Liberal leadership race

1044 posts / 0 new
Last post
PoliSciStudent

janfromthebruce wrote:

Last I checked, that is where the NDP policy stands, and we have on utube, Jack Layton talking about it in (I think) a 2008 election campaign. I also believe that the Greens are also decriminalization and so on, so the Libs aren't "leading the charge" in this regard.


Mulcair has said he doesn't believe in legalizing marijuana, but doesn't believe people should go to jail for possessing small amounts of it.

Lord Palmerston

Stockholm wrote:
I predict that by election 2015 there is no difference between the Liberal and NDP policies on marijuana - unless the Liberals drop wanting to decriminalize altogether due to pressure from their laregely rural and socially conservative caucus.

I thought the Libs were the "party of doctors and dentists" Laughing

socialdemocrati...

The funny thing about the Liberal party is they can always beat the "strawman" version of the NDP.

The "strawman" of the NDP hates all trade, hates all oilsands development, and wants to just throw endless money into health care.

But the actual NDP wants *fair* trade, *sustainable* oilsands development that has to factor the real price of carbon into their decisions, and promote "home care" for seniors to simultaneously improve healthcare and find savings.

After years of the Liberal party beating up on the "strawman" version of the NDP, the ACTUAL NDP beat the actual Liberal party last election.

As an aside, I suppose there IS a middle ground between Conservative austerity and anti-austerity. If the Conservatives want to raise the retirement age to 67, the Liberals will promise to raise the retirement age to 66. Or maybe they'll promise to repeal it, and then go ahead and keep with the Conservative policies. That's the kind of centricism that Jean Chretien used on the GST.

The "center" has always been empty branding for the Liberal party. It's a strategy based on making the other parties sound more extreme than they are, and then adopting their policies anyway. Or it's based on campaigning one way and then governing the other.

That's why more and more people roll their eyes when they hear the Liberals say they're "moderate" or "in the center" or what not. It never meant anything. And now the middle class is shrinking, thanks to years of "moderate" policies that gave tax cuts to the wealthy, and slashed the social safety net more than any Conservative government ever did.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

As far as Marijuana is concerned, I wouldn't be so quick to bet the farm on this if I were a Lip. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/city-mp-balks-at-pot-legalization-137404538.html. This is Kevin Lamoureux's position on this. I don't think Canadians should be so quck to assume that just because a party claims it is in favour of something means it will happen. Daycare, LPC Red Book 1993 for example, how did that turn out? I think it is really very imporatnt that NDP go after the Libs early and often and not allow it to try and frame itself as being in some kind of mushy middle.

Polisci student, I would like to know more about these articles claiming Rae has found the middle. From the Huff Post:

"

He applauds some oil companies for promising to restore the land back to its original state.

"I think if you look at the commitments that some of the companies are making to environmental reclamation, it's impressive, but everyone has to recognize that that reclamation process of getting that land back to a state close to where it was at the beginning, also requires strong regulation."

This is a tired old industry sop statement. As people like Bill McKibbon and Bob Kincade have pointed out, this is not possible. There is no pre-existing state to which these areas can be "returned". The link to this article is http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/07/10/bob-rae-oilsands-alberta_n_1663556.html. He wants more regulation, well so do I but again as McKibbon and Kincade have both observed, regulation does nothing to deal with the emissions created in this process. What are you referring to PoliSci Student.

Despite my instincts that you are hoping for a LPC resurgence, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. So, what are the articles to which you are referring and what do you think the NDP needs to do to prevent themselves being co-opted by the LPC?

I think the real key here is for the NDP to start framing all this Middle of the road stuff now, and identifying what it really is, just the LPC trying once again to repackage itself in the hope it can fool people again. As Lincoln said, you can fool all of the people some of the time. I guess the Libs still think we are in the "some of the time" stage still.

And, seeing that we are framing this in the context of convention resolutions"

"http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2011/06/21/NDP-Convention-Denounces-Drug-War.

It is clear that the NDP is ahead on this issue by a mile, this being 2011. Just because the leader has a different view, doesn't mean it is any more likely the party will adapt the convetion resolution postion as its own come the election as it is the LPC will listen to Kevin Lamoureux and continue to research the hell out of it.

Again, I say if anything PoliSciStudent, your post shows just how much work the NDP needs to start doing now if they are to avoid being boxed in by the Libs, Suffice it to say, knowing the MSM here in this country, the NDP has got a severe up hill battle ahead of them.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The funny thing about the Liberal party is they can always beat the "strawman" version of the NDP.

The "strawman" of the NDP hates all trade, hates all oilsands development, and wants to just throw endless money into health care.

But the actual NDP wants *fair* trade, *sustainable* oilsands development that has to factor the real price of carbon into their decisions, and promote "home care" for seniors to simultaneously improve healthcare and find savings.

After years of the Liberal party beating up on the "strawman" version of the NDP, the ACTUAL NDP beat the actual Liberal party last election.

As an aside, I suppose there IS a middle ground between Conservative austerity and anti-austerity. If the Conservatives want to raise the retirement age to 67, the Liberals will promise to raise the retirement age to 66. Or maybe they'll promise to repeal it, and then go ahead and keep with the Conservative policies. That's the kind of centricism that Jean Chretien used on the GST.

The "center" has always been empty branding for the Liberal party. It's a strategy based on making the other parties sound more extreme than they are, and then adopting their policies anyway. Or it's based on campaigning one way and then governing the other.

That's why more and more people roll their eyes when they hear the Liberals say they're "moderate" or "in the center" or what not. It never meant anything. And now the middle class is shrinking, thanks to years of "moderate" policies that gave tax cuts to the wealthy, and slashed the social safety net more than any Conservative government ever did.

SD, you nailed it! And, the NDP needs to start reminding people of how the LPC acts now rather then waiting until later.

blairz blairz's picture

Adma, I admit my tone was snide, but hardly cheap. I don't think close hard fought losses from behind make someone a good candidate for leader. I do appreciate that she is a more capable polititian than I might have thought she was.

 

janfromthebruce

PoliSciStudent wrote:
janfromthebruce wrote:

Last I checked, that is where the NDP policy stands, and we have on utube, Jack Layton talking about it in (I think) a 2008 election campaign. I also believe that the Greens are also decriminalization and so on, so the Libs aren't "leading the charge" in this regard.

Mulcair has said he doesn't believe in legalizing marijuana, but doesn't believe people should go to jail for possessing small amounts of it.

 

Last time I checked the NDP is a democratic organization and not so top down and driven by "the leader".

adma

blairz wrote:

Adma, I admit my tone was snide, but hardly cheap. I don't think close hard fought losses from behind make someone a good candidate for leader. I do appreciate that she is a more capable polititian than I might have thought she was. 

Well, then, look at Jack Layton's '93 and '97 federal runs before *he* became leader.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Jan, you hit it on the head. This is what it is going to be like fighting the Libs. Any idea about how to start framing issues now? I think the NDP should already be all over this.

Left Turn

The Liberals would do well to position themselves as a party that would:

  1. maintain non-discretionary program funding
  2. severely cut discretionary program funding
  3. plow most of the savings into defecit and debt reduction
  4. undo the most controversial of the Harper government's spending cuts once the budget is balanced
  5. ubdo the most controversial legislative and regulatory changes of the Harper government that are easy to undo
  6. stop cutting corporate taxes

So on the one hand, no more capital projects with the possibility of massive cost overruns such as the F35s, no discretionary 'infrastructure' projects like the ones in Tony Clement's riding, no more international leaders meetings with $billon security budgets, no using search and rescue helicopters to transport government ministers, no more international junkets with luxury hotels and $16 orange juice, ect.

At the same time, the recognition that vital services such as Newfoundland's Search and Rescue services and the Kits Point Coast Guard station, among other targeted programs and services, should never have been cut, and should be reinstated.

There is a constituency of voters out there, concentrated most highly in the 905, that would go for this kind of a party. The constituency of voters who get riled up about government spending scandals because they've cut their discretionary income to the bone in order to be able to afford monthly mortgage payments and other 'monthly' expenses.

Thing is, I have no idea who the Liberals have who could orient the party in this direction.

socialdemocrati...

Don't worry. I think there's plenty of Liberals who could muster up the grand vision to turn the clock back to good ol' 2006, plus a failure to do anything about 2% higher unemployment, plus a slew of painful cuts to social programs.

The only question is how many promises would they break. I'm sure there's lots of Harper policies they could campaign against and then quietly accept.

Nah, Canada isn't gonna fall for that again. Not in 2015.

PoliSciStudent

janfromthebruce wrote:

PoliSciStudent wrote:
janfromthebruce wrote:

Last I checked, that is where the NDP policy stands, and we have on utube, Jack Layton talking about it in (I think) a 2008 election campaign. I also believe that the Greens are also decriminalization and so on, so the Libs aren't "leading the charge" in this regard.

Mulcair has said he doesn't believe in legalizing marijuana, but doesn't believe people should go to jail for possessing small amounts of it.

 

Last time I checked the NDP is a democratic organization and not so top down and driven by "the leader".


I realize that, but personally I would doubt that as Prime Minister Mulcair would implement a policy he is totally against. That's just my opinion, many people think the NDP will live up to all policies the grassroots decide.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

So PSS, you know what is in Tom Mulcair's mind eh? You think that the Party's membership can be bullied and led around by sheep eh? Why is it over and over again, that new posters emerge here, tell us they are non partisan, and then spend most of their time talking about the Libs? I don't care what you write, but I don't think you are being honest about yourself or your motivations. Look, I can read minds too!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Don't worry. I think there's plenty of Liberals who could muster up the grand vision to turn the clock back to good ol' 2006, plus a failure to do anything about 2% higher unemployment, plus a slew of painful cuts to social programs.

The only question is how many promises would they break. I'm sure there's lots of Harper policies they could campaign against and then quietly accept.

Nah, Canada isn't gonna fall for that again. Not in 2015.

Thanks SD!

PoliSciStudent

It's no wonder the babble section on this site seems to be dying off when new posters can't make comments without being critsized.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

PoliSciStudent wrote:
It's no wonder the babble section on this site seems to be dying off when new posters can't make comments without being critsized.

Who says the comments section is dying? You? If you post something, and people disagree, don't expect them to sit by and say nothing. I said you are trying to read Mulcair's mind, and I said you don't know what he thinks. What you are really saying is either, I don't think Art you are worth any of my time, or, I don't have a come back.

I have noticed on this site, that there is a particular type of poster that calls themselves netural and then starts writing things that are almost entirely supportive Lib. I have been watching this kind of behaviour all of my life. I don't care who you support, but what I care is that you be honest about who and what you are. That is all. I sign all my posts in my local newspaper with my real name, am always honest and open about where I am coming from, and use my real name every where else I post. I don't see anything wrong with asking people to use the same level of transparency.

If that is a problem, it certainly isn't one for me.

PoliSciStudent

Arthur Cramer wrote:

PoliSciStudent wrote:
It's no wonder the babble section on this site seems to be dying off when new posters can't make comments without being critsized.

Who says the comments section is dying? You? If you post something, and people disagree, don't expect them to sit by and say nothing. I said you are trying to read Mulcair's mind, and I said you don't know what he thinks. What you are really saying is either, I don't think Art you are worth any of my time, or, I don't have a come back.

I have noticed on this site, that there is a particular type of poster that calls themselves netural and then starts writing things that are almost entirely supportive Lib. I have been watching this kind of behaviour all of my life. I don't care who you support, but what I care is that you be honest about who and what you are. That is all. I sign all my posts in my local newspaper with my real name, am always honest and open about where I am coming from, and use my real name every where else I post. I don't see anything wrong with asking people to use the same level of transparency.

If that is a problem, it certainly isn't one for me.


I was going to respond to you anymore, like I previously said, but seeing you keep responding my posts I will.

My opinion is that I don't think Mulcair, like any PM, will implement a policy they have publicly stated they don't agree with. You don't like that then to bad, it doesn't make me a secret supporter of another party because I have that view of Mulcair.

As for the commention section I have been reading it for a while and the comments have slowed down considerably, maybe it's just because it is Summer. However, people like you don't make it very welcoming for people to comment. I have commented on many different forums, some partisan, with people of all different parties and even though my views were different then theirs they weren't critical like you. Conservative supporters have been more tolerant then you, despite us having big differences on policies.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Yeah, good old, bad old me, some guy in his 50s who lives in Winnipeg. Yep, be very afraid of me. I won't apologize for being critical. You can be critical of mine all you want; the problem is, you always add nasty to what you write back. I have been around long enough to know that the Libs and the Tories are no Damn good. I am also tired of putting up with all the garbage people post of PC or Lib bent in the expectation that no one will call them out. That has been a real problem for the NDP. Tom seems to get this. If you think I am rough, well, that is laughable. As to your comments regarding not repsonding to what I said, it proves what I suspected about you. Guys like you love to hand it out, but you can't take it. I never treated you with the disdain you have shown for me. The fact that you responded the way you did showed just how little regard you have for me, and how little you understand about treating people with respect. So, don't try and pin this on anyone but yourself. Look in the mirror for once.

PoliSciStudent

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Yeah, good old, bad old me, some guy in his 50s who lives in Winnipeg. Yep, be very afraid of me. I won't apologize for being critical. You can be critical of mine all you want; the problem is, you always add nasty to what you write back. I have been around long enough to know that the Libs and the Tories are no Damn good. I am also tired of putting up with all the garbage people post of PC or Lib bent in the expectation that no one will call them out. That has been a real problem for the NDP. Tom seems to get this. If you think I am rough, well, that is laughable. As to your comments regarding not repsonding to what I said, it proves what I suspected about you. Guys like you love to hand it out, but you can't take it. I never treated you with the disdain you have shown for me. The fact that you responded the way you did showed just how little regard you have for me, and how little you understand about treating people with respect. So, don't try and pin this on anyone but yourself. Look in the mirror for once.


You have alleged that I'm a supporter of another party right from the start. It's not my fault you have issues with other parties and can't understand if some NDP voters don't think like you.

Not all members of the party like Tom Mulcair, does that make them any less a New Democrat. I don't have an issue with the man but I highly doubt he's going to implement policies he doesn't agree with.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well PSS. your last point is a valid one, and I may have made a wrongful assumption. So, I apologize for that. But I pretty much stand by the rest of what I said. No, I do stand by the rest of what I said. As I said, be polite and respectful and you'll get it back. But considering how you responded to some of my posts, I don't otherwise feel a need to apologize for anything else.

I didn't ask you not to comment but to be respectful and polite. That is the Golden Rule, and its a pretty easy one to follow.

That was ALL I was saying.

pookie

Arthur, do you think you have been "polite and respectful" on this thread? 

Seriously?

 

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Arthur, I'm just reading this thread now and I have to ask you to please back off PSS. He is welcome to his opinion and has not posted anything against babble policy. If you disagree with his analysis of the Liberal party, do it without (what I see as) hectoring and berating him, please.

PoliSciStudent, welcome to babble.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Catchfire, I think the word of hectoring is a bit extereme, and overall, I don't agree with your assessment. But ok, in the interest of this place working, I'll back off. But I don't feel badly about anything I have written. But that is your judgement, and I respect it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

So PSS, you know what is in Tom Mulcair's mind eh? You think that the Party's membership can be bullied and led around by sheep eh? Why is it over and over again, that new posters emerge here, tell us they are non partisan, and then spend most of their time talking about the Libs? I don't care what you write, but I don't think you are being honest about yourself or your motivations. Look, I can read minds too!

Imagine the audacity of a poster talking about the Liberals in a thread entitled Liberal leadership race.

Babble is really going down hill compared to last year when there were four or five different threads all looking at the entrails of various candidates and all non-NDP types were regularly vilified for either being to right wing or too left wing. 

So far Arthur IMO you have been exceedingly rude because you think PSS is a Liberal.  Even if he/she is I personally don''t think Liberals need to be attacked for posting their thoughts. Even at this NDP "affiliated" site.

I do not think the study of politics is a science and my degree is in political studies.

pookie

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I do not think the study of politics is a science and my degree is in political studies.

LOL!  Well, that's what McGill calls my degree so I can understand PPS' moniker.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well, K1951, you are entitled to your opinion. I'll respect Catchfire's request, but I don't regret anything I have written.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I'm going to see if my university can rename my degree "Literature science." Actually, come to think of it, my Masters is an MSc, 'cause that's how the Scots do it, for some reason. Bad ass.

Anyway, we can probably get this thread back on track now. My vote for Liberal leader: Thomas Mulcair. Discuss. [/troll]

pookie

I think Dominic Leblanc would be an interesting choice (tho I understand his weaknesses) and certainly better than Justin Trudeau.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Catchfire, you failed to include a [troll] tag to match the [/troll] at the end of your post. Most simple parsers (like me) would interpret that to mean that every word of your post was trolling. Is that what you really meant?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Actually, Michael Moriarty, I have never used the [troll] tag in any post. I guess that means every word I've ever written on babble has been trolling. Which isn't far from the truth, I suppose...

Left Turn

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Don't worry. I think there's plenty of Liberals who could muster up the grand vision to turn the clock back to good ol' 2006, plus a failure to do anything about 2% higher unemployment, plus a slew of painful cuts to social programs.

Why should I worry about a party I don't support?  I merely outlined a positioning for the Liberals that would have them campaign on something other than what the Conservatives will campaign on (becasue we need a second Conservative Party like I need a hole in my head), without campaigning on the same turf as the NDP.

In other words, a positining that would have them target fiscally conservative, socially progressive voters, rather than fishing for soft NDP votes.

It would involve a core promise of a hiring freeze and no new spending until the budget is balanced. It would also involve a promise to balance the budget without cutting transfers to the provinces or the federal social wage (EI, CPP, OAS, student loans), or funding for other core programs such as the CBC.

It would involve a promise that Canada would not host any leaders summits requiring large security budgets; that the F35 program would be cancelled without any replacement; and that there would be no infrasturcture stimulus programs where bureaucrats take grant applications from NGOs and then decide which applications to approve based in part on whether they like the organization that submitted the proposal.

It would possibly involve a promise to cut funding for programs such as research grants and regional economic development, if such cuts would be needed to balance the budget without cutting core government spending.

It would involve campaigning on reinstating the following government programs once the budget is balanced: Newfoudland's search and rescue capacity, the environmental disaster cleanup teams, the Kits Point Coast Guard, and the court challenges program, but nothing else; and to plow all other money into debt reduction.

It would involve campaigning on giving control of the approval process for energy projects back to the National Energy Board; of scrapping the no-fly list; and of getting rid of Harper's mandatory minimum sentences.

It would involve a promise of no further tax cuts, but also of no tax increases.

It would specifically involve NOT campaigning on the traditional NDP turf of increasing social program spending, so it would mean not promising to undo Harper's cuts to the social wage.

In short, having the Liberals campaign on a platform they might actually implement, without campaigning as a second Conservative Party.

The reason I have no idea who the Liberals have who could campaign on such a platform, is because most Liberals could not resist the urge to campaign on a combination of income tax cuts and modest increases in social spending.

PoliSciStudent

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

So PSS, you know what is in Tom Mulcair's mind eh? You think that the Party's membership can be bullied and led around by sheep eh? Why is it over and over again, that new posters emerge here, tell us they are non partisan, and then spend most of their time talking about the Libs? I don't care what you write, but I don't think you are being honest about yourself or your motivations. Look, I can read minds too!

Imagine the audacity of a poster talking about the Liberals in a thread entitled Liberal leadership race.

Babble is really going down hill compared to last year when there were four or five different threads all looking at the entrails of various candidates and all non-NDP types were regularly vilified for either being to right wing or too left wing. 

So far Arthur IMO you have been exceedingly rude because you think PSS is a Liberal.  Even if he/she is I personally don''t think Liberals need to be attacked for posting their thoughts. Even at this NDP "affiliated" site.

I do not think the study of politics is a science and my degree is in political studies.

Well I have every intention of telling people I am a scientist when I finish my degree!

Brachina

http://warrenkinsella.com/2012/08/dear-ms-coyne/

http://buckdogpolitics.blogspot.ca/2012/08/the-liberal-party-of-canada-p...

Hell most be cold, because a Liberal candiate just told the truth about her party.

I also note its obvious she's trying to play up outsider angle, basically trying to pull a Mulcair , running against party establishment, but she's no Mulcair. She embarrassed the Liberals seriously and further damaged them with the public, while Mulcair merely ruffled a few feathers over imagine/language issues.

She doesn't get the differences in tactics, why his worked and why she's shooting the Liberals in the foot.

Brachina

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.ca/2012/08/rise-teenage-jesusor-fall.html?m=1

I love that even Big City Liberal calls Justin Teenage Jesus. And that walking into a rake statement had me LMAO.

If its true that Justin plans to have all his campaign bosses 40 or under then he probably is riduculous enough to behind Liberalwho after all.

I know Big City Liberal gets this info from Warren Kinsella, who has a history of lashing out at exbosses, but he was crowing about Justin not long ago and is busy on team Dalton so I don't think this is his usual bitterness.

If Justin is this much of a disaster he may actually lose the Liberal leadership race and seeing thier symbol so publicly humiliated when it seemed such a sure thing would be devastating to the Liberal Party.

I feeling better about Justin running everyday it seems, but media obsession over him will be annoying, and a distraction from what's really important, NDP vs. Tory.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Potential Grit leadership candidates should 'stay home' if they can't raise half a million dollars: Sgro

PARLIAMENT HILL—If prospective Liberal leadership candidates can’t raise at least $500,000 to enter the party race set to begin in November they should “stay home,” veteran Liberal MP Judy Sgro says.

Ms. Sgro (York West, Ont.), commenting on questions several prospective contenders have raised about elements of the leadership contest rules, also told The Hill Times if any Liberal who can’t cough up the $75,000 entry fee the party has set, “it’s telling you that there is no space for you.”

janfromthebruce

I guess their "backers" and who the Liberals "really represent" are those with deep pockets. Having said that, they have previous leader candidate who still have not paid off their previous leadership debts and it's bringing a "negative lens" to this leadership campaign - something the libs want to be removed from the public view.

They are also suffering from "leadership campaign fatigue" having had 3 since 2006 (or is that 4 - lost track). but 1/2 a million dollars is a lot of "fund raising" for a 3rd party leadership candidate. cough

mark_alfred

Hebert has noticed that the Conservatives are focussing their attacks mostly against the NDP and generally ignoring the Liberals.  She concludes that the Conservatives figure that Trudeau is the likely successor, which would enable the NDP to become the main opponents of the Conservatives (IE, the public would view the NDP as the opposition who could be most trusted with the economy).  Thus, the Conservatives are now focussing on the NDP as the major threat, since Rae is out of the picture.

Hebert wrote:
As an aside: If Justin Trudeau is to vault from the Liberal back rows to become party leader, the NDP has a better than fighting chance of beating the Liberals at the economic game.

It seems Conservative strategists have come to the same conclusion.

Since Parliament reopened on Monday, the Conservatives have thrown everything but an imaginary kitchen sink at the NDP.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/20/elizabeth-may-ndp-heckling_n_190...

"Elizabeth May: NDP Heckling Put An End To My Question"; May also tweeted "There's a first. I couldn't finish my question due to heckling from the NDP. So much for Jack Layton's call for civility. #cdnpoli"

Does this hurt the NDP badly and bolster Trudeau? Did anyone see this? I have no doubt May is being hypcrticial but I am not happy about this.

Thoughts?

mark_alfred

Arthur Cramer wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/20/elizabeth-may-ndp-heckling_n_190...

"Elizabeth May: NDP Heckling Put An End To My Question"; May also tweeted "There's a first. I couldn't finish my question due to heckling from the NDP. So much for Jack Layton's call for civility. #cdnpoli"

Does this hurt the NDP badly and bolster Trudeau? Did anyone see this? I have no doubt May is being hypcrticial but I am not happy about this.

Thoughts?

I watched the video and she sat down after two seconds of groans ("heckling" in her mind) muttering "I can't be heard."  The fact that I heard everything she said including her mutter indicated to me that she was wrong in her assessment (she clearly could be heard.)  Also, her question seemed to have been asked, rather than unfinished.  It's too bad that the video did not include Mulcair's response. 

Stockholm

May seems to love playing the victim card. Its always "poor me, those big boys in the NDP keep being mean to me - don't they know that I'm allowed to treat them like shit, but they have to walk on egg shells around me because I AM QUEEN Elizabeth". She makes me want to VOMIT!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Stockholm makes me want to vomit.

autoworker

What does Elizabeth May have to do with the Liberal leadership? Is she running? At least she has a seat. Perhaps she's running for Speaker.

Ottawa Centre-Left

mark_alfred wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I watched the video and she sat down after two seconds of groans ("heckling" in her mind) muttering "I can't be heard."  The fact that I heard everything she said including her mutter indicated to me that she was wrong in her assessment (she clearly could be heard.)  Also, her question seemed to have been asked, rather than unfinished.  It's too bad that the video did not include Mulcair's response. 

 

I had the same thoughts when I saw it yesterday. There is no substance to her complaint and this appears to be another publicity stunt on her part.

 

mark_alfred

For the record, here's the entire exchange between May and Mulcair in the House:

Hansard wrote:

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): previous intervention next intervention    Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the leader of the official opposition if, in his comparison between trade deficits and ecological deficits, he would advance the need to actually do something about the climate crisis rather than point fingers back and forth across the aisle.

 

    The previous Liberal government had a plan in place. It would have reduced emissions. It would have—

 

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

 

    Ms. Elizabeth May: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I cannot be heard. next intervention previous intervention   [Table of Contents]

 

Hon. Thomas Mulcair: previous intervention next intervention    Actually, Mr. Speaker, the government that I was part of in Quebec City had a plan in place to reduce greenhouse gases. That is why we reduced greenhouse gases.

 

    I was actually at the Kyoto conference, in Montreal. I can inform my colleague that the Liberal Party never did a thing. That is why it has the worst record in the world.

 

    During that conference, I remember its minister, who went on to become its leader, saying that, all of a sudden, he did have a plan, but nobody was ever able to see it. When the Liberals finished their mandate after 13 years, they had done nothing on global warming and they did, indeed, have the worst record in the world.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Saw on Facebook that someone is trying to get Andrew Coyne to enter the Liberal leadership race. Andrew Coyne??? Laughing

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Mark, great comment above.

Boom, Boom, LOL!

autoworker

pookie wrote:

I think Dominic Leblanc would be an interesting choice (tho I understand his weaknesses) and certainly better than Justin Trudeau.

I agree. LeBlanc as a French Canadian federalist, with Parilamentary experience (and a Commons seat), but without the political baggage of being Quebecois (not necessarily a weakness), would make an interesting candidate for leadership. Trudeau, as a close personal friend, and a Quebecois, could be a trustworthy, and popular, Quebec lieutenant. Such a partnership might present a viable alternative to the opposing federalist visions currently on offer.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

autoworker wrote:
pookie wrote:

I think Dominic Leblanc would be an interesting choice (tho I understand his weaknesses) and certainly better than Justin Trudeau.

I agree. LeBlanc as a French Canadian federalist, with Parilamentary experience (and a Commons seat), but without the political baggage of being Quebecois (not necessarily a weakness), would make an interesting candidate for leadership. Trudeau, as a close personal friend, and a Quebecois, could be a trustworthy, and popular, Quebec lieutenant. Such a partnership might present a viable alternative to the opposing federalist visions currently on offer.

Heaven help working people if the Libs win again. I don't care what province they come from, a Corporatist Lib is ALWAYS a Corporatist Lib. Run left, govern right. Count on it.

autoworker

Is there really much difference between Rae and Mulcair?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Great two Liberal brats raised with silver spoons in their mouths are going to lead Canada. Leblanc has a fine last name given his Daddy was the Acadian bagman that helped deliver NB Liberal MP's to Ottawa for years before being rewarded with first a Senate seat and then the GG position.  He served under Cretien in the early '90's when the government was slashing and burning programs and stealing the UI fund.

Pages