change the Government!  When they propose little of it.  It is possible when the Government is old and tired and a genuine need for fresh air exists but, the premier Christy Clark with her Energizer Bunny busyness doesn't look old or tired and what's more she's got a plan-it's called LNG- and whether it works or not the idea sounds great and as long as its hypothetical and not damaging the books or the economy-she can run on it or at least try.  That leaves Horgan with few options but, to propose spending increases and infrastructure renewal that will inevitably lead the Liberals to attack the NDP's dismal record.  Such a campaign does not preclude an NDP win and campaigns themselves are all important, generally speaking if the BC LIberals can run a campaign against tax-and-spend-New Democrats they will as it suits their narrative that only the B.C. Liberals can manage the economy.  Most elections are pocketbook elections in some form or another so conceding this point allows the Liberals to play in the NDP end of the field.   All still to play for of course but, from this far out juncture the B.C. Liberals look to be the favourites.

In Saskatchewan and Manitoba NDP leadership contests will likely take up much of the next year.  In Saskatchewan the leader does not have a seat and although Selinger won his seat of St. Boniface his resignation effectively means the Manitoba NDP will not have a leader with a seat in the House either for the First Session of the New Legislature. Selinger has asked the Party president, former Assembly of First Nations national chief Ovide Mercredi, to appoint an interim replacement.  For my money I Matt Wiebe seems like a good bet, the former constituency assistant for Gary Doer and Bill Blaikie represents a new generation but possesses critical experience to present a formidable opposition.  Who will get the job full-time it is far too early to tell.  Had Steve Ashton retained his seat on Tuesday I would have thought him to be the odds-on favourite. Jim Malloway is probably a good bet for the interim job and perhaps first time M.L.A. and former C.B.C. journalist Wab Kinew a strong possibility for permanent leader sometime next year had he not lost his seat. Indeed, most of the cabinet was defeated and so the party has little choice but to look to a younger generation and new blood.   In Saskatchewan with Broten's defeat a seasoned hand will likely take over in the short term a number of long time incumbents managed to hang on and I expect one of them to accept the honour of Opposition leader in time Summer or whenever Brad Walls delivers a Speech from the Throne and budget.

More to the point where does the NDP in total go from here?  They must answer an existential question:  What type of political party do they wish to be? A Party that competes for Government;  A Party of conscience and protest;  A limited or regional Party that can influence power and help shape Government; Something besides?  Jack Layton elevated the NDP into a Party capable of competing for Government, alas Mulcair could not maintain this office. A limited or regional party is the traditional NDP upon the Canadian political stage with strength particularly in the West and among the working class and left-wing idealists.  The limited party role has perhaps given the most success for the NDP as they were kingmakers both during the minority governments of Lester Pearson and Paul Martin and Stephen Harper.  Minority Parliaments give the NDP relevance, a meaningful role.

Manitoba Goes to the Polls

Manitoba goes to the polls tomorrow and by all accounts look certain to elect a Progressive Conservative majority government. Elections are closely fought in Manitoba and the revelation that the Opposition Leader, Brian Pallister spent some 200 plus days at his vacation home in Panama have not gone over as well as he may have hoped. These revelations probably would have blown over except it appears Mr. Pallister lied about his travel stating he was attending a wedding in British Columbia during the Manitoba floods a few years back when in fact he was enjoying the sunny climes of Central America. This has most likely scuttled any hope he had to win 45 seats in the 57 seat Legislative Assembly.

This campaign has seen the resurgence of the Manitoba Liberals into double digits and they look set to have their best result in a decade or more as voters abandon the NDP of premier Greg Sellinger. Still, due to an inept campaign, mistakes and lack or organisation and money the chance the Liberals had to usurp Official Opposition from the New Democrats has faded and a respectable albeit third place result is likely to be the outcome.

For my money I'll predict PCs: 41, MNDP: 10, MLP: 6 in the New Legislature. Bokhari will win Fort Rouge for the Liberals and I think there about a 50/50 chance Sellinger will fail to be re-elected. I will also predict an Ashton as the next leader of the Manitoba NDP.

All Indigenous People Become "Indians"

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday, April 14, 2016 that Metis and non-status Indians are "Indians" under S. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.  This upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal who ruled on the same declaration last year and follows some 80 years of jurisprudence affirming the Crown holds a fiduciary duty toward all Aboriginal and Indigenous peoples.

I do not know the repercussions of such a decision presumably Metis and non-status Indians could adopt aspects of the Indian Act such as creation of Metis reserves, eligibility for the Non-Insured Health Benefits program. increased access to services offered by INAC. To make a long story short INAC may have seen their clientele double and with it Trudeau may have received a 10 billion dollar annual bill to add to his deficits! So the Daniels judgment does not simply effect Indians but all Canadians.

Many Metis consider the Metis to be a nation this opens the possibility of self-determination with it land claims and the possibility of provincehood at a minimum political institutions.  Some Metis in Alberta have what are perhaps a template for self-government. The Metis Settlements General Council started as Metis farming colonies in the 1930's the eight Metis Settlements hold land in fee simple as an estate from the Crown encompassing a total land area in Northern Alberta equivalent to Prince Edward Island.  Their success has been mixed but holds perhaps a better template than the reserve system which has utter failed to provide Indians with the resources, education and communities they need to thrive in the twenty-first century.   On the other hand changes may be slight Indian bands may simply be forced to accept the membership of non-status Indians who apply.  The Government may simply drag out negotiations for so long that the repercussions are barely perceptible. Thankfully this ruling does achieve certainty. All Indigenous groups and people hold equal weight. Natural resource proponents will no longer be able to ignore a particular group because they don't have status. This is an achievement because it simplifies perhaps even streamlines the process for natural resource extraction and consultation, hopefully resulting in a decrease of litigation and an increase in meaningful consultation and discussion.  

The Revolving Door of Leadership

There was a time not long ago when a leader especially a federal leader could expect at least two election campaigns.  It was almost common courtesy voters liked a first date, only the most exceptionally charming of politicians would be rewarded with a majority government on the first go round.  Losers were expected to stick around for the good of the party and the familiarity of the electorate. Thus, John Turner could suffer the worst defeat in history of a sitting Government and live to fight the 1988 Free Trade election, albeit with a struggle. Stanfield could lose two elections in a row to Trudeau and fight a third; Diefenbaker could lose two elections and put up a credible fight to continue for a third.  Provincially leaders tended to change more frequently but, Carole James lost convincingly twice to Gordon campbell and would have given Christy a run for her money if a caucus revolt had not forced her to reconsider her future.   Something changed. I believe it was Jean Chretien's poor grace after losing the 1984 leadership race to John Turner.  Instead of being a good team player Mr. Chretien sulked and openly planned a caucus revolt and leadership challenge whilst Mr. Turner was burying his mother.  I think it safe to say this marked a new low in Canadian politics and helps inform us why it has decreased in civility ever since.  Chretien's "ends justify the means" philosophy ended the gentlemanly sport or at least the perception of it and turned politics and leadership politics especially into a no-holds-barred affair where "if you aren't with 'em you're against them" mentality prevailed.  

The question must be asked if we are now in the era of a revolving door of leadership; Preston Manning, Stockwell Day, Michael Ignatieff, Stephane Dion, Audrey MacLaughlin. In fact the only Opposition Leader to lose a general election and live and fight another day has been Stephen Harper who lost the 2004 election against Paul Martin who eked out a minority government then successfully secured his own minority government in the 2006 election. Interim leadership has become increasingly popular as well.  When Turner resigned in 1990 giving the interim leadership and with it the perks of Stornoway and a car allowance to Herb Grey was as much as a reward to Mr. Grey for his many dignified years of service as making a clean break with the past.  Today it seems people already want Mulcair to renounce the interim leadership he now possesses and many have called for a new interim leader entirely as if, changing Mulcair's status from leader, to out-going leader was not enough.

This is a dangerous game I think. Jack Layton was successful in the end because over the course of four general election campaigns voters had got to "know" him. Layton commonly topped polls of politicians one would most like to have a beer with.  Trust is not something given lightly by people but, earned.  Layton's secret was to slowly build gaining the trust of Canadians one voter at a time, steadily improving the NDP's showing until he changed history.  Dumping Mulcair (full disclosure: I thought Mulcair should have resigned on Oct. 20th)  negates whatever brand and benefit Mulcair brought to the party.  At 13% in the polls  clearly something had to change but, one wonders if three years hence with 6 months to go before an election the number of Canadians who can name the NDP leader will be lower than today? If so dumping Mulcair may not look like a wise decision.

Mulcair Gets His Just Reward

The delegates at the NDP national convention in Edmonton have done the Party a huge favour. By dumping Mulcair now they have averted a drawn out and painful civil war between Mulcair loyalists and rebels. It is always painful to dump a leader but quick and (mostly) painless is always better than drawn out and bitter. If you're a Mulcair fan you are rightfully sad and upset you may feel and, it is indeed probable, that his replacement will not be as skilled in Question Period, she may not be as seasoned on the campaign trail.  As much as Mulcair supporters may be disappointed others would say his attributes are good on paper but, when he got on the campaign trail his performance in question Period didn't matter a whit, for all his seasoning on the campaign trail he lacked charisma and failed to pick-up the mood on the ground sufficiently to alter course during the campaign. He got knocked-off and never recovered due to the niqab grenade lobbed by Harper halfway through election forty-two.  Mulcair was there to turn the NDP into a governing party.

The alternative was not pretty. Either Mulcair garnered a mediocre score below Clark's threshold of 66.9% or above. In the later questions would still have remained about Mulcair 's leadership it simply would have trnaslated into the "Leap" v. "Moderate" faction of the NDP-a leadership war by proxy. In the former Mulcair may have simply resigned but, how long he decided to wait to announce would have paralysed the Party in the interim. If he decided not to resign could anything short of a civil war been the result?  Chretien had a tough time cooling the boots of the Matinites during his three terms as prime minister - Chretien won three majority governments-Mulcair squandered his party's best chance to form government.   The knives were already out!

The Edmonton Convention gave the NDP up to two years to select the next leader, a generous severance to Mulcair.  Mulcair indicated he would not be a candidate in the leadership race by speaking of the "person who replaces me" and with the result it is hard to see Mr. Mulcair continuing in federal politics after the next election.

It is very early in the leadership race but, no shortage of candidates: defeated M.P.s; Megan Leslie, Peggy Nash, Olivia Chow. Sitting M.P.s; Romeo Saganash, Nathan Cullen, Peter Julian. journalist and rabble rouser; Avi Lewis, Seth and or Naomi Klein. Some younger current and former M.P.s may also throw their hats in such as; Nikki Ashton, Charmaine Borg, or Christine Moore. It should be pleasing and reassuring for Dippers that so many candidates do present themselves as potential leaders.  it demonstrates why those who suopported Mulcair by stating there was "no one better to replace him" were far off the mark-"who could do better"? Well, the NDP are at 13% in the polls so quite likely almost anybody could do better.  

In what is perhaps a fitting tribute to Mulcair's time as leader he focused on the wrong constituency during the Edmonton convention. Instead of securing the delegates needed to re-affirm his leadership Mulcair gave national interviews with Peter Mansbridge and others.   It confirmed  that while Mulcair had many good attributes of leadership his political antennae were not as attuned to the people on the ground as should be. That Mulcair was and is not a man of the people.  It is an unforgivable calculation for someone who claims he wanted to keep his job ignoring your electors or in this case confusing the broader national electorate with the smaller Party and convention electorate that hold one's future in their hands. That noone in Mulcair's inner circle advised him to work the crowd in Edmonton speaks volumes about Mulcair, his leadership style and his team. In the end his team as much as anyone let him down. These are the same people who during the election forgot to focus on the voters, who allowed Trudeau to out flank them. Mulcair was always trying for the big prize in doing so he forgot that victory is built individually one vote at a time.

For my money: On a longshot bet Saganash. Front runner at this juncture; Nathan Cullen, Peter Julian. Outside chance; Kennedy Stewart, Megan Leslie.


   

The NDP leadership race kicks off

Mulcair was interviewed by Peter Mansbridge on the National last night. I agree with Andrew Coyne that he looked nervous as someone would who was fighting for their political life. He used the words "clear majority" to indicate the threshold he needs to stay on as NDP leader. I don't know what that means but, presumably it is less than the 67% Clark received in 1983 and below the 70% threshold Rebecca Blaikie and others mentioned as a preferred benchmark.

The more I watched the interview the greater Mulcair's problem seemed. It is not the election loss or the scope of it that irks people, it is his flip-flopping and nebulous answers to straight forward questions. Mulcair is too eager to please others.  For a  Party that prides itself on its principles or at least principled stand on certain issues-a carpet bagger who tries to be all things to all people leaves a very sour taste in the social-democratic mouths.  Mulcair looked like a man who knew he was running out of time and frankly out of excuses. Tom Mulcair lost the election. It was his policies, his persona, his strategy and his inability to showcase the NDP team. Yes, he is a good prosecutorial opposition leader but, are Canadians in the mood for such a dichotomy and will the third party leader have the chance to prosecute a prime minister most Canadians seem very happy to give the benefit of the doubt to? I opine no. What is the Mulcair "value-added"? What does he bring to the job of NDP leader that is unique, beneficial appealing to voters and difficult to replace and or replicate? Mulcair must answer how he benefits, how he adds value to the NDP, its brand, philosophy influence and electability? What added value does a Mulcair leadership bring?

Thus far Tom Mulciar has been unable or unwilling to demonstrate his added value on NDP fortunes and that is why Mulcair is on the way out-whether it becomes official in Edmonton or not does not matter.

The Conservative Leadership Race Kicks-Off

April Fifth, 2016 saw the first entrant of the Conservative Party of Canada leadership race. The Hon. K. Kellie Leitch P.C., M.P. (Simcoe-Grey) declared her intention to stand for leader. On Thursday she is to be followed by The Hon. Maxime Bernier P.C., M.P. (Beauce). This is surely a good start for the Tories. Leitch is young, smart and by all accounts very capable. Bernier represents a strong libertarian faction within conservatism and as a bleu with a family pedigree in Quebec he could very easily make a serious challenge for the leadership.  I'll wait until the field has filled before pronouncing my verdict on who to support but, thus far, on day one, the signs are very encouraging for the Conservative Party to rebuild and compete for Government in contrast to the NDP which seems likely to enter a period of internecine warfare after the weekend.

The NDP's Annus Horibilis

On Sunday at the NDP convention in Edmonton New Democrat delegates will give their verdict on Thomas Mulcair. Whatever way they go a split in the Party seems the probable outcome.  By digging in and announcing he expects to campaign against a new Tory leader and Justin Trudeau in 2019 Mulcair has engineered that split-either you stand with the leader or you stand against. A simple mantra and one if Jack Layton was around you or I may defer to. Layton transformed the Party, brought it within a close shave of governing ended up as Official Opposition-their best ever performance! Layton transformed the Party from also-ran to a competitor even main challenger for Government. But Layton built upon the solid foundations of his predecessors in particular, the most overlooked of recent New Democrat leaders, Alexa McDonough.

Alexa McDonough brought the Party from 9 seats and a dismal 7% popular vote to 21 seats and 11% of the vote-she gained roughly 500,000 votes and helped transform the fortunes of the NDP especially in the Maritimes where for the first time the NDP became a political force. The full effect of McDonough's efforts on NDP fortunes manifested in 2009 when Darrell Dexter and the Nova Scotia NDP formed a majority government and continued under Layton when the Atlantic delivered 6 M.P.s toward the federal caucus of 103 in 2011. Today the polls put the NDP in third place in the Atlantic close on the heals of the beleaguered Tories but, far outmatched if not outclassed by the Trudeau Liberals whose support nears super-majority status.

Hence why Mulcair must go. Mulcair didn't just lose on October 19th, he re-set the paradigm he turned back the clock to a time before Alexa McDonough when the NDP was solidly third and politics was a Tory-Grit affair in Atlantic Canada, when socialism even the democratic variety was best left to populists and the lunatic fringe, of great men and characters like Paul MacEwan and the Cape Breton Labour Party.

You don't recover from a loss like the NDP suffered on October 19th, you rebuild, sometimes slowly, one-member-at-a-time. This isn't the prosecutorial politics of which Mulcair is so good but, the glad-handing and baby kissing of which a man with a beard just looks creepy (Hipsters excepted).  The crisis is made worse by the cause of the NDP's defeat and the existential problem the NDP always faces:  to be a party of power foregoing some principled stances or merely being principled and only ever an influence on power and Government-a mere conscience of Parliament.  Mulcair's stance on the Niqab while principled went against 80% of the Quebec electorate and ended any hope the NDP could form a Government.  New Democrats must ask themselves was the trade-off worth it? after 82 years was it right to stand up for minority rights at the cost of governing? Is principle of value even if it is only a diminished influence or does governing hold greater rewards?    

The NDP's Bad Year

With an election today, April 4, 2016 in Saskatchewan in which the NDP is expected to be easily defeated we can all look forward to a tumultuous year ahead for Canada's social democrats. In fact 2016 could well turn into the NDP's annus horribilis. Mulcair faces a leadership review in a week, April 10th; the NDP are expected to lose Government in Manitoba, April 19th and the year will culminate with the BC NDP's fifth consecutive general election loss on May 9th 2017.

Cam Broten and the Saskatchewan NDP will be lucky to hold onto the nine seats they have in the Legislative Assembly we will know more this evening but, I suspect Broten's time at the helm of the NDP to be limited. Should the unlikely occur and he gains seats perhaps a case can be made to keep him around, will Broten want to stay in the face of the re-elected Wall juggernaut?  He may.

As the resource super-cycle grinds to a halt and the effects of low oil prices begin to bite the Saskatchewan NDP may for the first time in over a decade hold a reasonable case to be elected Government in 2020 should a recession persist and the Saskatchewan Party be "made to wear it". Hanging on to a familiar (if not universally loved) leader possesses many benefits; the NDP will not have to re-introduce another leader, the fifth in nine years. This saves money on advertising and trips around the Province. Stability in itself has its own rewards; the Party can present a team-a group of experienced hands to run Saskatchewan. Changing a leader always brings with it a degree of instability keeping a leader may do the opposite.

Greg Sellinger and the Manitoba NDP are in much the same boat. Trailing badly in the polls during the middle of an election campaign and fighting hard to keep Official Opposition away from the newly resurgent Manitoba Liberals. Elections are notoriously close in Manitoba and the polls have marginally improved for the Manitoba NDP since the election was called. After 17 years of NDP Government however, people are hankering for change in that way which is best described as "time for a change". Sellinger will most likely resign as leader on April 19th and I predict an Ashton will be the next leader of the Manitoba NDP.

Between now and then we can all look forward to the NDP's convention in Edmonton from April 8-10, 2016. The highlight of the convention will be the leadership review vote on Sunday April tenth. The question is an indirect vote on Thomas Mulcair's leadership: Are you in favour of holding a leadership convention? Yes, means you want Mulcair to go. No, means you want Mulcair to stay. As a non-New Democrat it is impossible for me to say how the vote will go. What I hear however, leads me to believe that Mulcair will be lucky to get 60%. It is not so much about the poor electoral strategy of the NDP's 2015 campaign or the loss of 59 seats. It is about Mulcair's value added if you will and his performance post-election both of which are dismal.  The latest poll from EKOS has the NDP at 11.7% nationally and only 10.8% in Ontario! Think about that? Worse still the NDP are fourth in Quebec behind the Liberals, BQ and Tories. In B.C. they trail the Greens by nearly five points 14.7%-9.9%!  Never mind Saskatchewan and Alberta where they barely register federally.  The NDP is in an existential crisis. Dippers being who they are will be the last to awake to this fact until sometime after the BC NDP"s fifth consecutive general election loss on May 9, 2017. Once they do they must ask themselves what they are here for if not to win Government?

For Mulcair he must address the issue quickly or surely lose his leadership. What is He there for? What is His plan? How will He keep Trudeau accountable? How will He regain support lost to the Liberals? What is His purpose as national NDP leader? What are His goals as NDP leader? Thus far I have not seen or heard any plan emanating from Mr. Mulcair or his office. No raison d'etre for his continued leadership and that is why I suspect Mulcair's leadership is closer to the end than the beginning and why if Mulcair wishes to avoid embarrassment he should resign today before humiliation becomes his final reward.

Other

–

–