NDP #15

1097 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist wrote:

clambake wrote:

Pat Martin is going crazy on Twitter right now :/

Tweeting while impaired. I'm betting Mulcair disciplines (or turfs) him this time.

A little wishful thinking this morning Unionist?

Unionist

Heh, yeah I guess.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I have no idea how twitter works. Is he sending messages out to everyone in twitter land or just his twitter friends?

addictedtomyipod

Boom Boom wrote:

I have no idea how twitter works. Is he sending messages out to everyone in twitter land or just his twitter friends?

 

His tweets go out to his followers.  Hashtags '#' put them into the twitterverse.

It really is just instant messaging.

Unionist

Here you go:

http://goo.gl/XI2DE

You think Pat Martin will escape this unscathed?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Just saw the story in the TO Star online. I don't want to link to it because of some of the language.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Unionist wrote:
Here you go: http://goo.gl/XI2DE You think Pat Martin will escape this unscathed?

From the Star article: "The MP for Winnipeg Centre seemed particularly incensed over the role of Vic Toew’s involvement in a project in his riding."

I'd be pretty upset at that kind of thing too, if I were Pat Martin. I'd probably use different words, though, to express my outrage.

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

From the Star article: "The MP for Winnipeg Centre seemed particularly incensed over the role of Vic Toew’s involvement in a project in his riding."

I'd be pretty upset at that kind of thing too, if I were Pat Martin. I'd probably use different words, though, to express my outrage.

Pat Martin originally opposed the federal funding of a "Youth For Christ" centre in his riding, promoted by Toews, in 2010. But his opposition was short-lived, and he ended up pledging to make it a big success. Here was my comment about his conversion on the road to Damascus:

Unionist, in February 2010 wrote:
I think the government spending millions of dollars to subsidize the conversion of Indigenous kids to Christianity sounds like a very original idea. I'm thrilled that Pat Martin has overcome his momentary episode of shame and returned to the Fold.

Here is a sample of what Aboriginal organizations were saying at the same time:

Quote:
At city council, opponents such as Nahanni Fontaine from the Southern Chiefs' Organization likened the group's youth centre to Canada's residential schools. But the primary complaint raised by inner-city groups was that they had no access to comparable public funding.

If it were only Pat Martin's mouth which was foul, there are ways to treat that. His heart, however, appears to be in the wrong place. Do you have any idea how difficult a condition like that is to correct?

 

janfromthebruce

I think Pat is pretty upset and by some posts I've read on FB - progressives are supporting him in his in your face pushback!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

The Star article didn't give the specifics of the project that Vic Toews was involved in, in Martin's riding - so thanks for giving more info, Unionist.

ETA: I think it's customary to invite the local MP - whether that person is in government or not - anytime the government does an announcement in a riding.

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

I think Pat is pretty upset and by some posts I've read on FB - progressives are supporting him in his in your face pushback!

Pat Martin is a fanatical supporter of Israel.

He backed the "mission" in Afghanistan in open defiance of Jack Layton and the caucus.

For years he has unsuccessfully promoted a private member's bill to institute a "loyalty oath to Canada" for MPs, hoping it would trap Bloc members.

He momentarily opposed the "Youth For Christ" obscenity in his riding, then changed his mind and decided to back it fully, while local Aboriginal organizations continue to starve for lack of funding.

He falsely accused Racknine of electoral fraud, thus attracting a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the party (that's our contributions, folks).

And in his latest twitter rants, he exposed his profound respect for women and sex trade workers - all because his pathetic little ego was hurt because he wasn't invited to an event in his own riding.

And you say "progressives" are supporting this creep? Must be a new dictionary entry I haven't seen yet.

 

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

I think Pat is pretty upset and by some posts I've read on FB - progressives are supporting him in his in your face pushback!

Please be advised that Pat has been ordered to stop pushing back, or in internet-speak, to STFU. I've started this separate thread:

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/pat-martin-quits-twitter-perma... Martin quits Twitter permanently[/url]

Now please God don't tell me he has a Facebook page, or we'll have to go after that one too.

 

 

 

Ippurigakko

lots of cbc comment who aboriginal-bashing is really disgust me because they said first nations "system has to go" or equality or be assimilation. they disrespect to aboriginal ppl.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Ippurigakko wrote:

lots of cbc comment who aboriginal-bashing is really disgust me because they said first nations "system has to go" or equality or be assimilation. they disrespect to aboriginal ppl.

Yeah, there's an enormous amount of racist hatred out there now taking expression in grabbing aboriginal land for energy projects and diamond and other extraction projects. This is fueled by the Conservative omnibus bills which have enormous impact and implication for First Nations sovereignty - I suspect the next series of omnibus budget bills will amount to outright theft of First Nation land - Harper has a majority, and tremendous ego - maybe Harper sees himself as a "benevolent emperor" and expects the population to fall in line behind him.  I think Harper is testing the waters now - that is why the "Idle No More" movement is so incredibly important at this time in history - it has to push back the Harper agenda, because the settler population won't, or can't. Expect to see  "divide and conquer" strategies from Harper, but also from the likes of Tom Flanagan and Patrick Brazeau.

Harper is determined - on China's behalf -  to get Alberta tar sands product through to the BC coast, and this has the potential to blow up into very serious conflict, as it involves pipeline transit through First Nation land. It could be blunted, however, if the NDP win the next BC election - is it next year? I doubt Harper will want to engage in a fight against the BC NDP, who, presumably, are 100% opposed to Northern Gateway, as are, presumably, the vast majority of First Nation people and chiefs.

Normally you'd expect the Governor General to have a voice in all this on behalf of the First Nation population, but it's now clear - as if it wasn't before - that the GG is simply  Harper's tool. He admitted on P&P two weeks ago that he is shilling for Harper all around the world on international trade junkets. Not what you'd expect the representative from the Crown to focus on. Come to think of it, that's exactly what the GG does - he's just another tool of empire. His refusal to meet with Chief Theresa Spence is absolutely shameful.

I also suspect that Flaherty is using the first few omnibus financial legislations to soften us up for really terrible omnibus financial bills to come - in other words, we ain't seen anything yet - the worse is yet to come. All in the name of protecting the Canadian economy and Canadian jobs. Who can argue against that kind of homey self-serving rhetoric? Frown  Even Mulcair seems to be muting criticism of the tar sands (doesn't he support a west-east tar sands product pipeline?), and Trudeau - probably the next Liberal leader - sounds more and more like a Conservative clone.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Anyone able to explain why Tom Mulcair hasn't made a statement regarding Chief Spence? Or, has he? Or, does it matter. I feel like this is just another example of the NDP Brain Trust allowing the Libs to co-opt another just cause the NDP has taken the lead on. Can anyone please tell me what the hell  is going on? I could really use some reassurance here. Are things going on in the background, for example, about which I am unaware. Both JT and Garneua have released "statements of support". For my money, this makes it look like Mulcair either doesn't care, or is late to the dance? Anyone want to take a shot at this please? I'd really appreciate a reply.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Mulcair possibly handed the file to Charlie Angus, who made a really good statement regarding Chief Spence. I think I posted it in one of these threads. Angus is her MP, after all.

janfromthebruce

Trudeau was going for the photo-op, where Angus really cares and wants to ensure change happens - not just talk and pics for a day. Mulcair is not going to "steal" Angus' thunder because that would be "opportunist".

mark_alfred

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Anyone able to explain why Tom Mulcair hasn't made a statement regarding Chief Spence? [..] For my money, this makes it look like Mulcair either doesn't care, or is late to the dance? Anyone want to take a shot at this please? I'd really appreciate a reply.

That's nonsense.  On the 18th he sent an open letter to Harper.

 

PS, I believe it was on Wednesday the 26th when Trudeau visited Spence, whereas Angus was with her from the beginning on the 11th (and it was Angus who first publicised the issues of Attawapiskat a long time ago.)  Also, Rae, the current Liberal leader, has (to my knowledge) not yet written a similar letter to what Mulcair wrote.  The only Liberal who has is Garneau on the 26th, and that was after Mulcair had already done so (on the 18th, as mentioned above).  So rest assured that the NDP is the party taking action on this far before the Liberals.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

On Huff Post people are replying to me saying Tom is ducking comment as he is afraid of making mistakes. Any thoughts? I have read what  people have posted here to my posts in reply so far, but I am not convinced Tom shouldn't be saying anything.

ETA: The other thing I get tossed in my face is tha Tom used to be a Lib. Why is it its only ok for someone to be from another party if they go to the LPC? Is it because it undermines the LPC claim that is the only party that can be  a home to everyone? You know, the only big tent is a LPC tent?

addictedtomyipod

AC.  I believe that Tom used to be a Quebec Liberal.  The only other party choice he could have been in would have been the separatist PQ.  Tom is a federalist so could not go there and that is why he used to be a Liberal.

mark_alfred

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I have read what  people have posted here to my posts in reply so far, but I am not convinced Tom shouldn't be saying anything.

I find this response of yours to be completely bewildering.

Unionist

addictedtomyipod wrote:

AC.  I believe that Tom used to be a Quebec Liberal.  The only other party choice he could have been in would have been the separatist PQ.  Tom is a federalist so could not go there and that is why he used to be a Liberal.

I don't hold Mulcair's Liberal past against him. I campaigned for him and voted for him in three consecutive elections as a federal NDP candidate.

But your comment is quite frightening. According to you, a person's view on federalism comes first and above everything? Mulcair is a federalist, so he had to support the anti-worker anti-environment anti-student pro-capitalist Liberal party? I don't think so.

Do you have any slight clue how many "separatist" Quebecers voted NDP in May 2011? That is, those who voted Bloc before? If they followed your philosophy, their "separatism" would have forced them to vote Bloc only. But life doesn't work that way.

Mulcair is not now and never has been much of a social democrat. That's why he ran for the Liberals, instead of (say) Québec solidaire or its predecessor Union des Forces Progressistes - as Alexandre Boulerice did, for example, and Boulerice still openly states that he supports QS provincially. You may also recall the "scandals" about Nycole Turmel and her support for "separatists". The same is true for many caucus members.

So don't kid yourself. Mulcair was a Liberal because he was ideologically aligned with them. But in the final analysis, there isn't that huge a divide on many policy issues between the LPQ, the PQ, and yes, the federal NDP. "Centre-left" describes them well at some times, and "neoliberal" fits them all when they're in power. I don't know about the federal NDP, but check out its provincial counterparts which actually are in power today.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I have read what  people have posted here to my posts in reply so far, but I am not convinced Tom shouldn't be saying anything.

I find this response of yours to be completely bewildering.

 

Mark, some guy said that his kid had Trudeau as his teacher and that this is what he would expect from him. He said Mulcair not having issued a statement showed a lack of leadership. So, all I am asking is does it look bad Tom hasn't said anything, or do you think that most people close to the issue know why Trudeau was there and are happy with the NDP has handled it. I am inclined to think that commuity see Trudeau's visit as a  photo op given how quiet the Libs were about this in the House so long after the NDP had brought this to national attention. I guess all I am asking is how do you or anyone else think this is playing nationally. I don't believe for a moment Trudeau doesn't give a damn and it was all poitics. For certain, I expect him to continue the LPC historical policy of patronizing abuse of the aboriginal community, but do you think most people are on to him? I'd welcome an answer. This Trudeau guy makes me so danm mad! I really believe he thinks its in the bag, the little SOB!

janfromthebruce

Yes, Trudeau was a drama teacher in a "private school" in Vancouver.

quizzical

Arthur Cramer wrote:
 I don't believe for a moment Trudeau doesn't give a damn and it was all poitics.

so.......you believe him then?!!!!!!!!

 

i read Tom's statement why are you ignoring it?

mark_alfred

Arthur, your response to what I wrote in post 418 in your post 419 was what bewildered me.  Your continued claim "So, all I am asking is does it look bad Tom hasn't said anything", ignores the fact that Tom, before either Trudeau or Garneau or Rae, did make a statement about it, officially writing Harper to urge a meeting (and I haven't seen anything official from Rae, just Tweets -- though Bennett and later Garneau did send a letter, apparently).  Tom's statement is on the NDP website and it was reported on in the Huffington Post.

So again, I find your posts bewildering.

Ippurigakko

Meagan Leslie on her fb status:

Update: my cab ended up going off the road on the way to the airport (as a side note: be careful out there if you're driving!) and I didn't make it to the airport. Both the driver and I are fine.

Our flight ended up getting cancelled anyway, so Robert Chisholm won't be able to make the meeting with Chief Spence either. Her team knows that we both tried to make it, and there is still a great group of NDP MPs who will be there.

I'll be sending an email to Cheryl Maloney from the NS Native Women's Association who is with Chief Spence right now, to convey all the messages of strength, encouragement and solidarity you've asked me to convey from Nova Scotia and beyond. Your words will get to her.

This is an important movement to support. Get out your phones, or pen and paper, and let the Prime Minister know that enough is enough.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:
Also, Rae, the current Liberal leader, has (to my knowledge) not yet written a similar letter to what Mulcair wrote.  The only Liberal who has is Garneau on the 26th, and that was after Mulcair had already done so (on the 18th, as mentioned above).  So rest assured that the NDP is the party taking action on this far before the Liberals.

Strange kind of contest to be running.

In fact, Liberal Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development critic Carolyn Bennett wrote a pretty good letter to Harper on the same day as Mulcair (Dec. 18th), in which she explicitly called on him and the Governor-General to meet with Chief Spence. Which Mulcair didn't. So who's winning the war of words now?

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

quizzical wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
 I don't believe for a moment Trudeau doesn't give a damn and it was all poitics.

so.......you believe him then?!!!!!!!!

 

i read Tom's statement why are you ignoring it?

Opps, I should have write  i don't believe for a moment that Trudeau does give a damn,  In other words, he's just looking to score points, period. He'll do what the Libs always do, beat up on Aboriginals every chance they get. I hate that guy.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Unionist wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
Also, Rae, the current Liberal leader, has (to my knowledge) not yet written a similar letter to what Mulcair wrote.  The only Liberal who has is Garneau on the 26th, and that was after Mulcair had already done so (on the 18th, as mentioned above).  So rest assured that the NDP is the party taking action on this far before the Liberals.

Strange kind of contest to be running.

In fact, Liberal Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development critic Carolyn Bennett wrote a pretty good letter to Harper on the same day as Mulcair (Dec. 18th), in which she explicitly called on him and the Governor-General to meet with Chief Spence. Which Mulcair didn't. So who's winning the war of words now?

 

Unionist, that is my pointht! You guys frustrate me sometimes. Who IS winning the wars on words?

mark_alfred

Crowder (NDP Aboriginal Affairs critic), Angus, Cash and Dewar have been making statements all along.  Likewise Bennett for the Liberals.  I wouldn't pay too much attention to the comments section of the Huffington Post.

Ippurigakko

7 NDP MPs -- Charlie Angus, Francois Lapointe, Dan Harris, Pierre Nantel, Jamie Nichols, Andrew Cash and Wayne Marston rally at Ottawa Victoria Island support Chief spence today!

 

Where Liberal rally? noneee

 

edit: oh wow there is more NDP mps now

mark_alfred

I was mistaken when I said that the only Liberal who had was Garneau.  I did take note of Bennett writing a letter also in post 426.

felixr

The year in review, veterans, and holiday videos on the NDP website are good. Mulcair has good control over his voice but could probably still use some body coaching. The year in review video is the best. Megan Leslie has got great delivery. I think she will be Prime Minister some day.

felixr

I do think the beard hurts Mulcair's ability to connect. It's hard to see the edges of his mouth move and perhaps it is covering some of the expressiveness in his cheeks as well. While Layton was slagged with a need to dial it back, I'm sure those in the know are asking Mulcair to dial it forward.

theleftyinvestor

Unionist wrote:

I don't hold Mulcair's Liberal past against him. I campaigned for him and voted for him in three consecutive elections as a federal NDP candidate.

But your comment is quite frightening. According to you, a person's view on federalism comes first and above everything? Mulcair is a federalist, so he had to support the anti-worker anti-environment anti-student pro-capitalist Liberal party? I don't think so.

Do you have any slight clue how many "separatist" Quebecers voted NDP in May 2011? That is, those who voted Bloc before? If they followed your philosophy, their "separatism" would have forced them to vote Bloc only. But life doesn't work that way.

Mulcair is not now and never has been much of a social democrat. That's why he ran for the Liberals, instead of (say) Québec solidaire or its predecessor Union des Forces Progressistes - as Alexandre Boulerice did, for example, and Boulerice still openly states that he supports QS provincially. You may also recall the "scandals" about Nycole Turmel and her support for "separatists". The same is true for many caucus members.

So don't kid yourself. Mulcair was a Liberal because he was ideologically aligned with them. But in the final analysis, there isn't that huge a divide on many policy issues between the LPQ, the PQ, and yes, the federal NDP. "Centre-left" describes them well at some times, and "neoliberal" fits them all when they're in power. I don't know about the federal NDP, but check out its provincial counterparts which actually are in power today.

Keep in mind that Mulcair was always more pro-environment that the rest of his caucus and that was an issue on which he resigned.

A lot of our collective friends who agree with the general politics of Rabble but live in the States are supporting Barack Obama's Democrats. They, too, are a very big tent coalition of left, centre, right-but-not-batshit and a tiny sprinkling of right-batshit. Lots of anti-worker, anti-environment, pro-capitalist people in that party, in coalition with people who are more Rabble-ish. If an NDP MP went to college in the USA and volunteered for the Democrats, do we criticize them for not picking a smaller, leftier party? Well some of us do, but others will say "Yeah, well, it's different." And would we criticize them for being Liberals because of the party they supported in another jurisdiction? Oh wait, the Democrats aren't the same as the LPC. Oh wait, the PLQ isn't the same as the LPC either!

When I went to the 2011 NDP convention in Vancouver, I met a number of delegates from Quebec who told me of their history in provincial politics. PLQ, QS and PQ all came up (ADQ/CAQ did not). For many of them, a federalist Quebec government was their most important deciding factor, despite their differences with the rest of the platform. It's not an easy choice. I would not have been comfortable voting for the PQ if I lived there, because I would not have wanted an outcome of my vote to be separation.

 

Oookay, back on topic, back on topic. So yes, a number of NDP MPs have been visiting and speaking up about Idle No More. It's clear that this is totally unlike the student strike, when they were actively withholding commentary for delicate political reasons. If the NDP didn't want to have a position on INM, they would've muzzled MPs right from the start. It would appear the strategy is mainly to let the shadow cabinet and local MPs do the talking.

Ippurigakko

CBC poll says
Do you support the Idle No More movement?
Yes 51% and Racist/Ignorant 49% "No".....................

felixr

A pretty good list from the NDP. My favourite is #7. There is really no excuse for that kind of behaviour. While I don't want to join the rabble hate fest against Pat Martin, it is time that gentleman retired. Were he a Liberal or Conservative, he'd have his Senate seat by now.

Unionist

felixr wrote:

A pretty good list from the NDP. My favourite is #7. There is really no excuse for that kind of behaviour. While I don't want to join the rabble hate fest against Pat Martin, it is time that gentleman retired. Were he a Liberal or Conservative, he'd have his Senate seat by now.

A list that contains "scandals" and "naughtiness", but is silent on Harper's breaking of diplomatic relations against Iran, and voting against Palestine in the U.N., and Bev Oda's lying behaviour in cutting funds to KAIROS (while focusing instead on her overspending on orange juice), and the takeover of Progress Energy by a Malaysian company (while fearmongering about the "state-owned Chinese company") is not a "list" to be proud of. It is ceding foreign policy and the protection of the Canadian economy to the Harperite goons.

It would be useful to have an opposition party at the federal level.

felixr

Unionist wrote:

felixr wrote:

A pretty good list from the NDP. My favourite is #7. There is really no excuse for that kind of behaviour. While I don't want to join the rabble hate fest against Pat Martin, it is time that gentleman retired. Were he a Liberal or Conservative, he'd have his Senate seat by now.

A list that contains "scandals" and "naughtiness", but is silent on Harper's breaking of diplomatic relations against Iran, and voting against Palestine in the U.N., and Bev Oda's lying behaviour in cutting funds to KAIROS (while focusing instead on her overspending on orange juice), and the takeover of Progress Energy by a Malaysian company (while fearmongering about the "state-owned Chinese company") is not a "list" to be proud of. It is ceding foreign policy and the protection of the Canadian economy to the Harperite goons.

It would be useful to have an opposition party at the federal level.

Cutting Kairos funding happened in 2009 not 2012. The criticism of the Petronas takeover is identical to that of Nexen. After 1979 Iran hostage crisis, the CIA used the Canadian embassy as the new base to conduct its covert operations in Iran for decades. Perhaps that is why you did not want the Iran embassy to close? Or is it enthusiasm for the effort to launch a terror attack on the Saudi embassy in Washington D.C. Or is it your support for Iran saying that it will respond with terror attacks in Western countries if its security is threatened? Or enthusiasm for Iranian spying and intimidation of Iranians in Canada? Or your embrace of the Iranians free and human rights loving leadership? I guess it isn't enough for you that the NDP was in favour of maintaining diplomatic relations, they have to become the Khomeini's champions.

Unionist

felixr wrote:

Cutting Kairos funding happened in 2009 not 2012.

And the NDP has fallen silent on the issue, while braying about overspending on orange juice.

Quote:
The criticism of the Petronas takeover is identical to that of Nexen.

No - the Petronas takeover is not mentioned. It doesn't have the "Chinese" scare factor to make it sexy.

Quote:
After 1979 Iran hostage crisis, the CIA used the Canadian embassy as the new base to conduct its covert operations in Iran for decades. Perhaps that is why you did not want the Iran embassy to close? Or is it enthusiasm for the effort to launch a terror attack on the Saudi embassy in Washington D.C. Or is it your support for Iran saying that it will respond with terror attacks in Western countries if its security is threatened? Or enthusiasm for Iranian spying and intimidation of Iranians in Canada? Or your embrace of the Iranians free and human rights loving leadership? I guess it isn't enough for you that the NDP was in favour of maintaining diplomatic relations, they have to become the Khomeini's champions.

I'll preserve that weird set of provocations and paranoid xenophobia for posterity.

Meanwhile, if you could show me where the NDP opposed the severing of diplomatic relations, I would be very grateful, and I will withdraw my criticism on that point. All I remember is Mulcair saying, well, Harper must be privy to some secret security info that he can't share, so we'll just be more "loyal" than "opposition". I could be wrong. Prove me wrong.

felixr

Unionist wrote:

felixr wrote:

Cutting Kairos funding happened in 2009 not 2012.

And the NDP has fallen silent on the issue, while braying about overspending on orange juice.

Quote:
The criticism of the Petronas takeover is identical to that of Nexen.

No - the Petronas takeover is not mentioned. It doesn't have the "Chinese" scare factor to make it sexy.

Quote:
After 1979 Iran hostage crisis, the CIA used the Canadian embassy as the new base to conduct its covert operations in Iran for decades. Perhaps that is why you did not want the Iran embassy to close? Or is it enthusiasm for the effort to launch a terror attack on the Saudi embassy in Washington D.C. Or is it your support for Iran saying that it will respond with terror attacks in Western countries if its security is threatened? Or enthusiasm for Iranian spying and intimidation of Iranians in Canada? Or your embrace of the Iranians free and human rights loving leadership? I guess it isn't enough for you that the NDP was in favour of maintaining diplomatic relations, they have to become the Khomeini's champions.

I'll preserve that weird set of provocations and paranoid xenophobia for posterity.

Meanwhile, if you could show me where the NDP opposed the severing of diplomatic relations, I would be very grateful, and I will withdraw my criticism on that point. All I remember is Mulcair saying, well, Harper must be privy to some secret security info that he can't share, so we'll just be more "loyal" than "opposition". I could be wrong. Prove me wrong.

Yay! Thread drift! Now a post about a 2012 list is about Unionist playing a game of "I can't recall."

Type "NDP MP Kairos" into google and you will see that the NDP has consistently raised the issue since 2009 including in 2012, keeping the issue in the media. Thomas Mulcair was the very first leadership candidate to bring it up in the 2011-2012 race, at the Quebec City debate.

Unionist on February 12, 2012 wrote:
Mulcair defends Kairos against Harper's defunding. Good to hear. The NDP has an unfortunate tendency to protest Harper's attacks, then forget about them and move on.

The Peggy Nash campaign wrote the following on rabble a short while later in March:

Peggy Nash wrote:
  To answer Boom Boom: Yes I will definitely reverse a number of Harper's cuts. The axing of Status of Women offices across Canada and the defunding of organizations like Kairos shows the ideological bent of the Conservative government. They're in it to implement conservative ideology, not good policy.

Petronas and CNOOC

NDP on severing Iran ties

I'm done with doing your fact checking for you. If you think my statements about Iran are xenophobic, why not read the articles on the Saudi embassy terror plot, "Our Man in Tehran" interviews and the book itself for details of how Canada lent its embassy for the operations of the CIA for the years after the 1979 hostage crisis, or the Amnesty International human rights reports, or articles about Iran's public statements that it will carry out attacks in the West if its security is threatened.

Unionist

What a laugh. The NDP raise Kairos in reply to babblers' concerns during a leadership race - but never as a matter of public policy.

And you have the nerve to quote Paul Dewar on Iran, when Mulcair immediately contradicted him publicly and pulled the caucus back in line with Harper?

Your paranoid warmongering about Iran getting ready to attack us would be merely laughable, were it not that Mulcair's NDP would appear to share the same Harperite theme.

We desperately need some opposition in Ottawa. So far, I see it coming from Idle No More, from students, and a few other exciting quarters. The federal NDP continues to be a brake rather than an accelerator.

felixr

Unionist wrote:
What a laugh. The NDP raise Kairos in reply to babblers' concerns during a leadership race - but never as a matter of public policy.  

Search google. The NDP has given speeches, tabled positions, interrogated in committee, called for resignations, called for investigations, raised it on TV, and not just from one MP but a dozen or more. During the Quebec City leadership debate, Mulcair unprompted became the only NDP leadership candidate to mention the issue and you commended him. At no point has the NDP given any indication it would not reverse the decision to deny funding, which by all accounts appears to have come from the PMO itself, maybe even from the PM (little happens in the PMO without his involvement).

Unionist wrote:
And you have the nerve to quote Paul Dewar on Iran, when Mulcair immediately contradicted him publicly and pulled the caucus back in line with Harper? Your paranoid warmongering about Iran getting ready to attack us would be merely laughable, were it not that Mulcair's NDP would appear to share the same Harperite theme.

The NDP heavily criticised the move but not the outcome, saying they needed further information from the Harper government. Then they shut their mouths. So if you want to debate the semantics fine, but I don't see Mulcair contradicting Dewar saying it was "bad diplomacy." Mulcair said, we need more information, and then went completely silent. The press interpreted this to mean that Iran's threat of carrying out terror attacks on Western countries had led to concern over the operation of the Iranian embassy in Canada. While I don't agree with cutting off diplomatic relations, it should be mentioned that Canada used to famously expel Soviet spies who were working in the Ottawa embassy as "diplomats." As history would reveal, they were indeed spies and not diplomats.

 

Unionist wrote:
We desperately need some opposition in Ottawa. So far, I see it coming from Idle No More, from students, and a few other exciting quarters. The federal NDP continues to be a brake rather than an accelerator.

The NDP has been battling the Conservatives on multiple files and the end of year list show just the way they have gone about discrediting the Conservatives in the press, among the Conservative's supporters, the things they have forced to the light, and the mistakes they have forced the Conservatives to make. The NDP is not perfect, it picks its battles (the party feels a major responsibility to remove Harper and the only way to do that is win the next election, and the only way to do that is to appeal to the voters that vote for the other parties [who may not care about a $10 million cut to Kairos charity work outside of Canada and representing less than 0.00004% of the federal budget]).

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

felixr wrote:

The NDP is not perfect, it picks its battles (the party feels a major responsibility to remove Harper and the only way to do that is win the next election, and the only way to do that is to appeal to the voters that vote for the other parties [who may not care about a $10 million cut to Kairos charity work outside of Canada and representing less than 0.00004% of the federal budget]).

Yes it is always a political calculation about how far right do you go before you lose your left wing voters because they stay at home.  The NDP does not want my vote they want my neighbours vote who supported the Liberals through their government years and they are willing to offer policies that appeal to those voters.  Sorry if it bothers you that some of us find that a betrayal of decades of work to keep a third party alive and in the H of C.  I feel like I should have just been a Liberal and tried to make that party better because now my voice would be important to the NDP.

felixr

kropotkin1951 wrote:

felixr wrote:

The NDP is not perfect, it picks its battles (the party feels a major responsibility to remove Harper and the only way to do that is win the next election, and the only way to do that is to appeal to the voters that vote for the other parties [who may not care about a $10 million cut to Kairos charity work outside of Canada and representing less than 0.00004% of the federal budget]).

Yes it is always a political calculation about how far right do you go before you lose your left wing voters because they stay at home.  The NDP does not want my vote they want my neighbours vote who supported the Liberals through their government years and they are willing to offer policies that appeal to those voters.  Sorry if it bothers you that some of us find that a betrayal of decades of work to keep a third party alive and in the H of C.  I feel like I should have just been a Liberal and tried to make that party better because now my voice would be important to the NDP.

The NDP wants to straddle the middle from the left, the Liberals wanted to straddle the left from the middle, and the Conservatives want to straddle the middle from the right. Post-campaign finance reform, the Liberals can't buy elections anymore.

takeitslowly

Can someone tell Thomas Muclair to update his facebook page more? His last facebook update is December, and Justin Bebier Trudeau has like 7 times more and is updating everyday.

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:
felixr wrote:

The NDP is not perfect, it picks its battles (the party feels a major responsibility to remove Harper and the only way to do that is win the next election, and the only way to do that is to appeal to the voters that vote for the other parties [who may not care about a $10 million cut to Kairos charity work outside of Canada and representing less than 0.00004% of the federal budget]).

Yes it is always a political calculation about how far right do you go before you lose your left wing voters because they stay at home.  The NDP does not want my vote they want my neighbours vote who supported the Liberals through their government years and they are willing to offer policies that appeal to those voters.  Sorry if it bothers you that some of us find that a betrayal of decades of work to keep a third party alive and in the H of C.  I feel like I should have just been a Liberal and tried to make that party better because now my voice would be important to the NDP.

Are you saying it's a bad thing if supporters from other parties choose the NDP? Of course the NDP needs votes from long time supporters, just as it needs votes from supporters of other parties and from traditional non-voters to from the government. You do that by addressing a broad range of issues, so for example while the Kairos issue, while important, is not going to necessarily appeal to swing voters, but maybe issues of government transparency will. It's the same issue on which the Conservatives defeated the Liberals, so now with Harper's antics these votes are up for grabs. As another example, what of many former NDP supporters in Western Canada who supported the Reform Party, was it because Reform was left-wing? Or, how about people I met who liked the NDP, but felt they had to vote Liberal as the Liberals were the #2 party in Canada for a long time?

A big mistake that is often made is to assume that people think rationally about their votes. They don't, and very few voters (of all political parties) care or make their voting decisions based on a strict left-right paradigm.

janfromthebruce

I agree with A24 on this one.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The NDP is appealing to swing voters. Yes I understand that what I also understand is they are not appealing to me because I have these funny left wing ideals that include peace and anti imperialism.  I accept that political calculation as a good route to power but I do not accept that it is a good route to the kind of change that Canada and the world needs.  Liberal Lite is not good enough for me although I understand fully that it might just get elected.  An NDP government will lend a nicer face to the nasty system we are living under but they are already committed to the fundamentals of "free trade" globalization and NATO security so they will change nothing of major substance.

If I vote I might even hold my nose and vote NDP but please don't count on it in your political calculations when you start to add up all the potential "new" voters you might get.

Pages

Topic locked