Thomas Mulcair

2763 posts / 0 new
Last post
The Analyst The Analyst's picture

Old article, still seems relevant

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/02/23/what-is-thomas-mulcairs-problem/

Tom Mulcair has been spending waaayyyy too much time trying to woo the Very Serious People and elite in our country and not enough time shaping public perception. I mean, after the first Tom ad and Stephen Harper's solution ads it doesn't seem like the NDP's aired any others. What gives?!

Jacob Two-Two

Well, it's a long time until the election. It's a marathon, not a sprint, and who knows what might happen over the next two years. The money that's spent now on ads that aren't strictly necessary (even if they might be a good idea) may be sorely missed later if something happens that requires ad time to address. And I don't mean to be a jerk, but have you donated any money to the party lately? I'm not saying you can't complain if you haven't. Just pointing out the simple equation that more money = more ads. I kinda think it's smart to be holding back right now and waiting to see how Justin settles in, or what weaknesses he might expose, but I agree it runs a risk. 

The Analyst The Analyst's picture

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Well, it's a long time until the election. It's a marathon, not a sprint, and who knows what might happen over the next two years. The money that's spent now on ads that aren't strictly necessary (even if they might be a good idea) may be sorely missed later if something happens that requires ad time to address. And I don't mean to be a jerk, but have you donated any money to the party lately? I'm not saying you can't complain if you haven't. Just pointing out the simple equation that more money = more ads. I kinda think it's smart to be holding back right now and waiting to see how Justin settles in, or what weaknesses he might expose, but I agree it runs a risk. 

If I give 60% of my paycheck to the Federal NDP, solicited everyone I knew to go donate, & volunteered for a Dipper call centre I still doubt I'd significantly effect NDP funds.

Regardless, advertisements can serve as a fundraising tool themselves by energizing the base. It makes perfect sense for Mulcair to air some image defining ads, critical ads, and contrast ads so the Rest of Canada can get to know him.   

Brachina

The NDP I believe aired two Lier Lier and one attacking Steven Harper the economy awhile back.

nicky

Here is Chantal Hebert's take on Mulcair's standing in Quebec. I posted it under another topic but it seems to fit here as well

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/04/29/thomas_mulcair_and_the_ndp_are_far_from_dead_in_quebec_hbert.html

knownothing knownothing's picture

Michael Den Tandt: Mulcair is crazy like a fox — and it just might work

 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/30/den-tandt/

knownothing knownothing's picture

Why is Mulcair thwarting his own political makeover?

Martin Patriquin on the NDP leader’s unexpected constitutional quest

 

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/04/30/why-is-mulcair-thwarting-his-own-poli...

socialdemocrati...

It's funny what people consider NDP "death". If the NDP plateaus in English Canada and ends up with a bare majority in Quebec, it will be the second best election result the party ever had.

The Conservatives aren't getting another majority. There is no Liberal path to a majority without Quebec.

That's a pretty good downside, IMO. And there's a ton of room for growth.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Mulcair has really tweaked something with these SCC allegations.

He is someone in a position of power who has dirt on everyone and is looking to use it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The good news is has both Macleans and the National Post are praising him for getting rid of the socialist legacy and for looking more like a Tony Blair type guy all the time.  Couple that with an attack on a SCC Justice based on a book by a Quebec historian and he should do well in the next election.  Real nice move, attacking one of our most progressive jurists after he is dead and can't defend himself.  WTF

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

His record makes him a progressive jurist. I am astounded that Mulcair has now attacked the sitting Supreme Court by saying they never intended to look into it properly.  Its like he thinks he is running to become Premier of Quebec. I think someone should take the shovel out of his hands before he digs himself a deeper hole.

The end game for the PQ in going after this issue is to try to nullify the Constitution.  What is Mulcair's? 

knownothing knownothing's picture

He may not look like a progressive jurist if the truth comes out.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Mulcair is going to get Quebec to sign the constitution.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

K:

You wrote:

"The end game for the PQ in going after this issue is to try to nullify the Constitution.  What is Mulcair's?"

The better question really is, what's yours?

Here's my agenda, defending Mulcair. He is as patriotic a Canadian, and as much a proud, loyal, Candian patriot as you or I. And I say his end game is to try to make Qubec feel welcome in Canada. There I've said.

Again, what's your agenda? I've told you mine. And what are you implying about Mulcair? I'm not implying anything, I've told you he is a patriot. I've told you what I think.

Over to you.

knownothing knownothing's picture

John Ivison: Auditor-General’s report like manna for ‘government-in-waiting’ NDP

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/30/john-ivison-auditor-gener...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

K:

You wrote:

"The end game for the PQ in going after this issue is to try to nullify the Constitution.  What is Mulcair's?"

The better question really is, what's yours?

Here's my agenda, defending Mulcair. He is as patriotic a Canadian, and as much a proud, loyal, Candian patriot as you or I. And I say his end game is to try to make Qubec feel welcome in Canada. There I've said.

Again, what's your agenda? I've told you mine. And what are you implying about Mulcair? I'm not implying anything, I've told you he is a patriot. I've told you what I think.

Over to you.

I am not a leader of the Official opposition. I have no agenda. 

I did not say anything about his patriotism so cut the military bullying crap out will you.  Just because that shit about patriotism worked for you in the navy doesn't mean anything to me and I refuse to play your stupid game of I'm more patriotic than you are.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

K, I didn't say anything about your patriotism. I said that Mulcair was a patriot.

OK, so lets be more blunt. When someone asks someone a question like this that deals with this kind of issue, for my money, you can only take it one way. I say you are calling into question his patriotism and loyalty. Be the tough guy all you want, it is what it is. I am all open to debate, but the innuendo doesn't belong here.

Say what ever you want. Just own up to it. And be forth right about what you are saying.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

You have a way of misinterpreting many things.  I did not imply anything about his fucking patriotism, that is all in your head not in anything I actually wrote.  If you stopped trying to read between the lines and concentrated on the words your reading comprehension would improve.

I am making the point that he seems to be playing to his Quebec base and that is a political strategy that is going to bite your party in the ass. He is not running to be the Premier of Quebec he is trying to become the Prime Minister of Canada.  He should just shut the fuck up like he does on many controversial issues and leave this shit slinging to the PQ.

Bora Laskin was one of the Judges who sided with the Nisgha in the Calder case if he had not there would be no recognized right to aboriginal title in Canada. His dissent in Murdoch v. Murdoch led to women getting their rightful share in divorces when property was being divided. In Morgentaler v. The Queen, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 616 he sided with Morgentaler and agreed that the defence of necessity was available and the jury acquittal should stand.  Those are just three of his progressive decisions.

I am appalled at the sullying of this jurist's reputation for crass political purposes. The events occurred thirty years ago and he is not around to defend himself. If the PQ and the National Assembly want to pursue this separatist ghost story that is their right but I still can't figure out why Mulcair is so gung ho to follow suit.  Next he will be apologizing for the mythological Night of the Long Knives.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I know who Bora Laskin was. All you had to was say what you just said. You didn't. I appreciate you taking the time to clear it up. Thanks. And as to the personal stuff, stow it and calm down.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

"An innuendo is an insinuation or intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature. It can also be a remark or question, typically disparaging (also called insinuation), that works obliquely by allusion. In the latter sense, the intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken literally, are innocent."

Stop reading innuendo into my posts and I doubt if we will have many problems. Just read the words please don't read into them. I never implied anything about Mulcairs patriotism that was completely your invention our of thin air.  I don't like being accused for no reason so I often sound perturbed when I reply to that kind of accusation.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Now to get back to Mulcair. I thought he did really well in the House going after the Conservatives for the three billion dollars in improperly documented spending.  I loved him calling it a boondoggle.

I hope that someone digs up some of the Cons nasty quotes about Chief Spence's FN and throws those words back in their faces. They too did not have proper documentation for some of their spending and they were pilloried in the press and by the government.  It appears that this 3 billion dollars was much the same thing except on a massive scale. I think the coverage of the two events highlights the systemic racism that FN's face especially when they speak up about injustice.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

K, seriously, calm down. Go for a walk. You'll feel better.

Brachina

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Now to get back to Mulcair. I thought he did really well in the House going after the Conservatives for the three billion dollars in improperly documented spending.  I loved him calling it a boondoggle.

I hope that someone digs up some of the Cons nasty quotes about Chief Spence's FN and throws those words back in their faces. They too did not have proper documentation for some of their spending and they were pilloried in the press and by the government.  It appears that this 3 billion dollars was much the same thing except on a massive scale. I think the coverage of the two events highlights the systemic racism that FN's face especially when they speak up about injustice.

Interesting correlation, it is hypocritical of the Tories isn't it.

But have no fear this isn't going away anytime soon.

Jacob Two-Two

There's no doubt that FN leaders will jump all over this. I'll be looking forward to it. The Liberals, on the other hand, decided that this was the time to complain about tarriffs? With all this ammunition, that's what they went with? Something the public doesn't give a shit about?

Every time I start to think, "maybe these guys are a real threat", they remind me that they're the same clueless bunch I've been watching stumble around for a decade now.

Brachina

No body in the ROC cares, especially after the bomb shell dropped by the AG.

janfromthebruce

And the Libs are stilling trying to make "attack ads" the topic rather than go to what matters to Canadians.

Brachina

Yeah its not just the Libs sadly, the globe and mail thinks that the fact that three Tory MPs disapprove of the mail attack ads against Justin is more important then the AG report or that Justin is bombing in the house. Its nice to have friends in high places.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mythological bird sighting.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

I agree with kropotkin about Mulcair's SCC comments.

I can't imagine what he thinks he is going to accomplish by it.

I just see a pointless action that is going to play to the hearts of people who either don't understand what he's doing, or don't care. Really, it is no different that Harper's tactic of answering every opposition question by making accusations of playing politics. It does nothing but undermine respect for the entire institution, and the work of the people who made those rulings.

If Mulcair is really serious about this tactic maybe he should try it on the Speaker fo the House next time things don't go his way.

And yes, if Laskin's rulings aren't to be trusted then it stands to reason we should be trying to reverse and revisit those rulings on choice and FN rights. You can't just shut  Pandora's box when it is convenient for you.

knownothing knownothing's picture

It is good politics and good policy. He is reinforcing his position as one of Quebec's most trusted politicians. If there truly was some foulplay during the repatriation, this should be known to Quebecers. They are already pissed about it being repatriated without their consent, let alone if it was done in conspiracy.This is Mulcair's way at indirectly fighting Justin Trudeau in Quebec, and it is working. Yesterday, when asked about it, Trudeau said that he wouldn't attack one leader to another over constitutional issues.In the ROC, no one is paying attention to this issue. It is a win-win.

Why are you scared of undermining the institution of the SCC? All institutions are meant to be held to account. What is so great about the SCC that it can't be questioned?

 

6079_Smith_W

Let's see... an angry populace, no smoking gun, but plenty of talk of conspiracy. That sure sounds responsible to me.

And I presume Mulcair will start next on attacking his own legitimacy and that of parliament based on today's findings by Elections Canada.

Sorry, but it is a very stupid policy that moves Canada one step closer to an American-style conception of the judiciary, where it is just assumed that all decisions are tainted by politics.

Also, it does absolutely nothing to move toward the presumed goal here. Seems to me if he wants to revisit the constitution - a noble cause - the proper course is to make it an election issue and do just that. Again, I don't see any sense in a tactic like this, which does nothing but poison the water before the process has even begun.

If you see anything productive other than playing for public sentiment and to score points, I'd love to hear it. All I see is politics at its most crass.

(edit)

And no, the judiciary is not above criticism, but as I said, they call it the Supreme Court for a reason, and any politician who has any sense knows that you don't make accusations like that without  real evidence. What comes of it? Idle speculation of the sort that has been going on in this thread.

Also, to anyone who does take the institutions of govenrment seriously, and wants to make them work, you run the risk of looking like this other guy who decided to second-guess the court:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/15/anti-gay-pamphleteer-asks-for-su...

And yes, I know Mulcair was careful to say he wasn't judging any ruling. Well that's not exactly how it is being spun, is it?

 

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Conspiracy theories that are thirty years old as a strategy to lead the NDP to government.  I might find it funny except Laskin is someone who contributed greatly to the progressive discourse in this country on issues most of us hold dear like FN's rights and women's rights. The Conservatives are already trying to saddle Mulcair with the ridiculous claim that his Quebec caucus is really just the BQ in disguise. Why give them any ammunition?

Mulcair is doing well on the lack of documentation boondoggle on the anti terrorism file and that might actually win him votes in all regions of Canada.

6079_Smith_W

Cross-posted with you knownothing.

And yes, I know that. but as I said, take that to the absolute and you wind up with Mr. Harper's tactic of not dealing with the questions.

And if all decisions are tainted, then we should also be working hard to reverse the decisions on reproductive choice and FN rights that kropotkin mentioned, right? Considering that they are tainted too.

knownothing knownothing's picture

All decisions are tainted by politics. Those who don't see that are allowing themselves to be deceived.

knownothing knownothing's picture

There are many issues to be dealt with. Unfortunately, not all issues are as politically rewarding as the Quebec constitutional issue. Although, I do think FN issues will be a big part of the NDP campaign in 2015. I think we will see more from Mulcair on these issues coming up. Many FN leaders are already lining up behind the NDP and Mulcair is going to make a play for all FN votes in the country. 

John Ibbitson, in his book, the Big Shift, talks about the Conservative coalition of Alberta and Ontario. Largely geographical-thinking. I think the NDP may be able to transcend geography in the next election. Sure, we will win BC, some Ontario, lots in Quebec, lots in the Maritimes, but it won't be where votes are for us as much as who votes for us. Mulcair seems to have learned a lot from Harper about micro-targeting (Ibbitson and Bricker do write about this as well). He is responding to the Conservative policies with micro-targeting. OAS and Seniors, EI and the Maritimers with the culture of defeat, business sector who hate Flaherty's interventions and changes to the TFW program, things like that. By taking out "socialism", he has made the party far safer for the middle-class. Language is big. I am against the change but I can see that it is working politically so at least it has achieved the intended outcome. Many journalists are now sympathetic to our cause. They are starting to warm up to the idea of us governing. This is the result of good hard work by our MPs, staff, and grass roots activists but also it is the emergence of a larger systemic vacuum, where Canada actually needs the NDP to govern more than the NDP needs to govern Canada. It sort of reminds me of Romanow taking over from Devine in Saskatchewan. Hopefully, Mulcair and the party can win and govern without conceding too much to the powerful interests that have governed our country for the past 150 years.

 

knownothing knownothing's picture
janfromthebruce

Interestingly enough, Hebert in TorStar suggests that a "pedestal is no place for a public policy or for a public institution".

In Quebec corruption inquiry: Public policy can’t be treated like a sacred cow — Hébert went on to suggest that in fact it is "conducive to a transparent public policy environment" - amen. And thank you Mulcair for throwing politically incorrect stones and not taking the "easy road".

When all is said and done, a pedestal is no place for a public policy or for a public institution. On that score, the self-imposed collective reverence that led to the Quebec fiasco is not unique to that province.

Across Canada for instance, more than one public policy sin has been committed in the name of the sacrosanct character of medicare — including the turning of a political blind eye to the fact that the system has trouble keeping up with 21st-century standards of care.

On yet another front, there have been suggestions this very week that it is un-Canadian for a federal leader to suggest that the Supreme Court is not immune to political temptations just because it says it is. But casting politically incorrect stones at opaque glass houses is ultimately more conducive to a transparent public policy environment than the dubious pairing of political ostriches and institutional sacred cows.

6079_Smith_W

Actually jan, it took me a few reads to pick the sense out of that leaden, overly-mixed metaphor.

Compare that to the absolute field day the National Post is having with this story, on several editorial fronts:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/29/thomas-mulcair-latches-on...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/30/den-tandt/

If you haven't had enough, do read the one about the left and the charter. It's good.

I may not agree with their politics, but both writers make serious points here. More importantly,  you can sure tell when an editorial writer smells blood.

 

mark_alfred

Right wingers always hate information that may jeopardize a sacred cow's credibility, like Tom Flanagan calling for Julian Assange's assassination, or many decrying the viewpoints of climatologists.  So no surprise at the National Post.

6079_Smith_W

It's convenient to reduce it to ad hominems and not deal with the actual issue.

And I guess that makes me and some others right-wingers by your definition too. Because as I said, I think Kay and Ten Dandt make some valid points about Mulcair's actions, despite their politics and motives.

socialdemocrati...

Liberals decided before Mulcair was even leader that they'd go after the NDP for being "cryptoseparatists". Now nearly everything is taken through that lens, and attacked relentlessly.

Frankly, I think separatism is going away. But Conservatives/Liberals love to jab them in the eye, and give the separatists a cause celebre. Because it gives the so-called "federalists" a cause celebre in return.

A real federalist would be respectful to all sides.

janfromthebruce

agreed sd - it's political attack - oh is that now defined as bullying a la Trudeau Jr.?

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:

The real crooks in this piece are the Harpocons. They should simply release every scrap of paper involved in this "scandal", and it would instantly die of mass boredom. By refusing to do so, they keep the provocation going. Still way smarter than the opposition.

I suspect you're right about "and it would instantly die of mass boredom."

Unionist

Laskin was a great jurist and is admired by any workers who care to know some history.

The "revelations" about what Laskin did are a petty effort to reignite some feeling of betrayal in the hearts of Quebecers. The amazing part is that Bastien couldn't come up with anything more sinister than this. Mulcair's pandering to the PQ is shameful, and he should simply ignore this - go beyond it, above it, talk about Québec's place in Canada, in line with the Sherbrooke Declaration. The NDP, however, is too cowardly to publish the Declaration, but not smart enough to avoid getting embroiled in an irrelevant issue.

The real crooks in this piece are the Harpocons. They should simply release every scrap of paper involved in this "scandal", and it would instantly die of mass boredom. By refusing to do so, they keep the provocation going. Still way smarter than the opposition.

 

knownothing knownothing's picture
Unionist

knownothing wrote:

I love it when people try to pronounce how the public will react to issues.

I don't suppose politicians try to predict how the public will react to issues, right? Possibly you should be taking up your declaration of love with them.

By the way, do you know how the public has reacted to this issue so far?

knownothing knownothing's picture

How can you know how the public has reacted so far?

knownothing knownothing's picture

"Catherine McKenna is co-founder of Canadian Lawyers Abroad and executive director of the Banff Forum. Adam Goldenberg is a Kirby Simon Human Rights Fellow at Yale Law School and a former Liberal speech writer."

You posted a "public" reaction by a couple of Liberal partisans, nice.

So is the SCC above criticism or investigation?

knownothing knownothing's picture

I love it when people try to pronounce how the public will react to issues.

I thought that was the job of the polling companies.

6079_Smith_W

knownothing wrote:

You posted a "public" reaction by a couple of Liberal partisans, nice.

So is the SCC above criticism or investigation?

Did you even read the article?

You might think you are making your point; in fact, you are making mine - that going on heresay and ignoring arguments because of what you think someone's politics are is in fact a dangerous game.

No, I don't think any group is above criticism. But for that you need to at least have something of substance.

Pages

Topic locked