Thomas Mulcair

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

You want people to believe your party is still left wing but you dismissively compare the most influential democratic socialist of our time to a second rate actress. While I laughed when I read your reply it is actually not very funny.  However it appears to be the new consensus in the NDP, if the party members on babble are any indication. You can't run fast enough away from anything or anyone who appears to be left of great NDP politicians like Bob or Ujjal.

North Star

Brachina wrote:
Stop letting people mess with your head AC. Mulcair may not be as extreme as some would like, but he's an honourable man which is why he never fit in in the Quebec Liberal Party.

So party members advocating a return to traditional post-war social democracy (despite its contradictions) are extreme? That's the kind of thinking that the late Thatcher has bequeathed to the centre-left.

Kara

North Star wrote:

Brachina wrote:
Stop letting people mess with your head AC. Mulcair may not be as extreme as some would like, but he's an honourable man which is why he never fit in in the Quebec Liberal Party.

So party members advocating a return to traditional post-war social democracy (despite its contradictions) are extreme? That's the kind of thinking that the late Thatcher has bequeathed to the centre-left.

A gold star for North Star!

Brachina

kropotkin1951 wrote:

You want people to believe your party is still left wing but you dismissively compare the most influential democratic socialist of our time to a second rate actress. While I laughed when I read your reply it is actually not very funny.  However it appears to be the new consensus in the NDP, if the party members on babble are any indication. You can't run fast enough away from anything or anyone who appears to be left of great NDP politicians like Bob or Ujjal.

Hey, you laugh it still counts :D

Look I have a great deal of respect for Chavez and I hope his revolution will continue.

But I also have a sense of humour and know enough to pick my battles wisely. Mulcair said something nice about Chavez was polite about Maragot, the website carried the one and not the other is a minor issue, and not worth sweating.

Stockholm

I think this all sounds good and i look forward to it!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/10/thomas-mulcair-family-personal-l...

 

Get ready to meet Thomas Mulcair all over again.

With a media vortex and public love-in swirling around Justin Trudeau, the NDP is about to unveil its leader in a new — and contrasting — light, at the party’s policy convention in Montreal this weekend.

Key to the image makeover is a new video to be unveiled Friday that features Mulcair’s personal side and, for the first time, introduces Canadians to his immediate family.

Nathan Rotman, the party’s national director, said the NDP has had trouble getting Mulcair known since he was elected party leader in March 2012, following the death of former leader Jack Layton.

Between this year’s federal Liberal leadership race, several provincial leadership contests and imminent provincial elections in Ontario and British Columbia, it has been tough for Mulcair to present himself as the statesman-in-waiting that the NDP wants to project.

“People got to know Jack (Layton) over 10 years. We don’t have as much time to introduce Tom to Canada before the next election — and the stakes are too high this time for us,” Rotman told HuffPost.

“We have two years, so we will be highlighting his depth, highlighting his experience, highlighting some of the things that make him tick.”

Mulcair, who is better known as a policy wonk and a streetfighter with a temper, will be featured in a much more positive light: warm, loving and loved.

“I don’t think it’s about showing a different face, it’s about showing the other side of him,” Rotman said.

NeedToVote101

Unlike Trudeau, I think Mulcair has always had an uphill climb.

If the claims are true about Mulcair and Charest in the Liberal cabinet fighting over condos and parks, it proves to reason that Mulcair has had an uphill battle from the beginning.

After he left Charest's cabinet, he did the impossible, he ran for the NDP and won the by-election in Outremont.

After winning the by-election, he did the other impossible, he won his seat as an incumbent when others were saying that he wouldn't.

Within the NDP he became Jack Layton's other right hand man in Parliament and Layton allowed him to work at winning Quebec over to the NDP. Wha!? Win more seats in Quebec? The media and people in the party doubted that very much. Yet, by a miracle it seems, in the 2011 election, the NDP swept through Quebec. Yet so many people said it would be impossible.  Sure, many people we involved in that, but Mulcair was just as involved.

Leadership race: Mulcair deemed the front-runner along with Brian Topp. The media made it to be the final battle for socialism.  At first many believed Brian Topp would win it. Yet again, Mulcair gained support.

How many times have you heard from the mainstream media or even Canadians that Trudeau has had a hard time proving himself?  The vast majority of people still don't even know what Trudeau stands for; in the leadership race he wasn't even asked any difficult questions.

In fact, most Canadians believe he is up in the polls mainly because of his father:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/09/justin-trudeau-media-hype_n_3040...

But again, where is Mulcair? He has an uphill battle yet again!

And I believe that that is what makes Mulcair great and proves he is ready to be Prime Minister. He is constantly in a fight to prove himself. So far the vast majority of fights he has been in he has successfully won.

Unlike Trudeau, who's only real fight has been in a boxing ring, Mulcair has substance and the ability to win fights!

I stand proudly behind Mulcair and so should you!

Brachina

NeedToVote101 wrote:

Unlike Trudeau, I think Mulcair has always had an uphill climb.

If the claims are true about Mulcair and Charest in the Liberal cabinet fighting over condos and parks, it proves to reason that Mulcair has had an uphill battle from the beginning.

After he left Charest's cabinet, he did the impossible, he ran for the NDP and won the by-election in Outremont.

After winning the by-election, he did the other impossible, he won his seat as an incumbent when others were saying that he wouldn't.

Within the NDP he became Jack Layton's other right hand man in Parliament and Layton allowed him to work at winning Quebec over to the NDP. Wha!? Win more seats in Quebec? The media and people in the party doubted that very much. Yet, by a miracle it seems, in the 2011 election, the NDP swept through Quebec. Yet so many people said it would be impossible.  Sure, many people we involved in that, but Mulcair was just as involved.

Leadership race: Mulcair deemed the front-runner along with Brian Topp. The media made it to be the final battle for socialism.  At first many believed Brian Topp would win it. Yet again, Mulcair gained support.

How many times have you heard from the mainstream media or even Canadians that Trudeau has had a hard time proving himself?  The vast majority of people still don't even know what Trudeau stands for; in the leadership race he wasn't even asked any difficult questions.

In fact, most Canadians believe he is up in the polls mainly because of his father:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/09/justin-trudeau-media-hype_n_3040...

But again, where is Mulcair? He has an uphill battle yet again!

And I believe that that is what makes Mulcair great and proves he is ready to be Prime Minister. He is constantly in a fight to prove himself. So far the vast majority of fights he has been in he has successfully won.

Unlike Trudeau, who's only real fight has been in a boxing ring, Mulcair has substance and the ability to win fights!

I stand proudly behind Mulcair and so should you!

Damn right! Mulcair has fight every step. Mulcair has not come from wealth priveldge like Justin and Mulcair's qualifications vastly out matched Justin's.

I also like the photo of Mulcair's family, its like the Partage family but bigger.

Stockholm

I was struck by how back in the 1970s Mulcair looked kind of like "Meathead" from All in the Family!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

No doubt that Mulcair has better qualifications than Justin and Justin's family was richer.

However Tom has bloodlines that includes a Premier of Quebec.  Jack of course was raised by a Conservative Cabinet Minister. None of the above seem to have been under privilaged. The relative degrees of privilege are not worth talking about.  After all it is who they became that is the real issue.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

No doubt that Mulcair has better qualifications than Justin and Justin's family was richer.

However Tom has bloodlines that includes a Premier of Quebec.  Jack of course was raised by a Conservative Cabinet Minister. None of the above seem to have been under privilaged. The relative degrees of privilege are not worth talking about.  After all it is who they became that is the real issue.

That is true; Justin Trudeau is no in either man's league. But if style wins over substance, if Trudeau  doesn't stumble, if the NDP can't frame him for what he is, he'll win. I still say Tom needs to get under Trudeau's skin, now, and stay there!

Brachina

No offence, but the bloodlines of Jack and Mulcair isn't in the league of being a Trudeau.Within the NDP family only Kiefer Sutherland would be, Grandson of Tommy Douglas, son of Donald Sutherland, and Kiefer is Jack Berber on TV's 24 would have a shot beating the cultural potency of being a Trudeau.

Thankfully thier are other factors where Mulcair and the NDP has the advantage, so lets not fight this on battle ground where Justin holds the advantage.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Actually Alexa is the only NDP leader I can think of that came from the same type of privileged background as Justin. My point is that Tom is from a privileged background even if it was not as rich a background as Alexa's or Justin's. If you want to highlight his background then it better not be from some strange comparison of relative privilege between two white guys from well off families.

 

nicky

While Honore Mercier is Tom's distant ancestor I don't think this means Tom comes from privilege. He is one of 10 children and his father was an electrician, not a  patrician.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Go ahead run Tom as the working class guy from an under privileged background.  I am sure it will go over well with Canadians who actually come from under privileged backgrounds. Comparing the privilege of two white males is sure to be a great selling point in marginalized communities where parents are both working multiple jobs to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads..

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

nicky wrote:

While Honore Mercier is Tom's distant ancestor I don't think this means Tom comes from privilege. He is one of 10 children and his father was an electrician, not a  patrician.

For my money, I think this is a pretty good case why the LPC shouldn't challenge Mulcair's having come from an obvious working class upbringing devoid of obvious privillege like Le Dauphin. And besides, Le Dauphin is running on his daddy's name; their is nothing similar occurring on Tom's side as near as I can tell.

janfromthebruce

And back in the day it was very usual for the "bread winner" to be the only worker outside of the home and very much unlike today, where one has 2 working parents outside of the home.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I grew up in the same era as Tom did and electricians and other certified trades people were the elite of the working class and their families were way better off than mine or my wife's for that matter. I am not trying to say that his upbringing is the same as someone from a rich background such as Justin's but I think it absurd to compare relative privilege when they both come from privileged backgrounds in comparison to the people a left wing party is supposed to be speaking on behalf of.  

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

K if a workers party does not speak for all working people, then who does it speak for. For my money, Tom and Justin come from entirely different backgrounds. Tom's dad was an anonyomous electricina, Le Dauphin's was a PM of mythic porportion who is as close to being Royalty as Canada currently knows. There is simply no comparison here at all. Tom's beginnings are humble ones, not of privillege. And just don't see how the two are in any way similar.  To say that electricians are "privilleged" tradesmen is splitting hairs as I see it.

janfromthebruce

Well krop, I grew up in Windsor, ON, and union city with car industry assembly workers as the backbone of the community. I wouldn't consider that they were privleged in comparison to others who may be considered working class.

An electrician would be very much considered a trades person and working class rather than middle class. My grandfather was a carpenter and belonged to the carpenter's union, and that again would be considered "blue collar" and working class.

The difference suggested here is skilled and unskilled trades and those trades would be placed in the same "class" and no way in comparison of the professional and social status class of Trudeaus.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

My grandfather was a cabinet maker. He had seven childern. I know from talking to my dad, that my grandfather would shake his head hearing that a trademan of any kiny was a member of a privileged class. On top of that, over my entire life, and I am 55, I have never heard anyone tell me that a tradesmen of ANY type was a member of a privileged class. On top of that I am certain if I went to a Union hall and started telling members of the IBEW that they were members of an elitec and privileged group, they'd laugh. Honestly, I have never heard anyone call a tradesman of any kind a member of a privileged elite equal to a Trudeau. I am pretty sure that TC Douglas, as well as Stanley Knowles and Davey Knowles, whom I both knew through my paretns would have laughed at that too. I have to admit, I am kind of dumbstruck. I never thought I'd see the day where a guy coming from what has always been considered working class roots, was somehow privileged in a way that equates to a Trudeau. To me, it just makes no sense. That is my opinon. Its not an attack. Its an opinion, based on my education, and life experience. No more, no less.

socialdemocrati...

An introduction to Tom's story is long overdue. They should have done this from the get go. Glad they're getting around to it now, but God knows the mainstream media will try to say it's a "makeover". It will only be a "makeover" for the small percentage of people who pay enough attention to politics that they bought into the MSM (and two-party system's) version of what the NDP is. For most ordinary people it will be an introduction -- that is if the story ever reaches them before 2015.

And it wouldn't matter to me if Tom's background were as privileged as Jack's background. We'll never achieve progress in this country unless there are wealthy, privileged people who advocate for greater equality, instead of insisting that they deserve their wealth more than the lazy unwashed masses. But I'm pretty glad that he has working class roots.

Brachina

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I grew up in the same era as Tom did and electricians and other certified trades people were the elite of the working class and their families were way better off than mine or my wife's for that matter. I am not trying to say that his upbringing is the same as someone from a rich background such as Justin's but I think it absurd to compare relative privilege when they both come from privileged backgrounds in comparison to the people a left wing party is supposed to be speaking on behalf of.  

Do you think people will think that Mulcair's dad was in the same league as Trudeau, even in a league close?

I mean my goodness if Mulcair's family had an serious money do you think he'd have had to work in a textile factory?

Look the point isn't to make look like he came from poverty, its to make him look like he came from the middle class and had challenges to over come. And yes I said middle class, because guess what that's how most people in the working class see themselves.

Only the 1 percent and the dirt poor don't see themselves as apart of the middle class.

And even the dirt poor will find it easier to identify with a trades person then an artistocract.

And yes Jack came from a somewhat well off family, maybe even a 1 percenter, but Jack also ditched that and went hitch hiking across Canada. Jack did what Trudeau only pretends to do, he got a taste of how the common people live.

I think its a good idea. But its only a part of the pie and I believe its just the beginning.

I think this is a hint that were headed for an ad blitz along with other tools. It will be positive in nature, it will be frame in such a way that naturally draws comparisons with Justin in a way that Justin comes off looking poorly. Mulcair identifible middle class background, vs. Justin's wealth and priveldge, Mulcair's experience vs. Justin's lack of experience, Mulcair's achievements vs. Justin's none existant achievements, Mulcair's Fight against the Harper Agenda vs. Justin's support for countless Harper actions especially during the Minority years. I could go on. The goal to boost the publics respect for Mulcair and his likablity, while subtly undermining Justin and building a contrast between the two.

Which of course is only the beginning.

Just my guess.

felixr

Kropotkin has jumped the shark on this one.

robbie_dee

Justin's father was Pierre ELLIOT Trudeau. As in Elliot Lake - the town (and uranium mining industry) his family owned. Justin's family are CAPITALISTS and he's inherited enough wealth that he will never have to hold a job in order to meet his daily needs (pursuits like teaching or acting are, rather, pursued for his own enjoyment or personal growth). Thomas Mulcair may be a white male with a professional degree (law) and a family background from among the more advantaged sections of the working class. But he's always had to work to earn his living. That's a fairly fundamental difference.

onlinediscountanvils

Stockholm wrote:
Its standard good form that on the day that a major world figure dies parties and leaders try to take the high road and express condolences and leave the criticism of the person's politics for another day. You may not like that custom, but it goes back loooong before Mulcair was leader, in fact i seem to recall the Layton-led NDP expressing similar anodyne condolences in 2004 when Ronald Reagan died.

True enough. A friend of mine wrote the NDP statement of condolence for Ariel Sharon, which has now been sitting on ice for 7+ years.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

robbie_dee wrote:

Thomas Mulcair may be a white male with a professional degree (law) and a family background from among the more advantaged sections of the working class. But he's always had to work to earn his living. That's a fairly fundamental difference.

I agree totally and tried to say as much. I hope the brain trust knows better than to try to sell this professional politician as a working class hero. I think that would end badly for the party and Tom. Personal attacks on Trudeau based on his family will also blow up in the parties face.  Tom is what he is and that is a professional lawyer and politician and he has been one his entire adult life after graduating from university.  He has never experienced poverty and he is cultured and urbane.  Such shallow ideas are not the way to counter Justin and could enhance his appeal.  It would be like complaining that JFK was too privileged or for that matter George Bush. I am not even sure whether it is a negative in a society that loves its rich celebrities.

Brachina

No that's not the goal to potray Tom as coming from poverty, its as coming from a middle class background that people can identify with. And its only a piece of the project to boost Tom's popularity, not over emphasised, but as part of a larger picture of a man who has over come challenges, such as Charest and running for the NDP in Quebec, fighting sexual harrassment, changing the Quebec constitition, battling for national unity, amoung many other achievements, while at the same time adding a human touch. Tom is likable if Canadians get to knoe the guy.

And I'm not talking about direct attacks against Trudeau's background. I'm taking about laying the seeds so people come up with the idea on thier own and think its thier idea.

socialdemocrati...

If you believe that a cabinetmaker and the former prime minister of Canada are both "privileged", then yeah, I guess you're myopic enough to believe that there's no meaningful difference NDP and Liberal party.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I am saying that the idea is to get "middle class" voters to like Mulcair. Whatever semantics you use that means that the NDP is not trying to appeal to the huddled masses but the comfortably well off. 

In Canada most full time employed tradespeople make between $50,000 and $80,000 a year depending on where they work and how much OT they get.  At $50,000 that puts them in the top 26% of income earners and at $80,000 they are in the top 10%.  A full time sales clerk would make somewhere around $12 an hour or about $25,000 to $30,000 a year.  To be in the top 50% of income earners in Canada you need an income of around $30,000.

 

 

socialdemocrati...

I don't think that's the idea at all. I think the idea is to tell people who Mulcair is and where he came from. So people see him as a human being, instead of a politician who was hatched out of a pod 3 years ago.

Slumberjack

It's really about who his frends are now, as opposed to where he came from.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I don't think that's the idea at all. I think the idea is to tell people who Mulcair is and where he came from. So people see him as a human being, instead of a politician who was hatched out of a pod 3 years ago.

I get the idea as do all political parties in Canada. Maybe he should wear more sweater vests and pose with the family pets. Or maybe he should try to articulate a vision that includes more than the top 25% of the people in this country who are not in the "middle class."  If he runs against Trudeau based on image he will look as ridiculous as Harper did in a cowboy hat and vest.

He has been a lawyer for over 30 years so trying to package him as a working class guy is ridiculous. He is married to a psychologist i.e. another professional.  If you people don't think that makes him a privileged Canadian then indeed we don't share the same definitions.  He is not a new politician he has been in politics virtually continuously since he was first elected nearly 20 years ago. His resume is far better than Justin's because with his law and professorial background it looks a whole lot more like Pierre's. 

 

 

Brachina

Its a about perception, most of the huddled masses concider themselves middle class, even if objectively they aren't. That's why all politicians try and target the middle class, because that seen as being everyone who isn't in the 1 percent or nearly homeless.

Brachina

And comparing Mulcair who can be warm and charming to Steven whose empty void where his soul should be can drain even the sweetness of a kitten into it depths of mind bending madness and lovecraftian horror, its alien wrongness unfoubted scarring the poor kitten for life.

Brachina

Comparing Mulcair who is capable of great warmth, humour, and charm to Harper whose void where his soul should be is capable of draining the gentle sweetness of a kitten into its depths of mind bending madness and Lovecraftian horror, the cold alien nature of which is sure to scar the pysche of the poor defenceless kitten.

Plus everyone knows Harper's a jerk.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I compared trying to remake Mulcair's image to the pathetic attempts to soften Harper's image.  Please try not to read things into my posts such as the ridiculous idea that I compared the two men.

As for appealing to the middle class in us all I think that is why the lowest income earners also have the highest rates of non participation in elections. The voter turnout rates keep dropping especially among the lowest income earners in the country. Why bother voting when all the parties are offering mostly tax breaks for the middle class when you don't even pay taxes because your income is so low.

Kara

Is it not quite telling how the kitten is pulling away from him?  Mind you, I don't think felines are particularly fond of snakes.

 

I'm not quite sure what this picture is supposed to represent.  Whatever he is paying his image consultant, is too much.

Kara

k, wasn't it in the 80s that the political rhetoric changed from speaking about citizens instead to speaking about tax payers?  Language is important and this simple change in language implies that those who do not pay taxes are not entitled to have any voice in politics or the country at large, further marginalizing those who are already marginalized.  The people who struggle the most are also those who need government services the most, whether it be food needs, poorer health, lack of adequate housing, etc.  There was not enough outcry (other than places like here) when the changes to voter ID requirements made it nearly impossible for many low income people to vote.

All the major party leaders (including future leader JT) grew up with undeserved privilege simply by being white and male.  Certainly there is a variance in the degree of privilege but not one of them understands the discrimination and roadblocks people of colour, women, etc. have had to deal with.  Playing the "I'm one of you" card is insulting because every one of them has had some breaks in their life that helped them reach where they are today.  Many others never get a break in their life through no fault of their own, facing roadblock after roadblock until too often giving up.

Also, a contest as to who is the most middle class and who best understands the middle class is pointless because it ignores whole blocks of people, especially the lowest income people.  There is already far too much pandering to the middle class.  It also ignores that not all wealthy people are complete assholes (although far too many are) and not all poor people are great people.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Well said Kara.  The '80's were indeed the era when the rich decided that enough was enough and they wanted it all like there ancestors before the Second World War. The idea of a state providing necessities for people without means has been under attack ever since. In BC that dates to Min Wac's restraint program in 1983.  That is when I first became consumed by political activism although I had been interested in politics before that time.  The BC NDP in the late '90's fell under the spell of that restraint ideology and that led to cuts in welfare and other services, especially for the marginalized, combined with tax breaks and a pathological obsession with balancing the budget.

I hope that Mulcair will not repeat those mistakes but frankly given the fact that he sat at a Cabinet table when the Quebec Liberals did the same thing I have my doubts. Jack ran from the left of the party when he was elected and then slowly over time drifted to the centre. Mulcair ran from the centre right of the party so I fear where he will drift too.  In my lifetime I have never seen a politician of any stripe move to the left when elected. Some don't move much to the right and that is about the best that I feel I can hope will happen if Mulcair is elected.

 

Kara

Min Wac - ha, I hadn't heard that before!  Although I'm stranded in wild rose country for now because of family obligations, I'm a fellow BCer not much younger than you (10 years which at our age is not much!) so I lived through much of what you are referring to.  BC politics is strange and certainly some of the NDP premiers have been very disappointing.  As long as money is the driving force behind the media and elections, the rightward drift will probably not stop.  Let's face it, every Premier, MP, MLA, wants to get re-elected and the pressure to maintain the status quo must be intense.

My opposition to Mulcair has to do with the fact that he is a nasty piece of work that I want gone from the party - shallow perhaps but he's a prick.  And, quite frankly, my ideal (but admittedly impossible) result to the far too distant election would be a result that wiped out most of the MPs and all of the party leaders.  Because failing that, nothing is going to change.

mark_alfred

kropotkin1951 wrote:
In my lifetime I have never seen a politician of any stripe move to the left when elected.

How about Harper?  He came in vowing never to run a deficit, and the next thing you know he's saying that Keynesian economics can be useful at certain times.

Brachina

Kara wrote:

Min Wac - ha, I hadn't heard that before!  Although I'm stranded in wild rose country for now because of family obligations, I'm a fellow BCer not much younger than you (10 years which at our age is not much!) so I lived through much of what you are referring to.  BC politics is strange and certainly some of the NDP premiers have been very disappointing.  As long as money is the driving force behind the media and elections, the rightward drift will probably not stop.  Let's face it, every Premier, MP, MLA, wants to get re-elected and the pressure to maintain the status quo must be intense.

My opposition to Mulcair has to do with the fact that he is a nasty piece of work that I want gone from the party - shallow perhaps but he's a prick.  And, quite frankly, my ideal (but admittedly impossible) result to the far too distant election would be a result that wiped out most of the MPs and all of the party leaders.  Because failing that, nothing is going to change.

Your absolutely right, that is shallow. And unrealistic, mean, and unjust. But hey enjoy the sidelines.

Kara

Brachina wrote:

Your absolutely right, that is shallow. And unrealistic, mean, and unjust. But hey enjoy the sidelines.

Mean and unjust in your opinion.  I'm perfectly entitled to my opinion that he's a prick.  And, hey, I am enjoying the sidelines rather than selling my soul to support an asshole just because he's the leader of the party that I had supported most of my life.  Personally, I consider it just as shallow to support someone just because they belong to the "right" party.  It seems that I am right to have left the party if you are representative of what it has become.

NorthReport

NDP Leader tom Mulcair shows his Priorities during Daily Question Period

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/national/leader+Mulcair+shows+prioritie...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
In my lifetime I have never seen a politician of any stripe move to the left when elected.

How about Harper?  He came in vowing never to run a deficit, and the next thing you know he's saying that Keynesian economics can be useful at certain times.

We will just have to disagree since as far as I can see he has moved to the right. Since he won a majority he has not been stimulating the economy by providing government services like EI instead he has been cutting them. He is running up massive deficits to fund things like new prisons and bigger weapons but personally I don't consider that to be progressive. He has also cut the government ability to plan for the future by his cuts to things like the Census. He has gutted the regulations on corporations and left us all in the hands of the corporations especially his oil and gas masters. His tax cutting has resulted in a deficit not spending. That merely benefits the rich and its corporations and leaves the rest of us with the bill. Hardly a shift to the left in my view.

mark_alfred

kropotkin1951 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
In my lifetime I have never seen a politician of any stripe move to the left when elected.

How about Harper?  He came in vowing never to run a deficit, and the next thing you know he's saying that Keynesian economics can be useful at certain times.

We will just have to disagree since as far as I can see he has moved to the right.

I agree he's moved the nation to the right (though not significantly more than Martin did -- and to my knowledge so far Harper hasn't cut transfer payments or downloaded significantly as did the Liberals).  But yes, we'll have to disagree on whether he has moved to the right of the image he initially presented before being elected.  My feeling is no, he hasn't.

mark_alfred

Re:  Kara's post #443:  I always leaned to the NDP, and jumped on board as a member after Layton became leader.  I had hoped for Topp.  But, I've been pretty impressed with Mulcair so far.  So, I'm still a member.  But yes, people are entitled to their opinions.  I myself feel the NDP is not perfect.  Still, I continue to have a sustaining membership (with small monthly amounts).

I mentioned Harper in a previous post as governing more left than he initially proposed.  Certainly many right-wingers feel that (and thus feel betrayed).  However, the vast majority still pony up their donations to the Cons, despite their misgivings, making the Cons a powerhouse that does incrementally move the country rightward.  Many on the left can't seem to get over imperfection, and thus end up sacrificing the best vehicle available for the job at hand, which is the NDP, by withdrawing completely.  Sad, I feel.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The party moved the bus route while I held fast to my principle that electoral politics is either about change or it is not worth the fare. But don't you worry because the plan seems to be to make plenty of stops next to the liberal tent  to fill the seats on the bus.  Its the strategy that the party brain trust has adopted. Since I don't take buses unless they are headed to the destination I want to go to I will not be paying anything for a ride to nowhere. I don't believe that any ride is better than no ride at all.

Kara

mark_alfred wrote:

I mentioned Harper in a previous post as governing more left than he initially proposed.  Certainly many right-wingers feel that (and thus feel betrayed).  However, the vast majority still pony up their donations to the Cons, despite their misgivings, making the Cons a powerhouse that does incrementally move the country rightward.  Many on the left can't seem to get over imperfection, and thus end up sacrificing the best vehicle available for the job at hand, which is the NDP, by withdrawing completely.  Sad, I feel.

The Cons will always have their core base because they have so many MPs who are anti-choice, anti-equal marriage, etc.  There really isn't anywhere else for the socially conservative (or more correctly, bigoted) voters to go.  The corporate powers that be will always cover their bases and make sure they are never left out, so they can swing from Con to Liberal - but they will try to make sure they are backing the "winner".

The steadily rightward drift is something I cannot support.  IMO, continuing to support the NDP as they participate in that is just enabling the process.  Being better than the alternative isn't good enough.  That's why the Liberals had so much success throughout the 90s - by being a bit more palatable than the Cons.  Rather than changing the party to suit what people think they want, maybe the party should be trying to educate people as to what kind of society we could have, which ultimately would be what most people would want because it would benefit the majority of people and lead to a healthier, more equitable society.

Jacob Two-Two

As always, I'd like to hear specifically what policies the party has changed in the last two years that accounts for this "rightward drift" people are perceiving, because I can't see it at all.

And I'd really like to hear why you think Mulcair's a prick, Kara.

Pages

Topic locked