--NDP leader Tom Mulcair (left) with Canadian Labour Congress President Hassan Yussuff (right)
As I have noted on this blog and in the media, including Calgary News Talk 770, the question of if Tom Mulcair should stay or go is proving to be the primary one going into the NDP convention taking place this weekend in Edmonton.
Up until last week, it appeared that while Mulcair was facing criticisms from members, the media, the NDP Socialist Caucus, and isolated MPPs like Cheri DiNovo, it was unlikely that he would face any substantive institutional challenge to his leadership.
In a format where every single NDP member could cast a vote, the role of institutions would be less imperative, because a member could have a say even if they couldn't afford a trip to the convention.
But at this convention decisions will be determined by the people in the room, and only the people in the room. Beyond a discussion of if this model is democratic and accessible (it isn't), the reality is that those institutions with logistical and financial resources are vital in the course of convention debate.
With all this in mind, the voice of organized labour is the biggest variable in Mulcair's hope of keeping his job. And as of a few days ago, the narrative was that major unions were backing Mulcair to lead the party, if not into the next election, than for at least the next two years. These unions include the United Steel Workers, Canadian Union of Public Employees, United Food and Commercial Workers, and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
But a crack in this wall of labour support came in a recent Globe and Mail piece, where Canadian Labour Congress President Hassan Yussuff declared that a new NDP leader is needed, and that Mulcair has no valid claim to a continued leadership tenure.
The importance of Yussuff's claims, especially given their timing and unambiguousness, cannot be overstated. The CLC is the single largest federation of unionized workers in Canada and Yussuff's claims put him at odds with the above-mentioned pro-Mulcair unions, most of whom are chief affiliates to the CLC. It also matters that he is a planned speaker at the convention, which brings these tensions right to the mainstage in Edmonton
The main question here, however, is just how this might serve to affect the convention:
1. The vote on Mulcair's leadership: If the vote on keeping Mulcair turns out to be a close one, then Yussuff's claims might well make all the difference.
But we should keep in mind that the effect might not be as strong as expected. First, pro-Mulcair unions have been proactive, and have organized their delegations better; Yussuff's claims come rather late, and the CLC lacks the same structures to send delegates that major pro- Mulcair unions have.
But perhaps more important than how it affects the vote itself is how it changes the general 'feel' of the convention:
2. The tone of the convention: Beyond the simple yes or no question about Tom, the convention is about policy and intra-party politics. There has been a vocal and passionate anti-Mulcair contingent in the party that has only grown since the October defeat, but it remains fractured without institutional linchpins. Yussuff's claims will serve to embolden these delegates, who now know that Canada's number one labour leader supports a change agenda in the party.
My view is that these claims, which underline existing divisions between Canadian labour's upper echelons, will increase the convention's intensity, leading to more tensions between delegates, more pointed debates, and a greater sense of opposition between the pro- and anti-Mulcair camps. Not even the convention's various social events will escape unscathed from these 11th hour remarks
Again: if Mulcair turns out to have a healthy delegate lead right now, Yussuff's comments won't likely change the game. But in a close race, they will. One caveat here, however, is that a super-charged convention floor might well add volatility to all aspects of the debate, including on Mulcair's job. For Mulcair, a peaceful and routine convention is the ideal environment for preserving his job. Any sort of tumult only increases his risk.
And beyond this--whether Mulcair survives or not--the way this plays out as labour and the NDP work towards the next election, is bound to be affected, as is next year's CLC convention, where Yussuff himself faces a re-election test.
Only one thing is certain, however: this convention just got a lot more interesting
As I have noted on this blog and in the media, including Calgary News Talk 770, the question of if Tom Mulcair should stay or go is proving to be the primary one going into the NDP convention taking place this weekend in Edmonton.
Up until last week, it appeared that while Mulcair was facing criticisms from members, the media, the NDP Socialist Caucus, and isolated MPPs like Cheri DiNovo, it was unlikely that he would face any substantive institutional challenge to his leadership.
In a format where every single NDP member could cast a vote, the role of institutions would be less imperative, because a member could have a say even if they couldn't afford a trip to the convention.
But at this convention decisions will be determined by the people in the room, and only the people in the room. Beyond a discussion of if this model is democratic and accessible (it isn't), the reality is that those institutions with logistical and financial resources are vital in the course of convention debate.
With all this in mind, the voice of organized labour is the biggest variable in Mulcair's hope of keeping his job. And as of a few days ago, the narrative was that major unions were backing Mulcair to lead the party, if not into the next election, than for at least the next two years. These unions include the United Steel Workers, Canadian Union of Public Employees, United Food and Commercial Workers, and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
But a crack in this wall of labour support came in a recent Globe and Mail piece, where Canadian Labour Congress President Hassan Yussuff declared that a new NDP leader is needed, and that Mulcair has no valid claim to a continued leadership tenure.
The importance of Yussuff's claims, especially given their timing and unambiguousness, cannot be overstated. The CLC is the single largest federation of unionized workers in Canada and Yussuff's claims put him at odds with the above-mentioned pro-Mulcair unions, most of whom are chief affiliates to the CLC. It also matters that he is a planned speaker at the convention, which brings these tensions right to the mainstage in Edmonton
The main question here, however, is just how this might serve to affect the convention:
1. The vote on Mulcair's leadership: If the vote on keeping Mulcair turns out to be a close one, then Yussuff's claims might well make all the difference.
But we should keep in mind that the effect might not be as strong as expected. First, pro-Mulcair unions have been proactive, and have organized their delegations better; Yussuff's claims come rather late, and the CLC lacks the same structures to send delegates that major pro- Mulcair unions have.
But perhaps more important than how it affects the vote itself is how it changes the general 'feel' of the convention:
2. The tone of the convention: Beyond the simple yes or no question about Tom, the convention is about policy and intra-party politics. There has been a vocal and passionate anti-Mulcair contingent in the party that has only grown since the October defeat, but it remains fractured without institutional linchpins. Yussuff's claims will serve to embolden these delegates, who now know that Canada's number one labour leader supports a change agenda in the party.
My view is that these claims, which underline existing divisions between Canadian labour's upper echelons, will increase the convention's intensity, leading to more tensions between delegates, more pointed debates, and a greater sense of opposition between the pro- and anti-Mulcair camps. Not even the convention's various social events will escape unscathed from these 11th hour remarks
Again: if Mulcair turns out to have a healthy delegate lead right now, Yussuff's comments won't likely change the game. But in a close race, they will. One caveat here, however, is that a super-charged convention floor might well add volatility to all aspects of the debate, including on Mulcair's job. For Mulcair, a peaceful and routine convention is the ideal environment for preserving his job. Any sort of tumult only increases his risk.
And beyond this--whether Mulcair survives or not--the way this plays out as labour and the NDP work towards the next election, is bound to be affected, as is next year's CLC convention, where Yussuff himself faces a re-election test.
Only one thing is certain, however: this convention just got a lot more interesting
I sure hope Tom remains the head of the NDP! We need someone with strong character to lead this party - to get back to the basics. I think we all know the party has gone too far to the centre; they drifted off the road and into a ditch. Time to get back on the straight and narrow vision - socialism - which is what the party was built on and where it's roots are!
ReplyDeleteThe only other comment I have is regarding a Leadership change - 'who' do you see as being as strong as Tom, personally I can't think of anyone. If you can please let me know!
Tom has weak character. He is a political animal who will trade his principles for a vote. He is feisty and argumentative but that should not be confused with having strength of character.
ReplyDeleteTom's position on Israel is against party policy and he argued vehemently with Libby Davies and others over it. He kicked out candidates who were pro-Palestinian in his estimation during the last election, violating principles that the ridings choose candidates, not the leader.
Tom is not a socialist. He never was a socialist. He never will be a socialist. He cannot lead a social democratic party to success because he does not believe in the cause. He has a credibility gap with Canadians in the last election on a moderate milk-toast platform. How much worse would he be trying to sell a socialist vision?
Tom is full of contradictions. He says that he is a free trader, but opposes TPP. He says that he supports unions but loves Margaret Thatcher who busted unions (and had the audacity to defend it).
Tom wants balanced budgets, free trade and lauds union busting tactics. He is a neo-liberal and unfit to lead a social democratic party, if the NDP even qualifies as one.
As for successors, you do not find one until the old one is gone. Tom was handpicked and he was a poor fit. There are many people that may step forward once he is out of the way. And some you might not have considered might step forward, like Avi Lewis or Naomi Klein.
I enjoyed reading your remarks - obvious you've studied T Mulcair far longer and more closely than I. Most of my opinion comes from watching how he conducts himself in House - IMO, a formidable adversary.
DeleteI do have one question, you stated Tom was handpicked - can you clarify that for me?
Love your writing and analysis, Comrade! Keep up the great work!
ReplyDelete