What we should do post April 28th, 2025, matters a lot now, and what many are witnessing – to their dismay – is a small cabal of party operatives trying to manipulate every facet of the party at a time when EVERYONE involved in the disastrous decisions the party made up to April 28th, should be resigning.
Sadly, that is not the case.
Principal among those who should have resigned on the morning after, is National Director Lucy Watson. A failure at the Ontario NDP level, she was brought to the federal caucus as Deputy Chief of Staff. I’m reminded of an expression by Matthew Green, our former MP from Hamilton Centre: “we always fail upwards in the NDP.”
She was ultimately made National Director in January, 2024, in a switch that saw Anne McGrath leave that post to become Jagmeet’s Principal Secretary, so that she can play “a larger role in overseeing” progress on the NDP’s confidence-and-supply agreement (CASA) with the Trudeau government. Ms. Watson’s move to the party side was for many of the same reasons she was relieved of her duties at the Ontario NDP. It was designed to put distance between her and caucus members.
Ms. Watson is at once liked and despised by many in the party. Like many poor managers, she’s great to those she favours and poisonous to those she doesn’t. In a political movement, where it’s impossible to like everyone you work with directly or indirectly, that kind of divisive management doesn’t impart a positive legacy.
I had my run-in with her after the 2015 Federal Election when our union and management negotiated a new collective agreement that set out a schedule of raises for members of the bargaining unit, of which the staff in the Whip and House Leader offices were a part. I was a staff member in the Whip’s Office. Many details of what Ms. Watson and then-Chief of Staff Ray Guardia did will be shared later, but suffice it to say, Ms. Watson informed my boss, the Whip, that in her opinion, the collective agreement didn’t apply to us.
We were members of the bargaining unit, paying union dues, and our positions were classified in the collective agreement. The Whip eventually ordered our raises to be put through, and still Ms. Watson pushed the Whip to reverse her decision and deny our rights under the collective agreement. I’m sharing this for two reasons:
- Full transparency that I have a not-so-positive relationship with her; and
- To highlight that the party, as Interim Leader Don Davies notes in his May 7th release “built by and for working people to fight for fairness, dignity, and opportunity,” hasn’t fully operated that way for some time.
In September of 2024, nine months into Ms. McGrath’s tenure as Principal Secretary, Jagmeet Singh “tore up” the CASA agreement. I asked many MPs what they thought Anne’s continued role as Principal Secretary was. Not one had a clear answer.
Interestingly, the first Principal Secretary during my 28 years in the party was appointed after Jack Layton won 103 seats! Jagmeet Singh, with a caucus of 24 MPs had:
- Chief of Staff
- Deputy Chief of Staff
- Principal Secretary
- Deputy Director of Operations
- Director of Communications
- Deputy Director of Communications
- Deputy Director of Policy
- Director of Parliamentary Affairs
- Deputy Director of Outreach
- Tour Director
- Digital Director
- Some “Coordinators” and possibly more managers!
Some will dispute the titles listed above, but I can be forgiven for not being 100% accurate because the Leadership Team steadfastly refused to issue an Organizational Chart in keeping with a long tradition of resisting internal accountability.
Back to Ms. Watson.
We’ve all learnt by now how the system should work in the NDP for selection of an Interim Leader: the NDP Federal Council, in consultation with the NDP Caucus, has the final say over selection of that leader.
The problem is that the three members of the seven-member NDP Caucus claim that they were consulted on the selection process but not the choice. These are highly intelligent women MPs with an enviable record of success. When all three of them say the same thing, you have to believe that it was not a misunderstanding. They were not consulted on who should be their Interim Leader.
A former MP also noted that they were consulted over the process but not the choice. Immediately after these three MPs’ letter to Federal Caucus was sent, complaining that, “the same decision-making processes that resulted in the loss of so many excellent NDP MPs was used to select the interim leader,” I received a call from a member of the Federal Council, in tears, because that council member took the party at their word that all Caucus Members were consulted over the nomination of Don Davies. All fingers point to Lucy Watson here.
To make matters worse, uber party partisans were sent out on social platforms and television and print media to discredit or insult the three racialized MPs who felt excluded from the decision-making process.
On May 16th, a failed former Director of Communications for Jagmeet Singh, Melanie Richer was quoted in a CBC article as having said, “I think it’s very silly. I think it’s a massive waste of time.” Can you imagine a privileged white woman referring to three racialized women MPs she served in her former job and who held their seats against the worst odds in our party’s history, as silly?
There is a reason she was no longer Director of Communications, and that comment says volumes about her skill as a communicator!
On May 17th, Alice Funke another party “insider” wrote on her Facebook page, “To the Federal NDP Caucus: get your shit together, and keep your eye on the prize. If you don’t hang together, you will hang separately. This is not the time for public self-indulgence. Thank you.”
Again, a white woman referring to the legitimate complaints of these racialized women MPs as a “public self-indulgence” is intended to insult and diminish their credibility. Two of these racialized women are Indigenous. So much for Jagmeet’s promise to the AFN he made on April 23rd, 2025: “The human dignity of all people should be a priority, and the first people of this land have to have access to dignity, human rights and respect.”
I don’t think Ms. Richer and Ms. Funke’s comments constitute respect in any way.
But these developments may not have happened, these comments may not have been made, and these racialized MPs may not have been hurt, if Ms. Watson had done the right thing and resigned. Maybe, just maybe her replacement would have been more tepid and careful to actually consult before selecting the Interim Leader.
More worrying, is the talk across the country among party members that the cabal is trying to orchestrate the coronation of the permanent Leader. That is the last thing the party needs.
And again, this could be prevented if the party President Mary Shortall removed Ms. Watson from her position and gave the party a fighting chance at a real future. Many are watching closely and eagerly waiting for meaningful change at every level.
Still no organization chart? After all these years.
Right?
Best to not maie the problems worse…do no harm has merit
Do no harm is a good. mantra
During the first of my two terms of Party governance, where I was the ONLY ACTIVE member from an entire province, I was shocked that I couldn’t even get the Federal Secretary on the phone to discuss pressing issues. So this staff arrogance and disrespect to volunteer councillors is far from a new development🥲
If you regard the history of social democracy as being written in chapters, the CCF could be seen as chapter 1. After 28 years that chapter ended, and we started writing chapter 2, which was the NDP.
Given the current state of the party, it may be time to start writing chapter 3, complete with a new name to reflect the dawn of a new social democratic era. The discussion will be animated and tense, of course, but it needn’t be a civil war. Other parties have done it. So can we. The question is, do we have the courage?
I feel the same way. After 64 years and with just 7 seats in a Parliament of 343 seats, we are in need of a new chapter indeed.
Thank you for the transparency, Anthony. Having served the party in the house, I felt shut out after my loss. As someone who is somewhere in the middle in terms of discipline (I always voted with party but reserved right to hold my own perspective on certain issues and vocal in caucus) I was disappointed that the party is quick to shame and shun anyone that speaks out contrary to unelected party officials. They who believe that a cautionary approach will one day empower us all. the endgame is this: 7 seats, no party status-Corporate liberalism left unchecked.
I really hope the riding associations and members get to make the final decision on a new leader. Thanks for sharing Anthony!!!
Your analysis about white exec members’ response to the women of colour MPs is on point. You hit exactly the issue that I saw in HQ as a staffer: cis/het white folks in leadership positions thinking they know better than anyone else.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
I have volunteered for my local candidates for 50 years. I have never served in an executive or staff position. I am ashamed at how the leadership of my party behaves toward each other. Have you lost your way, your mission? Shame on you.
“ a white woman referring to the legitimate complaints of these racialized women MPs as a ‘public self-indulgence’ is intended to insult and diminish their credibility”
“ Can you imagine a privileged white woman referring to three racialized women MPs she served in her former job and who held their seats against the worst odds in our party’s history, as silly?”
bingo
In a move that is so tone deaf, the party sent out a fundraising letter earlier today in Lucy Watson’s name.