NDP #15

1097 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Mulcair's NDP shakes off anti-trade label, adopts trade-friendly stance\

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Mulcairs+shakes+antitrade+label+ado...

 

Stephen Harper's Conservatives may have to change the script for their smear campaign against Tom Mulcair, at least when it comes to the NDP leader's supposed anti-trade "extremism."

Under Mulcair, the New Democrats have adopted a more open approach to trade deals, one that could rob the Conservatives of one of their preferred lines of attack.

The NDP has already backed one free trade agreement, with Jordan, and is pushing for expedited negotiations on a deal with Japan.

And it's arguing that Canada should give priority to negotiating similar pacts with India, Brazil and South Africa.

Moreover, the party has dropped all talk of rescinding or reopening the North American Free Trade Agreement, a deal the NDP has stridently opposed in the past.

And it's urging the World Trade Organization to re-start global trade talks, which the NDP used to protest against.

"The NDP have always been and are very vigorously pro-trade," NDP trade critic Don Davies insisted in an interview.

 

NorthReport

NDP Leader Mulcair slams Tories over economic woes

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/Leader+Mulcair+slams+Tories+ov...

“Jim Flaherty just gave the beginning of the bad news,” Mulcair told reporters at the campaign office of NDP candidate for Calgary Centre Dan Meades. “That was essentially an admission of failure on their part. Instead of taking this balanced approach, a long-term view of the Canadian economy, everything has been put in the resources basket, all our eggs in one basket, and it’s going to play tricks on us.”

Mulcair said the Tory government is reaping what it has sowed from across the board corporate tax reductions and a lack of balance in the economy, noting the government will have added $150 billion in debt since taking office.

NorthReport

Who is we?

Canada is a trading nation - do you know any nation that isn't?

The NDP is no longer just a protest party, but a party actually vying for government, and no party will get elected in Canada on an anti-trade banner. This is a change which some folks find difficult, and that is understandable.

I support the NDP, not because they are perfect, because no party is, but because they come closest to what I believe in, however Canada is a democratic country so vote for whoever you wish.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Stephen Harper's Conservatives may have to change the script for their smear campaign against Tom Mulcair, at least when it comes to the NDP leader's supposed anti-trade "extremism."

Under Mulcair, the New Democrats have adopted a more open approach to trade deals, one that could rob the Conservatives of one of their preferred lines of attack.

The NDP has already backed one free trade agreement, with Jordan, and is pushing for expedited negotiations on a deal with Japan.

And it's arguing that Canada should give priority to negotiating similar pacts with India, Brazil and South Africa.

Moreover, the party has dropped all talk of rescinding or reopening the North American Free Trade Agreement, a deal the NDP has stridently opposed in the past.

And it's urging the World Trade Organization to re-start global trade talks, which the NDP used to protest against.

"The NDP have always been and are very vigorously pro-trade," NDP trade critic Don Davies insisted in an interview.

So can you explain why we should bother voting for them now?

Ippurigakko

I dont know where to post on other thread but ill post here pic about energy of tarsands/mining vs sun

is it what Mulcair called 'dutch disease' on tarsands/mining?

 

Aristotleded24

[url=http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/11/19/NDP-Liberals-Lite/]Why Are New Dems Trying To Be Liberals Lite?[/url]

Quote:

But instead of listening carefully to this embedded message about who Canadians really are, Thomas Mulcair and the NDP decided instead to listen to the polls showing the Liberals (read Justin "He doesn't really want the job" Trudeau) gaining ground at their expense. The result? A complete about-face on so-called "free trade" deals. Instead of highlighting three incredibly destructive investment agreements currently in the news they panicked -- ending their commitment to get out of NAFTA, calling on the WTO to re-launch global trade talks and urging Harper to sign deals with India, Brazil and South Africa.

Here was a chance for the NDP to stake out ground that distinguished them from all other parties. Mulcair (who unfortunately does support "free trade") could have used these deals (FIPA, CETA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership) to lambast their potential destructive impact on the country and argue against more such agreements. None of them have anything to do with trade -- they are all about corporate rights, just like NAFTA and the WTO.

He could have used the fact that progressive public policy in both Quebec and Ontario are currently under attack by countries using investment agreements. The WTO has indicated that it will soon declare that the local content rules in Ontario's Green Energy Act are an illegal barrier to investment -- effectively killing that initiative.

And Quebec's moratorium on fracking is being challenged by energy firm Lone Pine Resources Inc. which is demanding more than $250 million in compensation under NAFTA.

We knew that Mulcair was on the Blairite wing bevore he was elected. Is anybody honestly surprised?

theleftyinvestor

The text of the Tyee article does not seem consistent with Mulcair's own stated positions going back to the leadership campaign. Yes he has taken a pro-trade stance, but every time he talks about trade he also gives examples of how trade deals have failed Canada (especially in respect of loss of self-determination on environmental policy) and states that the deals would have to be negotiated on terms that are fair to Canada, and as part of a transparent process. Even the article linked to by that Tyee page ends with Mulcair saying: "The New Democrats support trade. We just do not support selling out Canada."

Do a search for Mulcair and FIPA, and you will see headlines such as:

Tom Mulcair: China-Canada FIPA Threat To Alberta's Natural Resources Control - "I think one of the things that we have to know is that this can cause huge upheaval in the province's ability to control their natural resources and real problems for Canada's sovereignty long-term," Tom Mulcair said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

NDP government may back out of FIPA after three years: Mulcair - A future NDP government wouldn’t hesitate to pull out of an investment deal with China if it’s not in the best interest of Canada, says NDP Leader Tom Mulcair, noting doing so would be no different from the Conservatives backing out of Kyoto.

Mulcair Speaks Out About the Canada – China Foreign Investment Agreement (FIPA) - As you have noted, this deal changes Canada’s long standing policy of ensuring public disclosure and transparency in arbitrations. This deal could have negative effects on the ability of Canadian governments to set policies in the public interest and exposes Canadian taxpayers to expensive litigation and damages. It also fails to achieve full reciprocity for Canadian investors.

Mulcair vows to reverse the course of history - "And what we're signalling clearly is that we're not going to be bound for the next 30 years by an agreement that hasn't even been studied, that would make our court system take the interests of foreign investors and foreign companies pass above the interests of Canadians, the interests of our environment, the interests of our rights."

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mulcair believes he can renegotiate trade deals to be something different than the corporate rights deals that they are.

That is both naive and defeatist when it comes to the rights of people all over the world including in Canada.  Our corporations are among the worst abusers of these corporate rights deals and are oppressing people in places like Honduras as we discuss this. If he refuses to talk about the true nature of these deals then he is selling snake oil as a compromise to getting real medicine to communities everywhere in the world that are being devastated by this nightmare. 

This view of trade deals is meant to signal to the business elite that he is not going to curb their power but will be happy to talk about distributing the looted bounty from foreign lands in a more "equitable" fashion.

I have no faith in the man because of these kinds of believes. He is not a socialist and he is not even a social democrat he is a imperialist politician trying to sell the working class on the benefits of empire.

 

 

socialdemocrati...

Trying to figure out which part I disagree with more. That social democrats don't trade, or that trying to craft a fairer trade pact is defeatist.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

That's because you believe the lie that these deals are about trade and not about corporate rights. Its all in the framing of the issue.  These deals have not helped any working people anywhere in the world and globalization of corporate rights has harmed the most vulnerable in all countries where they have been enacted. 

I support trade and I support treaties that deal with universal human rights and workers rights.  None of these corporate contract do either so they need to be ripped up not prettied up to make the bitter pill easier to swallow.

socialdemocrati...

You should stick to describing what you believe. When you try to describe what other people believe, you're incredibly off base.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I used to have a girlfriend whose first language was Tagalog - beautiful language to listen to, even though I didn't understand much of it, but I picked up a few words listening to her and when she translated for me.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

soci-middle wrote:

Trying to figure out which part I disagree with more. That social democrats don't trade, or that trying to craft a fairer trade pact is defeatist.

soci-middle wrote:

You should stick to describing what you believe. When you try to describe what other people believe, you're incredibly off base.

Try taking your own advice. I never said social democrats don't trade you spewed that garbage.  But hey you must have the moral high ground because you are the mushy middle.

Aristotleded24

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
You should stick to describing what you believe. When you try to describe what other people believe, you're incredibly off base.

What anybody "believes" about the trade deals is irrelevant. As has been pointed out, "free trade" is a rhetorical device used to sell agreements that restrict the ability of governments to govern in the best interests of their population. I, for one, can accept that we live in a global society, and that we may need forums like the WTO to facilitate trans-national commerce. I question whether it needs to be as over-arching as what these free trade agreements call for. I don't agree with a foreign company, for example, being able to sue for "lost profits," but at the same time a company doing business here in Canada should at least have the right to bring forward issues it feels are worth raising, and then an open discussion can be held and maybe finding a win-win solution.

The other problem with Mulcair is that when it comes to NAFTA, he took arbrogation off the table. Even if you support NAFTA in principle and think it just needs to be tweaked, that removes an incentive that the other NAFTA partners have to negotiate fairly, because they know Canada won't do anything.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Not to mention that Mulcair's response is the same one that Cretien used after he won an election by saying he would renegotiate. I've been around long enough to smell a recycled Liberal red book promise. I guess one could presume that the Mulcair party will run from the middle and govern from the left but in my 40 years of watching politics in this country I have never seen a government of any stripe do that.  They all promise the voter that they are on their side and then when elected they sit down with the business elite to see how best not to disturb their power and influence.

 

socialdemocrati...

My point is that most of us agree that these trade deals are anything but fair (or free, for that matter), and that they're designed to entrench corporate privileges more than basic environmental and labor rights. So trying to accuse some of us of buying the bullshit is pretty silly.

Where we disagree is on strategy and tactics. kropotkin thinks it's defeatist to even try to renegotiate these deals (he should look up the meaning of "defeatist"). I think that even incremental gains would be better than nothing.

But it's a recurring theme in our political context. Does getting half a loaf now preclude getting the other half later? If you look at our history, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

There you go again telling me what I think.  Try taking your own fucking advice from up thread and tell us what you think instead of telling the world what you think that I think.

I think that politicians should provide voters with truth not just allow themselves to be pushed into the MSM framing box on issues.

Hell if Mulcair would come out and say what you claim most of us agree on I would not be objecting. He is not saying that he is saying that these are about trade and that workers can benefit from this type of system.  The current "trade" systems are rotten to the core and we all know it. Pretending it is otherwise is defeatist because it means he will never speak to the real problems and thus never bring about change.

socialdemocrati...

Okay, so you don't think that renegotiating trade deals would be defeatist?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think that these are not trade deals and will never be renegotiated that is why my first point was naive.  Depending on the object of the exercise then strategies that are guaranteed not to yield the bare minimum requirements are defeatist strategies.  If you say the object is too have labour rights included and the repeal of the corporate rights in the current agreement then I say it is naive to believe that the legal framework that has been designed and tweaked by corporate lawyers for 25 years  can be renegotiated.  The framework of trade deals needs to be shredded and we need to start from primary objectives and stop allowing corporate lawyers from the various countries to do the negotiating.

I actually think that the regular person on the street would understand that approach but of course the MSM would feel honour bound to defend the corporate interest. Everyone knows that no matter what the NDP does the MSM will never be its ally so I say talk to the people in real language telling it like it really is just like the early CCF did. 

Stockholm

I think that there is a bit of a fantasy that the NDP was ever against all trade deals in the first place. That was never the case and on top of that in the election campaigns where Jack layton was the leader I honestly don't remember him ever uttering a word about want to tear up NAFTA etc...so I think that Mulcair is really just explicitly saying what has been the de facto party policy for about the last 20 years.

NorthReport

As long as it is about creating good jobs, with good benefits, that can lead to Canadian workers moving into the middle class it sounds good to me.

Bruce Anderson: NDP’s new ‘pro-trade’ stance is a major step towards the centre

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/ndps-new-pro...

socialdemocrati...

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I think that these are not trade deals and will never be renegotiated that is why my first point was naive.  Depending on the object of the exercise then strategies that are guaranteed not to yield the bare minimum requirements are defeatist strategies.  If you say the object is too have labour rights included and the repeal of the corporate rights in the current agreement then I say it is naive to believe that the legal framework that has been designed and tweaked by corporate lawyers for 25 years  can be renegotiated.  The framework of trade deals needs to be shredded and we need to start from primary objectives and stop allowing corporate lawyers from the various countries to do the negotiating.

Now we're no longer talking about what's a good strategy for accomplishing anything. We're talking about what will or won't ever happen.

You're saying that the trade deals will never be renegotiated, and to believe so would be naive. If that's the case, what does that mean about someone who believes the trade deals will be abrogated completely?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I tend to fight for what I want to see happen in the world but you can advocate for whatever you want.  Tinkering with this global fascist system that includes Canada's role as head waiter to the WTO and NATO is not something I have any time for. If none of our political parties are talking about the fundamental rot at the base of our society and system then to me there is no point in the exercise.  To me it like going into negotiations and opening not with what you want but with what you think you can achieve at the end of the day.  A very poor strategy for getting anything that one really wants and one that usually leads to taking less than one would have got at the table if the real demands were tabled.  The NDP is merely saying before an election that they will not press for any substantive change. In labour terms it is like asking for a boot allowance when the company is coming to the table to destroy your defined benefit pension plan.

 

 

socialdemocrati...

Back to strategy, I agree with you. I think abrogation should be on the table, if only to put more teeth behind renegotiation. But I wouldn't shit on someone for starting with renegotiation. It's different from your typical labor negotiation, which usually starts with management trying to make cuts, or exclude workers from the benefits of company growth. Instead, it's workers demanding a new deal, and so almost anything would be an improvement.

I'd disagree with the NDP leadership about what might make the most improvement, but I'd hardly call them traitors to the cause. The party keeps signalling that they will (a) back ouf of FIPA (or at least threaten to do so), (b) reject deals with developing countries that are really just meant to undercut wages, labor standards, and environmental regulations, and (c) tinker with NAFTA to improve environmental protections. It might not be the highest of moral high ground, but I'll take that over what we have now, and what we will have if the right wing parties keep getting elected.

mark_alfred

Along with Dobbin's piece on the NDP's recent stance on trade, there's an interesting article by Cameron on trade in Rabble as well.

NorthReport

Trudeau attempting to shore up his disasterous campaign in Calgary Centre.

Trudeau apologizes for anti-Alberta remarks

 

The Cons, and the latest annointed LPC leader, Trudeau himself, will eventually bury the Liberals.

The NDP needs to keep its nose clean and focus on winning elections, and by-elections.

theleftyinvestor

Garneau is expected to announce his leadership aspirations shortly. If Trudeau fumbles the contest badly, Garneau could be the not-Trudeau candidate of choice.

I think a Garneau LPC would probably be better news for the NDP than Trudeau... thoughts?

David Young

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Garneau is expected to announce his leadership aspirations shortly. If Trudeau fumbles the contest badly, Garneau could be the not-Trudeau candidate of choice.

I think a Garneau LPC would probably be better news for the NDP than Trudeau... thoughts?

At this rate, given the constant stream of gaffes coming from the Liberals, I don't think there will be any new leader that would be a greater threat to the NDP.  For the Liberals to become a threat to the Conservatives, they will have to win back voters who went to the Conservatives.

And given the fact that the leadership race takes place in 308 ridings with each of equal status, who's to say that Martha Hall-Findlay won't appeal to Liberals who want to start with a fresh(er) face, and a female one at that?  They're still the only federal party in Canada that has yet to have a female become leader, right?

 

Howard

All of the Liberal contenders are looking particularly pathetic at this point. Each leadership race leads to a poorer field. If Trudeau bombs as badly as I think he will, the Liberals are either a) finished and will sue for a merger with the NDP [probably after the next election] or b) set for a long, long trip in the wilderness.

The Liberals are about power, power, and more power. Deprive them of that and they are like a plant without sunlight.

David Young

Howard wrote:

All of the Liberal contenders are looking particularly pathetic at this point. Each leadership race leads to a poorer field. If Trudeau bombs as badly as I think he will, the Liberals are either a) finished and will sue for a merger with the NDP [probably after the next election] or b) set for a long, long trip in the wilderness.

The Liberals are about power, power, and more power. Deprive them of that and they are like a plant without sunlight.

Yet again, someone automatically thinks that the Liberals would move to merge with the NDP in the face of another electoral disaster.

But if you look at the Liberal caucus, there is absolutely no way that people like Goodale, MacCauley, Karygiannis, McKay, and many others on the right wing of the Liberal party would ever support a merger with the NDP.

The Liberals will split into two factions; one supporting progressive causes tilting towards the NDP, and the other supporting socially conservative causes, which would align with the Consevative Party.

People, please give up the useless mentality that diludes some into thinking that there will one day be a 'merger' between the Liberals and the NDP....

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

 

janfromthebruce

I agree. It's buying into the meme that Liberals are progressive. It's a part of conservative spin and Libs stay silent on it to suck in the progressive vote.

Unionist

David Young wrote:
They're still the only federal party in Canada that has yet to have a female become leader, right?

 

Close but no cigar.

The BQ.

ETA: And don't edit your post by inserting "ist"!! Laughing

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

It's buying into the meme that Liberals are progressive.

What's a "meme"? Just curious.

 

David Young

Unionist wrote:

David Young wrote:
They're still the only federal party in Canada that has yet to have a female become leader, right?

 

Close but no cigar.

The BQ.

You may consider the B.Q. a federal(ist) party, my friend, but I do not.

They may be represented in Parliament, but to me, they are a regional party, since they only run candidates in Quebec.

I never considered the Reform Party a federal party in 1989 when Deborah Grey won the by-election that gave them their first seat in the H.o.C.  Only when they won seats in more than one province did they become a 'federal' party to me.

I still stand by my contention that the Liberals are the only federal(ist?) party that has yet to elect a female leader.

 

ETA: And don't edit your post by inserting "ist"!! Laughing

But you didn't say I couldn't include it in another post...did you?Laughing

 

Unionist

Laughing

So, tell me, David, do you consider Harper's Conservatives to be either a federal party or a federalist party? Does your definition hinge on electing some random character in more than one province? Or is there more to it than that? The BQ made official opposition before the NDP ever did. And the NDP has become very regional indeed.

 

David Young

I consider the Harper Conservatives a threat to Canadian democracy, that's what I consider them!

I equate 'federal' with 'National', which implies that they are in politics to become the government of Canada.

The Green Party is not a 'National' party to me, as they've only elected one member from one province.  If they only elect members from one province (in this case, B.C.), that to me is still a regional Party.  If they elect a member in Calgary Centre in Monday's by-election, then I would consider them a 'National' Party.

And I would hardly classify the NDP as 'regional' either.

With elected members from 8 provinces and 1 Territory, the NDP is infinitely more qualified as the official opposition than the B.Q. was after the fluke electoral results of the 1993 election, even if the largest number of M.P.s are located in one province.

I put it to you that my assessment still stands:

The Liberal Party is the only federal/National Party which has not yet elected a woman to be Leader, and perhaps it's time they did!!!

 

jjuares

David Young wrote:

I consider the Harper Conservatives a threat to Canadian democracy, that's what I consider them!

I equate 'federal' with 'National', which implies that they are in politics to become the government of Canada.

The Green Party is not a 'National' party to me, as they've only elected one member from one province.  If they only elect members from one province (in this case, B.C.), that to me is still a regional Party.  If they elect a member in Calgary Centre in Monday's by-election, then I would consider them a 'National' Party.

And I would hardly classify the NDP as 'regional' either.

With elected members from 8 provinces and 1 Territory, the NDP is infinitely more qualified as the official opposition than the B.Q. was after the fluke electoral results of the 1993 election, even if the largest number of M.P.s are located in one province.

I put it to you that my assessment still stands:

The Liberal Party is the only federal/National Party which has not yet elected a woman to be Leader, and perhaps it's time they did!!!

 

I agree. The BQ ia not a national party but a regional one. They only run candidates in one region. The Greens however are a national party. They have candidates and support across the country. Under May they have become quite a strange party, strange but national none the less.

Unionist

The discussion wan't about "national". It was about "federal". Words have meanings.

If you want to talk about "national", it would be important to specify which nation you're talking about. No?

janfromthebruce

can't be bothered Unionist -

Unionist

[um]

JKR

All the parties recognized by Elections Canada are by definition federal parties. So the BQ is a federal party.

List of political parties - Elections Canada

 

Unionist

JKR wrote:

All the parties recognized by Elections Canada are by definition federal parties. So the BQ is a federal party.

List of political parties - Elections Canada

 

Oh you and your technicalities. We know they're separatists, and they don't run candidates outside Québec, so let's just dismiss them. Read my lips. It's the NDP, stupid.

 

mark_alfred

Good shots by Tom Mulcair and Peggy Nash on Flaherty.

clambake

From that article:

Quote:

Peggy Nash ventured after Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Kenney had finished their three rounds. “Yesterday, he was mistaken when he said that the Conservatives would keep their promises about balancing the budget. Their election platform included a surplus of $2.8 billion in 2014, but during his economic update, the Finance Minister said there would be a deficit of $8.6 billion, a difference of more $11 billion.

What services, Ms. Nash wondered, would the Conservatives be cutting to meet their 2011 promise.

Ted Menzies, as is his habit, attempted a segue. “Mr. Speaker,” he declared, “the first thing we would cut would be a $21-billion tax that is purported to be the only NDP solution it has to getting back to balance.”

It is a general rule of proper accounting, that misnamed future hypotheticals are the easiest things to cut

....wow. Question Period could really use a debate style moderator to stop this type of nonsense.

NorthReport

Mulcair presently addressing
Bc fed
Energy in room is charged
You know a winner is here

Brachina

BC fed? Do you mean the BC wing of the federal NDP.

NorthReport

Mulcair's entrance into the big hall, at the Vancouver Convention Centre, next to Canada Place, the cruise ship terminal capital of Canada, at the largest BC Federation of Labour Convention ever, electrified the crowd.

Foloowing Ken Georgetti, who was somewhat subdued - what does he want - a senatorship, ha, ha, he's no Buzz hargrove, but standing ovation after standing ovation for Tom. 

Mulcair knows his files, and there is no question he is a match for Harper.

You heard it here first, the NDP will form the next federal government.

 

NorthReport

Pay attention folks.

This right-wing racism in Canada being exhibited by Harper and BC Premier Clark, in the way we are dealing with foreign workers, may well be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and be the issue that brings Harper down.

Thomas Mulcair compares HD Mining case to legacy of Chinese railway


http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/459767/thomas-mulcair-compares-hd-min...

 

NorthReport

 

http://www.cknw.com/news/vancouver/story.aspx/story.aspx?ID=1830210

The leader of the federal ndp took the federal Conservative government to task as he addressed delegates at the BC Federation of Labour convention.

Thomas Mulcair critcised the Harper governement for driving down wages in this country and viewing labour as a road block to corporate profit.

Mulcair also said Conservative MPs just echo words issued to them by the Prime Minister's office referencing a Will Farrell movie to make his point.

"Fans of the movies have all seen Ron Burgundy - you know the news reader who reads whatever's on the peice of paper without even knowing what's written on it - Will Farrell's character? That's our Environment Minister Peter Kent - he reads whatever's on his paper.  He doesn't even know what it means."

He also accused the Tories of manufacturing a crisis over Employment Insurance and Old Age Security.

 

 

NorthReport

Crown Counsel needs to do the right thing here and lay charges, otherwise serious changes will need to be made with Crown Counsel after the next election.

Worksafe BC forwards sawmill report to Crown Counsel 

http://www.cknw.com/news/vancouver/story.aspx/story.aspx?ID=1829911

NorthReport

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Craig+McInnes+Conservative+attac...

But lie and lie again is exactly what the Conservatives in Ottawa are doing in the radio attack ads now running across the country denouncing NDP leader Thomas Mulcair’s “carbon tax” plan.

According to the ads, Mulcair wants to bring in a carbon tax that will take $20 billion out of the pockets of Canadians, add 10 cents to the cost of a litre of gas and “make everything you need cost more.”

“We can’t afford Mulcair’s NDP, we just can’t,” the ads conclude.

If the ad sounds familiar, it’s because it’s similar to the assault that was launched on then Liberal leader Stephane Dion for what the Conservatives called his “tax on everything.”

While both campaigns are aimed at defining a political opponent in negative terms, the difference is that Dion had proposed a carbon tax, while Mulcair has not.

10759

Pages

Topic locked