Thomas Mulcair

2763 posts / 0 new
Last post
Debater

Ken is correct on this one.  He is able to see that The Clarity Act, or at least its basic principles, is supported in most of the country.

The NDP will damage its prospects for growth and lose voters back to the Liberal Party if it is perceived as being too similiar to the BQ.  This is why Mulcair's 'bear trap' that Brachina predicted would cause trouble for Trudeau has actually ended up causing more trouble for Mulcair, and costing him a Quebec MP this week.

And a poll earlier this month showed that about 75% of Canadians are against the NDP's Unity Bill, and that even the NDP Premiers are staying away from Mulcair on this one.

 

Mulcair’s plan to replace Clarity Act not gaining traction with Canadians, provincial NDP leaders

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mulcairs-plan-to-replace-cl...

toaster

Stockholm wrote:

Since when does Charlie Angus "live" in Toronto. As far as i know, he has a home in Timmins and spends a lot of time there. The NDP demanded that any MP who did not already live in their riding at least have an address there and spend the requisite amount of time there. Just be because someone was elected "by accident" doesn't mean they can just spend 99% of her time in montreal doing no work while raking in 157,000/year plus benefits. The role model is someone like Ruth Ellen Brousseau who was the ultimate parachute candidate - but she has a home in Berthier-Maskinonge, spends all her time there when the house isn't sitting and is now a beloved local figure.

Actually his former residence in Northern Ontario was in Cobalt, which again, was not in the Timmins-James Bay riding (just outside of it actually).  So this "As far as I know" you speak of is not factual.  Anyway, I don't care where he lives, that was my point.  Why should Lise St. Denis have been forced to move when Charlie was not.  

Stockholm

All MPs should at least have a "pied a terre" in their riding. Angus spends a huge amount of time in his riding - I assume he doesn't sleep on a park bench. If he had announced the day after being elected in 2004 and that he would live permanently in Toronto and only visit Timmins twice a year and had no plans to make himself available to his constituents - the party would have had something to say about it.

In any case no one is forcing MPs to live anywhere. There is no law about this. But if we the taxpayers are going to pay someone $157,000/year we have a right to expect them to work. St. Denis always has the choice oif saying "This job is too much work for me and i cannot adequately represnt my constituents. i resign from pafrliament and will go back to living off my previous salary"

Stockholm

Debater wrote:

And a poll earlier this month showed that about 75% of Canadians are against the NDP's Unity Bill, and that even the NDP Premiers are staying away from Mulcair on this one.

 

There has been no polling where people were shown the actual provisions of the Unity Bill compared to the actual provisions of the Lack of Clarity Act. That poll was ridiculously torqued and complately misrepresented what the NDP proposes.

KenS

Debater is agreeing with his own garbled grab bag that has nothing to do with me.... not even the piece attributed to me.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

Ken is correct on this one.  He is able to see that The Clarity Act, or at least its basic principles, is supported in most of the country.

The NDP will damage its prospects for growth and lose voters back to the Liberal Party if it is perceived as being too similiar to the BQ.  This is why Mulcair's 'bear trap' that Brachina predicted would cause trouble for Trudeau has actually ended up causing more trouble for Mulcair, and costing him a Quebec MP this week.

And a poll earlier this month showed that about 75% of Canadians are against the NDP's Unity Bill, and that even the NDP Premiers are staying away from Mulcair on this one.

 

Mulcair’s plan to replace Clarity Act not gaining traction with Canadians, provincial NDP leaders

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mulcairs-plan-to-replace-cl...

Debater, didn't you alredy try to rub our noses in this? Seriously are you SURE you don't have any shoes to polish? Maybe you have some vaccuming you can do, or some laundry, or maybe even shovel the snow. Lord knows, you sure are making a lot of noise here signifiying nothing. Talk about wasting you own time.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Ken I understand what you're saying. But the BQ (and others) will have a field day when the NDP vote against repealing the Clarity Act. And, it's my understanding that the NDP private member's "Unity Bill" is so far down in the order list it may never get voted on.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Okay. Smile

KenS

Repeat:

The formalities of what gets voted on in House are piffle.

The Unity Bill will be seen even more as the NDP's alternative as the vote for the BQ bill gets closer. The voting on it is and will be a non-event. Because the BQ started this and their bill comes first- that is the framing. But the vote itself on that is just a part of the overall 'event'.

The Bloc will have a field day with their dwindled base. Beyond that, I seriously doubt that it will qualify as a field day.

It would be if all the NDP did was vote against the repeal of the Clarity Act. But that was never going to be the end of it. [Or of just simply voting for the Bloc bill.]

Stockholm

Chantal Hebert has a good column on the Patry defection. She describes it as a "paper cut" for the NDP!Cool

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/03/01/claude_patrys_defection_to...

 

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

Chantal Hebert has a good column on the Patry defection. She describes it as a "paper cut" for the NDP!Cool

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/03/01/claude_patrys_defection_to...

 

So far.  Within Quebec.  But she doesn't address the damage it is causing the NDP outside Quebec in the rest of Canada to have an MP crossing to the BQ.

Did you also see the part at the end where she says there will not necessarily be any safe seats for the NDP in Quebec in 2015?

I find it interesting that Chantal Hebert is only quoted here when you like something she says.  When she says things you don't agree with, you ignore those parts. Laughing

toaster

Stockholm wrote:

All MPs should at least have a "pied a terre" in their riding. Angus spends a huge amount of time in his riding - I assume he doesn't sleep on a park bench. If he had announced the day after being elected in 2004 and that he would live permanently in Toronto and only visit Timmins twice a year and had no plans to make himself available to his constituents - the party would have had something to say about it.

In any case no one is forcing MPs to live anywhere. There is no law about this. But if we the taxpayers are going to pay someone $157,000/year we have a right to expect them to work. St. Denis always has the choice oif saying "This job is too much work for me and i cannot adequately represnt my constituents. i resign from pafrliament and will go back to living off my previous salary"

I agree.  But the issue is living in a particular riding.  I don't believe any of us know if Lise St. Denis would have only visited her riding 2 times a year.  When you say 'no one is forcing MPs to live anywhere", you are right there is no law about this, but she could have been kicked out of the party for it.  Instead of waiting for that to happen, she jumped to the Liberal camp.  She did not make it a secret before the election that she did not live in the riding.  Anyway, I'm going to quit arguing because your story keeps changing.  First, an MP must "have an address there", to only having a "pied a terre", once you find out another NDP MP does not live in his riding, to what next?  I think MPs should be able to live anywhere as long as their constituents are aware of this before they elect them.  I have no problem with Charlie Angus living in Toronto, or wherever, and I did not have a problem with Lise St. Denis living in Montreal.  If you didn't want someone from out of town representing you, you should not have elected them, knowing they are from out of "district".

Debater

Will the NDP blanket Claude Patry's riding with robocalls for defecting the way they did to Lise St. Denis last year?

socialdemocrati...

Will the Liberal party keep trying to blanket every riding with robocalls saying there's only a red door and a blue door?

I really enjoyed that one.

socialdemocrati...

Can't wait for the Justin Trudeau robocalls. Telling every resource-rich riding about his stance on foreign takeovers. Telling every urban riding that he thinks the gun registry was a mistake. Telling every BC riding that the oil sands must not be interrupted. Telling every Alberta riding to go fuck themselves. Telling every Quebec riding that he wants to pander to Alberta, then lock the door so Quebec can't leave.

He says so many ridiculous things. I can't wait to see what he says when he's put under pressure for the first time, after he's coronated.

Debater

'socialdemocratic' you seem to have a desire to be nasty.  Is that in accordance with the positive message of Jack Layton?  Are you saying that the NDP is going to engage in attacks on Justin Trudeau rather than focusing on its own message for Canadians?

Debater

Interesting cartoon in The Hamilton Spectator on Thomas Mulcair:

 

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/thomas_mulcairs_orange_crush_tainted_wi...

Debater

Stockholm wrote:

Debater wrote:

So far.  Within Quebec.  But she doesn't address the damage it is causing the NDP outside Quebec in the rest of Canada to have an MP crossing to the BQ.

Did you also see the part at the end where she says there will not necessarily be any safe seats for the NDP in Quebec in 2015?

I find it interesting that Chantal Hebert is only quoted here when you like something she says.  When she says things you don't agree with, you ignore those parts. Laughing

I think its good for the NDP in the rest of Canada since people will se it as evidence that the NDP is so staunchly federalist that one closet sovereignists who accidentally got elected last year not realizing he was running for a 100% federalist party woke up and got the message that if he can't stand the heat - he should get out of the kitchen!

Hebert's point was that all of Quebec will be highly unpredictable in 2015 and NO PARTY has any safe seats there - not the NDP, not the BQ, not the Liberals and not the CPC. I agree with her on that. In fact i take the view that we have 338 seats up for grabs next election and that no party should take anything for granted!

Speak of the devil "debater" you used to love to quote Chantal Hebert chapter and verse. Then she started saying nice things about Mulcair and refuses to drink the Justin kool-aid and suddenly she's persona non grata in Toronto Liberal intelligentsia circles.

Chantal Hebert has actually spoken positively about Justin Trudeau's ability to attract large amounts of supporters and attract the interest of Canadians in a way that most others in Parliament have been unable to do.  She wrote a column about it a couple weeks ago, and brought it up on At Issue on CBC as well.

Btw, I think it's crazy that 30 new seats are being added in 2015.  Way too many to add at one time.  I don't think we've ever had that many added at one point before.  Usually about 5-15 are added at a time.  It will benefit the Conservatives more than anyone, I suspect.

Stockholm

Chantal Hebert also referred to Justin as being wrapped in bubble wrap and as being an example of Liberals engaging in "magical thinking" and "fantasy". She all but says that she thinks he's dumb as a post

Stockholm

Debater wrote:

So far.  Within Quebec.  But she doesn't address the damage it is causing the NDP outside Quebec in the rest of Canada to have an MP crossing to the BQ.

Did you also see the part at the end where she says there will not necessarily be any safe seats for the NDP in Quebec in 2015?

I find it interesting that Chantal Hebert is only quoted here when you like something she says.  When she says things you don't agree with, you ignore those parts. Laughing

I think its good for the NDP in the rest of Canada since people will se it as evidence that the NDP is so staunchly federalist that one closet sovereignists who accidentally got elected last year not realizing he was running for a 100% federalist party woke up and got the message that if he can't stand the heat - he should get out of the kitchen!

Hebert's point was that all of Quebec will be highly unpredictable in 2015 and NO PARTY has any safe seats there - not the NDP, not the BQ, not the Liberals and not the CPC. I agree with her on that. In fact i take the view that we have 338 seats up for grabs next election and that no party should take anything for granted!

Speak of the devil "debater" you used to love to quote Chantal Hebert chapter and verse. Then she started saying nice things about Mulcair and refuses to drink the Justin kool-aid and suddenly she's persona non grata in Toronto Liberal intelligentsia circles.

 

Stockholm

I still find it weird how all these federal Liberals seem to be pining away for a BQ comeback and seem to really want a resurrection of the sovereignist movement and a new national unity crisis. I don't get it. Well actually i do get it. I think there is a cohort of mostly Toronto based pseudo-intellectual snobs in their 50s who "came of age" during the Pierre Trudeau years in the 70s. Back when there was all that exciting "high drama" involving invoking the War Measures Act during the October Crisis andbattling Levesque and the hated "separatists" and repatriating the constitution etc... Those were the glory days. Now these people are old, the crows feet are appearing on their faces, manhy of them suffer from erectile dysfunction etc...and boom a miracle! they see a reincarnation of their beloved Pierre Trudeau in his son Justin and they have this fantasy of refighting the 1980 referendum and maybe even re-living the October Crisis. What's not to like? They get to feel young again and fantasize about being 25 and not 60.

The NDP prefers to live in the present!

socialdemocrati...

Debater wrote:

'socialdemocratic' you seem to have a desire to be nasty.  Is that in accordance with the positive message of Jack Layton?  Are you saying that the NDP is going to engage in attacks on Justin Trudeau rather than focusing on its own message for Canadians?

Only a Liberal would think that quoting their actually policy views would be considered a "nasty attack".

Yes, Trudeau is quoted as abandoning the gun registry, while wanting more foreign ownership of our resources and infrastructure, more tar sands, more corporate tax breaks.

I'm starting to think you don't know anything about this candidate that you're championing. Kind of like Ignatieff part two.

Like I asked before: do you actually agree with Trudeau on these things? Or do you just not care?

felixr

Stockholm wrote:

I still find it weird how all these federal Liberals seem to be pining away for a BQ comeback and seem to really want a resurrection of the sovereignist movement and a new national unity crisis. I don't get it. Well actually i do get it. I think there is a cohort of mostly Toronto based pseudo-intellectual snobs in their 50s who "came of age" during the Pierre Trudeau years in the 70s. Back when there was all that exciting "high drama" involving invoking the War Measures Act during the October Crisis andbattling Levesque and the hated "separatists" and repatriating the constitution etc... Those were the glory days. Now these people are old, the crows feet are appearing on their faces, manhy of them suffer from erectile dysfunction etc...and boom a miracle! they see a reincarnation of their beloved Pierre Trudeau in his son Justin and they have this fantasy of refighting the 1980 referendum and maybe even re-living the October Crisis. What's not to like? They get to feel young again and fantasize about being 25 and not 60.

The NDP prefers to live in the present!

+1

It makes me sick to hear Liberals say these very things in private. Including the most senior members of the Quebec caucus. They claim to want to keep the country together, but not without first tearing it apart. So glad the Liberals don't run Ottawa anymore.

As for Hebert, she only congratulated Trudeau on being a good fundraiser. Good bagman is the way I see it. He's like Kim Kardashian, trying to stuff as much money into his satchel for doing absolutely nothing more than making guest appearances and smiling. His fall from glory will be hard and steep. He's only slightly less hateable than Ignatieff. With Ignatieff you even detected a dose of humility sometimes!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

What really kills me is Libs talking about what a great guy Jack (blessed be his memory was). It isn't like they voted for him.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

What really kills me is Libs talking about what a great guy Jack (blessed be his memory was). It isn't like they voted for him.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Debater wrote:

'socialdemocratic' you seem to have a desire to be nasty.  Is that in accordance with the positive message of Jack Layton?  Are you saying that the NDP is going to engage in attacks on Justin Trudeau rather than focusing on its own message for Canadians?

Only a Liberal would think that quoting their actually policy views would be considered a "nasty attack".

Yes, Trudeau is quoted as abandoning the gun registry, while wanting more foreign ownership of our resources and infrastructure, more tar sands, more corporate tax breaks.

I'm starting to think you don't know anything about this candidate that you're championing. Kind of like Ignatieff part two.

Like I asked before: do you actually agree with Trudeau on these things? Or do you just not care?

He doesn't want to face the fact that a Justin Trudeau government would just be a Harper government with better hair and more expensive clothes.

Stockholm

Arthur Cramer wrote:

What really kills me is Libs talking about what a great guy Jack (blessed be his memory was). It isn't like they voted for him.

Basically what you're saying is that to mst Liberals - the only good New Democrat is a dead one

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Stockholm wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

What really kills me is Libs talking about what a great guy Jack (blessed be his memory was). It isn't like they voted for him.

Basically what you're saying is that to mst Liberals - the only good New Democrat is a dead one

Yeah, I guess I am. That is, at least when you think about it.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Sort of like the Malcolm X craze that swept the U.S. in the early Nineties...that was largely white folks realizing that Malcolm was their favorite type of black leader-articulate...clean living...and buried.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Great post, U. I keep forgetting your advice in #1. Sealed

I knew I was right the first time. Smile

Stockholm

Unionist wrote:

 That's my last word on the matter in this thread.

YIPPEE!

Centrist

Stockholm wrote:
Basically what you're saying is that to mst Liberals - the only good New Democrat is a dead one
 

You just got to know Stock... that your quips are not only analytically some of the best... but also hilarious!

Brachina

felixr wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

I still find it weird how all these federal Liberals seem to be pining away for a BQ comeback and seem to really want a resurrection of the sovereignist movement and a new national unity crisis. I don't get it. Well actually i do get it. I think there is a cohort of mostly Toronto based pseudo-intellectual snobs in their 50s who "came of age" during the Pierre Trudeau years in the 70s. Back when there was all that exciting "high drama" involving invoking the War Measures Act during the October Crisis andbattling Levesque and the hated "separatists" and repatriating the constitution etc... Those were the glory days. Now these people are old, the crows feet are appearing on their faces, manhy of them suffer from erectile dysfunction etc...and boom a miracle! they see a reincarnation of their beloved Pierre Trudeau in his son Justin and they have this fantasy of refighting the 1980 referendum and maybe even re-living the October Crisis. What's not to like? They get to feel young again and fantasize about being 25 and not 60.

The NDP prefers to live in the present!

+1

It makes me sick to hear Liberals say these very things in private. Including the most senior members of the Quebec caucus. They claim to want to keep the country together, but not without first tearing it apart. So glad the Liberals don't run Ottawa anymore.

As for Hebert, she only congratulated Trudeau on being a good fundraiser. Good bagman is the way I see it. He's like Kim Kardashian, trying to stuff as much money into his satchel for doing absolutely nothing more than making guest appearances and smiling. His fall from glory will be hard and steep. He's only slightly less hateable than Ignatieff. With Ignatieff you even detected a dose of humility sometimes!

I actually liked iggy a lot more then Justin, the irony is Justin is the one whose not here for Canadians not Iggy, who merely didn't understand us, Justin is only out for Justin.

As for Claude will have to vet candiates better next time to make sure they're in the right party. Shit happens.

Unionist

Brachina wrote:
... will have to vet candiates better next time to make sure they're in the right party. Shit happens.

Large numbers of Québecers who voted NDP in 2011 are thinking exactly that same thought right now.

 

janfromthebruce

So Unionist, you have a Quebec mind crystal ball? I would never make that statement about all knowing mind in Ontario. That said, the polls seem to suggest otherwise for the NDP.

 

janfromthebruce

Unionist wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

The first defection under the interm leader happen because that person didn't want to live in her elected riding and appeared more interested in a free ride - so she went liberal.

Hyde got in a snit because he didn't get a critic position.

The last MP, I don't find his arguments coherent for leaving and crossing.

So none of those three actually counts, right?

 

Wanted to correct something here. The first defection of Lise St-Denis NDP to Liberal was under the in-term leadership as the leadership was ongoing. There was no big issues going on and it didn't appear that she had long term political ambitions.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:
So Unionist, you have a Quebec mind crystal ball? I would never make that statement about all knowing mind in Ontario. That said, the polls seem to suggest otherwise for the NDP.

I trust Unionist and Lagatta for the latest pulse on Quebec - without reservation. And there haven't been any polls since Patry's defection that I am aware of.

KenS

You shouldnt trust anyone's opinion that much.

And you can expect that anywhere, a defection of an MP from one party to another would have zero impact on pollong numbers. Nobody cares enough.

KenS

What jan is saying is that if the NDP's stand was so negative in Quebec, you would expect to see it in the polls by now.

But its too early to say. Only junkies will notice the defection, let alone the general talk so far about this issue. The impact, if there is any in Quebec, will come down the road.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I'm feeling tired and sleepy so I might be missing something here, but I can't help thinking it would be nice to hear the Quebec NDP comment on the provincial government here a bit. Or is criticism of provincial politics by the feds a strict no-no? I can't remember.

KenS

Not a strict no-no. But the NDP rarely go there in Quebec. Certainly not something on which they would ever make regular commentary.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Thanks. I guess the main focus has to be Harper, which is why I find their business with the Clarity Act so dumb.

felixr

A lot of Quebeckers should be disappointed, for one, "le bon jack" is gone and that is pretty sad because he won over peoples hearts. Second, two of the MPs have turned out to be flakes that didn't think it was important to respect the voters wishes on which party they represent or vote with, although if they had had the courage to run as independents, that could be corrected. Lastly, I bet there were a lot of Quebeckers that were expecting the NDP to be stronger advocates on various issues from the Clarity Act to the student protests to maybe even the provincial election. There is probably also a very small group unhappy about the NDP's actions on the Boat to Gaza sympathizers too (Jack Layton's discipline of the caucus).

KenS

Works really well in politics to wave away 'problems' you believe are not a priority.

autoworker autoworker's picture

felixr wrote:

A lot of Quebeckers should be disappointed, for one, "le bon jack" is gone and that is pretty sad because he won over peoples hearts. Second, two of the MPs have turned out to be flakes that didn't think it was important to respect the voters wishes on which party they represent or vote with, although if they had had the courage to run as independents, that could be corrected. Lastly, I bet there were a lot of Quebeckers that were expecting the NDP to be stronger advocates on various issues from the Clarity Act to the student protests to maybe even the provincial election. There is probably also a very small group unhappy about the NDP's actions on the Boat to Gaza sympathizers too (Jack Layton's discipline of the caucus).

I doubt that either 'flake' had actually expected to win their seat, anyway. So, now that they've tasted the benefits, they're loathe to relinquish their windfalls. Look at it as a lateral move towards what they perceive as the prevailing wind, respectively.

KenS

I'll join in the crystal ball predictions of how Quebeckers will respond with the NDP around the vote to repeal the Clarity Act and what the NDP proposes as it's alternative: the Unity Bill.

If the prediction is like Unionist has made that the NDP will be consigned back to the wilderness if they do anything except vote for the repeal of the Clarity Act, thats not just reading how unpopular it would be around here, its about how unpopular among Quebeckers in general. And just to put some numbers around it, it does not take a majority not likeing it to be pretty disastrous for the NDP. If even 25% of people who voted NDP in 2011 are pushed by anything towards the tipping point of not voting for them again- that would lose a ton of seats the NDP now has.

In any culture, very few people decide their vote according to a principle/value as comparatively esoteric as whether or not a party supports the repeal of the Clarity Act itself. Espeically when the Act is not going to be repealed, no matter how the NDP votes. In the first place, the general sovereignty/self-determination issues are only crucual to a certain percentage of voters. And even among those, it is the overall general principles/values that matter, not for most is the Clarity Act itself decisive.

And just as important- the tipping point of vote choice is between actual parties- not how much voters say an issue matters to them in the abstract. So for example, if soft nationalist francophone voters who until 2011 usually voted BQ think that principles are being 'adjusted' in how the NDP is defining its positions now... they do not go from that to voting against the NDP. They weigh against how principled and useful they think the real life BQ is. Apples to apples.

There will be lots of noise against the NDP simply for the fact of not voting for the repeal of the Clarity Act- even if it were to do so and simply stand by the Sherbrooke Declaration. But most of that noise will be coming from people who were not going to vote for the NDP anyway... it will be coming from the sovereignist hard core, including a limited number who voted NDP in 2011 and who probably were not going to repeat that anyway.

The vast majority of people for whom the issue matters are going to wiegh their understandings of the substance. If the NDP waffled on the principle of 50%+1 referendum threshold, they'd probably be in trouble with a lot of these people. Conversely, if the NDP sticks with that, their supporting opinions will be reinforced by watching Trudeau and the other Liberal figures tripping over themselves to pander as much as possible to ROC opinion that 50%+1 is terrible.

The other major element of the NDP's Unity Bill alternative is having put weasel words around the Sherbrooke Declaration simply leaving the wording of the referndum question to the Quebec national assembly process. I know its not just weasel words. But most people do not approach electoral politics as a place where your choices of who to vote for are a series of hill to die on principles. We'll see how much this one matters to people who voted for the NDP in 2011. IMO, it will go into the hopper to be weighed with a lot of other things. [By comparison, waffling on 50%+1 would in itself colour a lot of that overall weighing.]

 

Brachina

No offense, but I trust Mulcair's instincts on Quebec's pulse far more then Unionists or Boom Booms, he was the face of the NDP in Quebec and a key figure in, not to dimminish others, the 2011 with far more political expertise and experience then all of us combined.

Mulcair can and will sell the Unity Bill as the most logical and reasoned position. I look forward to the debates in 2015 hopefully they'll be more of them.

And no one acknowldges I was right about the Unity Bill baiting Trudeau into making an ass out of himself?

Unionist

Boom Boom:

1. Please don't discuss Québec with Stockholm - ever.

2. There are 297 posts in [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/qu%C3%A9bec/bq-pushing-repeal-clarity-act]this thread[/url] about the issue. Please let's not re-start the discussion here.

3. You're quite right the first time round. If - or rather when - the NDP vote against repealing the Clarity Act, they can kiss Québec goodbye. They are currently being advised by the Stockholms of this world, to whom everything is an issue of spin and polls. The so-called Unity Bill, besides having a title guaranteed to unnecessarily offend huge numbers of Quebecers who voted NDP, reverses one of the most fundamental principles of the Sherbrooke Declaration - that the National Assembly can determine the referendum question, and that Québec can determine its future without interference. Only a fool, or someone filled to the gills with neocolonial privilege and condescending contempt for the Québec nation, could pretend that there is no change of policy. I say all this with great trepidation, and only because the debate has been re-initiated here with the flaunting around of ignorance and malice toward Québec. That's my last word on the matter in this thread.

ETA: Slip of the keyboard, made an extreme statement because I was fed up with the ignorance here as well as the duplication of the discussion from the other thread. My repeated position was, and is, this:

Unionist wrote:
Unless they find a way to stop watching polls and start listening to their own Québec caucus (for starters), and figure out how to counter Liberal/Conservative propaganda without succumbing to it, they will return (very fast) to the wilderness they inhabited since 1933.

 

Unionist

KenS wrote:

If the prediction is like Unionist has made that the NDP will be consigned back to the wilderness if they do anything except vote for the repeal of the Clarity Act...

 

That's not my view. It was a slip I made upthread, when I was frustrated with the stupidity of some posts (not yours) and I presented an extreme version of my real view. I've made the correction. This is my position:

Unionist wrote:
Unless they find a way to stop watching polls and start listening to their own Québec caucus (for starters), and figure out how to counter Liberal/Conservative propaganda without succumbing to it, they will return (very fast) to the wilderness they inhabited since 1933.

Now Ken, why wouldn't you please consider my suggestion to continue this discussion in [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/qu%C3%A9bec/bq-pushing-repeal-clarity-act]the lengthy thread dedicated to that subject[/url], instead of in some thread entitled "Thomas Mulcair"? Please? Just a request. I thought it made some sense. You know how it is when we have to check two threads and yank comments from one to respond to them in the other? Please?

KenS

I agree with canning any continuation of this to the other thread.

Pages

Topic locked