Thomas Mulcair

2763 posts / 0 new
Last post
socialdemocrati...

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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.

Quit with the strawman arguments. Nobody is proposing to repackage Tom. Nobody is proposing that Mulcair make the 2015 about personality instead of policy. This is just an ordinary telling of someone's biography to people who have never heard it -- very similar to the story told on his leadership website 1.5 years ago. A few other babblers noted that he wasn't born into wealth, which is rare in politics these days. But "working class" are your words, not anyone else's.

NorthReport

So it seems there are a lot of folks who want a healthier society. Some choose the political route. And in politics you never ever get everything you want. Politics is the art of compromise, as being an MP means you represent all your constituents.

 

As for me I believe in the following:

1 - nationalizing all of our natural resources so that Canadian society as a whole would benefit, rather than most of the profits going to the 1 per centers wherever they live

2 - abolishing all support to non-public school system which helps to create a robust and strong public school system where all students are treated equally helping to abolish the elitism of the private schools.

3 - making tuition free for all education paid for out of general taxation revenues

4 - creating the best possible apprenticeship program, forcing employers to pay the entire costs of any skills training

5 - having a solid 10% inheritance tax to reduce the gap between the rich and poor

6 - eliminating all, and I mean all tax loopholes in the income tax act

7 - raising the taxes substantially on corporations

8 - eliminating all privatization in the health care system

10 - having a very progressive personal tax structure so that the 1% pay a huge amount in income tax to help reduce the equality gap

11 - puting the dentists, perscriptions, and all-health related things into the public health care system

12 - establishing a national housing program to stop developers from gouging the public

13 - forcing all businesses to list the total price including all taxes and any other costs in any advertising

14 - eliminating our deficit and debt so that future generations are not indebted

15 - eliminating all user fees on public parks, camping in provincial and national parks, fishing licenses, road tolls, swimming pools, community centres, ice skating rinks, baseball diamonds, football and soccer fields, and pay for them though general taxation revenues

16 - substatially increasing support for our seniors in so many different ways to thank who those built this country before us

17 - creating positive incentives to reduce global warming such as a vaste complex of bicycle paths

18- promoting an elected by the people management group of public transportation officials who will keep their own personal costs low and the ridership high. And all management must use the public transporation to travel.

19 - canceling the temporary foreign workers program - if people are good enough to work in Canada they are good enough to become Canadians

Etc.

 

Of course the NDP will not deliver on all that, but they are a lot closer than any other political party to doing so.  The federal NDP has achieved quite a lot but it has been in opposition all its life. Imagine what it could do if it were ever to form the government.

 

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Stockholm wrote:

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.

...

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.

Sure sounds like Harper trying to sell himself with a kitten and sweater vests but obviously you disagree. The voters of Canada deserve a political discourse not a marketing campaign devoid of substance. I will be interested to see just how sappy it really is but so far it sounds like selling a new brand not having a political discussion amongst adults. But then I am on at odds with most of the current NDP supporters because I believe the only fight worth fighting is to make a real change not gain power simply for the sake of winning. That has always been the Liberal way and now it is the NDP mantra.  I find the remarks above to be condescending to the voters of Canada and frankly I think that does not bode well for the prospect of anything except Mulcair governing according to the shifting fortunes of polls driven by the MSM.

janfromthebruce

I never saw in the past where the NDP had really that much influence with being a third party - perhaps bread crumbs. Like many others, I have worked hard to get New Dems elected.

I like to see a NDP federal govt elected. I believe it would put in a fair electorial reform and move towards a more progressive policy stance. Better employment laws and regulations - like no scab labour.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I hope you are right and they bring in real electoral reform.  I too have worked to elect many NDP candidates.  I stopped when the party drove my MP out of parliament for having principles.  Someone else can take up the battle now.

I find it interesting that before winning a shit load of seats in Quebec (the only major change in the last election) the NDP always bragged about how they had managed to get many things done while being a third party. Was Jack lying to the public all those years?

sherpa-finn

robbie_dee: Justin's father was Pierre ELLIOT Trudeau. As in Elliot Lake - the town (and uranium mining industry) his family owned.

Hmmm.. I am not inclined to become resident fact-checker but I am skeptical of this one. The way I heard it, Charles Trudeau (Pierre's Dad) was a gas station baron in Montreal. And Grace Elliot (Mom) came from a Montreal anglo-business family. 

Trudeau may be guilty of plenty of sins, but I don't think bringing uranium mining to Eliiot Lake (which only started in the 1950s) was one of them.   

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

-

JKR

mark_alfred wrote:
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).

During the 90's Harper, Manning, and the rest of the Reform Party criticized the Liberal government for cutting too little. They wanted even more cuts than Martin made. After years of cutting, Harper n' company just don't have that much room for more significant cuts.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pierre's Dad died in 1935 when Pierre was 16 and Elliot Lake was founded as a planned community in 1955.  That is not to say that his family's holdings did not include stock in mining companies but the idea that they owned Elliot Lake seems rather far fetched.

wage zombie

Aristotleded24 wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
Mulcair is ardently anti-austerity. He's been repeating it a lot at many different venues. That's been a crucial issue for me. Makes me very happy, and pretty much makes all the TONY BLAIR panic attacks seem pretty silly.

As was Obama before he was elected, and now Obama is going along with austerity proposals that the Republicans would never dream of.

That's not very accurate, as there are plenty of Republicans who will publically state all kinds of austerity proposals that are much more extreme than anything that Obama has done.  Like, eliminating public education.

I think there is a lot to criticize about Obama, especially what he's doing right now.  But the hyperbole gets ridiculous and detracts fromt he point.

If Obama is "going along" with proposals that Republicans "would never dream of", then who is it that came up with the proposals?

mark_alfred

Kara wrote:

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.

Hi Kara.  That's a fair comment.  If you feel they've been drifting too far right, and feel giving further support would increase this drift, then it's logical to stop supporting them.  As far as the rightward drift argument goes, certainly I did notice that the last platform was quite minimal compared with previous platforms.  It had the (if I remember correctly) five commitments to be posted on my refrigerator with the promise of progress in the first 100 days and which I could hold them to come hell or high water (or something to that effect).  Beyond the five commitments, there wasn't anything else in there -- certainly it didn't promise to nationalize the banks or even to legalize prostitution and marijuana.  But, given the ominous state of the economy, it was still a pretty exciting document.  I recall showing some of my friends (who have large credit card bills) the promise of "We'll cap credit card fees at prime +5," and they LAUGHED, not believing that such a promise could even be made, never mind possible. The NDP getting this far is the most exciting and potentially revolutionary thing to have happened, regardless of their platform adjustments.  I'm sure the power brokers were shitting themselves at what was the very real possibility of the NDP winning, and I'm sure they are still shitting themselves at this very possibility.  To my knowledge, the NDP haven't changed anything policy-wise since the last election, and Mulcair has done some interesting things, like his visit to the States to condemn the Conservative's environmental record -- and he's held up to relentless attacks from the Conservatives while simultaneously throwing them off balance with research and exposures of their incompetence (IE, people now openly question the usefulness of the Senate).  Great stuff.  The NDP being on the precipice of power is truly fabulous and thrilling.  It will be a great thing if Mulcair and the NDP win the next election.  This would not be like Justin Trudeau's Liberals or Harper's Conservatives winning.  It would be truly different.  It would be progressive.  It would be thrilling.

wage zombie

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.

You mean if TWO party members on babble are any indication.  I agree with you that there should have been more public recognition by the NDP of Chavez accomplishments.  But personally I have a lot of better things to do than taking fanboys to task.

mark_alfred

Apparently the at-issue panel on CBC news tonight will be talking about how Trudeau's ascention will affect the other parties.  Also, apparently Rex Murphy will comment specifically on Mulcair.  So, I'm going back to the TV to see what he has to say (and to see if I should commend or condemn Murphy.... ah, who am I kidding, Murphy's a jerk).

mark_alfred

Okay, I listened to Murphy.  He declared that Mulcair is a "hermit", who needs to get out and give people a reason to vote for him.  Well, I don't totally disagree with him.  One reason I backed Topp over Mulcair was because at least Topp's policy positions were comprehensible (that being that Canada needs more revenue from taxes -- very simple and easy to understand).  It is difficult to make out exactly what Mulcair is driving at sometimes (something to do with improper environmental regulation driving up the dollar causing the manufacturing industry to suffer, or something).  That said, I still think Mulcair has been pretty good at fighting the Tories, and his trip to the States was cool. 

sherpa-finn

And the "Elliot" connection also seemed unlikely.

From the web page of the City of Elliot Lake:  "The name "Elliot Lake" first appeared on a Dominion Map in 1910.  It is widely believed that the name Elliot belonged to a logging camp cook who drowned in the lake prior to that date. History tells us Elliot's remains were never recovered....."

Gotta love the internet.

janfromthebruce

I think that third party and getting things done, sometimes, because at the end of the day it's only within someone else's frame. Layton was amazing and I appreciated all he did for the party. To get out there everyday and put in 125%, and stay positive was amazing.

mark_alfred

I agree Jan.  And I think that despite what the MSM or the puritans here at Rabble say, that it will be amazing when the NDP becomes government.  It will be truly phenomenal.  It will be positive and amazing. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So Mark have you ever lived in a province with an NDP government? Truly phenomenal is not the descriptors I would use about any of them in the last 20 years. Slightly better than the alternative would be far more accurate.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

5 - having a solid 10% inheritance tax to reduce the gap between the rich and poor.

...

10 - having a very progressive personal tax structure so that the 1% pay a huge amount in income tax to help reduce the equality gap.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/15/thomas-mulcair-on-taxes/

Quote:

More interesting, Mr. Mulcair seems to eliminate any possibility of a tax-the-rich proposal from the federal NDP.

Mulcair said he would not raise taxes for high-income earners because marginal tax rates in the country are already too high. “Absolute guarantee it will never be part of my program,” he said. “It’s never been my policy and it never will be.”

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

"More interesting, Mr. Mulcair seems to eliminate any possibility of a tax-the-rich proposal from the federal NDP. Mulcair said he would not raise taxes for high-income earners because marginal tax rates in the country are already too high. “Absolute guarantee it will never be part of my program,” he said. “It’s never been my policy and it never will be.”

If Mulcair really said that, then I would love to know he plans to pay for social spending. Part of the problem is when these kind of things get posted, I try hard to not react to them, but I also wonder why we are seeing such a furious attack on Tom. He's the leader now. There seems to be plenty of piling on occuring but not much in the way of suggestions to how we influence him. I am getting a little wary of this contiinued attack and finding it hard not to wonder what the motivation is.

In the meantime, from the Huffpost in response to the latest fawning artilce on Trudeau:

"The more I hear, the more I like Mr. Trudeau.

You have a big family name to follow, and that has to be daunting... but you have a reall chance at connecting with young Canadians in a way no one else has managed in Canadian politics since Jack Layton, and before him, your father.

I'm looking forward to seeing you in action. My intuition tells me to expect good things."

Would anyone like to offer an opinon on the Huff Post. Is it getting like the CBC where all you read is LPC cheerleading? Are the Libs punking the blog? I am beginning to think that is the case and staying there is a waste of time.

I'd really like to hear other's thoughts on this.

mark_alfred

To my knowledge, the position is unchanged since the last platform under Layton from the NDP.  Eliminate tax loopholes, crack down on offshore tax havens, institute a cap and trade system, and raise the corporate tax rate.

JKR

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"More interesting, Mr. Mulcair seems to eliminate any possibility of a tax-the-rich proposal from the federal NDP. Mulcair said he would not raise taxes for high-income earners because marginal tax rates in the country are already too high. “Absolute guarantee it will never be part of my program,” he said. “It’s never been my policy and it never will be.”

If Mulcair really said that, then I would love to know he plans to pay for social spending. 

The article explains Mulcair's strategy - http://alturl.com/59aej

Canada’s Mulcair Says NDP Would Raise Business Tax Rate - Bloomberg News Service

Quote:

Canada’s New Democratic Party would increase corporate income tax rates if it won power to invest in social programs while keeping sales and personal income taxes unchanged, its leader said...

JKR

mark_alfred wrote:

To my knowledge, the position is unchanged since the last platform under Layton from the NDP.  Eliminate tax loopholes, crack down on offshore tax havens, institute a cap and trade system, and raise the corporate tax rate.

Since this doesn't include raising personal income tax rates, would this establish a much more progressive tax system? I haven't seen the numbers crunched to show what kind of tax system we'd have if the NDP's plan went ahead.

Speaking of fair taxation, this is one of my favorite resolutions from the Montreal convention:

Quote:

1-92-13 Resolution on Taxation

Submitted by Kildonan-St. Paul

WHEREAS the present taxation system is badly skewed in favour of the wealthy, and;

WHEREAS many years ago the Carter Commission appointed by then Prime Minister Diefenbaker, recommended a major reform of our tax system; essentially advocating that all income be taxed fairly (no special treatment for share dividends) and;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that an NDP federal government would overhaul our tax system to provide greater relief to low income earners and provide for a greater contribution from those in society that are far better able to pay back to society a fairer portion of their income.

That's the kind of policy I'd love to see the NDP support and put on the 2015 election platform. What's stopping the NDP from supporting the establishment of another Carter Commission? Wouldn't that be a vote getter?

knownothing knownothing's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Would anyone like to offer an opinon on the Huff Post. Is it getting like the CBC where all you read is LPC cheerleading? Are the Libs punking the blog? I am beginning to think that is the case and staying there is a waste of time.

I'd really like to hear other's thoughts on this.

Yeah they are Liberal. No paper in the country is friendly to the NDP. Only a few journalists, like Tim Harper.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

KN. they are practiclly throwing a party over there today with that poll. More pictures of Trudeau. I can't stand it.  Seriously, how does a man with a famous name, who has accomplished nothing in life, obviously not great intelect earn the right to be Prime Minister? I simply don't understand it. Are Canadains REALLY that stupid?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well, the Atlantic Canada numbers make me very mad, but the ones that worry me the most are BC. Are the Libs high enough a those numbers to allow the Tories to pick up BC seats at the expense of the NDP? And frankly, what is the matter with Atlantic Canada voters anyway?

mark_alfred

JKR wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

To my knowledge, the position is unchanged since the last platform under Layton from the NDP.  Eliminate tax loopholes, crack down on offshore tax havens, institute a cap and trade system, and raise the corporate tax rate.

Since this doesn't include raising personal income tax rates, would this establish a much more progressive tax system? I haven't seen the numbers crunched to show what kind of tax system we'd have if the NDP's plan went ahead.

Speaking of fair taxation, this is one of my favorite resolutions from the Montreal convention:

Quote:

1-92-13 Resolution on Taxation

Submitted by Kildonan-St. Paul

WHEREAS the present taxation system is badly skewed in favour of the wealthy, and;

WHEREAS many years ago the Carter Commission appointed by then Prime Minister Diefenbaker, recommended a major reform of our tax system; essentially advocating that all income be taxed fairly (no special treatment for share dividends) and;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that an NDP federal government would overhaul our tax system to provide greater relief to low income earners and provide for a greater contribution from those in society that are far better able to pay back to society a fairer portion of their income.

That's the kind of policy I'd love to see the NDP support and put on the 2015 election platform. What's stopping the NDP from supporting the establishment of another Carter Commission? Wouldn't that be a vote getter?

I think the contest between Topp and Mulcair put that very question to the test, and a slim majority of members decided that it would not be a vote getter (at least for now).  I'm not so sure.  It seems that "vote getters" are appealing to how the party in power can best benefit people.  Simple arguments win the day, I feel.  I'll talk about this more in a bit (for the one or two who actually deem my long post to be important enough to read).

To digress for a bit, I recall when Hampton was running in Ontario, that he set up a site called "publicpower.ca" (or ".com", I can't recall).  This was to promote investment in public utilities.  This was after Harris' first term (who was a hard-right libertarian).  Also, Hampton advocated raising taxes on the wealthiest in Ontario to pay for increased investments in public services.  So, did he do well in the election?  No, he did not do well.  The timing was not right, even though it was a good policy -- IE, in the next election after the Liberals won, promising no new taxes, they then implemented a "health care premium", which in reality was a tax (though when one looks closely at how it was set up, it was not a proper progressive tax -- people would have been better off with the NDP).  So, a tax increase was needed.  But advertising it as such did not lead to victory.  Instead, it was implemented in the guise of something else.

The idea of simply saying, "we need more revenue, so we're going to raise taxes" is appealing to me.  But, the idea of freeing people to control their own destiny has taken a firm root with people.  The Harper government has helped with this attitude also.  For instance, the apology for residential schools was a very good thing to do, but also fed into the idea of instilling caution in people of an over-reaching paternalistic government.  And, frankly, this is a valid concern.  Sometimes "public power" is not the best.

But a government that neglects the needs of its citizens is also not the best.  A proper balance must be found.  And the neither the Liberals nor Conservatives have this proper balance.  The NDP does, but how does it convince people of this?  As I mentioned earlier, simple arguments are best.  And these are arguments that strike a chord with people.  Hampton's NDP, who had policies I quite liked, also had a campaign that I thought was terrible.  They had ads that looked like various charity ads that try to make you feel guilty to donate (IE, to support the dispossessed), rather than ads promoting how you the voter will feel better if you vote NDP.  I called the ONDP and let them know that I wanted to hear how life will be better for me if I vote for them.  If all they could tell me was that life will be harder for me but perhaps a bit better for someone else, then I hardly could be convinced (regardless of this argument, I did vote NDP). 

Anyway, this is why I like the approach of both Horwath (who, it should be noted, used her clout to get the Ontario Liberals to have those with incomes more than $500,000 pay a two percentage point income tax premium -- an amazing accomplishment -- weirdly she is derided by some of the puritans here at Rabble) and Mulcair.  Admittedly, I'm a bigger fan of Horwath than I am of Mulcair.  I still haven't gotten a clear message of how I personally will benefit from him being in government, whereas Horwath does tell me (derided by some here as "populist", weirdly enough).

In spite of what I've said, I would like to see leaders of the NDP be even more direct.  While I like "Resolution 1-92-13" that you referred to, even it seems a bit off to me.  I feel rather than only the rich paying more, that taxation in general needs to go up.  So, I'd support increasing rates in all tax brackets somewhat (wealthier more), along with introducing a new tax bracket for the very wealthy. Admittedly, the resolution allows for what I'm saying, but its wording also allow for a variety of interpretations (like, only the rich pay more).  In that sense, it feeds into the "taxes are bad except for those that can afford them" argument.  But, is now the right time for an argument for higher taxes in general?  Will it sell?  Likely not given the current ethos.  So, the idea of focusing on corporate taxes, tax loopholes, offshore tax havens, and making polluters pay, seems good policy.  IE, make things fair first before raising everyone's taxes.  Hit the main benefactors of the past neo-liberal policies first before hitting the general populace.  Make taxes in the current context fair first before asking for more taxes from everyone.  The main benefactors have been corporations and big oil.  Hit them first before tackling the taxation issue as a whole.  It makes sense to me. So, I do feel Mulcair has been on the right track.  The only thing I hope for is more feedback on why I, and the population as a whole, will directly benefit from the NDP being in office rather than the Libs or the Cons.  I need a bit more to chew on.  Horwath gives me this, but Mulcair has fallen a bit short.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

KN. they are practiclly throwing a party over there today with that poll. More pictures of Trudeau. I can't stand it.  Seriously, how does a man with a famous name, who has accomplished nothing in life, obviously not great intelect earn the right to be Prime Minister? I simply don't understand it. Are Canadains REALLY that stupid?

AC, the Liberal numbers and Trudeau numbers are the constructions of polling companies, not the reflection of voter intentions. The business elites know that Harper and the Cons have fallen out of favour with Canadians and they are trying to throw the next piece of spaghetti at the fridge to see if it will stick. It won't. Trudeau is too stupid and the Liberals have no infrastructure. After Trudeau crashes and burns, Harper will step down and they will try throwing the new Tory leader at Canadians to see if he/she will stick to the fridge. All the while they will be bashing Mulcair and the NDP right up until the day of the election and after.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

knownothing wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

KN. they are practiclly throwing a party over there today with that poll. More pictures of Trudeau. I can't stand it.  Seriously, how does a man with a famous name, who has accomplished nothing in life, obviously not great intelect earn the right to be Prime Minister? I simply don't understand it. Are Canadains REALLY that stupid?

AC, the Liberal numbers and Trudeau numbers are the constructions of polling companies, not the reflection of voter intentions. The business elites know that Harper and the Cons have fallen out of favour with Canadians and they are trying to throw the next piece of spaghetti at the fridge to see if it will stick. It won't. Trudeau is too stupid and the Liberals have no infrastructure. After Trudeau crashes and burns, Harper will step down and they will try throwing the new Tory leader at Canadians to see if he/she will stick to the fridge. All the while they will be bashing Mulcair and the NDP right up until the day of the election and after.

KN, I respect what you post and always enjoy what you write. But how do you know you are right? Here is a link to a CP article at the Free Press, http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/trudeaus-riding-mulls-idea-he-will-be-liberal-leader-prime-ministerial-hopeful-202654201.html. It is obvous that people are buying into this.

I am all for bravery, but I wish someone could tell me exactly on what they base it.

knownothing knownothing's picture

You can never know for sure. That is why you have to have faith in socialist principles. Principles that are more reliable than any story in Canadian newspapers. For instance, we know that the bourgeois class will do whatever they can to stay in power. This includes using media and polling to manipulate the public. They tried it in the last election.

Sure, some people will buy into Trudeau. I have met them. Maybe Trudeau will win, it is possible. All we can do is stay true to our vision. That is what lasts.

Answer me this:

If the Liberals are at 40% in the polls, why couldn't they even get a 1000 people out to their convention last weekend?

If the Liberals are taking back Quebec, how come so few of the people who voted in their leadership election were from Quebec?

The real numbers on the ground don't add up to what the polls and the papers are saying.

Hunky_Monkey

Arthur... he's a Liberal.  He thinks he's entitled to be Prime Minister.  It's in their DNA.  Arrogance and entitelement.  

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well, KN, I will say one thing. I agree with you on Qubec. I think the LPC is absolutely convinced they will get PQ because Qubec wants to be at the center of power and that message first of all simply doesn't sell anymore, and, they have missed the fact that Quebecers are much more progressive then they give them credit for. I am convinced that things have changed in Quebec, and if the LPC thinks their road to a majority runs through Quebec, they are going to be very dissapointed.  Your other points are good as well.

This Trudeaumania nonsense is driving me crazy. Has does a substitute teacher, course quitting, former snow board instructor claim to have a resume that quaifies him to be PM? Its just nonsense.

mark_alfred

No one has a crystal ball.  The future is not known.  However, we do know that Mulcair has experience as an environment minister in the ONLY government in Canada (provincial or federal) whose jurisdiction actually saw a reduction in green house gases.  We also know that he's deflected relentless attacks from the well-monied Conservatives and is still standing strong.  And we also know that Trudeau has a capacity to get money, has a charming demeanour, but has relatively little experience or achievement when compared with Mulcair.  So, how do we predict the outcome?  Hard to say.  But I think things still look good for a Mulcair victory.

janfromthebruce

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Arthur... he's a Liberal.  He thinks he's entitled to be Prime Minister.  It's in their DNA.  Arrogance and entitelement.  

yes, and MSM pushes it because it is corporate owned and backed. I'll say it again, the elites do not care which corporate party is in power as long as one of them is in power.

NorthReport

Great news today at the NDP convention in Montreal. Over 92% of NDPers voted against having a leadership contest. This is overwhelming support for Mulcair's leadership, which just shows how the party is united under his leadership. Now go get those Cons Tom.

NorthReport

Mulcair must be really pumped by the overwhelming support he just received for his leadership, considering he followed Jack as Leader, which is a very tough act to follow.

He is delivering a barnburner of a speech delivering hope to Canadians, and hammering  both the Cons for what they are doing now, and the Liberals for their 13 years of inaction when they were last in power.

 

 

NorthReport
NorthReport

Did Layton even get this much support?

Anyway so much for the people who have been saying Mulcair doesn't fully represent the members, eh!

If Jesus Christ himself ran he would probably not get much more support than that! Laughing

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

If Jesus Christ himself ran he would probably not get much more support than that! Laughing

Jesus Christ was a socialist, so you're probably correct.

 

NorthReport

Laughing

janfromthebruce

I'm with unionist - Jesus Christ as written in story was a social activist and a socialist.

socialdemocrati...

But after such a terrible year where he announced that the NDP is no longer the NDP?!

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Mulcair has gotten 92% of voter approval for leadership from NDP membership and we will probably see Trudeau Jr elected as the leader of the LPC. Our new political reality doesn't bode well for those of us who want real change.

I'm with Kara who earlier expressed an immense dislike for Mulcair. I am also in agreement with others who have described Justin Trudeau as vacuous. And sadly enough, I am not alone in this assessment and I think a great deal of vote splitting is on the horizon. Add in the fact that Elizabeth May has been very effective with her sole seat in Parliament. 

I have no idea where people who hate Harper will park their votes or if they will bother voting. And there lies the problem. There is no obvious way to defeat Harper and those who care are floating and looking for a lifeguard.

socialdemocrati...

Welcome to electoral politics. You're worried about changing the government? Us too.

Get to work.

NorthReport

Just watched Mulcair's presser on CPAC which followed the convention. If the NDP website was carrying it, it did not seem apparent to me.

Mulcair's performance was incredibly good - what's not to like about this very friendly guy?

And one thing he said was to not worry too much about the polls right now - think back to last election. Smile

I agree with that.

mark_alfred

I will confess that I wish Mulcair was more passionate like he was a few years back.  It seems his attempts to quell the "angry Mulcair" image have led him to now often sound like he's mumbling.  Contrast his recent performances with this, when he was admonishing the Liberals for supporting the Conservatives and backing down on the coalition agreement they had with the NDP:  link

janfromthebruce

Thomas Mulcair slams Harper’s lack of respect for Parliament

HarperCon strategy:

“Voters are starting to get the signal from Mr. Harper that he doesn’t care what they think, because he’s constantly communicating that he doesn’t care what anybody else thinks now that he’s got a majority.”

He did not critize Trudeau personally but did aim at the Liberal record in power:

Mulcair also criticized the Liberal party which he claims did little to change Canada for the better during 13 years in power.

“If you look at the history of the Liberal party, they’ve constantly flashed left and turned right. They didn’t do anything on climate change. They talked about it, but they did nothing,” he said.

“That’s why Canada had one of the worst records in the world. I use that one example but there are lots of others, whether it’s on daycare, or First Nations issues. For the 13 years they were there, they talked about doing things but they never actually did anything.

“The NDP intends to deliver.”

[with pocket book issues Canadians can grasp]

Some of the policies Mulcair mentioned include defending free universal public health care, working towards a daycare system in Canada, and maintaining 65 as retirement age.

knownothing knownothing's picture

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/15/thomas-mulcair-upstages-j...

The response was volcanic, as the beetroot-faced NDP leader threatened to turn from Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde. Canadians are being told they have to work for less or they’ll be replaced. ‘‘Why have you allowed it to happen?’’ he thundered.

Mr. Trudeau must have felt like one of The Monkees after they made the mistake of inviting Jimi Hendrix to be their opening act.

knownothing knownothing's picture

AC, don't forget that many of the commenters are paid Tory and Liberal staffers

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

knownothing wrote:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/15/thomas-mulcair-upstages-j...

The response was volcanic, as the beetroot-faced NDP leader threatened to turn from Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde. Canadians are being told they have to work for less or they’ll be replaced. ‘‘Why have you allowed it to happen?’’ he thundered.

Mr. Trudeau must have felt like one of The Monkees after they made the mistake of inviting Jimi Hendrix to be their opening act.

And what do the "Trained Monkees" write for comment commenting in the Nat Post regarding Mulcair's performance:

" Prairieguy2 - Eight NDP MP's write letters begging for temp. workers in their ridings and Mulcair is totally oblivious to it, just like everything else. Hypocrites = NDP"

Sure, and if he said nothing, then it would be why is he not standing up for workers. All I say is good on you Tom. If Jr. thinks he's going to have the run of the place now that he has been coronated King in waiting, he's got another thing coming. Smug jerks.

Pages

Topic locked