Article content continued

Mulcair certainly seems to be wearing the blame for this. NDP MP Niki Ashton declined to say last week whether she would support him during the review; caucus leader Charlie Angus also decided to stay neutral on the subject — which seems like a fairly defensible position for a caucus leader, but anyway. This all paled in comparison to the smattering of 37 Quebec-based NDPers who signed a passive-aggressive open letter calling for change, of some kind, although they wouldn’t mention Mulcair by name. Soon the Socialist Caucus was chiming in. The NDP’s resident band of malcontents says Mulcair has to go.

Finding 37 whiners to sign an open letter is easy. Now find 370 delegates to fly to Edmonton to cast a ballot

Everyone seems to be getting excited. Far be it from me to dash any hopes, then, but being from Alberta, I maintain an inherent skepticism of internal leadership reviews. Unpopular leaders always seem to land suspiciously close to the 77 per cent mark. A solid B, low enough to credibly register dissatisfaction, but high enough to remain in power.

At the very least these are hardly perfectly fair or objective elections. Even if the ballot box isn’t outright stuffed, organization still plays a huge role. Leaders and their teams work hard to ensure the right delegates are picked to attend the convention. A lot of effort is put into ensuring that the leader’s supporters are in the room and have voting powers. Organizers will then often reach out to whoever is on the delegate list.

If Mulcair’s team is halfway competent, and if he demonstrates an understanding of the party’s grievances at the convention, his survival is more than likely. Absent an obvious, aggressive and well-organized counter-movement, grassroots discontent tends to fizzle out pretty quickly. It’s all very well to be unhappy. It’s another matter to do the work.