Thomas Mulcair

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

Boom Boom wrote:

I think we are about to see substantial Canadian opposition to an West - East  shipment of tar sands bitumen from environmental and possibly from aboriginal groups as well.

 

Usually anything that is in the interests of Canadians sees substantial opposition.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Climate change is not in the best interests of Canadians.

Fidel

Neither is NAFTA since 1994. What they say about chickens and bad trade deals coming home to roost.

The past creates the present, and our two corrupt old line parties have created much of the present situation.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Mulcair needs to be careful, otherwise there will be an Idle No More protest outside his office at some point.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Fidel wrote:

Neither is NAFTA since 1994. What they say about chickens and bad trade deals coming home to roost.

The past creates the present, and our two corrupt old line parties have created much of the present situation.

I doubt if you will get much disagreement on that.  I certainly agree with it.

Fidel

I think Idle No More is also about a lack of jobs and prosperity in general across Canada's reserves aka townships for segregation and discrimination. FN's are not happy, and I don't blame them. They've been used and abused for too long.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..above all idle no more is about self determination. independent nations with independent control over their land. who has that on the table?

Fidel

Cuba and North Korea. And they've suffered the wrath of a vicious empire as a result.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..good thing for the protection of the candadian governments of all stripes then. or were you just thinking out loud?

nicky
Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Great link!  I love it when the National Post contradicts Harper and his poor excuse for a government. Laughing

ETA: When the conservative National Post contradicts Harper and defends Mulcair, you begin to feel the jig is up for the Cons.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Mulcair is on CTV's QP right now making the same arguments. Mulcair is taking on Jason Kenney, too (over Gary Freeman). Just condemned Harper for not meeting with the provinces (Council of the Federation).

ETA: First ten minutes of the show. Will be repeated in different time zones, and at 5pm EST on CTV NewsNet.

Brachina

Mulcair made a good point about the double standard, using Conrad Black as an example. Kenny is suchvan ass wipe, hate having him as immigrantion minister.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Tom Mulcair’s enemies forget about Tom Mulcair’s allies

All that to say: oil sands advocates may just about hate the NDP and its leader, but Mulcair has allies waiting to be courted. Canada is a big country.

NorthReport

Tom Mulcair the statesman? 

NDP leader’s trip to the U.S. was carefully planned to project his image as a potential leader

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/Mulcair+statesman/8115185...

Debater

It's hard to say how Mulcair's Washington trip will play out.  He's gotten primarily negative feedback so far from the Canadian media and from Conservatives, but since the opinions of the right wing don't usually matter to NDP voters, it won't necessarily hurt him in the next election.

However, it depends on what Liberal and centrist voters think of Mulcair's positions and whether they view the NDP as being too left wing or being anti-business development.  Andrew Coyne wrote a critical piece about Mulcair a few days ago, and today Premier Alison Redford is going after Mulcair:

 

Mulcair's Washington trip a 'betrayal of Canada,' Redford says

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/03/18/pol-redford-slams-mulca...

NorthReport

That's absurd. It did not hurt Stephen Harper when he was in opposition to trash talk Candian government policies.

Tom Mulcair’s enemies forget about Tom Mulcair’s allies

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/18/tom-mulcairs-enemies-forget-about-tom...

1springgarden

Debater wrote:

It's hard to say how Mulcair's Washington trip will play out.  He's gotten primarily negative feedback so far from the Canadian media and from Conservatives, but since the opinions of the right wing don't usually matter to NDP voters, it won't necessarily hurt him in the next election.

However, it depends on what Liberal and centrist voters think of Mulcair's positions and whether they view the NDP as being too left wing or being anti-business development.  Andrew Coyne wrote a critical piece about Mulcair a few days ago, and today Premier Alison Redford is going after Mulcair:

 

Mulcair's Washington trip a 'betrayal of Canada,' Redford says

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/03/18/pol-redford-slams-mulca...

I like that Mulcair is saying 'no' to Keystone and acceleration of tar sands exports.  If Keystone goes ahead the Canadian $ will jump sky high and other economic activities won't be viable in Canada.  The tar sands have already distorted the Canadian economy to the detriment of non-oil sectors.  I can't see how Keystone will be positive for Canada.  And still neither Redford nor Harper can balance their budgets.

If Keystone gets the 'no', then the Canadian $ will drop and other economic activities will have a fighting chance again.

socialdemocrati...

I guess that's the difference between Liberal strategists and the rest of Canada.

Liberals believe you talk out of both sides of your mouth, appeal to the very serious people in the media, and hope nobody cares about your promises.

New Democrats say what they think is right, based on evidence, and repeat it consistently, and hope it gets through to the public with no media filter.

If we're not going to do something about the tar sands, then what's the point of replacing Stephen Harper anyway?

Brachina
Stockholm

The Liberals could win the next election - if all of canada was one big riding called "The Bar at Hy's Steakhouse"

 

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I guess that's the difference between Liberal strategists and the rest of Canada.

Liberals believe you talk out of both sides of your mouth, appeal to the very serious people in the media, and hope nobody cares about your promises.

Debater

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I guess that's the difference between Liberal strategists and the rest of Canada.

Liberals believe you talk out of both sides of your mouth, appeal to the very serious people in the media, and hope nobody cares about your promises.

New Democrats say what they think is right, based on evidence, and repeat it consistently, and hope it gets through to the public with no media filter.

If we're not going to do something about the tar sands, then what's the point of replacing Stephen Harper anyway?

I think you're putting words in the mouth of Liberals - that's not what most of them think.  And my point was simply that while it's obvious Mulcair is going to get attacked by the Conservatives, what matters to him is not what the Cons think, but what Liberal voters think.  Mulcair will be in a contest with Justin Trudeau to appeal to Liberal voters and people who are centrists.  Each will have to make their case and people will choose accordingly.

Anyway, Alison Redford was on both CBC and CTV tonight bashing Mulcair.  She did Power & Politics on CBC and also did Don Martin's show on CTV.  I think she went a little fair in calling Mulcair "un-Canadian" but perhaps she is trying to appeal to the far-right voters she has been losing to the Wild Rose Party.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Mulcair will run right over Trudeau in any debate, with Harper looking on, approvingly. That's why he will win another majority - the opposition can do no better than pick fights with each other.

Stockholm

The Conservatives and their enablers in the media have been attacking Mulcair a lot lately...they must be really scraed of him. They should be since he is by far the most formidable opponent Harper has ever faced.

Its going to get a lot nastier too...the Tories will resort to the most vicious characeter assassination imaginable to retain power and they will go easy on Jsutin Trudeau since the last thing they want is for the Liberal party to shrivel up even more so that the anti-Conservative vote consolidates behind the NDP.

Hunky_Monkey

Boom Boom wrote:

Mulcair will run right over Trudeau in any debate, with Harper looking on, approvingly. That's why he will win another majority - the opposition can do no better than pick fights with each other.

 

Maybe the Liberals will win back some of the their voters that went to Harper and allow the NDP to win in the end...? Wink  

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Stockholm wrote:

They should be since he is by far the most formidable opponent Harper has ever faced.

What about Jack? How soon some people forget who gave the NDP its seats.

socialdemocrati...

Debater wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I guess that's the difference between Liberal strategists and the rest of Canada.

Liberals believe you talk out of both sides of your mouth, appeal to the very serious people in the media, and hope nobody cares about your promises.

New Democrats say what they think is right, based on evidence, and repeat it consistently, and hope it gets through to the public with no media filter.

If we're not going to do something about the tar sands, then what's the point of replacing Stephen Harper anyway?

I think you're putting words in the mouth of Liberals - that's not what most of them think.  And my point was simply that while it's obvious Mulcair is going to get attacked by the Conservatives, what matters to him is not what the Cons think, but what Liberal voters think.  Mulcair will be in a contest with Justin Trudeau to appeal to Liberal voters and people who are centrists.

If you're not concerned about pandering, why are you constantly trying to triangulate your way to the "center"?

Center of what exactly?

The Liberal Party has conceded dozens of issues to Harper. They slashed health care. They used those cuts to pay for corporate tax cuts. They waffled on gay marriage and let anti-abortion members into the caucus. They gave in on Afghanistan and picked a leader who agreed with Harper on Iraq.

And how did voters reward them?

Go ahead, I'll let you look that up.

Next question: how do you think voters will reward Justin for throwing the gun registry, the environment, and Canadian ownership under the bus?

If Pierre Trudeau were still alive today, he'd have voted for the NDP.

Aristotleded24

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Debater wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I guess that's the difference between Liberal strategists and the rest of Canada.

Liberals believe you talk out of both sides of your mouth, appeal to the very serious people in the media, and hope nobody cares about your promises.

New Democrats say what they think is right, based on evidence, and repeat it consistently, and hope it gets through to the public with no media filter.

If we're not going to do something about the tar sands, then what's the point of replacing Stephen Harper anyway?

I think you're putting words in the mouth of Liberals - that's not what most of them think.  And my point was simply that while it's obvious Mulcair is going to get attacked by the Conservatives, what matters to him is not what the Cons think, but what Liberal voters think.  Mulcair will be in a contest with Justin Trudeau to appeal to Liberal voters and people who are centrists.

If you're not concerned about pandering, why are you constantly trying to triangulate your way to the "center"?

Center of what exactly?

The Liberal Party has conceded dozens of issues to Harper. They slashed health care. They used those cuts to pay for corporate tax cuts. They waffled on gay marriage and let anti-abortion members into the caucus. They gave in on Afghanistan and picked a leader who agreed with Harper on Iraq.

And how did voters reward them?

Go ahead, I'll let you look that up.

Next question: how do you think voters will reward Justin for throwing the gun registry, the environment, and Canadian ownership under the bus?

If Pierre Trudeau were still alive today, he'd have voted for the NDP.

Pierre Trudeau was actually a CCFer, but the viability of the Liberal brand at the time was a very powerful pull.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

If Pierre Trudeau were still alive today, he'd have voted for the NDP.

Would PET agree with the Sherbrooke Declaration or "50 plus one"?  or the so-called "Unity Bill"?

Brachina

Stockholm wrote:

The Conservatives and their enablers in the media have been attacking Mulcair a lot lately...they must be really scraed of him. They should be since he is by far the most formidable opponent Harper has ever faced.

Its going to get a lot nastier too...the Tories will resort to the most vicious characeter assassination imaginable to retain power and they will go easy on Jsutin Trudeau since the last thing they want is for the Liberal party to shrivel up even more so that the anti-Conservative vote consolidates behind the NDP.

Scared an understatement, Mulcair had Harper in such a paniac sent several ministers trailing behind Mulcair, each trying to undo the after math of Mulcair's trip.

socialdemocrati...

There's something to be said for having the right enemies. The oil industry and various Conservative politicians were howling after Mulcair went after the oil sands. It's clear who threatens the status quo.

knownothing knownothing's picture

On CTV yesterday they were saying that the new Quebec Liberal leader Coulliard and Mulcair used to be buddies in cabinet. Couillard has said he wants to get Quebec to sign the constitution by 2017. Even, Jean Lapierre said that Couillard would be closer to Mulcair than Trudeau and that there is a disconnect between federal and provincial Liberals.

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=887068&playlistId=1.1200922&binId=1.8...

Unionist

knownothing wrote:

Even, Jean Lapierre said that Couillard would be closer to Mulcair than Trudeau and that there is a disconnect between federal and provincial Liberals.

Would that be the same Jean Lapierre who was a radio/TV host, then a Liberal MP fighting for "no" in the 1980 referendum, then Liberal cabinet minister, then left the Liberals to co-found the Bloc Québécois, then Bloc MP (crossed the floor), then quit politics to return as a radio/TV host, then returned to politics as a Liberal MP, then Liberal transport minister, then quit politics and is now a TV host?

He's definitely an expert on "disconnect".

 

knownothing knownothing's picture

Are you suggesting he has a hidden motivation for saying the NDP is more connected to the Quebec Liberal party than the federal Libs?

North Star

knownothing wrote:

On CTV yesterday they were saying that the new Quebec Liberal leader Coulliard and Mulcair used to be buddies in cabinet. Couillard has said he wants to get Quebec to sign the constitution by 2017. Even, Jean Lapierre said that Couillard would be closer to Mulcair than Trudeau and that there is a disconnect between federal and provincial Liberals.

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=887068&playlistId=1.1200922&binId=1.8...

I wonder what the pro-QS contingent of the NDP-Q membership will think of this.

Unionist

knownothing wrote:

Are you suggesting he has a hidden motivation for saying the NDP is more connected to the Quebec Liberal party than the federal Libs?

Not at all. I'm just saying he isn't the sharpest pundit around.

Aristotleded24

North Star wrote:

knownothing wrote:

On CTV yesterday they were saying that the new Quebec Liberal leader Coulliard and Mulcair used to be buddies in cabinet. Couillard has said he wants to get Quebec to sign the constitution by 2017. Even, Jean Lapierre said that Couillard would be closer to Mulcair than Trudeau and that there is a disconnect between federal and provincial Liberals.

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=887068&playlistId=1.1200922&binId=1.8...

I wonder what the pro-QS contingent of the NDP-Q membership will think of this.

I think that what this goes to is that for the last few decades, the main fault line in Quebec politics has been federalist-sovereigntist, with both parties containing right and left elements. Now the fault lines are evolving more into traditional left-right lines we see in other parts of the world, where you have the CAQ looking to the right end of the spectrum, and QS looking to the left (although they have kind of boxed themselves in with their adamant defence of sovereignty). I also think that each party in the National Assembly represents its own viewpoint and has a ceiling of appeal, whereas the NDP appealed to supporters of all parties in the last federal election, and this relates to the context in which Mulcair mused about forming a Quebec provincial section of the NDP because of high potential growth.

mmphosis

Head of Canada’s NDP auditions before US elite (wsws.org)

Graham Beverley wrote:
Dewar claimed that the NDP is “building a fairer, greener and more prosperous country for all—and bringing that vision to the world stage.” In reality, the NDP, like the British Labour Party, France’s Socialist Party, Greece’s PASOK and social-democratic parties the world over, is a party of capitalist austerity and imperialist war and this was well-illustrated by those Mulcair chose to meet and the statements he made while on his 3-day U.S. visit.

Brachina

It means that its less likely a Quebec NDP will emerge so QS will be relieved.

NorthReport

 

Germain environmental scientists cut ties to the oil sands

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/german-environmental-scient...

knownothing knownothing's picture
Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Germain scientests? What about the ones that are irrelevant? Laughing

knownothing knownothing's picture
Fidel

mmphosis wrote:

Head of Canada’s NDP auditions before US elite (wsws.org)

Graham Beverley wrote:
Dewar claimed that the NDP is “building a fairer, greener and more prosperous country for all—and bringing that vision to the world stage.” In reality, the NDP, like the British Labour Party, France’s Socialist Party, Greece’s PASOK and social-democratic parties the world over, is a party of capitalist austerity and imperialist war and this was well-illustrated by those Mulcair chose to meet and the statements he made while on his 3-day U.S. visit.

Beverly makes no mention of how the federal Liberals and Mulroney were responsible for any of the current situation today.

The real question is, why is Graham Beverley so soft on our two old line parties for their vicious toadying to corporate America in the recent past? Beverly is completely silent on that subject matter altogether.

Why?

The truth is, Mr Beverly, that Canadian politics and social conditions are even further to the right than most of those European countries you listed.  Beverly is quiet on that matter, too. He might as well suggest to all of us, let's keep propping-up the two old line parties in federal power with our non-opposition to them on election day.  The two wings of the same big business party need cleaning out of Ottawa, Mr Beverly. A true majority of Canadians want regime change.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

My guess would be that he holds the NDP to a higher standard than the two old line parties because they hold themselves out to be leftist.  I know I just expect the Libs and Cons to be toadies so why attack them for being cats since that is what they are.  Now when the mice start trying to make nice with the cats then that is worth commenting about.

Brian Glennie

I'm trying to understand what Tom is thinking here,  He wanted a reporter  from the Globe and Mail to be present for this. Why the embargo? It's really curious. 

What's his game?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/thomas-mulcair-champions-the-case-of-a-convicted-cop-shooter-barred-from-canada/article9849987/

Fidel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

  Now when the mice start trying to make nice with the cats then that is worth commenting about.

The mouseholes were made larger decades ago.

The mice were chased and run down by 1995.

They're fresh out of anti-mouse laws to draft up.

The whole house and the environment were dubbed CAT-astrophie Land by 2005 with the economy returned to hewer and drawer status, once again, near the TAIL end of the most recent Libranos dynasty.

You want a mouse leader to make election promises to undo the present fiscal and monetary situation inside one four-year term what took the Chats the last 30-35 years to wax worse and worse.

You don't want the NDP.

You want Jesus

You want Ubermaus!

Get real.

ferfuxakes

knownothing knownothing's picture

He probably had enough trouble dealing with the media about the pipeline stuff he didn't need that as well.

 

But I do know the reason he is championing the Freeman case from a political standpoint is to point out the hypocrisy on the side of the Tories for letting Conrad Black into the country.

 

It seems to be a bit of a stretch to me and to most people but hey...i am not really against it...except for it seems kinda toxic

Fidel

Maybe another four year's worth of big bizness party numero un or deux at the helm will drive us mice to bloody revolution in the streets. Shirley!

Hey this thread is fun. An' then we could fantasize about the way things should be whenever we finish cutting the NDP off at the knees before the race even gets underway.

Viva la revolucion! Oh wait, the situation isn't 1950's Cuba or even Haiti 2004. WTF?

Fidel

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

There's definitely an economic argument for keeping it in Canada. That much I agree with.

But I also think there's a (debateable) environmental argument. If we convince people that a nationalist energy strategy is in their economic best interest, then we also slow the flow of oil to thirstier countries. America has 10 times the population of Canada. China is almost 50 times the population of Canada. If the oil gets to either of those countries, it's game over. We'll be extracting it at ridiculous rates, and will only stop when there's a global climate catastrophe. If we keep it here ("for economic reasons") we incidentally slow down extraction by several orders of magnitude.

I'm still pretty cynical about the whole thing.

Exactly. National energy strategy would be good. We used to have national energy reserves.

But now we don't.

Not since 1994.

Today and for the last two decades,  Canada's national energy policy is dictated to us from corporate board rooms in America.

That's not a national energy policy and no thanks to Brian Baloney and Shawinigan Strangler, Paulie Pockets Martin and traitors in what has been a parade of old line party sellouts to corporate America.

Mulcair's NDP would be a breath of fresh air by comparison.

The posters above seem to think voters in Canada are bargain shopping with a full wallet and from a position of strength. They don't seem to realize that the country is on its knees in a number of respects, and that there are no easy bargains in sight.

Not today and not until the lemonade stand has someone minding the shop.

Pages

Topic locked