Thomas Mulcair

2763 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

To  99% of Canadians oil is just oil.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..communities have a right to say no. where's the concern? where's the consultaion? like nato, like trade, like war and now like tar sands mulcair/ndp side with the corporations 1st.

quote:

View From Chemical Valley

Welcome to “Chemical Valley”—otherwise know as Sarnia, ON, its surroundings and the Aamjiwnaang First Nation—where toxic spills are so frequent, they don’t even warrant local news coverage.

Vanessa Gray, a resident and member of Aamjiwnaang-Sarnia Against Pipelines, said that benzene, a chemical known to cause cancer, was spilled in the community last Friday—but you wouldn’t have heard about it from the media.

“The spills just happen again and again,” Gray said, specifying that they occur roughly four times a month. “What we live in has been referred to as a bubble—we are used to being afraid of whatever’s going to happen to us. I think that’s why the media chooses not to cover it.”

One pipeline passes right across the street from the community, and there are refineries and pumping stations as far as the eye can see.

“The animals have been heavily affected because the toxic water that flows through my community is the only way for them to hydrate,” Gray said.

“House pets that go off on their own and drink water have been high in cancer rates. There have been a lot of cancer deaths in small animals. We can only imagine how that affects animals that we could be enjoying like deer or fish.”

The community has also noticed significant health consequences in residents. Gray also says that birth rates and cancer rates have been affected by all of the industrial activity around the community.

“I grew up going to a lot of funerals. In my community, the average life expectancy for men is 55.”

When asked whether she has ever felt angry towards the people who work in the refineries and pumping stations surrounding her community, Gray said she never has.

“I’m sure that they’re willfully ignorant because that’s the way of life they were told to live,” she said. “It doesn’t mean that people who work for Shell are bad people—it doesn’t mean that [they are] deliberately hurting me and future generations, it just means that they need to make money in this world. We live in a capitalist system.”

Gray is now involved in environmental youth groups, hoping to raise awareness of the environmental issues in her community.

“I’m trying to get younger individuals to become more aware,” she said. “I wasn’t aware of much until my eyes were opened by grassroots organizers in Toronto who reached out to me and offered to take me to Alberta to see how the tar sands are affecting [those] communities.

http://thelinknewspaper.ca/article/3879

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

99% is definitely too high although I would easily agree that a "clear majority" don't understand the difference. To bad that there is no party willing to educate voters so that they support progressive public policies.  If 99% of what one reads is from MSM sources there is no doubt that the ideology of the 0.1% will get inveigled into ones thinking. The oil people and their spin doctors are winning the propaganda war so Mulcair doesn't fight back with the facts he instead adopts their language and nomenclature.

Memo to Mulcair. Its the carbon stupid.  We don't need a national industrial strategy based on extracting carbon as fast as possible.  Jack flew over it and said lets pull back and have a moratorium on new development.  Tom goes to the Calgary oil oligarchy and says I think we should try a different pipeline to move your product now that your out of control expansion has caused a glut of the gunk you have for sale.

I can't see any difference in Mulcair's message about the filthy tar sands.  Wink

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..it's been a very long time that i believed that govs of any stripe are ahead of the population. not on their view of corporations, war, environment, justice. what is corrupting our view of this is the outright lying that goes on in the media and parliaments.

..where it serves some purposes to believe what we have become is a commercialized robotic ready to step over anyone to get ahead. this is not who we are. not in our work places not in our communities. not the majority. the majority have struggled to build a better world in spite of the combined powers that be.

..in spite of the political marriage between governments and capital. in spite of the media. this elitist thinking that politicians know what is best for the majority is becoming more irrelevant by the day as they move further away from the people. i tell people vote for the ndp not because they are all that much different in their support of capital but that they may be easier to pressure from below. i consider it wise not to trust the ndp. under no other circumstances would you require this kind of blindness..to believe that capitalism can be tweaked into a livable world. i don’t trust the ndp and the people don’t trust them. people don’t trust the cons or the libs. and political consciousness can grow in a flash.

..it already has from the same time 2 years ago. there’s another game afoot that has everything to do with perceptions on the ground. direct democracy in that they will decide what is tar sand what the risks are and whether or not they want anything to do with it. this is where the ndp becomes irrelevant. just another gov looking to impose more shit on us. 

Aristotleded24

I've long said that choosing Mulcair to lead the party would be an unwise decision, and that suspicion I had is being confirmed. Number one for me, before Brian Topp entered the race, was that the media narrative was that Mulcair would replace Jack as the NDP leader, and I'd seen so many media-endorsed leaders (Paul Martin and Andre Boisclair come to mind immediately) crash and burn later. Mulcair is no exception. His Blairite leanings were also evident well before Jack died, and if the party's left flank had a credible leader, then Mulcair would have been defeated.

On to some specific things. He wants to engage young people, and yet, he is practicing the same type of vote-buying policies (think lowering credit card interest rates, for example) that make politics unappealing for many of the young people I've heard from. He wants to convince Canadians that the NDP are "safe" for the "mainstream." How is that speaking to the growing numbers of Canadians (not just young voters) for whom mainstream ideas are no longer working? How does this emphasis on "helping families" relate to the many people who don't have families, often because they can't afford to right now?

Then there's Idle No More. I was impressed by his allowing his MPs to meet with Theresa Spence, as it helps to showcase the Caucus and promote the team. But why didn't he have the decency to meet with her himself? Especially so, as the PM-in-waiting, since he'll probably be dealing with her as PM, and it helps to start building relationships right away.

Then there's the trade file. He claims he wants to emulate EU standards in areas of labour and environment. But as a lawyer, surely he would know the problems associated with trade deals like NAFTA and CETA, so while he's not stupid, I can't figure out what he's doing there. Especially since the EU itself is becoming more unpopular in Europe.

On the issue of taxation, I'm not sure he gets it. People are concerned about the uneven tax burdens between the 1% and the rest of the population, and that concern will only increase by 2015. Making the 1% pay their fair share of tax must be included in the next platform, otherwise the NDP will lose. There's room for disagreement on the details, for example, increasing tax rates, cracking down on tax loopholes, implementing a financial transaction tax, or any combination, but the principle must be there. It's a key reason why Francois Hollande in France was successful in his presidential campaign while Manuel Lopez Obrador in Mexico was not.

The NDP needs to learn from history. On its current path, it risks becoming a 1-term government a-la-Dexter, or may even go the way of PASOK in Greece.

That said, most of the criticisms of Mulcair have come from people who weren't going to support him anyways, so that point is not quite so persuasive. I'd be interested to hear from others. Has Mulcair won over any skeptics? Has he disappointed those who supported him?

NorthReport

I think Mulcair is doing just fine and we are still 2 years away from the next election.

The Liberals are shortly going to be having another coronation (Remember Paul Martin, Michael Ignatieff) and we will see how that goes. My hunch is initially there will be a bit of a blip in the polls, but the reality of electing a leader who has never ever held a cabinet position seems to be very risky business to me, but then again the Liberals are so desperate to try and even remain relevant in Canadian politics that it does not surprise me that they would stoop to such desperate measures for a leader. But then again seriously what choices did they realistically have? Eventually the polls are going to crash through the floor for the Liberals, it is just a matter of time.

North Star

Aristotleded24 wrote:

 

The NDP needs to learn from history. On its current path, it risks becoming a 1-term government a-la-Dexter, or may even go the way of PASOK in Greece.

That said, most of the criticisms of Mulcair have come from people who weren't going to support him anyways, so that point is not quite so persuasive. I'd be interested to hear from others. Has Mulcair won over any skeptics? Has he disappointed those who supported him?

Blaming Mulcair can only go so far. The party did choose him and while much of the Layton establishment rallied around Topp (and I for one like some others wasn't buying his left talk), there were several long time party members who backed him, particularly those seen as moderates like David Christopherson and Lorne Nystrom. Mulcair's win as much to do with the leader centric reality of our politics and I think more importantly the crisis of social democracy.

Look at Hollande, a drop in the polls and his signature legislation, the 75% tax on millionaires was ruled illegal. I haven't heard much about the PS rushing to get that brought back in a form that will pass the constitutional court. In the UK many Labour rank and file activists are pretty upset with Miliband for admitting that some cuts will have to stick. And in Germany the SPD has never truly recovered from instituting neoliberal reforms in the early to mid 2000's. While all the traditional German parties have lost support the SPD has lagged behind the CDU in the polls for quite some time. And of course as you mentioned there's the case of PASOK. In fact I can't think of a single social democratic party in Europe which enjoys the level of support it once had.

Mulcair's rise to the leadership is simply a symptom of a more serious problem for social democracy in the developed world. 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I voted for Mulcair because I thought he would be the one most likely to stand up effectively to Harper in the House of Commons. He has NOT disappointed me in that regard. But, overall, I am disappointed in him and indeed in most of the NDP. But Mulcair and the NDP for me are, nevertheless, the only real choice I have. That said, I am convinced that Harper will get another majority in 2015 because the opposition to him remains divided four ways. Frown

 

ETA: I think Megan Leslie and Charlie Angus are by far the best performing MPs in the House.

Aristotleded24

North Star wrote:
Look at Hollande, a drop in the polls and his signature legislation, the 75% tax on millionaires was ruled illegal. I haven't heard much about the PS rushing to get that brought back in a form that will pass the constitutional court.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/31/francois-hollande-french-sup...'s a start:[/url]

Quote:

In his televised new year's address, the French president deliberately did not mention the figure of a 75% tax on incomes over €1m (£800,000), leaving the way open for his deeply symbolic measure to be changed.

"We will still ask more of those who have the most," said Hollande. He added that the exceptional tax on France's wealthy would be "adjusted without changing its objective" but did not provide details of any new proposal.

The president, who is at record unpopularity levels in the polls as he faces a grim year of further economic gloom in France, suffered a major personal blow over the weekend when France's highest court threw out his tax proposal.

The temporary tax, which Hollande had described as an act of "morality" and "patriotism" by the wealthy, now faces a delay of at least a year, if not a mortal blow.

KenS

Aristotleded24 wrote:

That said, most of the criticisms of Mulcair have come from people who weren't going to support him anyways, so that point is not quite so persuasive. I'd be interested to hear from others. Has Mulcair won over any skeptics? Has he disappointed those who supported him?

I'll try. The politics are what I expected. It could be worse. [Maybe time will bring that, maybe not.]

He's not a Paul Martin or Boisclair. I never thought he would crash and burn. But I was worried he didnt have the savvy/sense to handle vulnerabilities. He's not out of the woods yet on those, but I think he has done well. And he's built some personal capital that is going to help when things get tough. The fact they havent yet, I think he has a lot to do with that. For all the "Angy Tom" BS from the peanut gallery, he makes himself harder to hit.

KenS

North Star wrote:

In fact I can't think of a single social democratic party in Europe which enjoys the level of support it once had.

Iceland. [I think]

All 350,000 people and 96 volcanoes.

socialdemocrati...

The extent of the conversation I had with a loyal but otherwise non-political New Democrat:

Me: "You voting in the leadership election?"

Him: "Probably. Haven't been paying attention"

Me: "Thought about who you're gonna vote for?"

Him: "Isn't there a guy there from Quebec?"

Me: "Yeah."

Him: "Well I guess that's who we should vote for."

 

For all the re-interpretation of "moving the center to us", and for all the questions about what kind of leader we would want in theory, I think keeping Quebec became the overriding concern for the Mulcair voters.

I frequently tried to make the case that other candidates (Topp, Saganash) had Quebec roots and reasonably good French (Nash), and that other candidates had the ingredients to potentially hold Quebec (Ashton, Cullen). But Mulcair could deliever good polls in Quebec on day one.

And he did do that on day one. And even if the Bloc and the Liberals both make a comeback, I fully expect that he'll still help the NDP hang onto a lot of Quebec seats. (Which means blocking a majority for the other parties, and making the NDP a potential powerbroker in a minority government.)

By that token, he meets most peoples' expectations.

I personally wanted more than shallow regional calculus. I think he could still deliver more. I try to remind myself that a lot of people haven't thought about Canadian politics more than 5 times since 2011, and that's why the NDP's efforts are confined to behind the scenes strategy and the notorious question period.

So much will depend on how things start to ramp up *next* year.

Aristotleded24

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
For all the re-interpretation of "moving the center to us", and for all the questions about what kind of leader we would want in theory, I think keeping Quebec became the overriding concern for the Mulcair voters.

I frequently tried to make the case that other candidates (Topp, Saganash) had Quebec roots and reasonably good French (Nash), and that other candidates had the ingredients to potentially hold Quebec (Ashton, Cullen). But Mulcair could deliever good polls in Quebec on day one.

And he did do that on day one. And even if the Bloc and the Liberals both make a comeback, I fully expect that he'll still help the NDP hang onto a lot of Quebec seats. (Which means blocking a majority for the other parties, and making the NDP a potential powerbroker in a minority government.)

By that token, he meets most peoples' expectations.

I would have made the argument that a different leader would be good for Quebec because that would have freed up Mulcair to shore up the Quebec flank where he is already a household name, and that having to travel the country would jeapordize that focus.

KenS

That comment does not recognize the world of difference made by the hometown boy/girl beaing the LEADER.

That was true od Alexa McDonough's coatails in the provincial election, after the big victory in the 1997 federal election. Even being a more familiar and popular figure in Nova Scotia than Mulcair in Quebec, those coatails would have been nothing if she wasnt leader of the national party.

You can say that you dont want to feed the leader-centric political culture. But its another matter to look for practical benefits that just dont exist.

Brachina

If oil prices keep dropping its all moot, the Oil Sands will go bankrupt.

Especially when cap and trade hits and oil subsidance are removed.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

my bold..

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I've long said that choosing Mulcair to lead the party would be an unwise decision, and that suspicion I had is being confirmed. Number one for me, before Brian Topp entered the race, was that the media narrative was that Mulcair would replace Jack as the NDP leader, and I'd seen so many media-endorsed leaders (Paul Martin and Andre Boisclair come to mind immediately) crash and burn later. Mulcair is no exception. His Blairite leanings were also evident well before Jack died, and if the party's left flank had a credible leader, then Mulcair would have been defeated.

On to some specific things. He wants to engage young people, and yet, he is practicing the same type of vote-buying policies (think lowering credit card interest rates, for example) that make politics unappealing for many of the young people I've heard from. He wants to convince Canadians that the NDP are "safe" for the "mainstream." How is that speaking to the growing numbers of Canadians (not just young voters) for whom mainstream ideas are no longer working? How does this emphasis on "helping families" relate to the many people who don't have families, often because they can't afford to right now?

Then there's Idle No More. I was impressed by his allowing his MPs to meet with Theresa Spence, as it helps to showcase the Caucus and promote the team. But why didn't he have the decency to meet with her himself? Especially so, as the PM-in-waiting, since he'll probably be dealing with her as PM, and it helps to start building relationships right away.

Then there's the trade file. He claims he wants to emulate EU standards in areas of labour and environment. But as a lawyer, surely he would know the problems associated with trade deals like NAFTA and CETA, so while he's not stupid, I can't figure out what he's doing there. Especially since the EU itself is becoming more unpopular in Europe.

On the issue of taxation, I'm not sure he gets it. People are concerned about the uneven tax burdens between the 1% and the rest of the population, and that concern will only increase by 2015. Making the 1% pay their fair share of tax must be included in the next platform, otherwise the NDP will lose. There's room for disagreement on the details, for example, increasing tax rates, cracking down on tax loopholes, implementing a financial transaction tax, or any combination, but the principle must be there. It's a key reason why Francois Hollande in France was successful in his presidential campaign while Manuel Lopez Obrador in Mexico was not.

The NDP needs to learn from history. On its current path, it risks becoming a 1-term government a-la-Dexter, or may even go the way of PASOK in Greece.

That said, most of the criticisms of Mulcair have come from people who weren't going to support him anyways, so that point is not quite so persuasive. I'd be interested to hear from others. Has Mulcair won over any skeptics? Has he disappointed those who supported him?

..we are experiencing austerity and repression is all around us. what is being done to the 1st peoples is very aggressive. violent in fact. and racist. we look across the border and are witness to a vicious assault on working people. on the ground actions need some of the resources that go to the ndp. i say this as a long time activist. on the ground is where the greatest leverage is for change and for defence. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..for all our talk about future solutions there needs to be a discussion on what we need to be doing right now. today to support those movements. getting rid of harper is only one part sometime in the future. maybe, time will tell won't it. there was an article i read that stated that the 1st nations are the last line of defence for our enviroment. written by a native man. very profound words. our thinking has to shift from future solutions towards a more supportive role for the peoples that are fighting our battles right now. it's not that we aren't capable of doing both it's that nothing changes even though everyone agrees that we can do both. the resources from the left remains mainly in ndp coffers financial and otherwise.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Maybe someone can help me with this - my memory isn't what it used to be.

Question: has Mulcair moderated his 100% support for Israel somewhat since the leadership race?

socialdemocrati...

Boom Boom wrote:

Maybe someone can help me with this - my memory isn't what it used to be.

Question: has Mulcair moderated his 100% support for Israel somewhat since the leadership race?

On a tangent.

Mulcair on the Palestinean statehood bid, noting that some of Mulcair's thoughts are paraphrased by the media: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/11/29/un-palestinian-state-israe...

Mulcair translates his "in all circumstances" quote, in his own words: http://www.straight.com/news/ndp-leader-thomas-mulcair-favours-peace-ira...

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

from the second article above:

In his interview with the Straight, Mulcair emphasized that he is also an “ardent supporter of the creation of a Palestinian state”.

“That has always been the NDP’s position,” he said. “We should create a state for Palestinians and we should have a state for Israelis: a classic two-state solution.”

Sounds okay to me, unless I'm missing something.

Brachina

I'm happy with the job Mulcair is doing, its not perfect, but I had no illusions about Mulcair when I voted for him as leader. Still very satisfied.

KenS

KenS wrote:

I never thought Mulcair would crash and burn. But I was worried he didnt have the savvy/sense to handle vulnerabilities. He's not out of the woods yet on those, but I think he has done well. And he's built some personal capital that is going to help when things get tough. The fact they havent yet, I think he has a lot to do with that. For all the "Angy Tom" BS from the peanut gallery, he makes himself harder to hit.

Here is an assessment that might sound like it is contradicting what I said.

But Horgan is saying that Mulcair has not done well at defining himself, which is risky. Thats different than me saying he has defended himself from attacks well [so far].

What is Thomas Mulcair’s problem?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Brachina wrote:
If oil prices keep dropping its all moot, the Oil Sands will go bankrupt. Especially when cap and trade hits and oil subsidance are removed.

brachina

..you make an interesting point that, for me, raises the clean up of this ever expanding ecological disaster from hell. how we can allow this to go forward has just gotta border somewhere in the realm of insanty. this must be stopped. if that's not going to happen via parliment then there must be another way. luckily there is. and this is to the benefit of, i would assume, every ndp member.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Maybe the tar sands can be stopped sometime in the future when climate change becomes intolerable, but hasn't the NDP's Tom Mulcair said he supports shipping tar sands product west to east to be refined in Sarnia and the New Brunswick? And even Canadian unions are clamouring to get refineries up and started in Alberta to refine the tar sands shit at home?

KenS

Yes, the costs of the oil sands are huge. But not the financial costs to the perpetrators.

Unfortunately, the oil sands are not going broke- not even the newer projects. Thinking they will go bankrupt is just paying too much attention to the sensationalist doom and gloom that serves the industry's PR needs.

They may look stupid building all this capacity when their are not markets and prices to support them. But this is real capitalism and it has always worked in Canada [for them]. If they dont make the big easy profits they were planning on when the launched the 42nd project... they'll just have to get their money the slower way. And they will.

At the very worst [for the capitalists], extreme product oversupply and low prices means a few companies cannot hold onto their projects and dont make money. But they sell out at a discount to someone who will carry on and make money. [Meanwhile pressuring governemnts to make sure taxes and regulations stay low so that "jobs are protected."]

knownothing knownothing's picture

KenS wrote:

Unfortunately, the oil sands are not going broke- not even the newer projects. Thinking they will go bankrupt is just paying too much attention to the sensationalist doom and gloom that serves the industry's PR needs.

Absolutely, all this PR about the oil sands and Alberta in dire straits is just another tactic made to further the pipeline cause.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Don't forget the Cons are looking to increase tar sands product (bitumen?)  flow through existing pipelines. There was an article about Vancouver going to get a massive increase in oil supertankers to their harbours.  And looking for as many alternatives as possible - moving the Northern gateway further north up the BC coast, maybe a pipeline to the Arctic, maybe by train to Hudson's Bay, and West to East. They ain't finished. There may be alternatives being secretly planned and approved that we don't even know about yet.

ETA: massive Chinese and American investment in the tar sands pretty much guarantees the tar sands will never be "shut down".

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The tar sands would not have been developed without large doses of Canadian taxpayer dollars.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

The tar sands entry on Wiki has been cleaned up - by the Cons? - and makes this statement:

Ottawa has avoided direct investment, preferring to improve the investment climate. A prime example of this occurred in 1994, when the federal government rolled out tax breaks allowing 100% of oil sands capital investments to be written off as accelerated capital cost allowances.[43] The provincial government had a much more direct role in development; investing directly in numerous pilot projects, undertaking joint ventures with the industry and consistently making massive investments in research and development. Alberta features one of the lowest royalty rates in the world.[44] This industry-centric royalty system is criticised for "promoting a runaway pace of development".

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I like this link better: Tar Sands 101

The Tar Sands "Gigaproject" is the largest industrial project in human history and likely also the most destructive. The tar sands mining procedure releases at least three times the CO2 emissions as regular oil production and is slated to become the single largest industrial contributor in North America to Climate Change.

The tar sands are already slated to be the cause of up to the second fastest rate of deforestation on the planet behind the Amazon Rainforest Basin. Currently approved projects will see 3 million barrels of tar sands mock crude produced daily by 2018; for each barrel of oil up to as high as five barrels of water are used.

Human health in many communities has seriously taken a turn for the worse with many causes alleged to be from tar sands production. Tar sands production has led to many serious social issues throughout Alberta, from housing crises to the vast expansion of temporary foreign worker programs that racialize and exploit so-called non-citizens. Infrastructure from pipelines to refineries to super tanker oil traffic on the seas crosses the continent in all directions to allthree major oceans and the Gulf of Mexico.

The mock oil produced primarily is consumed in the United States and helps to subsidize continued wars of aggression against other oil producing nations such as Iraq, Venezuela and Iran.

NorthReport
socialdemocrati...

NorthReport wrote:

Mulcair bill to strengthen budget watchdog

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/24/pol-ndp-tom-mulcair-pri...

I think that's some good policy and strategy. I just wish he'd keep an eye on what's going on OUTSIDE parliament too, and engage with the grassroots.

NorthReport

NDP Leader Mulcair says EI crackdown is a Conservative political game

The federal government's crackdown on employment insurance claimants is a political game that creates a presumption of guilt, says NDP Leader Tom Mulcair.

The crackdown includes sending government inspectors to people's homes and setting annual dollar targets for EI investigators to uncover fraud.

Mulcair says the government is trying to blame the victims, and that people who have paid into the system deserve to collect their benefits.

"We want Harper and his thugs to stop attacking the jobless," Mulcair said at a morning news conference.

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley has vigorously denied that the fraud targets amount to quotas.

"Service Canada does not have quotas that would carry negative consequences for staff who fail to meet them," Finley said in an email message on Wednesday. "They do however have performance targets to help protect the benefits of the unemployed from fraud."

"Service Canada was able to stop almost a half billion dollars in ineligible payments last year, but the employment insurance program still lost hundreds of millions due to fraud," Finley asserted.

Officials with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada say investigators were given a national target of $437 million last year to root out ineligible payments and fraud.

"This is consistent with previous years," a departmental spokesman said in an email.

Mulcair dismisses the government's claims.

"We've had our quota of the lying by the minister responsible for this file," he said.

- See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/ndp-leader-mulcair-says-ei-crackdown-i...

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/ndp-leader-mulcair-says-ei-crackdown-i...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Mulcair Accueses Conservatives of Lying about EI Crackdown. Go Tom go. Where's Bob? Where's Marc? Where's "Le Dauphin"? The link, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/02/27/thomas-mulcair-ei-crackdown_n_27...

Debator, that is what  peoples governance looks like. Its not about a name and pretty hair.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

P&P had a great excerpt of Bob attacking Harper, as well as the fantastic perfromance by Tom.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Boom Boom!

Look, stop acting like such an Adult! I have a right to be childish if I want to! Wink

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

But Tom's performance was truly something to behold. He's the only MP I've heard use the expression "Harper and his thugs".  Wow! Laughing

mark_alfred

I was a Topp supporter in the leadership race, but I think Mulcair has done okay so far.  Certainly I've not been surprised by the leadership style, since I saw it in the leadership race.  It was effective then, and continues to be so.  We'll see if he can "move the centre to the left".  Time will tell (IE, we'll know after 2015).  Polling for the NDP is still good, and he is seen as the biggest challenger to Harper within the House.  I suspect that will continue even after the Liberals officially crown Trudeau.

Aristotleded24

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
The extent of the conversation I had with a loyal but otherwise non-political New Democrat:

Me: "You voting in the leadership election?"

Him: "Probably. Haven't been paying attention"

Me: "Thought about who you're gonna vote for?"

Him: "Isn't there a guy there from Quebec?"

Me: "Yeah."

Him: "Well I guess that's who we should vote for."

Let's compare the 2003 and the 2011-2012 NDP leadership campaigns. Both were about equally crowded. The case for Mulcair was pretty self-explanitory: he had played a role in the NDP breakthrough in Quebec, and the party needed first and foremost to hold on to that. Yet, it took him 4 ballots to win. Jack, on the other hand, won easliy on his first ballot, and the straightforward reasoning to vote for Jack was nowhere near as compelling as it was to vote for Mulcair, so that should tell you something.

To further prove my case that Mulcair needs to review his leadership, remember that 2 of the 3 Caucus defections that happened in this Parliamentary setting happened under his watch, and more people have bolted from the NDP than any other party. Not a bad sign, and I have a sinking feeling that there will be more defections between now and 2015.

Aristotleded24

I'm not calling specifically for a leadership review, I'm saying that Mulcair needs to re-examine his approach. Has any other party seen defections in this Parliamentary setting? Only the Conservatives, but that has to do with Goldring stepping aside as a result of a criminal investigation, and not some sort of disagreement with the leadership.

I don't seriously expect that a leadership review is going to take place barring something spectacular, but that doesn't mean we should check our questions and our critical thinking at the door. If the party is on the wrong track, then that needs to be pointed out so it can be corrected.

KenS

The reason there were no defections under Jack Layton's tenure- is that he up and died shorly after acquring an instantly enlarged Caucus.

There is never going to be a leadership review because people at the time think it should happen. Leadership reviews require constituttional change. And practically speaking, the super majority required for that, is achievable only during times you dont need a review.

Defections after a Caucus that grows out of nowhere are predictable. Who knows whether there will be more. They are not an indication of weakness.

Jack won commandingly in 2003 because the choice of a broad swath of the party from early on. No one had the equivalent in 2011. And because hands down he and the people around him were WAY ahead in organizational capability. Brian Topp had more of that to start with. But only more, not WAY more. And he wasnt the 2003 Jack Layton that could expand on what he started with.

KenS

No other party has a caucus like the NDP's. There is NO comparison.

I dont have a problem at all with being critical. Just the reason's you have given here.

KenS

You have to expect turbulence in a Caucus like this. Especially the Quebec part of it [and/or in relation to the Quebec members].

And you have to expect turbulence in a party that finds itself vaulted from perrenial distant third party to official opposition under the microscope for how it would govern.

The fact of turbulence is not cause for concern. Its what you do about it.

Aristotleded24

KenS wrote:
No other party has a caucus like the NDP's. There is NO comparison.ere.

You're right. Unlike the NDP, the other Caucuses are internally cohesive.

KenS

Just to be clear. The NDP has the same general tendency for internal cohesion. But the 2011 election result was very unique.

Debater

Looks like things are beginning to unravel for Thomas Mulcair & the NDP:

 

NDP MP Claude Patry defects to join the Bloc Québécois

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-mp-claude-patry-defects...

Debater

KenS wrote:

Defections after a Caucus that grows out of nowhere are predictable. Who knows whether there will be more. They are not an indication of weakness.

Not an indication of weakness?!  Ken, normally you are one of the more reasonable ones, but you are REALLY spinning here.  This most certainly IS a big deal for the NDP.  If the NDP becomes perceived as being pro-BQ in the rest of Canada, it is OVER for the NDP in the next election and the Liberals will overtake them again.

The NDP cannot afford to have members of its caucus joining the BQ for all Canadians to see - it sends a terrible message.

KenS

You are going to lecture me about spinning.

That should keep me grinning all day.

Debater

Okay Ken, but I think it's the Liberals, Conservatives & BQ who are grinning today - not the NDP. Smile

 

This has already given Harper an opening to go after the NDP and take the focus off of his party's scandals:

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/harper-slams-ndp-after-claude-patry-cross...

KenS

There's been LOTS of discussion here about this Debater for months now. 291 posts and counting in that thread, with multiple threads before.

Is it tough? Yes. Thats what the discussion is about.

But "unravelling" is for people that have been itching to dance on the grave. You fill your boots on that one.

Pages

Topic locked