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.
No comments:
Post a Comment