NDP leadership race #124

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
NDP leadership race #124

;;

Issues Pages: 
NorthReport

Sweet!

From the most successful social democratic businessperson person ever in BC

NDP hopeful Cullen gets financial backing from former B.C. premier Glen Clark
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/hopeful+Cullen+gets+financial+backing+f...

NorthReport

Do you ever even read what you write? The negativity towards an NDP candidate here is very staggering to say the least. Do you think you are having some private conversation that no one else is privvy to? Time to smarten up. 

Quote:
oh Howard please spare me. When you frame the argument that way, Nash's stance on the coalition based on HER confidence whereas Mulcair HE is so confident and macho that he doesn't need to consider a coalition - just to let you know I see that as a big turn off and moreoever it makes me see Mulcair as a arrogant Liberal - exactly what you don't want to project him as image for leader of the NDP - I'm sure you get my drift.

And it is that arrogance that he turns me off if he persona is projected by the people who are openly supporting him. The Mulcair crew on babble have really become "really full of themselves" in my view.

 

Policywonk

Howard wrote:

Even with the NDP's surge to a clear second place in the polls (thanks to Québec), we did very poorly in the rest of Canada (44/233 seats), losing a lot of ground in many seats where Liberal votes went Conservative.

If doing better than we ever have before in the rest of Canada is doing very poorly. We gained ground in many more seats than we lost ground I think.

socialdemocrati...

In the rest of Canada, the Conservatives won because the Orange Wave stopped short. We peeled off enough votes to disrupt the Liberals, but not enough to actually take as many seats.

Almost every poll since the election has been less favorable to the conservatives. While we've varied between 95 to 110 seats, a lot of Liberal votes have gone back home (both from us, and especially from the Conservatives). So a lot of polls give the Liberals 60 or so seats.

More specifically, almost every poll since the election shows that an NDP-Liberal coalition would have more seats than the Conservatives.

That's reason to be optimistic.

algomafalcon

NorthReport wrote:

Sweet!

From the most successful social democratic businessperson person ever in BC

NDP hopeful Cullen gets financial backing from former B.C. premier Glen Clark
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/hopeful+Cullen+gets+financial+backing+f...

Maybe its penance??? (Just seems like such an odd match up) I could say more but I think I'll let that sleeping dog lie. ;-)

Howard

On attacking Syria, why it hasn't happened already:

1) Syria has no oil. In fact, it is bankrupt (Iran owns it through debt). Q: What is the gain to the West from having an ally there? A: Almost none.

2) Attacking Syria would likely cause a regional conflict possibly leading to a Middle East War.

Syria supports Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which would attack Israel (or the West). Iran supports Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas. All of these parties could easily become involved in Syria's response to an attack from the West.

Then there are the fairweather friends. Shia Iraq is Iran friendly these days. The Iraqi Shia leadership lived in exile in Iran during the Iraqi dictatorship. Jordan is majority Palestinian and borders Syria. If conflict produced mixed sentiments in Jordan (which it would if there was an attack on Israel for example), then Jordan has to sit the conflict out. Essentially, the only country that borders Syria and could be counted as an ally in an attack by the West is a NATO country: Turkey.

If Israel is attacked, Israel will respond, and the Gulf and other Arab states would have trouble allying themselves with Israel in an attack on Syria.

And these are just the foreseeable complications, with little discussion of what role Iran could play, among other considerations.

3) Attacking Syria would be harder than attacking Libya

The geography, the location, the impact on other countries borders would be hard to target. Lebanon could (would?) be invaded by Syria forces like it was for the last 30 years. Israel could (would?) disregard the post-1973 war borders and drive from the occupied Golan Heights right across the desert to Damascus, like it did in 1973.

So in other words, a Western attack on Syria opens the doors to a huge, huge mess.

War is not an easy fix, even in a situation as seemingly "clear-cut" as Libya.

nicky

1. I have no inside information about the pending Mulcair endorsements in Atlantic Canada but I do have some thoughts. Over the past 10 days his camp has been rolling out endorsements in geograpical bunches. About 100 in Sasksatchewan for example in one day, then 20 or more in BC and Ontario. I expect something similar today. Jack Harris may be the most prestigious unalligned MP from the Atlantic so I would keep an eye on him. Megan Leslie is also a possibility but I think she may have indicated she will remain neutral because she hs an important role at the convention. Stauffer has proclaimed his neutrality. Robert Chisholm had been endorsed by about a dozen Nova Scotia MLAs who have not yet expressed a final preference. I wd not be surprised to see some of them follow Chisholm's cue.

I know that some of you are not impressed by endorsements but they do have their effect on momentum. They are also  reflection of where the race stands. If I am correct and Mulcair has about a third of the vote behind him then he might expect more endorsements in the final days. Perhaps mosre importantly, this process may deter others from endorsing his competition. 

2. At the risk of being "divisive", let me say something about divisiveness. Although some are quick to proclaim Mulcair as the most divisive candidate, they are unable to point to anything much to back this up.

Mulcair has almost entirely refrained from commenting negatively on other candidates. There was the gentle criticism of Ken Neuman for trying to do and end-run around the paryt's decison to eliminate the carve-out. Then an early comment about Topp never having run for anything and not having lived in Queebc for 20 years. And that is just about it.

None of his critics say that Nash was much harsher on Topp for not having a seat. 

Almost all of the supposed Mulcair divisiveness comes from a narrative created by his critics, from the Topp surrogates who invented the line that he "doesn't ply well with others" to the anonymos cranks behind the misinformation True Mulcair sites.

Mulcair hads run a campaign which has been relentlessly positive. He has been complimentry to his oppents, talking in the debates about the "great fron bench" etc. When he has asked them questions in the debates ,he has been positive and respectful. On the other hand most of them have ganged up to ask negative questions of him, often freighted with pejoratives.

We are told on this forum that the Mulcair supporters are also divisive. But most of the adverse comments we make about other candidates are refutations of their negative attacks on Mulcair. The line may be crossed on occasion but I think a fair minded observor woould sy that our negative stuff has lrgely been defensive rather than offensive. I don't think that same observor would say the same about some of Mulcair's detractorss.

 

janfromthebruce

And that was just as arrogant and condescending and works again as an affirmation. Thanks for coming out and con't the one candiate cheerleaders only in this thread.

 

NorthReport wrote:

Do you ever even read what you write? The negativity towards an NDP candidate here is very staggering to say the least. Do you think you are having some private conversation that no one else is privvy to? Time to smarten up. 

Quote:
oh Howard please spare me. When you frame the argument that way, Nash's stance on the coalition based on HER confidence whereas Mulcair HE is so confident and macho that he doesn't need to consider a coalition - just to let you know I see that as a big turn off and moreoever it makes me see Mulcair as a arrogant Liberal - exactly what you don't want to project him as image for leader of the NDP - I'm sure you get my drift.

And it is that arrogance that he turns me off if he persona is projected by the people who are openly supporting him. The Mulcair crew on babble have really become "really full of themselves" in my view.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

janfromthebruce

add pom pom female cheering

Howard

Howard wrote:

On attacking Syria, why it hasn't happened already:

1) Syria has no oil. In fact, it is bankrupt (Iran owns it through debt). Q: What is the gain to the West from having an ally there? A: Almost none.

2) Attacking Syria would likely cause a regional conflict possibly leading to a Middle East War.

Syria supports Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which would attack Israel (or the West). Iran supports Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas. All of these parties could easily become involved in Syria's response to an attack from the West.

Then there are the fairweather friends. Shia Iraq is Iran friendly these days. The Iraqi Shia leadership lived in exile in Iran during the Iraqi dictatorship. Jordan is majority Palestinian and borders Syria. If conflict produced mixed sentiments in Jordan (which it would if there was an attack on Israel for example), then Jordan has to sit the conflict out. Essentially, the only country that borders Syria and could be counted as an ally in an attack by the West is a NATO country: Turkey.

If Israel is attacked, Israel will respond, and the Gulf and other Arab states would have trouble allying themselves with Israel in an attack on Syria.

And these are just the foreseeable complications, with little discussion of what role Iran could play, among other considerations.

3) Attacking Syria would be harder than attacking Libya

The geography, the location, the impact on other countries borders would be hard to target. Lebanon could (would?) be invaded by Syria forces like it was for the last 30 years. Israel could (would?) disregard the post-1973 war borders and drive from the occupied Golan Heights right across the desert to Damascus, like it did in 1973.

So in other words, a Western attack on Syria opens the doors to a huge, huge mess.

War is not an easy fix, even in a situation as seemingly "clear-cut" as Libya.

4) Russia and China

Opposing a Western attack doesn't help either. They sell Syria its weapons and invest in the country.

Howard

janfromthebruce wrote:

add pom pom female cheering

Jan, I think you're being hyper-sensitive. If Topp is allowed to call Cullen a "defeatist" for wanting to cooperate with the Liberals, then asking whether the only other candidate that favours cooperation is not keen on fully competing is a mild critique. What's more, Duncan has said it is a strategic blunder to not open the doors to working with the Liberal party. I think it is a strategic blunder to act as if the Liberals are an honourable political party. It sets you up for losing votes both outside and inside the House of Commons. 

janfromthebruce

Excellent coverage of Niki Ashton in TorStar.

 

“The clock is being turned backward,” Ashton said, citing the sell-off of Canadian resources, the rollback of women’s rights, the impending reduction of benefits and the widening gap between rich and poor. Why would the NDP abandon the people left behind by this dismantling of the social contract?


Niki Ashton is the brightest light in the NDP leadership race

Niki gets my number 2 spot!

janfromthebruce

Howard, I am so not interested in working to ever elect a liberal. Did that once in Huron Bruce in 1993 - young and Trudeau idealistic. Ended up working for and electing the most right-wing Liberal ever - but geez, aren't Liberals progressive. I'm talking about the party here and not people who tend to vote Liberal.

I had women who identify as feminist tell me they wanted to vote NDP (after 1993 and seeing that their "man" was so conservative that he was more conservative than the Reform party canidate) but were fearful that the con would get in so they would vote for this gun-toting man.

I'd much rather poke my eyes out than get sucked into having to work for another "pretend progressive" liberal.  Oh, I have no problems working with the Liberal party but I'm so not into joint nomination meetings and all entails. And the last time we tried working with the Liberals and forming a coalition the Libs weren't interested.

And last time I checked the liberal party and their leadership have been quite clear that they aren't interested in cooperative joint nomination ideas. I see the joint idea as such a non-starter and also suggesting that the liberal party as progressive. I don't.

 

nicky

Martin Singh on The Current has just urged his supporters to vote for Mulcair if he is eliminated.

NorthReport

So this makes 3 out of 3 candidates, Chisholm, Saganesh, and now Singh asking their supporters to back Mulcair

 

NDP candidate Martin Singh tells supporters Mulcair is next-best choice


http://www.montrealgazette.com/candidate+Martin+Singh+tells+supporters+M...

JoshD

CBC's The Current are saying that Mulcair is the only candidate who would do an interview with them, also Mulcair has turned down being on CBCs Power & Politics and The House. This is not an attempt to put Tom down (I am volunteering for his campaign) but isn't this a bit strange? He appeared on Sun News and CTV for interviews but nothing on CBC. What's the angle?

NorthReport

Because the CBC News Dept is a front for the LPC. Astute decision.

Stockholm

CBC = "the Liberal media"

Gaian

JoshD wrote:

CBC's The Current are saying that Mulcair is the only candidate who would do an interview with them, also Mulcair has turned down being on CBCs Power & Politics and The House. This is not an attempt to put Tom down (I am volunteering for his campaign) but isn't this a bit strange? He appeared on Sun News and CTV for interviews but nothing on CBC. What's the angle?

Consider the number of ways in which Tom Mulcair's involvement in politics - beginning with a youthful commitment to the only social democratic movement in Quebec, the PQ - has been used hereabouts by those interested only in smearing him.With no empathy or understanding at all for the battle lines provincially. What do you think Evan and company would do - to the apparent satisfaction of even some old, ideology-driven New Democrats?

Tom's won his spurs in a political arena much toughter and more astute - fighting the case for federalism and beating out the PQ in the name of Canadian unity, which the nasties tend to ignore. He has been waiting a long while for the opportunity to bring social democrats in Quebec together with their like-minded, English-speaking cohort elsewhere.

James Laxer understands the historic opportunity. It's unfortunate that not all memories reach back to the golden age of missed nationalist opportunity, do not understand that the battle that Trudeau fought - and now Dion - is passe'.

No, the veteran understands the biased and ahistorical challenges waiting for him in the MSM. The replies would require far, far more time than would be allowed. The questions are all represented here in a few thousand shallow postings.

JoshD

Aren't the other ones fronts for the CPC? Like them or not CBC is a venue to get the message out, you can't ignore them if you want to try to get some of those Lib votes to come our way. Also, it's not like Tom can't handle defend himself from the usual attacks. It just strikes me as a missed opportunity.

JoshD

Thanks Gaian, it makes more sense to me now.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Tom was on P&P not long after he entered the race if I recall correctly, although I don't recall seeing him since.

josh

Quote:

In the days that followed Pratte's blog, Pierre-Paul Noreau of Le Soleil, also part of the Desmarais media empire, Jean-Jacques Samson of Le Journal de Montréal, which belongs to the union-bashing Quebecor empire of the Péladeau clan, and Bernard Descôteaux of Le Devoir, the small elitist paper whose brand of Québécois nationalism is moving ever closer to the interests of Quebec Inc., have endorsed Mulcair's NDP leadership bid.

Revealingly, they all look backwards to 1990s Britain and to Tony Blair's so-called "New Labour" as the appropriate recipe for a Mulcair-led NDP, blind to the fact that Blair was then, and the NDP leadership race is now -- and for the future.

. . . .

Thomas Mulcair's NDP leadership bid is looking more and more like a counter-attack by the 1 per cent to take over the NDP and steer it towards the so-called "extreme centre," and even turn it into a "New Liberal Party."

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/03/canada-and-quebec-inc-give-mulcairs-...

NorthReport

These kind of things are nevitable when someone is perceived as having a chance to become prime minister, and we should feel encouraged that the big players, Canada's decision-makers want to be friends with us. 

This just tells me Mulcair has a lot of support, but it also means we need to ensure that we keep our party very democratic so these backroom boys don't get to decide NDP policy on their own, eh.

Welcome to 21st century politics for the NDP.

The 2011 NDP election results surprised most everyone. Are we going to squander this fabulous opportunity or take advantage of it and go on to form government? I know which side of the fence I am on. Do others?

Gaian

It also tells one that some people are actually concerned about a disapppearing industrial tax base and concern for the continuing means to maintain social welfare gains from the post-Duplessis period.

But the idea of Pierre Karl Peladeau being in support of Mulcair is only the most ridiculous idea in the portfolio of Mulcair bashers and warrants only pity for the creative propagandists that put it forward.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I think we can count on whoever wins this leadership race to be to be the Anti-Harper in 2015, more or less.

socialdemocrati...

Yeah, my feelings on fundraising are similar. If Niki Ashton were the frontrunner, you'd start seeing the corporate money flow her way too. Certainly, Topp, Cullen and others have raised some of that too. It's just how corporations play the game. I don't think it's because they sat in a room together, and said "we agree on so much!"

No matter who wins, we have to organize so our voice counts more than their money. They'll use money to influence the party no matter what, so we have to be vigilant.

NorthReport

Mulcair is a gambler - he has to be in order to win

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Mulcair+gambler+order/6298236/story....

algomafalcon

NorthReport wrote:

So this makes 3 out of 3 candidates, Chisholm, Saganesh, and now Singh asking their supporters to back Mulcair

 

NDP candidate Martin Singh tells supporters Mulcair is next-best choice


http://www.montrealgazette.com/candidate+Martin+Singh+tells+supporters+M...

 

You mean three out of four. Cullen has told his supporters on his website that they should choose who they like for their second, third and fourth choices. This was mentioned on the last thread.

Bärlüer

Jean-François Lisée has an article about the time Mulcair spent in cabinet. He has quotes from (anonymous) former ministers who are all basically saying that Mulcair not only never formulated any objections toward the Charest government's "réingénierie" program (reduction of the size of government, privatizations galore, tax cuts), he apparently criticized at the cabinet's table those who didn't go far enough in that direction.

To wit:

Quote:
“Il était dans la mouvance de restreindre la place de l’État dans l’économie” confie un ancien ministre. “Au conseil, il critiquait ceux qui n’allaient pas assez loin.”

One former minister recalls that he made "acerbic remarks" about unions.

Lisée does recognize that Mulcair has been efficient in managing the Environment ministry, doing more with less.

However, he concludes that Mulcair has been a "conscious accomplice of the rightward turn that Charest imposed on the LPQ between 1998 and 2006".

Hoodeet

What we garner from the statements  of Québec economic and political élites:  Watch Mulcair very very closely and keep him on a short leash lest he follow his earlier instincts and move right.

josh

Bärlüer wrote:

he concludes that Mulcair has been a "conscious accomplice of the rightward turn that Charest imposed on the LPQ between 1998 and 2006".

Maybe a preview of things to come?

NorthReport

Maybe, maybe not.

 

Cullen’s vision will help NDP, Canada

 

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/1144954--cullen-s-vision-...

josh

I could see Cullen, Mulcair and Rae atop the New Liberal Democratic Party.

Gaian

josh wrote:

I could see Cullen, Mulcair and Rae atop the New Liberal Democratic Party.

And all New Democrats would, demonstrating great humility and the docility reflected in posts hereabouts, would file into line.

You are exhausing the limits of ridiculous supposition.

Gaian

Having subjected the writings of Jean-Francoiis Lisee - whatever his politics - to the tender mercies of google translate, one learns that he is topical and timely with the latest dirt: "Thomas Mulcair, the favorite candidate in the race for the NDP leadership, is a potential future prime minister of Canada in October 2015, has already admitted being approached by the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper after he left the Charest government in 2007.

"Why a future NDP leader would he even agreed to be courted by relatives of Harper? The question remains, throbbing, in the leadership campaign NDP."

Of course, if the fastidious purveyor of truths had asked anyone in the Mulcair camp for a response, he would have learned that EVERY party aproached Tom Mulcair after his principled resignation from the Charest camp. Jack got him. But none of that - either his resignation or his popularity to all parties at the time - will taint the jottings of these principled blogger-propagandists. His followers appear equally unconcerned.

Bärlüer

Gaian wrote:
Having subjected the writings of Jean-Francoiis Lisee - whatever his politics - to the tender mercies of google translate, one learns that he is topical and timely with the latest dirt: Thomas Mulcair, the favorite candidate in the race for the NDP leadership, is a potential future prime minister of Canada in October 2015, has already admitted being approached by the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper after he left the Charest government in 2007. Why a future NDP leader would he even agreed to be courted by relatives of Harper? The question remains, throbbing, in the leadership campaign NDP." Of course, if the fastidious purveyor of truths had asked anyone in the Mulcair camp for a response, he would have learned that EVERY party aproached Tom Mulcair after his principled resignation from the Charest camp. Jack got him. But none of that - either his resignation or his popularity to all parties at the time - will taint the jottings of these principled blogger-propagandists. His followers appear equally unconcerned.

The article is not actually about the meeting[s?] between Mulcair and the Conservatives, whatever one makes of those. It is about Mulcair's time in the Charest cabinet.

Rakhmetov

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Rakhmetov wrote:
There is a fundamental difference between moving the party to the Right or not.

But you haven't established that. Not when you concede that the broad principles of the party are going to be the same.

I know you don't agree that Mulcair is moving the party to the Right, but if he is, that would be a fundamental difference.  And I said that the broad principles of the party are going to be same within the context of a leadership debate, not after with a new leader and a new direction who will change the platform and what those broad principles are.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I agree Peggy Nash is preferable to Thomas Mulcair on this issue. But I think you misunderstand the meaning of "fundamental". Most of the differences between the candidates on this issue are transient, day-to-day. Palestine's UN bid is transient: we won't be still talking about it in 2015. Hamas is transient: they might be the elected government now but they might not be in 2015.Fundamental would be: one-state or two-states? Settlements are illegal or legal? Trading with Israel, or sanctioning and boycotting Israel?

But now we're playing semantics. I hate semantics. So how about I just give you that "negotiate with a government that might be out of power in a few months" is as fundamental as "one-state or two-states". We're still only talkikng about a conflict that we're not even a party to.
Here are some foreign policy issues that the Canadian government is a *direct* party in, good or bad:
Afghanistan
Missile Defense / NORAD
NAFTA
Arctic Sovereignty
Funding for Third-World Aid
U.S. Border Security
Libya
The Ottawa Treaty on Landmines
The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change (withdrawn)
UN Security Council (withdrawn)
What do these issues have in common? They're all directly under the control of the Canadian government, unlike the Canadian government's non-existent role in Palestine. And they're all issues where the differences between the candidates are small.
And that's just foreign policy, which ignores the host of domestic issues that affect the welfare of Canadians far more.

Fundmental differences are also expressed through topical issues, i.e. dealing with Hamas. Having the position that Israel is the one that needs to stand down as they are the occupier is very different from the false-equivalency in rhetoric (but more like pro-Israel in reality) of Mulcair, Harper, and Obama.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

So do you want to take another stab at establishing a rightward shift of any significance?

Distancing ourselves from unions, and our traditional left wing values and the language we use to express those principles, his reactionary positions on Israel-Palestine, and his record and background much of which he has not repudiated or ominously lies about when he denies it. He told Dewar this wasn't true.

You don't think there is a smoking gun, but my challenge to you and other deniers: can you name me a major Third-Way social democrat who plainly stated that s/he was moving to the Right and did not dress it up in implications, opaque euphemisms and the like?

NorthReport

Yes that is why so many unions and union members are supporting Tom.

It sure sounds like some progressive folks aren't happy with the almost 60 seats we picked up in Quebec in the last election. Go figure.

Rakhmetov

So Martin himself has conceded it, likely because of Johal coming out like he did.  Don't you all have to eat your hats or something now?  That was the bet.

NorthReport

He has conceeded nothing and he is still in the race.

Rakhmetov

NorthReport:  What about PATCO supporting Reagan in 1980?  The UAW supporting Obama in 2012 after the unionbusting during the bailout?  Unions who supported Bob Rae in the 1995 election? etc.. etc..  There is a long history of some union leaders supporting anti-union politicians against the interests of their members. 

Gaian

@ Barleur

You do appreciate that an article beginning in this fashion: "The question remains, throbbing, in the leadership campaign NDP," is not likely to be coming from an objective source - that all following it, the word of former cabiner people, etc., devoid of context, are not to be ingested with a soupcon of salt?

You are a person of trusting nature.

As is Rakhmetov...whatever his own base of operations, favoured candidate, policies favoured, etc. etc.

Rakhmetov

Um, he just conceded he's supporting Mulcair as his second choice, after emphatically denying it before.  He didn't say "Yes, I made a secret deal with him" of course.  But please, it's over, you guys were wrong.

Gaian

Rakhmetov wrote:

NorthReport:  What about PATCO supporting Reagan in 1980?  The UAW supporting Obama in 2012 after the unionbusting during the bailout?  Unions who supported Bob Rae in the 1995 election? etc.. etc..  There is a long history of some union leaders supporting anti-union politicians against the interests of their members. 

Hell, Ronnie headed the actors union in California...strong eveidence that one should not trust the Cassius's of this world. Particularly those that won't "come out" and say where they themselves stand, who and what they represent.

Rakhmetov

And many of the skeptics said that if Singh was in cahoots with Mulcair, then he would do exactly this before the convention.  I think he would have preferred to wait until the convention, but the Johal controversy happened and he was compelled to announce now.

Rakhmetov

Gaian, I did say who I'm supporting before.  Have decided to support Nash as my first choice as she's the best hope to stop Mulcair, and is probably the strongest in 2015 against Harper because of how she'll charge up the base and could possibly make major gains in Ontario, finally supplanting the Liberals and winning enough seats to form gov't.

NorthReport

Why is that? Doesn't he have a mind of his own?

NorthReport

NDP leadership candidate Nathan Cullen speaks to Yahoo! about his surging campaign

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/ndp-leadership-candidate-...

Polunatic2

Quote:
I think he would have preferred to wait until the convention
If the vast majority of ballots are going to be cast ahead of time, what good does it do to wait until the Convention to signal your supporters? 

Quote:
It sure sounds like some progressive folks aren't happy with the almost 60 seats we picked up in Quebec in the last election. Go figure.
Which "progressive folks" are you suggesting were unhappy about the Quebec results last year? Not sure what you're getting at here? 

Pages

Topic locked