Warren Kinsella and Jamie Heath Together Flog NDP/Lib Merger

174 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brian Glennie

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The flip side is that Harper has been running against a "reckless coalition" of "socialists, separatists, and Liberals" for the last 5 years, and any such arrangement before the election would allow him to try again.

Mulcair being a citizen of France will provide further fuel to the Tory's narrative here.

I'd love to see Tom just quietly issue a statement saying that his kids are older now and he no longer needs the French passport.

Is this feasible? 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Why should he BG? How much to you want an NDP leader to twist and turn on the basis of possible Conservative attacks?

Socdem you have it right that there should be no agreement before but an upfront statement like the last election that the party is willing to work with other parties in the House if their agendas on policy mesh.  I think that was one of the things that Jack did that led to the break through in Quebec.

sherpa-finn

Ken S: As badly as people want to get rid of Harper, no one is ever going to win without a vision of what follows.  And what would the "vision" be of a committee concocted vehicle of convenience?

You want a vision, Ken? OK – I’ll give you a vision.  Here is my vision of the press release I would like to see come out of Stornoway in early 2015…. Apologies for the hyperbole and melodrama in the text, - it was something I slapped together in haste this afternoon. So its not about the wordsmithing, - its about the intent.  

Can we imagine a mechanism / scenario whereby a different political outcome could emerge (for eg, an NDP minority gov't, supported by the Libs) from the most probable electoral result in 2015 (another Tory plurality) in 2015? From where I sit, the negotiating of a pre-election agreement (that defines some shared commitments but does not invoke electoral alliances, strategic voting or party mergers) seems one of the more viable options. Given a little political courage from the concerned parties, of course. 

Together, In Defense of Canada

Fellow Canadians,

As the leaders of three of Canada’s national political parties, we each bring strong convictions and passions to our daily work of representing the interests and aspirations of millions of Canadians in Parliament. 

Each of our respective political parties has its own particular history, analysis and perspectives, as well as distinct policy platforms. Over the years, our parties have found, from time to time, common political ground and worked together. More frequently, we have brought differing viewpoints to the debates on national policies and priorities that are the business of Parliament. 

While there is much that divides the three of us, there is one shared conviction that brings us together today: the unhappy acknowledgement that the Harper Government is doing substantive long-term damage to a range of Canada’s national institutions as part of that Government’s pursuit of an ideological agenda that we believe is fundamentally alien to most Canadians.

Since 2006, and most particularly since 2011, the Government has determinedly dismantled a large swath of public policy, agencies and programs that once enhanced and protected the lives of ordinary citizens. (Feel free to insert examples here as needed.)

Canadians can no longer afford the comforting illusion that this Government is simply undertaking a ‘course correction’ of the ship of state, and nudging us all into a more gently conservative direction.

Instead, we must accept the evidence of recent history: this Government seeks to irrevocably re-define Canadian society and the Canadian state, - to transform us into a ‘come-what-may’ free-for-all type of nation in which natural resources are something to be sold and plundered; ordinary Canadians get more new jails but fewer new hospitals; Canada has become a shirker and delinquent on the global stage; and here at home, public policy is defined behind closed doors, Parliament is gravely diminished as the hearth of Canadian democracy, social and economic inequity continues to grow, and day-to-day policy decisions are driven by the narrow-minded and mean-spirited.

The Harper agenda represents a historic abandonment of a set of core values that defined Canadian society for a century or more and to which most Canadians still hold dear. These values include our shared national commitments to good and open governance; a deep appreciation for the fragility of the natural environment that sustains human life and a viable economy; and an uncompromising concern for the well-being of all, - including the poor and marginalized amongst us in Canada and around the world.

Not so long ago, these values might have been considered inherent to Canada’s national character and DNA, -  shared by people of all -  or no – parties, faiths and persuasions.  If we have learned one painful lesson in recent years, it is that Canadians should no longer assume that these values are shared, promoted or defended by their national Government.  

The current Government has done much damage on multiple fronts to the national fabric and identity, - and as opposition members on the front lines of political debate in the House of Commons we agree that the situation is urgent and nearing a tipping point. But it is not yet irreversible. 

In all probability, there will be a federal election sometime later this year.  In that election campaign, candidates for our three parties will be actively campaigning in each and every constituency across this great land, promoting our distinct visions for how best to guide Canada into the future.

The opportunity for Canadians to choose their national representatives comes only once in every four years or so, and we believe that it is fundamental to both our political culture and our democratic traditions that all Canadians have the fullest and broadest set of choices available to them when they step into the voting booth. 

However, we wish to inform all Canadians that following the upcoming election, once the votes have been counted and seats allocated, it is our  firm commitment as national political leaders that our three parties will work together, be that in Government or in Opposition, to secure the following set of four strategic objectives. We believe that progress in these four critical areas will help to bring the policies and practices of the Government of Canada back into line with the deeply held values and beliefs of the majority of Canadians. 

 These strategic objectives are:

  • improved transparency and accountability of government, including the introduction of electoral reform;
  • an environmental action plan that strikes the needed balance between growth, sustainability, and stewardship;
  • negotiation of a new entente with Canada’s aboriginal peoples;  and
  • reclaiming Canada’s role as a responsible and engaged global citizen. 

Together, we make this public commitment to all Canadians. We make this pledge on behalf of our respective parties, - but for the future of our children and our country. We hope that Canadians will see fit to support us in these efforts.

 Signed,

 Thomas Mulcair, Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May

Jacob Two-Two

Well, I love it, but none of your strategic objectives are actually being promoted by any of these people. I mean, everyone would agree with the second one, including Harper, but they'd all have a different idea of what the "needed balance" is. Nobody's advocating for electoral reform, nobody would ever dream of opening new negotiations with the First Nations, and while you could probably get them to agree on the last one, you can bet your boots that no concrete policies of how to mend our rep on the global stage will be coming from any of the parties. When has that ever been election fodder? What I'm saying is that you're crafting a cooperation deal that has nothing to do with the actual common ground these parties have, instead populating it with the positions you wish they would take.

Brian Glennie

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Why should he BG? How much to you want an NDP leader to twist and turn on the basis of possible Conservative attacks?

Tom has a legitimate shot in 2015. He's skilled, successful and he's about as tough as anybody you'd care to name within the entire Canadian political landscape, past or present. I'm really proud to have him as leader. I'm just not crazy about the idea of asking Canadian voters to elect a citizen of France as their Prime Minister. It would be a shame if this ended up clouding people's perception of him and the NDP. 

Personally, it doesn't bother me at all. Happy wife, happy life!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

To bad you have such a disdain for the progressive voters that Tom will be trying to attract.  If it doesn't bother you then why do you think it would bother others? You must be confusing them with the voters that the social conservatives seek to attract.  Many people in Canada have duel citizenship, are you telling them they are all suspect and their loyalties are in question? Are there any other purity tests you think potential candidates for office should be subjected too?

 

Brian Glennie

kropotkin1951 wrote:

To bad you have such a disdain for the progressive voters that Tom will be trying to attract. 

Tom won't have any problem competing for the progressive voters, krop. I believe he's really good there. We're looking for lots of new seats in areas where we've never been traditionally strong, though, and I don't know if having a leader who's a foreign citizen is what's been holding us back.

Unionist

Brian may have a point.

Is there anything we can do about Mulcair's Québec origins? That would at least give him a leg up on Justin. Not with me, of course. I mean with all the inferior ignoramuses out there whom we need to trick.

arielc

Unionist wrote:
Brian may have a point. Is there anything we can do about Mulcair's Québec origins? That would at least give him a leg up on Justin. Not with me, of course. I mean with all the inferior ignoramuses out there whom we need to trick.

You mean "the inferior ignoramuses" you need to "trick" into voting NDP? I hope they're not reading this. It's clear that this is just about Libs trolling for more votes. There's no popular movement to amalgamate the Libs and NDP.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Brian Glennie wrote:

We're looking for lots of new seats in areas where we've never been traditionally strong, though, and I don't know if having a leader who's a foreign citizen is what's been holding us back.

Your joking right? 

Unionist

arielc wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Brian may have a point. Is there anything we can do about Mulcair's Québec origins? That would at least give him a leg up on Justin. Not with me, of course. I mean with all the inferior ignoramuses out there whom we need to trick.

You mean "the inferior ignoramuses" you need to "trick" into voting NDP? I hope they're not reading this. It's clear that this is just about Libs trolling for more votes. There's no popular movement to amalgamate the Libs and NDP.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I was ridiculing Brian's offensive post about Mulcair being a foreign citizen and how that will turn somebody off. I took this stupidity one step further.

Why do I have to actually explain this? Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Brian Glennie

Unionist wrote:
Brian may have a point. Is there anything we can do about Mulcair's Québec origins?

Wha?

What does Mulcair being from Quebec have to do with him being a citizen of France?

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

What does his being a duel citizen have to do with anything except some xenophobic nonsense that you are projecting onto other Canadians?

Brian Glennie

kropotkin1951 wrote:

What does his being a duel citizen have to do with anything except some xenophobic nonsense that you are projecting onto other Canadians?

Hopefully nothing. But it seems like kind of an odd risk to take, that's all. We have great ideas and terrific people and I want voters to stop being afraid of voting NDP.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

You are being xenophobic and I don't see that as progressive.

Unionist

Brian Glennie wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Brian may have a point. Is there anything we can do about Mulcair's Québec origins?

Wha?

What does Mulcair being from Quebec have to do with him being a citizen of France?

Too close for comfort.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I think you are sincere and mean well Brian and I think everyone here should dial it back just a touch. But I think you are not on, on this one. Still, despite the fact its irrelevant to our national discussion, its likely that this fact of Tom's background will be exploited from a number of political quarters. For sure, trying to get people to actually discuss policy is already proving to be hard. I mean look at Le Dauphin. Between people swooning over his "boyish good looks", and a europhic and pathological belief in his being the second reincarnation of daddy, its pretty clear it is going to be hard to have meaningful discussion with the public. The NDP has to ignore distractions and stay on message

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think Tom should shave his beard so Canadian voters don't mistake him for a French communist.  After all the voters are just idiots right?

Unionist

I dunno. If we Quebecers can tolerate leaders who are Canadian citizens, I think the rest of Canada can also be a little tolerant too. I agree about the beard, though. After all, if it costs us just one measly vote, it isn't worth it, is it?

All this talk is making me peckish. Pass the Liberty Fries, please!

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I dunno, I am not sure shaving your beard helps much. I had a beard, shaved it off, but I'm still an idiot

Unionist

Ok, as I dimly recalled, Mulcair was actually born in Ottawa, so he's ok on the Québec front. He can easily shave his beard and shed his French citizenship.

But what about his partner and two children? They're all French citizens. Shouldn't they be following suit? Otherwise, the media and the other parties could paint his move as mere opportunism, rather than as a patriotic crise de conscience - besides still being surrounded by a family of divided loyalties.

What to do, what to do?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Unionist wrote:

All this talk is making me peckish. Pass the Liberty Fries, please!

I seem to recall that the official Congressional cafeteria name was "Freedom Fries". Preserves the alliteration, you see.

socialdemocrati...

I have little respect for progressives who fear their own shadow. I can respect people I disagree with. I can't respect people who disagree with themselves because they fear political consequences. I actually think the public feels the same way I do.

Pages