If Mulcair drops scripted talking points next time & is just his natural self, a win is assured

335 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

My perspective is that all three of the parties are not that different.  But, of the three, the NDP is the best choice for more egalitarian government.  My perspective of the three's platforms was:

  1. Conservative:  Stifle, cut, balance.
  2. Liberal:  Borrow, spend and cut, balance.
  3. NDP:  Tax, spend, balance.

So, not that different.  But different enough for me to decisively choose the NDP (if anyone has seen my utopia thread, you'll know I'm in favour of tax and spend.)

A lot of Liberal supporters like to make out like there's a huge difference between the Conservatives and the other two.  For myself, especially after Chretien/Martin, I don't see it.  All three are not that different (but the NDP is still the best).  Carol Goar, who I feel is the best columnist that the Toronto Star has, wrote an article on the accomplishments of the Conservatives.  Well worth taking a look.

Time to give credit where it is due: Goar

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/11/20/time-to-give-credit...

quizzical

i liked the point made about western Canada understanding Justin is just another privileged easterner from old family money providing jobs for rich white men and lawyers.

Quote:
westerners see plainly: a privileged son of the eastern political establishment taking back the reins of power.....

As the Liberals begin their mandate, they need to be conscious of their blind spots and Achilles heels. They are a largely eastern, lawyer-loaded party that closely resembles the political elite of the past. They campaigned skilfully but they haven’t mastered the levers of power.

They must guard against any sign of entitlement. That means filtering out the adulation of their acolytes and refusing to demonize their opponents. It also means reaching out to the people who didn’t vote for them. Trudeau promised on election night to be a prime minister “who never seeks to divide Canadians, but takes every single opportunity to bring us together.” Every new leader makes some version of that pledge. Few stick to it.

Debater

Jen Gerson is a conservative shill and is full of baloney most of the time.

This new Liberal government has 30 MPs from Western Canada, and now has quite a few prominent Westerners in the cabinet.

It can't just be accused of being an Eastern-dominated party anymore.

And since it is the most diverse cabinet in history, it certainly isn't totally dominated by white men.

quizzical

whose the finance minister debater?  pretty much every top spot except justice is a white male.

 

what's quite a few?

Debater

Canadian politics has been dominated by white males for a long time.

You can't expect that to change overnight.

But this is the biggest change to cabinet we have ever seen in Canada.

It has already had an impact.

mark_alfred

quizzical wrote:

i liked the point made about western Canada understanding Justin is just another privileged easterner from old family money providing jobs for rich white men and lawyers.

Yeah, it was an interesting perspective.  The following from the article is often forgotten:

Quote:

  • They [the Cons] refrained from slashing provincial transfers. That would have been the easy way to cut spending. It is what Liberals did in the mid 1990s, destabilizing the health-care system and driving up tuition fees for a decade.
  • That's the thing, the Liberals back then were horrible.  And they were elected on many of the same hopes that the Liberals of today were elected.  We need to be very leery. 

    Sean in Ottawa

    Debater wrote:

    Canadian politics has been dominated by white males for a long time.

    You can't expect that to change overnight.

    Actually I have trouble with that.

    I think this kind of change does happen over night when people want it to.

    I don't think there is any reason why matters of equality and justice must wait.

    Had the Liberals balanced their nominations better they would have been easily able to manage a cabinet with equal power in the top spots. With a balanced caucus they might not have even had to think about it.

    I agree that is is a step in the right direction but I don't accept that anyone should accept anything less than equality.

    When it comes to gender equality the glacial progress is not needed -- the revolution is.

     

    JKR

    mark_alfred wrote:

    My perspective is that all three of the parties are not that different.  But, of the three, the NDP is the best choice for more egalitarian government.  My perspective of the three's platforms was:

    1. Conservative:  Stifle, cut, balance.
    2. Liberal:  Borrow, spend and cut, balance.
    3. NDP:  Tax, spend, balance.

    So, not that different.  But different enough for me to decisively choose the NDP (if anyone has seen my utopia thread, you'll know I'm in favour of tax and spend.)

    Even though the Liberals fit into the "borrow, spend and cut, balance" category, during the election they were able to portray themselves as "tax and spenders" and I think that was the major reason they won the election. I think the public was right in choosing the party they thought was most likely going to support stimulitive tax and spend economics. I think this is one of the biggest issues of our time and as long as the NDP doesn't get it right they will deserve to continue not winning elections. I think the party that seems most intent on producing well paid jobs will be the party most likely to win elections in the future.

    Sean in Ottawa

    JKR wrote:
    mark_alfred wrote:

    My perspective is that all three of the parties are not that different.  But, of the three, the NDP is the best choice for more egalitarian government.  My perspective of the three's platforms was:

    1. Conservative:  Stifle, cut, balance.
    2. Liberal:  Borrow, spend and cut, balance.
    3. NDP:  Tax, spend, balance.

    So, not that different.  But different enough for me to decisively choose the NDP (if anyone has seen my utopia thread, you'll know I'm in favour of tax and spend.)

    Even though the Liberals fit into the "borrow, spend and cut, balance" category, during the election they were able to portray themselves as "tax and spenders" and I think that was the major reason they won the election. I think the public was right in choosing the party they thought was most likely going to support stimulitive tax and spend economics. I think this is one of the biggest issues of our time and as long as the NDP doesn't get it right they will deserve to continue not winning elections. I think the party that seems most intent on producing well paid jobs will be the party most likely to win elections in the future.

    I would say this is an opportunity. But if no party takes it up, then it is lost and will not be relevant. The NDP, when it comes to labour is often the only party that can be reasonably expected to raise the issue. The Liberals may at times (usually when they are in opposition) but if the NDP does not raise the issue it may be lost entirely.

    montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

    Just for the record, taxing on its own is not stimulative. Taxing takes money out of the economy. Spending is however stimulative. If you can spend the money you have taxed in the same economic period as you have collected it, as opposed to letting someone hoard it, then you can say taxing and spending is stimulative.

    The amount of tax they are going to collect from high income earners is not going to cover the long-overdue infrastructure spending necessary to get us through this century. The government does need to be seen to be collecting more money from the 1%. For an electoral pitch, the Liberals found the happy medium. 

    mark_alfred

    JKR wrote:
    mark_alfred wrote:

    My perspective is that all three of the parties are not that different.  But, of the three, the NDP is the best choice for more egalitarian government.  My perspective of the three's platforms was:

    1. Conservative:  Stifle, cut, balance.
    2. Liberal:  Borrow, spend and cut, balance.
    3. NDP:  Tax, spend, balance.

    So, not that different.  But different enough for me to decisively choose the NDP (if anyone has seen my utopia thread, you'll know I'm in favour of tax and spend.)

    Even though the Liberals fit into the "borrow, spend and cut, balance" category, during the election they were able to portray themselves as "tax and spenders" and I think that was the major reason they won the election. I think the public was right in choosing the party they thought was most likely going to support stimulitive tax and spend economics. I think this is one of the biggest issues of our time and as long as the NDP doesn't get it right they will deserve to continue not winning elections. I think the party that seems most intent on producing well paid jobs will be the party most likely to win elections in the future.

    To me the Liberal proposal is like defibrillation.  Appropriate if it's an economic cardiac arrest like back in 2008 (I think, or 2009), but not very useful now.  Since the economic body already had this defibrillation back in 2008, and is now just kinda sluggish, it now needs to change its lifestyle, get off the couch, begin walking, then jogging, and make some lifestyle changes.  So, the economy needs to be restructured, begin taxing big business more, dedicating more of the gas tax to infrastructure, better funding of child care, set national standards for climate change, make the electoral system proportional, as a start.

    However, the voters chose the Liberal's defibrillation option.  And the Libs did successfully play the now card quite well.  The NDP's long term change proposals just didn't sell. 

    There was a video of Lisa Raitt and Guy Caron, the Conservative Finance critic and the NDP Finance critic respectively, discussing the Lib Finance Minister Morneau's financial update, in this CBC article.  Morneau, as is always done, spoke of how things are worse, but they intend to keep their promises anyway.  Raitt mentioned that if the deficit stimulus is used for structural/maintenance spending rather than investments in growth then it is not a good thing, whereas Caron expressed concern about whether the Libs would follow through with some of their important promises on health, education, infrastructure, etc, and what they may have in store for the year of balance in 2019.  Both accepted that the Liberals had a mandate from the Canadian public for deficit spending, and were not fighting that.  Hopefully this respectful tone continues. 

    It will be interesting to see how the Liberals roll out their proposals.  A lot of their proposals are a series of cash payments (kinda like what we've seen from the Conservatives over the years), particularly regarding child care benefit payments and the promised "middle class" tax cut (upper middle class, actually).  Usually cash goodies like this are given by governments like the Cons or Libs just before an election.  So, I predict they will proceed with infrastructure spending first (transit, some funding for child care spaces, greater funding for home care), along with approving the TPP.  Then midway an announcement that the next election will be ranked ballot.  Then, as people are feeling okay given that potholes are being replaced a bit quicker, but are getting a bit antsy, the Libs in the last year will roll out legal marijuana, the tax cut, and the child care benefit payments (they'll have had time to set up the means tested processing of it by then) while simultaneously making cuts to the public service along with either direct cuts to transfer payments to the provinces or, if not, then I'm guessing an inadequate health accord.  They will balance the last budget and allege that they've made real change and that this can only continue with them because the other two are evil.

    And then the next election.

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    mark_alfred wrote:

    My perspective is that all three of the parties are not that different. 

    The voters got that message big time from Mulcair. The Liberals as always just lied and said they are for change. The NDP delivered the liberal Mulcair's vision of staid, status quo politics designed to appeal to policy geeks not real live human beings. GenX'ers are never going to vote for another boomer PM who promises to study issues that the progressives in that age demographic have already formed opinons on. No progressive young person wants an old fart telling them that pot is too dangerous and theroetically some trade deals are good for Canadians or that peace can be gained by NATO actions. They have both the Liberals and Tories to chose from except on pot where the Liberals knew a winning issue when they saw one and did not equivocate like Mulcair and his study the dangerous herb before legalization approach.

    By not talking about real change and what it would look like the Neo Liberal Democratic Party has accepted the box that the 1% and its MSM attack dogs wants it to play in.  So what is the point of having a third party that is offering a austerity package that is much the same as the other two parties. That doesn't even speak to the fact the NLDP will soon have the oldest most out of touch leader?

    mark_alfred
    mark_alfred

    kropotkin1951 wrote:

    mark_alfred wrote:

    My perspective is that all three of the parties are not that different. 

    The voters got that message big time from Mulcair. The Liberals as always just lied and said they are for change. The NDP delivered the liberal Mulcair's vision of staid, status quo politics designed to appeal to policy geeks not real live human beings. GenX'ers are never going to vote for another boomer PM who promises to study issues that the progressives in that age demographic have already formed opinons on. No progressive young person wants an old fart telling them that pot is too dangerous and theroetically some trade deals are good for Canadians or that peace can be gained by NATO actions. They have both the Liberals and Tories to chose from except on pot where the Liberals knew a winning issue when they saw one and did not equivocate like Mulcair and his study the dangerous herb before legalization approach.

    By not talking about real change and what it would look like the Neo Liberal Democratic Party has accepted the box that the 1% and its MSM attack dogs wants it to play in.  So what is the point of having a third party that is offering a austerity package that is much the same as the other two parties. That doesn't even speak to the fact the NLDP will soon have the oldest most out of touch leader?

    Absolutely.  They ran a wimpy campaign, with Mulcair focussed on reassurance rather than knocking out the competition with boldness.  Lobotomy Tom, not taking questions at the first interview, not going to the women's debate, was a mistake.  And the tone of their messaging was a mistake too.  The policies were fine (though I agree that marijuana legalization rather than decriminalization would have been better), but the delivery of it was terrible. 

    ETA:  While I generally agree with you as I mentioned above, I do think some of your commentary is borderline ageist.  I don't think Mulcair's age should be a factor or consideration in this manner.

    ETA2:  If the Libs do fall flat on their face in this term, then perhaps the cautious reassuring campaign that the NDP ran may reap belated rewards next time.  But at this point, I'm inclined to feel that the caution they ran with was not a good thing.

    Pondering

    mark_alfred wrote:

    There was a video of Lisa Raitt and Guy Caron, the Conservative Finance critic and the NDP Finance critic respectively, discussing the Lib Finance Minister Morneau's financial update, in this CBC article.  Morneau, as is always done, spoke of how things are worse, but they intend to keep their promises anyway.  Raitt mentioned that if the deficit stimulus is used for structural/maintenance spending rather than investments in growth then it is not a good thing, whereas Caron expressed concern about whether the Libs would follow through with some of their important promises on health, education, infrastructure, etc, and what they may have in store for the year of balance in 2019.  Both accepted that the Liberals had a mandate from the Canadian public for deficit spending, and were not fighting that.  Hopefully this respectful tone continues. 

    Respectful? More like petulant. 

    The NDP, for its part, said it will hold the government to account to ensure it is financially sustainable while also investing in the economy in the way it said it would during the federal election campaign.

    "We are giving this government some time to come clean on what it wants to do," NDP finance critic Guy Caron said. "We have to ensure the government remains fiscally responsible, [but] the idea of balanced budgets at all costs has never been part of our platform."

    "Time to come clean" attempts to leave the impression that the Liberals are lying or being underhanded in some way.

    It seems that the NDP and Conservatives have adopted the American way of being in perpetual campaign mode while Trudeau promotes setting aside partisanship and working together. Whether or not Trudeau is sincere is besides the point. Strategically Trudeau is going to continue with his "sunny ways" and the Conservatives and the NDP are going to come across as perpetual pessimistic downers. 

    The new deficit numbers are no big deal. Economists were saying a 10 billion dollar deficit is inconsequential so why are people making a big deal out of an extra few billion? That is a level of deficit that we can grow our way out of. 

    Pondering

    mark_alfred wrote:

    Mulcair at the CUPE National Convention:  Mulcair pledges robust, progressive opposition to hold Liberals’ feet to the fire

    Mulcair specifically highlighted the NDP’s commitment to a $15/hour minimum wage, a $15/day universal child care plan and closing stock option tax loopholes for the wealthy to fight child poverty as planks the party would continue to advocate for in the new Parliament.

    LOL, right, keep fighting the 2015 losing campaign, that's sure to be a winner.

    Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

    I personally find it very distressing that Morneau made such a big deal about the deficit. And many economists said they doubted the government's numbers during the election. So I maintain you could see this coming It was the tone of Morneau's comments that leave it perfectly reasonable to question whether the Libs will deliver. I never belived that Trudeau meant any of it, and I believe it even less now. The LPC is a party of liars that willl say anything to be elected I don't believe they will keep their promises and a I am absolutely certain I will be proven right. Liberal PM's lie. Liberal Finance Ministers stick it to ordinary Canadians. Irs how they roll! And they'll probably blame it on the NDP. That's also how they roll. Its ALWAYS someone else's fault.

    Pondering

    Arthur Cramer wrote:

    I personally find it very distressing that Morneau made such a big deal about the deficit. And many economists said they doubted the government's numbers during the election. So I maintain you could see this coming It was the tone of Morneau's comments that leave it perfectly reasonable to question whether the Libs will deliver. I never belived that Trudeau meant any of it, and I believe it even less now. The LPC is a party of liars that willl say anything to be elected I don't believe they will keep their promises and a I am absolutely certain I will be proven right. Liberal PM's lie. Liberal Finance Ministers stick it to ordinary Canadians. Irs how they roll! And they'll probably blame it on the NDP. That's also how they roll. Its ALWAYS someone else's fault.

    Well maybe the NDP should consider not walking into traps and nesting in them. 

    Morneau made a big deal about the deficit to undermine the Conservatives and to make the Liberals look even better when they eventually balance the budget at which point the Liberals can brag about clearing the Conservative deficit.

     

     

    JKR

    Sean in Ottawa wrote:

    JKR wrote:
    mark_alfred wrote:

    My perspective is that all three of the parties are not that different.  But, of the three, the NDP is the best choice for more egalitarian government.  My perspective of the three's platforms was:

    1. Conservative:  Stifle, cut, balance.
    2. Liberal:  Borrow, spend and cut, balance.
    3. NDP:  Tax, spend, balance.

    So, not that different.  But different enough for me to decisively choose the NDP (if anyone has seen my utopia thread, you'll know I'm in favour of tax and spend.)

    Even though the Liberals fit into the "borrow, spend and cut, balance" category, during the election they were able to portray themselves as "tax and spenders" and I think that was the major reason they won the election. I think the public was right in choosing the party they thought was most likely going to support stimulitive tax and spend economics. I think this is one of the biggest issues of our time and as long as the NDP doesn't get it right they will deserve to continue not winning elections. I think the party that seems most intent on producing well paid jobs will be the party most likely to win elections in the future.

    I would say this is an opportunity. But if no party takes it up, then it is lost and will not be relevant. The NDP, when it comes to labour is often the only party that can be reasonably expected to raise the issue. The Liberals may at times (usually when they are in opposition) but if the NDP does not raise the issue it may be lost entirely.

    And if it is lost, Canada's standard of living will also be lower than it could have been had we supported stimulus economic policies instead of austerity policies. If we continue to stress balanced budgets we will have more poverty and less opportunity for people than we would if we made it a majour goal to support full well paid employment.

    JKR

    Pondering wrote:

    That is a level of deficit that we can grow our way out of. 

    I agree. The nominal deficit is inconsequential when compared to the deficit to GDP ratio and the debt to GDP ratio. The key is maintaining the growth rate.

    mark_alfred

    Pondering wrote:

    mark_alfred wrote:

    Mulcair at the CUPE National Convention:  Mulcair pledges robust, progressive opposition to hold Liberals’ feet to the fire

    Mulcair specifically highlighted the NDP’s commitment to a $15/hour minimum wage, a $15/day universal child care plan and closing stock option tax loopholes for the wealthy to fight child poverty as planks the party would continue to advocate for in the new Parliament.

    LOL, right, keep fighting the 2015 losing campaign, that's sure to be a winner.

    Unlike the fickle Liberals, the NDP is consistent in what it advocates for.  Losing an election does not mean giving up on ideas such as affordable child care, a liveable minimum wage, and closing stock option tax loopholes for the wealthy.  The hope is that the Lib government will be progressive and take and implement some of these ideas. 

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    mark_alfred wrote:

    Unlike the fickle Liberals, the NDP is consistent in what it advocates for.  Losing an election does not mean giving up on ideas ...

    Let me see. I could have sworn at one time we opposed Canada's involvement in NAFTA.  But the NDP has voted for other corporate rights agreements even when though they contained investor rights clauses. The NDP used to allow its MP's to speak about peace and rights for Palestians but not for almost a decade. The NDP used to be the only party that unabashedly ran to represent the working class. But since they accept that class is passe and meaningless in our neo-con world now they unequivocally run to represent the middle class. The motto has changed from "what we desire for ourselves we wish for all", to, "what the middle class desires for themselves we wish for them too."

    Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

    Pondering wrote:

    Arthur Cramer wrote:

    I personally find it very distressing that Morneau made such a big deal about the deficit. And many economists said they doubted the government's numbers during the election. So I maintain you could see this coming It was the tone of Morneau's comments that leave it perfectly reasonable to question whether the Libs will deliver. I never belived that Trudeau meant any of it, and I believe it even less now. The LPC is a party of liars that willl say anything to be elected I don't believe they will keep their promises and a I am absolutely certain I will be proven right. Liberal PM's lie. Liberal Finance Ministers stick it to ordinary Canadians. Irs how they roll! And they'll probably blame it on the NDP. That's also how they roll. Its ALWAYS someone else's fault.

    Well maybe the NDP should consider not walking into traps and nesting in them. 

    What? Seriously, what? What are you talking about?

    ponderiing wrote:

    Morneau made a big deal about the deficit to undermine the Conservatives and to make the Liberals look even better when they eventually balance the budget at which point the Liberals can brag about clearing the Conservative deficit.

    This is based on the assumption that you guys and your boy Trudeau can get away with pulling another Martin. If the NDP handles it properly, it won't work this time. You LIbs will do this balancing of the budget by going back on your promises. My whole post was about you Libs and your boy Trudeau, going back on their words. The post wasn't about the NDP. Once again, you take whatever someone posts, deflect it, then make it about something else. And that is what you did, you're trying to make it about something else.

    The issue is will the Libs keep their promises. Anyone realistic knows the Libs are liars and had no intention of keeping their promises. They knew full well about this deficit and are going to try to use it as an excuse to do nothing. It isn't going to work this time because Junior promised to spend money to stimulate the economy. But he won't. People are very likely to remember this this time around. The sitatuion is very different from the circumstances under which Martin hacked and slahsed. You are deliberately, and with almost Machivellian volition trying to mix apples and oranges and call them the same.

    No Pondering, the NDP didn't walk into anything. They called the Libs out and when the Libs don't deliver, which is what you are really afraid is how it is going to be seen, the NDP is going to benefit from this.

    Christ the arrongance of the stance you outlined in your post is breathtaking. Respond to what I posted. Don't respond to something I didn't post and then tell me I'm wrong. That's ridiculous.

    swallow swallow's picture

    mark_alfred wrote:

    Mulcair at the CUPE National Convention:  Mulcair pledges robust, progressive opposition to hold Liberals’ feet to the fire

    Did he say when he plans to start doing that? 

    Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

    swallow wrote:

    mark_alfred wrote:

    Mulcair at the CUPE National Convention:  Mulcair pledges robust, progressive opposition to hold Liberals’ feet to the fire

    Did he say when he plans to start doing that? 

    What does that mean exacatly any way. What is the difference between "progressive", and leftist? I'm sorry I just believe that progressive means large L Liberal. We've let the Liberals co-opt the language of reform. It is just one more example of the NDP being afraid to call itself what it is.

    brookmere

    They knew full well about this deficit and are going to try to use it as an excuse to do nothing.

    I thought the Cons' balanced budget claims were nonsense and I think much of the public thought so too, at least those outside the Conservative base.

    So the big question is why didn't Mulcair catch on to how dumb it sounded to promise a balanced budget from the get go? It sounded like he was the only leader who actually believed the Conservatives.

     

    mark_alfred

    Hey kropotkin1951, by "consistent" I don't mean there's never change.  But there's a process for change via convention.  It's not fickle like the Liberals that one minute are running a Green Shift, the next corporate tax increases, and then the next neither.  But, in fairness to the Liberals, since Bob Rae was interim leader they did seem to adapt a bit more structure in their policy formation.  Though I still don't think the Libs have a policy book.

    mark_alfred

    brookmere wrote:

    They knew full well about this deficit and are going to try to use it as an excuse to do nothing.

    I thought the Cons' balanced budget claims were nonsense and I think much of the public thought so too, at least those outside the Conservative base.

    There's an article about that in Macleans by some economist whose skeptical about the Liberal claim:

    http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/the-liberals-deficit-cla...

    Quote:

    It seems pretty clear that the goal of the EFP is to prepare the ground for the deficits the Liberals plans to run; it will be easier for the government to do so if it can credibly claim that it inherited a deficit situation in the current fiscal year.

    Based on the information made available so far, I don’t think that claim would be credible. I don’t doubt that the government will produce a deficit for 2015-16 if it wants one, but it would be the Liberals’ deficit. They should take ownership of it.

    Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

    Great find Mark. So basically the Libs are lying like they always do. Quelle Surpris!

    Pondering

    Arthur Cramer wrote:
    This is based on the assumption that you guys and your boy Trudeau can get away with pulling another Martin.  If the NDP handles it properly, it won't work this time. You LIbs will do this balancing of the budget by going back on your promises.

    The Liberal promises are easy to deliver. Compared to Harper, Trudeau Liberals will seem like Santa Claus. Kevin Page said the platform was realistic and allowed plenty of wiggle room. The Liberals may not keep every promise but they will keep enough to keep the majority of Canadians delighted. 

    Arthur Cramer wrote:
    No Pondering, the NDP didn't walk into anything. They called the Libs out and when the Libs don't deliver, which is what you are really afraid is how it is going to be seen, the NDP is going to benefit from this. 

    I'm not worried for the Liberals. If the Liberals "break a promise" or simply do something serious, like sign TPP, that deserves to be condemned the NDP should go after the Libeals with both guns blazings. 

    Arthur Cramer wrote:

    It isn't going to work this time because Junior promised to spend money to stimulate the economy. But he won't.  

    He will keep his promise to spend billions on infrastructure because it is a smart move economically and politically. He has been promoting it internationally at the G20. 

    Arthur Cramer wrote:
    People are very likely to remember this this time around. The sitatuion is very different from the circumstances under which Martin hacked and slahsed. You are deliberately, and with almost Machivellian volition trying to mix apples and oranges and call them the same. 

    They are not the same. You are the one assuming that Trudeau is like Martin and will do the same things he did but the situation and people are entirely different. Harper already did all the hacking and slashing right to the bone and beyond. Harper's policies actually were bad for the economy.

    Trudeau is courting the mayors and premiers. He will keep his promises, or enough of them for everyone to be happy. 

    In contrast it looks like the NDP is determined to continue living in the past as they did with the Sherbrooke Declaration. 

    I am guessing if the Liberals decide to do something about daycare it will be promised in 2019 to get another mandate. The NDP isn't going to be able to get credit for anything the Liberals do. 

    mark_alfred

    swallow wrote:

    mark_alfred wrote:

    Mulcair at the CUPE National Convention:  Mulcair pledges robust, progressive opposition to hold Liberals’ feet to the fire

    Did he say when he plans to start doing that? 

    Yeah.  He does seem kinda missing in action recently.

    Sean in Ottawa

    Pondering wrote:

    mark_alfred wrote:

    Mulcair at the CUPE National Convention:  Mulcair pledges robust, progressive opposition to hold Liberals’ feet to the fire

    Mulcair specifically highlighted the NDP’s commitment to a $15/hour minimum wage, a $15/day universal child care plan and closing stock option tax loopholes for the wealthy to fight child poverty as planks the party would continue to advocate for in the new Parliament.

    LOL, right, keep fighting the 2015 losing campaign, that's sure to be a winner.

    It is not stopping you.

    Sean in Ottawa

    mark_alfred wrote:

    swallow wrote:

    mark_alfred wrote:

    Mulcair at the CUPE National Convention:  Mulcair pledges robust, progressive opposition to hold Liberals’ feet to the fire

    Did he say when he plans to start doing that? 

    Yeah.  He does seem kinda missing in action recently.

    After a loss like that and a majority government -- you would hope he is concentrating on some internal things.

    I think this is being overblown.

    He may be responding to criticism -- and I think it is deserved. I think he should have resigned as you all know. But to wonder why he is pre-occupied and not speaking much publicly seems strange to me.

    montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

    Now the NDP have discovered the Liberals can hit them from the left like a baseball bat. The Liberals disovered the PCs could do this to them in the days of John Diefenbaker and in Ontario under Bill Davis.

    Until the NDP gets its shit together as some kind of party of the left, I think that leftists and progressives should stay very close to the Liberal Party so as to keep an eye on them if anything else... 

    Sean in Ottawa

    montrealer58 wrote:

    Now the NDP have discovered the Liberals can hit them from the left like a baseball bat. The Liberals disovered the PCs could do this to them in the days of John Diefenbaker and in Ontario under Bill Davis.

    Until the NDP gets its shit together as some kind of party of the left, I think that leftists and progressives should stay very close to the Liberal Party so as to keep an eye on them if anything else... 

    I think it is essential that the NDP either be taken back or another party formed. The Liberals party is not a party of the left and is not a replacement for a dysfunctional NDP.

    R.E.Wood

    This. 100% this!

    Sean in Ottawa wrote:

    I think it is essential that the NDP either be taken back or another party formed. 

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    mark_alfred wrote:

    Hey kropotkin1951, by "consistent" I don't mean there's never change.  But there's a process for change via convention.  It's not fickle like the Liberals that one minute are running a Green Shift, the next corporate tax increases, and then the next neither.  But, in fairness to the Liberals, since Bob Rae was interim leader they did seem to adapt a bit more structure in their policy formation.  Though I still don't think the Libs have a policy book.

    You live in a fairy land not the NDP. For instance minimum sentences was against NDP policy for many years, Then Jack decided that MP's had to support the Omnibus Crime bill and when Bill Siksay voted his conscience and in accord with the convention policy he was disciplined and never ran in another election. I have never worked for the NDP since that betrayal. Try looking at the reality not the view through your rose coloured glasses.

    SeekingAPolitic...

    Watching CBC earlier in the day.Mulcair was attacking liberals from the right.  He explained that the deficet is a major issue, said that liberals should raise taxes on industry to control spending.  I guess it was a balanced attack but I very surprised that even mentioned the deficet spending.  I would think that how liberals outflanked the ndp in the election he would learn from the defeat.  Looks like he double downed on debt spending.  He must very confident that he will pass the leadership review.  The issue was big downer for NDP in the election.  Really hope that the ndp will not double down on the platform they ran on.

    Pondering

    SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

    Watching CBC earlier in the day.Mulcair was attacking liberals from the right.  He explained that the deficet is a major issue, said that liberals should raise taxes on industry to control spending.  I guess it was a balanced attack but I very surprised that even mentioned the deficet spending.  I would think that how liberals outflanked the ndp in the election he would learn from the defeat.  Looks like he double downed on debt spending.  He must very confident that he will pass the leadership review.  The issue was big downer for NDP in the election.  Really hope that the ndp will not double down on the platform they ran on.

    Mulcair is looking for any and every excuse to attack Trudeau. I think Mulcair is trying to "prove" himself before the leadership convention.

    blairz blairz's picture

    The biggest problem l see with Mulcair,and with most of the party spokespeople is their insistence that their position on balanced budgets was prescribed by public perceptions about Socialism and the NDP. Their inability to credit Canadians with a more sophisticated view of economic policies and politics  doesn't really bode well for how they would govern. I don't know if there's a better candidate for leadership, but Mulcair needs to face some process of review.

    JKR

    blairz wrote:

    The biggest problem l see with Mulcair,and with most of the party spokespeople is their insistence that their position on balanced budgets was prescribed by public perceptions about Socialism and the NDP. Their inability to credit Canadians with a more sophisticated view of economic policies and politics  doesn't really bode well for how they would govern. I don't know if there's a better candidate for leadership, but Mulcair needs to face some process of review.

    The NDP's position is baffling considering how almost every economist on the left is currently supporting government stimulus through government deficit budgeting. The NDP's leadership seems to be 20 years behind the times on this issue. The NDP's position on deficits brings to mind Paul Martin's austerity budgets of the 1990's when deficits, debt, and interest rates were all much higher than they are today. In a sense, Mulcair's NDP's position on deficits is even worse than Paul Martin's when we consider that Canada currently has much lower interest rates, deficits, and debt than we did during the mid to late 90's. I wonder what Mulcair would have done had he been in Paul Martin's finance minister's shoes during the mid 1990's?

    Pondering

    JKR wrote:
    blairz wrote:

    The biggest problem l see with Mulcair,and with most of the party spokespeople is their insistence that their position on balanced budgets was prescribed by public perceptions about Socialism and the NDP. Their inability to credit Canadians with a more sophisticated view of economic policies and politics  doesn't really bode well for how they would govern. I don't know if there's a better candidate for leadership, but Mulcair needs to face some process of review.

    The NDP's position is baffling considering how almost every economist on the left is currently supporting government stimulus through government deficit budgeting. The NDP's leadership seems to be 20 years behind the times on this issue. The NDP's position on deficits brings to mind Paul Martin's austerity budgets of the 1990's when deficits, debt, and interest rates were all much higher than they are today. In a sense, Mulcair's NDP's position on deficits is even worse than Paul Martin's when we consider that Canada currently has much lower interest rates, deficits, and debt than we did during the mid to late 90's. I wonder what Mulcair would have done had he been in Paul Martin's finance minister's shoes during the mid 1990's?

    Yes, Mulcair is very worried about where the money will come from for refugees too.  Another reason for Canadians to be leery of taking on the "burden" of refugees. 

    he price tag on the Liberal program has been pegged at as much as $1.2 billion over the next six years, according to a document obtained last week by The Canadian Press.

    The Liberal platform only booked $250 million for the program.

    "Premiers and mayors are justifiably wondering how the federal government is going to pay for it,'' said NDP Leader Tom Mulcair.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/23/reveal-of-syrian-refugee-plan-to...

     

     

    Sean in Ottawa

    Pondering wrote:

    JKR wrote:
    blairz wrote:

    The biggest problem l see with Mulcair,and with most of the party spokespeople is their insistence that their position on balanced budgets was prescribed by public perceptions about Socialism and the NDP. Their inability to credit Canadians with a more sophisticated view of economic policies and politics  doesn't really bode well for how they would govern. I don't know if there's a better candidate for leadership, but Mulcair needs to face some process of review.

    The NDP's position is baffling considering how almost every economist on the left is currently supporting government stimulus through government deficit budgeting. The NDP's leadership seems to be 20 years behind the times on this issue. The NDP's position on deficits brings to mind Paul Martin's austerity budgets of the 1990's when deficits, debt, and interest rates were all much higher than they are today. In a sense, Mulcair's NDP's position on deficits is even worse than Paul Martin's when we consider that Canada currently has much lower interest rates, deficits, and debt than we did during the mid to late 90's. I wonder what Mulcair would have done had he been in Paul Martin's finance minister's shoes during the mid 1990's?

    Yes, Mulcair is very worried about where the money will come from for refugees too.  Another reason for Canadians to be leery of taking on the "burden" of refugees. 

    he price tag on the Liberal program has been pegged at as much as $1.2 billion over the next six years, according to a document obtained last week by The Canadian Press.

    The Liberal platform only booked $250 million for the program.

    "Premiers and mayors are justifiably wondering how the federal government is going to pay for it,'' said NDP Leader Tom Mulcair.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/23/reveal-of-syrian-refugee-plan-to...

    The point is Mulcair is wondering if the provinces will be given the money since it is a 1.2 $billion dollar cost apparently but the Liberals only allocated $250 million. Mulcair is asking because if the provinces are not given this money they will face a burden they cannot manage.

    Mulcair never questionned bringing the refugees to Canada due to cost -- nor did he suggest this was a burden Canada could not manage -- and you Pondering are being misleading in the way you are framing this. But that is typical isn't it?

    Pondering

    Sean in Ottawa wrote:

    Pondering wrote:

    Yes, Mulcair is very worried about where the money will come from for refugees too.  Another reason for Canadians to be leery of taking on the "burden" of refugees. 

    he price tag on the Liberal program has been pegged at as much as $1.2 billion over the next six years, according to a document obtained last week by The Canadian Press.

    The Liberal platform only booked $250 million for the program.

    "Premiers and mayors are justifiably wondering how the federal government is going to pay for it,'' said NDP Leader Tom Mulcair.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/23/reveal-of-syrian-refugee-plan-to...

    The point is Mulcair is wondering if the provinces will be given the money since it is a 1.2 $billion dollar cost apparently but the Liberals only allocated $250 million. Mulcair is asking because if the provinces are not given this money they will face a burden they cannot manage.

    Mulcair never questionned bringing the refugees to Canada due to cost -- nor did he suggest this was a burden Canada could not manage -- and you Pondering are being misleading in the way you are framing this. But that is typical isn't it?

    I was being sarcastic but I'm sure the provinces themselves will negotiate the issue of costs with the Liberal government. There is no reason to express concern prior to any problem emerging.

    Mulcair said the provinces will face a burden they can't manage. He is inferring that the provinces would have to raise taxes, or the federal government will have to raise taxes, or make cuts, or increase the deficit, because the Liberals allocated 250 million.

    Sure sounds to me like he is trying to undermine the confidence of Canadians that our governments can afford the expense of bringing in the refugees. Quebec is already struggling under austerity.

    Mulcair is trying to undermine confidence in the Liberal government's ability to manage the influx of refugees. Unfortuately that also increases negativity towards the refugees.  I've already read comments suggesting we should take care of our own first and that our medical system is too overloaded.

    quizzical

    the problem has arose pondering. it's called a currently noted budget shortfall of 900 million at least.

    if you're suffering under austerity in Quebec pondering you should be concerned about a 100 million or so being off loaded to your province or city.

    people who are suffering are concerned they'll get less. the money has to come from somewhere and there should be clear messaging by the Liberals to settle the scared people down and hopefully tomorrow we will see it. they're not being racist just concerned for their own well being.

    who cares about the racists they'll be racist no matter the messaging or by positive actions in expanding the budget federally not provincially.

    and if the 250 million they budgeted is spent on screening then all the costs could be off loaded to the provinces couldn't it?

     

     

    Pondering

    quizzical wrote:

    the problem has arose pondering. it's called a currently noted budget shortfall of 900 million at least.

    if you're suffering under austerity in Quebec pondering you should be concerned about a 100 million or so being off loaded to your province or city.

    people who are suffering are concerned they'll get less. the money has to come from somewhere and there should be clear messaging by the Liberals to settle the scared people down and hopefully tomorrow we will see it. they're not being racist just concerned for their own well being.

    who cares about the racists they'll be racist no matter the messaging or by positive actions in expanding the budget federally not provincially.

    and if the 250 million they budgeted is spent on screening then all the costs could be off loaded to the provinces couldn't it?

    Canada can afford to do this and the premiers with be discussing the financial aspects with the federal government. If they are not satisfied they will complain. No need for Mulcair to complain on their behalf in advance.That's called fear-monguering.

    Financial information comes when the budget is released. 1.2 billion over 6 years is a rounding error for Canada.

    Mulcair is using the issues around the refugees to attack Trudeau. That it might also increase resentment towards refugees is a price Mulcair appears willing for them to pay.

    JKR

    Pondering wrote:

    Mulcair is using the issues around the refugees to attack Trudeau. That it might also increase resentment towards refugees is a price Mulcair appears willing for them to pay.

    Mulcair is stressing that the Liberal government should be more open to accepting refugees who are single and male. So Mulcair is supporting the idea that that Canada should be taking in the refugees and that the refugees are non-threatening to Canada. This was today's lead news story concerning Mulcair and the NDP: "Tom Mulcair concerned about exclusion of some men in refugee plan":

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-premiers-refugees-1.3331047

    Pondering

    JKR wrote:
    Pondering wrote:

    Mulcair is using the issues around the refugees to attack Trudeau. That it might also increase resentment towards refugees is a price Mulcair appears willing for them to pay.

    Mulcair is stressing that the Liberal government should be more open to accepting refugees who are single and male. So Mulcair is supporting the idea that that Canada should be taking in the refugees and that the refugees are non-threatening to Canada. This was today's lead news story concerning Mulcair and the NDP: "Tom Mulcair concerned about exclusion of some men in refugee plan":

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-premiers-refugees-1.3331047

    All that does is make people think of the risk. It doesn't increase support for the refugees and you didn't mention his additional concern over the cost. 54% of Canadians are against or worried about letting refugees into Canada. The fact that we are favoring families helps increase acceptance and women and children are the most vulnerable. Of the refugees going to Europe there is a higher percentage of young single men. That route is more difficult for families with children.

    Sixty-nine percent are men, 13 percent women and 18 percent children.

    The largest single group appears to be young men, open to adventure but woefully ill informed about what they are getting into. Among the dozens of them interviewed recently in Turkey and Greece, only a few spoke any languages other than their native tongue, and most knew little about the countries they hoped to make their new homes. Some were surprised to learn that beer and pork are prominent in German cuisine.

    “Our only hope is in Europe,” said Mohammed Atiyya, 21, a Palestinian from Damascus who had been training as a metal worker when he was drafted into the Syrian Army.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/world/europe/migration-of-young-men-po...

    Young men may be equally deserving of protection but they are also more able to flee and survive the journey. A disproportionate number make it to Europe.

    69% men, 13% women, and 18% children.  That's a huge disparity. It is not unfair to choose to bring in the most vulnerable refugees who are less mobile.

    Sean in Ottawa

    quizzical wrote:

    the problem has arose pondering. it's called a currently noted budget shortfall of 900 million at least.

    if you're suffering under austerity in Quebec pondering you should be concerned about a 100 million or so being off loaded to your province or city.

    people who are suffering are concerned they'll get less. the money has to come from somewhere and there should be clear messaging by the Liberals to settle the scared people down and hopefully tomorrow we will see it. they're not being racist just concerned for their own well being.

    who cares about the racists they'll be racist no matter the messaging or by positive actions in expanding the budget federally not provincially.

    and if the 250 million they budgeted is spent on screening then all the costs could be off loaded to the provinces couldn't it?

     

     

    Well said. Criticizing the NDP for raising what is a reasonable question in the light of a significant amount of money is typicxal of Liberals here -- the reason is obvious given the context of Mulcair's statement just as the PM will meet the premiers.

    Sean in Ottawa

    Pondering wrote:

    JKR wrote:
    Pondering wrote:

    Mulcair is using the issues around the refugees to attack Trudeau. That it might also increase resentment towards refugees is a price Mulcair appears willing for them to pay.

    Mulcair is stressing that the Liberal government should be more open to accepting refugees who are single and male. So Mulcair is supporting the idea that that Canada should be taking in the refugees and that the refugees are non-threatening to Canada. This was today's lead news story concerning Mulcair and the NDP: "Tom Mulcair concerned about exclusion of some men in refugee plan":

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-premiers-refugees-1.3331047

    All that does is make people think of the risk. It doesn't increase support for the refugees and you didn't mention his additional concern over the cost. 54% of Canadians are against or worried about letting refugees into Canada. The fact that we are favoring families helps increase acceptance and women and children are the most vulnerable. Of the refugees going to Europe there is a higher percentage of young single men. That route is more difficult for families with children.

    Sixty-nine percent are men, 13 percent women and 18 percent children.

    The largest single group appears to be young men, open to adventure but woefully ill informed about what they are getting into. Among the dozens of them interviewed recently in Turkey and Greece, only a few spoke any languages other than their native tongue, and most knew little about the countries they hoped to make their new homes. Some were surprised to learn that beer and pork are prominent in German cuisine.

    “Our only hope is in Europe,” said Mohammed Atiyya, 21, a Palestinian from Damascus who had been training as a metal worker when he was drafted into the Syrian Army.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/world/europe/migration-of-young-men-po...

    Young men may be equally deserving of protection but they are also more able to flee and survive the journey. A disproportionate number make it to Europe.

    69% men, 13% women, and 18% children.  That's a huge disparity. It is not unfair to choose to bring in the most vulnerable refugees who are less mobile.

    Pondering this is typical of you -- contorting a story to make it an attack on the NDP and praise for the Liberals. This tactic of yours is transparent to all including, I would guess, most Liberal supporters here.

    It is right for Mulcair to raise this and it was a question most agreed was a problem when it was first brought up earlier in the campaign when it was the Conservatives doing the same thing with their picks of the refugees.

    Your attempt at justifying this is shameful.

    The idea of picking one gender to allow to come to Canada and leaving the other behind is something Canada has a history with.

     

    Pages