Thomas Mulcair

2763 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

He is a good coach, his family loves him and he will deliver some sort of change that he is not willing to talk about.  That video does a good job of  dispelling the myth that he was a lousy father and had a bad tempered bias when he coached his sons sports teams. 

I especially liked what he stands for, "change that voters want."  One practical step at a time.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

He is a good coach, his family loves him and he will deliver some sort of change that he is not willing to talk about.  That video does a good job of  dispelling the myth that he was a lousy father and had a bad tempered bias when he coached his sons sports teams. 

I especially liked what he stands for, "change that voters want."  One practical step at a time.

I hate to ask, but is this snark?

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:
He is a good coach, his family loves him and he will deliver some sort of change that he is not willing to talk about.  That video does a good job of  dispelling the myth that he was a lousy father and had a bad tempered bias when he coached his sons sports teams. 

I especially liked what he stands for, "change that voters want."  One practical step at a time.

It's merely an ad that's designed to get Mulcair's name out there and on people's minds. The election is still a long ways away, so of course the NDP isn't going to have a detailed policy platform out yet. That will come with time.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

He is a good coach, his family loves him and he will deliver some sort of change that he is not willing to talk about.  That video does a good job of  dispelling the myth that he was a lousy father and had a bad tempered bias when he coached his sons sports teams. 

I especially liked what he stands for, "change that voters want."  One practical step at a time.

Hey K, here's a little portrait of you I did. I hope you enjoy it:

 

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

I had to watch it a couple of times to get what his kid was saying and what his wife said near the end.  Initially I thought, "oh, his kid says he still sees him even though he's a busy politician [IE, he's still the family man], but then his wife later says they miss him."  I think though that she says "he will miss them when they leave."  I don't know.  The two statements were so quick it was hard to discern what was said.

I don't know why I bother, but here's what I heard:

Quote:
Female voice: Tom comes to politics because he cares about people. His love of people and his love of family really guides him.

One son: People are always asking, with your father in politics, you must not see him often - honestly, no, I never felt that.

Other son: He was a great coach. He was always fair to everyone.

Female voice: He's a friendly fighter. And he's exactly what Canada needs.

Spouse: He will listen. And deliver.

Tom: This is our moment - to work together and build bridges. To show Canadians that they can vote for the change they want and actually get it.

Totally utterly vacuous. Worthy of Justin Trudeau, I thought.

Quote:
However, in spite of that, I thought it was good.  Hopefully the focus on parenting and on reliable change will lead to a campaign where national childcare takes a greater focus.

Childcare? The guy was a full-time politician, lawyer, etc., and his kid never missed him. How that leads to childcare is a mystery to me.

jjuares

The ad is designed to dispel the "Angry Tom" meme that the Tories are developing. In that context it's alright.

Unionist

Unionist wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

I had a liberal moron on tweeter suggest that Mulcair's behavior has been disgraceful for a long time, and this is just the latest example. Yeah, Muclair is so corrupt for refusing a bribe from a corrupt Liberal politician. It doesn't get any richer than that.

LOL, you think Gilles Vaillancourt is a Liberal politician? That's pretty rich all right. Do some reading, then weigh in.

 

Some babbler(s) apparently found my reply above offensive, so I apologize to jan and retract the snarkiness. I should simply have pointed out that ex-Mayor Gilles Vaillancourt is not and was not a "Liberal politician", and that it's important to get one's facts straight. The only Liberal politician involved in that 1994 attempted bribe was Tom Mulcair.

 

Stockholm

Wasn't Vaillancourt's municipal party in Laval widely viewed as a bit of a Liberal "farm team" in much the same way that Gerald Tremblay's Union Montreal was also seen as a municipal Liberal party in all but name?

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:

Wasn't Vaillancourt's municipal party in Laval widely viewed as a bit of a Liberal "farm team" in much the same way that Gerald Tremblay's Union Montreal was also seen as a municipal Liberal party in all but name?

No and no. Where do you get this stuff??

Gérald Tremblay was a prominent Liberal politician - he was Minister of Industry in Bourassa's cabinet - but his municipal party was certainly no "farm team" for the Liberals. Just off the top of my head, councillor Saulie Zaidel served for years in Vision Montréal (now headed by ex-PQ minister Louise Harel), then switched to Union Montréal (headed by ex-Liberal minister Tremblay), then ran federally for the Conservative party against Irwin Cotler and got whipped.

As for Vaillancourt's Laval party, if you have some information about their integration with the Liberals, you should be talking to the Charbonneau Commission investigators at a minimum, and/or the provincial police.

Sheesh.

 

mark_alfred

Thanks Unionist.  Yeah, her saying "He will listen. And deliver." makes more sense than what I thought I heard, that being "he will miss them and leave".

jjuares

"Here’s the other interesting thing about Gilles Vaillancourt: he knows everyone. He is (or was) close to the Liberal Party of Quebec. Former Liberal cabinet minister Michelle Courchesne, also from Laval, was often in the company of the mayor; a 2008 Le Devoir article quotes a former NMA as saying the two are “very close.”

 

http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/gilles-vaillancourt/

Brachina

The purpose of the ad is the same as Harpers sweaters and piano playing, to make Mulcair more approachable and well liked, to boost his personally popularity.

What this ad is not is an election campaign ad selling the Party Platform.

The ad targets an emotional note and it hits it.

And yes thier is the hope that it will dispell the characture of the Mulk.

Unionist

jjuares wrote:

"Here’s the other interesting thing about Gilles Vaillancourt: he knows everyone. He is (or was) close to the Liberal Party of Quebec. Former Liberal cabinet minister Michelle Courchesne, also from Laval, was often in the company of the mayor; a 2008 Le Devoir article quotes a former NMA as saying the two are “very close.”

 

http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/gilles-vaillancourt/

Hey jjuares, I think we need to ensure outsiders understand the thoroughgoing corruption of Québec politics.

Gilles Vaillancourt is no more a Liberal than he is a Péquiste or a Conservative or a Communist. He did business with whoever had business to be done! They're all like that in municipal politics. And other levels as well.

Here's some counterpoint to your 2008 Liberal connection:

Quote:

In 2010 the mayor faced allegations that he gave the Parti Quebecois envelopes stuffed with cash during the 1994 election and that he gave public contracts to friends and family members.

When those allegations first surfaced Vaillancourt was forced to step down from Hydro-Quebec's board of directors and the Quebec Union of Municipalities.

"Liberal politician"? Hah!

 

Brachina

Unionist wrote:

jjuares wrote:

"Here’s the other interesting thing about Gilles Vaillancourt: he knows everyone. He is (or was) close to the Liberal Party of Quebec. Former Liberal cabinet minister Michelle Courchesne, also from Laval, was often in the company of the mayor; a 2008 Le Devoir article quotes a former NMA as saying the two are “very close.”

 

http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/gilles-vaillancourt/

Hey jjuares, I think we need to ensure outsiders understand the thoroughgoing corruption of Québec politics.

Gilles Vaillancourt is no more a Liberal than he is a Péquiste or a Conservative or a Communist. He did business with whoever had business to be done! They're all like that in municipal politics. And other levels as well.

Here's some counterpoint to your 2008 Liberal connection:

Quote:

In 2010 the mayor faced allegations that he gave the Parti Quebecois envelopes stuffed with cash during the 1994 election and that he gave public contracts to friends and family members.

When those allegations first surfaced Vaillancourt was forced to step down from Hydro-Quebec's board of directors and the Quebec Union of Municipalities.

"Liberal politician"? Hah!

 

You still on this? World has moved on to more interesting things, lets join it.

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

However, in spite of that, I thought it was good.  Hopefully the focus on parenting and on reliable change will lead to a campaign where national childcare takes a greater focus.

Childcare? The guy was a full-time politician, lawyer, etc., and his kid never missed him. How that leads to childcare is a mystery to me.

Good ads allow people to assign their own positive message to it.  For me, images of family and work, along with a commitment to live up to promises made, leads me to think of implementing a national childcare program (IE, I don't view Dads coaching hockey and skiing with their kids, and parents using publicly funded childcare spaces, as mutually exclusive).  Partially I'm led to this because I did follow the leadership debate, and did have some questions of Mulcair regarding his and the NDP's commitment to implement childcare, and was assured via an email from him that that is their commitment, and I also spoke with my MP Olivia Chow about it, and likewise was assured.  So, the ad's emphasis on family, work, and living up to commitments led me to hope childcare will take a greater focus in an upcoming campaign.

But that wouldn't necessarily be the case for everyone.  However, it's secondary what my personal reaction was.  A goal of good advertising is to allow viewers the option of imposing their own hopes and aspirations unto the subject matter of the ad.

Unionist

Brachina wrote:

You still on this? World has moved on to more interesting things, lets join it.

What - video clips of the young Liberal Tom Mulcair? Cool! I'm in.

 

Jacob Two-Two

Ooh. Like the new ad. Very effective, I think. Good timing too. Spotlight's off Justin lately and the Cons are being hammered with scandal. Time to step in and remind people that Mulcair is a trustworthy guy. A good option for the next government.

I do get a sense that this ad is aimed more at the Libs than the Cons, with the emphasis on bringing the goods. That will be a major theme of the election, I'm sure. Liberals always promise and never deliver.

Aristotleded24

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
I do get a sense that this ad is aimed more at the Libs than the Cons, with the emphasis on bringing the goods. That will be a major theme of the election, I'm sure. Liberals always promise and never deliver.

So what's the strategy to win over people who switched their votes to Harper in 2006 because of issues of government accountability and transparency?

Stockholm

Aristotleded24 wrote:

So what's the strategy to win over people who switched their votes to Harper in 2006 because of issues of government accountability and transparency?

I think most of those people have already deserted the Tories - that's why they are polling as low as 26% after having won 39% in 2011 (and 36% in 2006)...but those people may currently be parked with the Liberals and could still be low hanging fruit for the NDP.

Brachina

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Ooh. Like the new ad. Very effective, I think. Good timing too. Spotlight's off Justin lately and the Cons are being hammered with scandal. Time to step in and remind people that Mulcair is a trustworthy guy. A good option for the next government.

I do get a sense that this ad is aimed more at the Libs than the Cons, with the emphasis on bringing the goods. That will be a major theme of the election, I'm sure. Liberals always promise and never deliver.

Great timing and the best part is that the pollsters who were a huge part of Justin's popularity rise have been heavily discredited and we likely won't be hearing many polls anytime soon.

People aren't really paying as much attention Trudeau right now, as far as a leader he's surprisingly boring.

Aristotleded24

Stockholm wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

So what's the strategy to win over people who switched their votes to Harper in 2006 because of issues of government accountability and transparency?

I think most of those people have already deserted the Tories - that's why they are polling as low as 26% after having won 39% in 2011 (and 36% in 2006)...but those people may currently be parked with the Liberals and could still be low hanging fruit for the NDP.

Fair enough, we'll have to to see how those numbers play out. With that kind of low support, I can only hope that means that large numbers of seats in Western Canada could fall from the Conservatives.

Brachina

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2013/05/20/libs-out-fundraise-ndp-in-...

7.6 million in a none election year for the NDP isn't bad at all, especially when added to the pervote subsidy it totals 14,900,000 for 2012. That's not including revenue that falls in the other catagory, such as renting space at NDP HQ to stores.

For 2013 the pervoter subsidy will mean 4,533,000 dollars for the NDP. Plus what the party gets from fundraising and other sources.

Not bad for a party that lack tax payer funded Senators fundraising for it.

janfromthebruce

The spotlight is off justin because he just flew back into Canada after a week family vacation In Jamica. Now how middle class is that? lol, he doesn't bother to show up in parliament and out giving speeches, and the week that the Tories are in major scandal, Trudeau the emperor in waiting is vacationing. I do so like those optics.

janfromthebruce

Unionist wrote:

Unionist wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

I had a liberal moron on tweeter suggest that Mulcair's behavior has been disgraceful for a long time, and this is just the latest example. Yeah, Muclair is so corrupt for refusing a bribe from a corrupt Liberal politician. It doesn't get any richer than that.

LOL, you think Gilles Vaillancourt is a Liberal politician? That's pretty rich all right. Do some reading, then weigh in.

 

Some babbler(s) apparently found my reply above offensive, so I apologize to jan and retract the snarkiness. I should simply have pointed out that ex-Mayor Gilles Vaillancourt is not and was not a "Liberal politician", and that it's important to get one's facts straight. The only Liberal politician involved in that 1994 attempted bribe was Tom Mulcair.

 

Thanks Unionist, I appreciated your apology. You are from Quebec and so you would know the connections better than me who is from Quebec. I had read it somewhere so I did a bit of a search and like the upthread post had spotted that on Maclean's online.

Here’s the other interesting thing about Gilles Vaillancourt: he knows everyone. He is (or was) close to the Liberal Party of Quebec. Former Liberal cabinet minister Michelle Courchesne, also from Laval, was often in the company of the mayor; a 2008 Le Devoir article quotes a former NMA as saying the two are “very close.” Strangely, the record of the press conferences the two held together appear to have been scrubbed.

Gilles Vaillancourt: breaking down the ‘gangsterism’ charges and written By Martin Patriquin

It appears he had close ties for whatever that is worth.

Brachina

janfromthebruce wrote:

The spotlight is off justin because he just flew back into Canada after a week family vacation In Jamica. Now how middle class is that? lol, he doesn't bother to show up in parliament and out giving speeches, and the week that the Tories are in major scandal, Trudeau the emperor in waiting is vacationing. I do so like those optics.

LMFAO. Especially after the shit he throw at Ruth Ellen. Couldn't he have waited until Parliament ended for the summer like every other MP?

janfromthebruce

I see on tweeter that both Norman Spector and a blogging lib like the "Tom" ad, and not in a nasty way. Highlights Tom which is what the ad was suppose to - introduce Canadians to his family. And that is important.

jjuares

Unionist wrote:

jjuares wrote:

"Here’s the other interesting thing about Gilles Vaillancourt: he knows everyone. He is (or was) close to the Liberal Party of Quebec. Former Liberal cabinet minister Michelle Courchesne, also from Laval, was often in the company of the mayor; a 2008 Le Devoir article quotes a former NMA as saying the two are “very close.”

 

http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/gilles-vaillancourt/

Hey jjuares, I think we need to ensure outsiders understand the thoroughgoing corruption of Québec politics.

Gilles Vaillancourt is no more a Liberal than he is a Péquiste or a Conservative or a Communist. He did business with whoever had business to be done! They're all like that in municipal politics. And other levels as well.

Here's some counterpoint to your 2008 Liberal connection:

Quote:

In 2010 the mayor faced allegations that he gave the Parti Quebecois envelopes stuffed with cash during the 1994 election and that he gave public contracts to friends and family members.

When those allegations first surfaced Vaillancourt was forced to step down from Hydro-Quebec's board of directors and the Quebec Union of Municipalities.

"Liberal politician"? Hah!

 

I notice you put quotation marks around "Liberal politician". I never said anything of the sort. I provided nuance and context  to the discussion.

Please ensure that you don't imply words to me that I did not write.

 

Unionist

jjuares wrote:

 

I notice you put quotation marks around "Liberal politician". I never said anything of the sort. I provided nuance and context  to the discussion.

Please ensure that you don't imply words to me that I did not write.

 

I put quotation marks around "Liberal politician" not because of you, but because of [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/thomas-mulcair-0?page=2#commen... #829[/url] (which is where the whole tangent started) and [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/thomas-mulcair-0?page=2#commen... #887[/url] and [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/thomas-mulcair-0?page=3#commen... #907[/url]. I agree with everything you said and never intended to imply that you used that term. I assumed you and others were reading the prior posts, where Vaillancourt was called a "corrupt Liberal politician", which of course is wrong, as we both know.

 

Brachina

janfromthebruce wrote:

I see on tweeter that both Norman Spector and a blogging lib like the "Tom" ad, and not in a nasty way. Highlights Tom which is what the ad was suppose to - introduce Canadians to his family. And that is important.

I hope they put real money into it.

jjuares

Unionist wrote:

jjuares wrote:

 

I notice you put quotation marks around "Liberal politician". I never said anything of the sort. I provided nuance and context  to the discussion.

Please ensure that you don't imply words to me that I did not write.

 

I put quotation marks around "Liberal politician" not because of you, but because of [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/thomas-mulcair-0?page=2#commen... #829[/url] (which is where the whole tangent started) and [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/thomas-mulcair-0?page=2#commen... #887[/url] and [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/thomas-mulcair-0?page=3#commen... #907[/url]. I agree with everything you said and never intended to imply that you used that term. I assumed you and others were reading the prior posts, where Vaillancourt was called a "corrupt Liberal politician", which of course is wrong, as we both know.

 

Thank you for the clarification. His political colours aren't red, blue or orange but green, and I don't mean he belongs to the Green Party either.

pookie

janfromthebruce wrote:

The spotlight is off justin because he just flew back into Canada after a week family vacation In Jamica. Now how middle class is that? lol, he doesn't bother to show up in parliament and out giving speeches, and the week that the Tories are in major scandal, Trudeau the emperor in waiting is vacationing. I do so like those optics.

The House wasn't in session. Is he supposed to tail Harper waiting for a scandal to break?

And, really? The "middle class" never go on week-long vacations, eh.

Lol!

janfromthebruce

sure they do just not necessarily to Jamica which is what is inferred. So middle class which is what he is espousing that he represents.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Jamaica's tourist trade must be doing really poorly if the middle class has stopped going to its gated resorts.  That class used to be the bread and butter for all the Caribbean tourist destinations. I looked at some websites for flights from Montreal to Jamaica and was astounded at how cheap they are.  They are almost as cheap as NDP insults about the Liberal leader. 

Videos that only highlight Trudeau's hair and good looks are an insult to Canadians but videos that highlight the same type of superficial traits about Mulcair are really effective marketing tools to let the people know who Tom really is.  The federal NDP is going backwards it is not going forward.  It is working very hard at becoming the go to party in the centre of the political spectrum.  I get the appeal of that as a strategy since it has worked for the real Liberal party for most of the last hundred and thirty years.  The question that remains is which liberal party the voters will take, the new kid on the block or the tried and true Liberals that voters are used to voting for. That is likely to be an emotional response.

I think that Trudeau is an American style politician at a time where there are no Canadian nationalist parties.  All major parties are committed to the American empire and our media presents us an integral part of that empire.  Trudeau is like a Kennedy or Bush in his appeal.  Making fun of him while pointing out that he comes from a wealthy and well connected family will only feed his popularity.  If the NDP tries to run a campaign based on who is the nicer guy then they have lost before they have even started.  Trust me, I'm just like all the other politicians in Ottawa, is not a winning strategy for the NDP.

The NDP needs to stick to getting its policy heard and hammered home relentlessly.  In a head to head contest based on the popularity of the leaders Canadians will back the Canadian Idol over Mulcair. Mulcair better be offering more than just his personality because people like rich super stars.  If it is not the NDP's policy that people should support then what is the point of the party? If it is the policy that is the central reason for electing the NDP then trying to run on anything else is just a new way of lying to the voters of this country.

janfromthebruce

nobody said about running on that. It was the joke of middle class representation.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yeah and the joke was about as funny as spreading rumours that Trudeau is a pedophile. The behaviour on this site by NDP partisans highlights the problem with politics. The game of politics is about winning at any cost not about making any actual change in our political and economic system.  The video ad is the latest incarnation of this idea that the voters are not to be trusted with policy because they just need to know that Mulcair is a good honest family man. What he stands for in political terms is not nearly as important.

The partisan talking points on babble about Trudeau seem to mirror the nasty shit that emanates out of the Conservative war room.  I find it extremely off putting and think that it will lead you and your party to a rude awakening.

janfromthebruce

really liked the ad buy and hope they do it nationwide. Finally see where you come clean on "your party to a rude awakening". Because you've always suggested that it was the party you supported too - good to know the truth. No wonder you are always slamming it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I have supported the NDP for many decades. I do not support it because it has a liberal leader. Unlike you I have never trusted a Liberal and I never will. I supported Jack to become leader because he had a progressive resume and on city counsel had been willing to speak out on important issues.  Unfortunately, from my perspective, he moved the party to the centre of the political spectrum while he also promoted the cult of the leader like no other leader of the NDP had every done.  On his untimely demise the party then went all the way and elected a pragmatic career politician whose main parliamentary experience was serving in a government that I equate with the Campbell Liberals in BC.

I don't support Liberals and have never voted for Liberals in the past and I never will. I may or may not hold my nose and vote NDP in the next federal election.  It will depend on local issues since on international issues the NDP has become a pro NATO, pro World Bank and pro "free" trade party.  With Mulcair stating that he thought coming out in opposition to Kinder Morgan and the increased tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet was a bad move leads me to question his policy on the most important local issue for those of us who live by the Salish Sea. The local NDP MP has been very vocal in his opposition and that too will play a part in my decision. I have always supported good NDP MP's when they run in my riding.  I no longer belong to your party because it is a pale imitation of a left wing party and it is led by a person whose political compass could allow him to be a Liberal Cabinet Minister.  The sad part is that after a historic breakthrough to OO the party is about to have a meltdown similar to the 1993 debacle.  Canada does not want nor need another liberal party but that is what the NDP is offering.

 

janfromthebruce

whatever

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I have supported the NDP for many decades. I do not support it because it has a liberal leader. Unlike you I have never trusted a Liberal and I never will. I supported Jack to become leader because he had a progressive resume and on city counsel had been willing to speak out on important issues.  Unfortunately, from my perspective, he moved the party to the centre of the political spectrum while he also promoted the cult of the leader like no other leader of the NDP had every done.  On his untimely demise the party then went all the way and elected a pragmatic career politician whose main parliamentary experience was serving in a government that I equate with the Campbell Liberals in BC.

Since when hasn't the leader of any political party featured prominently? People that I talk to about politics tend to talk about voting for "Harper" or "Layton" or "Clark" or "Mulroney" or "Broadbent" or "Trudeau."

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I don't support Liberals and have never voted for Liberals in the past and I never will. I may or may not hold my nose and vote NDP in the next federal election.  It will depend on local issues since on international issues the NDP has become a pro NATO, pro World Bank and pro "free" trade party.  With Mulcair stating that he thought coming out in opposition to Kinder Morgan and the increased tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet was a bad move leads me to question his policy on the most important local issue for those of us who live by the Salish Sea. The local NDP MP has been very vocal in his opposition and that too will play a part in my decision. I have always supported good NDP MP's when they run in my riding.  I no longer belong to your party because it is a pale imitation of a left wing party and it is led by a person whose political compass could allow him to be a Liberal Cabinet Minister.  The sad part is that after a historic breakthrough to OO the party is about to have a meltdown similar to the 1993 debacle.  Canada does not want nor need another liberal party but that is what the NDP is offering.

I'll take you at your word that the Liberals may come back. My question is, which regions of the country do you think that would happen in? Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where the provincial parties are moribund and the Liberal MPs are there more on their own strength than their party brand? Northern or southwestern Ontario, where the Liberals finished a distant third throughout these regions? Toronto City, where polling suggests that Olivia Chow could win the mayoral race even with Bob Rae in? What about Toronto-area ridings like Davenport, Liberal strongholds for so long now represented by MPs who will work very hard to keep their seats? Atlantic Canada, where in Newfoundland and Labrador the provincial NDP polls ahead of the Liberals? Quebec, where the corruption inquiry could still very easily unearth skeletons in the provincial and federal sections of the Liberal party there? Maybe Nova Scotia where the provincial Liberals could probably take down an unpopular NDP government, or PEI where the Liberals remain strong, but Nova Scotia and PEI don't add up to very many seats.

Besides, doesn't anybody on babble remember that Paul Martin was supposed to be this great hero and lead the Liberals to breakthroughs in Alberta and Quebec? From what I see, the Liberals rely primarily on star power without doing the hard work at the constituency level, work that the Conservatives and the NDP have been very good at.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I still believed that myth until last week and the NDP's ground game in BC. It was supposed tol win them the election in a cake walk because we all know that the NDP has more motivated troops than people who work for other parties lead by lying airheads.

Canadian elections are mostly won and lost in the big cities. If the Liberals get back the voters they lost to the Conservatives over the last three elections they will be contenders. I don't see any great NDP campaign team in Ontario and it remains to be seen whether the Quebec wing can hang on to all its seats if the BQ and Liberals have good candidates. Again I don't see any evidence that the NDP ground game in Quebec is somehow better than the other parties. In BC we just saw the federal campaign Dream Team (as it was referred to by the NDP cheerleaders on babble) lose an election it should have won. The NDP ground game in this province has seen less voters mark an X for the party for two consecutive elections. So much for their superiority over the other parties.

What the party is offering is a career politician who has no vision and will be promising the lesser of evils in a three or four way race.  IMO that is a recipe for a meltdown if the voters don't buy into Mulcair mania. Its not like he will run on a dynamic vision of a new society.

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 The video ad is the latest incarnation of this idea that the voters are not to be trusted with policy because they just need to know that Mulcair is a good honest family man. What he stands for in political terms is not nearly as important.

 

You made many points but this is the one I wish to address.  Fortunately or unfortunately we do not simply judge the value of someone's comments by their content. We also look at the speaker and have that influence our decision as to whether or not we accept any argumets being put forth. That is the reason cons do a number on opposition leaders. After they have discredited him/her no one will pay any further notice to their comments. Among other things these ads are an attempt to portray Mulcair in a sympathetic light so he at least gets a fair hearing.

Brachina

He already is

socialdemocrati...

I'm not a hyper partisan. To paraphrase, I'm for the truth no matter who says it, no matter who it's for or who it's against. Mulcair wasn't my first choice in the leadership race, but I support him and think he's doing a good job advancing the policy agenda of the NDP as it was reborn under the Layton re-surgence. The fact that he was part of the only federalist provincial party in Quebec (at the time) isn't really as material to me as what he personally worked on during that time.

By the same token, I've only supported the NDP in my short life. But it doesn't mean that I support the NDP unconditionally. I related to this essay by Murray Dobbin a lot:

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/05/20/BC-Election-Stunner/

Party system. Perhaps the real dilemma facing the left is the nature of party politics itself. A tiny percentage of people belong to the NDP and Green parties and even within these parties there is little in the way of continuous engagement, political education, and social activity that is so critical to building community. This is where the failure of the month long, list-of-promises, positive campaign is rooted.

In Saskatchewan where I come from, Tommy Douglas and the CCF (the precursor of the NDP) won power in 1944 in a province totally dominated by a Liberal, pro-business party machine for decades. It won a landslide victory in a media atmosphere of absolute hysteria (headline: CCF will seize farms), fear-mongering and blatant lies. The CCF held power for 20 uninterrupted years. How? It started out as a movement and retained that character for many years afterward. It was deeply rooted in community. People felt ownership of it and its policies and out that came government programs that met the expressed needs of the people. And that, in turn, brought enormous trust in government.

People's distrust of government now runs so deep that it will take years of trust-building to regain some democratic equilibrium. That means a totally different kind of politics and a totally different kind of political party. Progressive parties run by brain trusts, engaging in politics as a game, will ultimately lose. For them progressive policies are simply pieces on a chess board, not part of a larger vision. And the longer this style of politics goes on, the more institutionalized and inward looking such parties, including the NP, become.

When Preston Manning founded the Reform Party in 1989 he said that if it hadn't achieved power in 20 years he would dissolve it and make room for something else. It actually happened sooner than that, of course. Manning wasn't married to any political party, even his own. He was committed to changing the world. Just a thought.

And even within that, there's a lot of room for tactical/strategic disagreement.

Brachina

Mulcair deals with policy all the time in the public, he's talked about his support for cap and trade, his opposition to FIPA, his position on the clarity act, his position on the naviagable waters act, helping to fund green projects, appointing 50 percent women to federal boards, support for corporate tax increases, and so on with more to come.

So if the NDP wishes to put out a setvof preelection ads that try and buildca greater emotional connection with Canadians, good for the NDP. The policy ads with come later, although Kropt will probably complain when they can't fit the whole platform into a 31 second ad.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Brachina will proclaim any ad they make as brilliant.  It doesn't matter what its content or whats its production values as long as the NDP release it that is good enough and proof positive it is  the very best.

I fully understand that Trudeau running ads that try to connect on an emotional level with Canadians is an abomination that makes one want to puke while Mulcair running ads to try and connect emotionally with Canadians is a brilliant strategy.

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Brachina will proclaim any ad they make as brilliant.  It doesn't matter what its content or whats its production values as long as the NDP release it that is good enough and proof positive it is  the very best.

I fully understand that Trudeau running ads that try to connect on an emotional level with Canadians is an abomination that makes one want to puke while Mulcair running ads to try and connect emotionally with Canadians is a brilliant strategy.

You have to do both. Mulcair is trying to do both. Trudeau is only doing one.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I don't think that Trudeau should be PM anymore than I think Harper should be.  However replacing them with another status quo loving centrist, career politician is not going to change anything for the people in this country who are being left behind. At best you get Manitoba and that is better than Alberta but hardly worth fighting for if you believe in social justice. Hell even Alberta treats its most marginalized citizens better than the Manitoba government.  Mulcair if elected will help middle class families with minor programs and defer to big business on anything important.  I hope I am wrong but we shall see. Maybe he will become a very progressive leader after fooling voters into thinking he is a centre of the road kind of guy not some socialist radical.

Trudeau is taking stands on issues these days. Just because none of us like his stands doesn't mean he is silent. He is positioning himself in the centre as the person to vote for if you abandoned the Liberals for Harper because of the adscam corruption.  Most voters already believe that all politicians are crooks so they seem to forgive that quality more than they should.  BC has had the most corrupt government in its history and they got reelected because the NDP had no vision for change in the face of global problems that everyone can see. People across the province yawned at the vision of baby steps politics.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Evan Solomon just led off his program with an interview of Thomas Mulcair, who I thought was very impressive. Most of the questions were about the Duffy/Wright affair, but the last few minutes were about "the envelope". Mulcair stated very firmly that he didn't know what was in the envelope because he immediately withdrew from the meeting. He said that he didn't report it to the police at the time because he didn't have actual evidence of a crime, just suspicions, but that he was very happy to help police much later when others were providing stronger evidence.

I thought it was a very strong performance, and it makes me feel much more confident that "the envelope" will not be a big problem. It also doesn't hurt that the story is currently overwhelmed by the Duffy/Wright business. Stockholm, it appears that you are correct, and I was a nervous nellie. I've never been more pleased to discover that I was mistaken.

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

Just a reminder to everyone that on babble disagreeing with opinions is acceptable, but comments should stick to the issues themselves and not the babblers presenting those issues.

Thank you.

jerrym

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Evan Solomon just led off his program with an interview of Thomas Mulcair, who I thought was very impressive. Most of the questions were about the Duffy/Wright affair, but the last few minutes were about "the envelope". Mulcair stated very firmly that he didn't know what was in the envelope because he immediately withdrew from the meeting. He said that he didn't report it to the police at the time because he didn't have actual evidence of a crime, just suspicions, but that he was very happy to help police much later when others were providing stronger evidence.

I thought it was a very strong performance, and it makes me feel much more confident that "the envelope" will not be a big problem. It also doesn't hurt that the story is currently overwhelmed by the Duffy/Wright business. Stockholm, it appears that you are correct, and I was a nervous nellie. I've never been more pleased to discover that I was mistaken.

After also watching Mulcair on Power and Politics, I concur. However, I am sure the Cons will bring it up again and again, as they already have done today. So Mulcair will have to repeat his defence many times.  

Pages

Topic locked