Liberal leadership race

1044 posts / 0 new
Last post
Debater

DSloth wrote:

clambake wrote:

Garneau will apparently challenge Trudeau to a one-on-one debate. Boy, I hope he takes the bait

Ha Ha, Justin may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but I'm sure he's got at least one advisor who can add 2 + 2. 

jjuares wrote:

This is a little strange to say the least. Trudeau's idea of a clear majority is determined by the NDP constitution?

 

 Anyways he got blasted by Garneau for stating a number publicly. I find the clarity act somewhat surreal. One side determines what consitutes a win after the vote? I have never heard of such an absurd idea in any state or organization that purports to be democratic. Yet, many in the press and the public see this as a sancrosanct principle

 

Well Garneau at least gets the point that the Clarity Act is just empty wedge politics for the rest of Canada, they don't state a number because they know the Clarity Act is just a dead letter the day after a successful referendum when the PQ Premier declares independance. Trudeau actually telling Quebecers he doesn't give a shit if 65% of them vote for soveriegnty is an order of magnitude more dangerous to national unity. 

Er, no not quite.  Perhaps you should read the Supreme Court reference.  The PQ Premier cannot declare independence unless it is in accordance with the principles and rules of international law on sucession.  And it has been determined that Quebec cannot separate from Canada unilaterally.  And Trudeau wasn't saying he doesn't care what Quebecers think - now you are just making things up.  He was just suggesting a possible higher threshold for succession than a simple majority vote, something which the NDP constitution and many other documents require anyway.

Btw, Trudeau is very smart, but keep thinking otherwise.  His opponents have underestimated him in the past and ended up losing every time so far.  Another one just saw the writing on the wall and withdrew from the Liberal leadership race to endorse him.

trotwood73

George Takach has quit the race to support JT. His final press release.

Kind of funny that his second to last press release started with the phrase "The last thing the Liberal Party of Canada needs is another coronation." 

Debater

It isn't a coronation.  Whoever wins will have actually earned the leadership through campaigning for it, going through a series of debates, and being elected by the voters.  Ignatieff wasn't elected.  He just deposed Dion and had his 'election' rubber-stamped.  That's not happening here.  This is an actual leadership campaign in which thousands of people will be voting for a leader.

NorthReport

People can spew out spam, and silly Liberal talking points all they want, but it most definitely is a coronation. Do the names Michael Ignatieff and Paul Martin ring a bell? All this leadership race is about is a little show for the fans. Trudeau is the current annointed one, and will easily win on the first ballot. It is then though that the party ends once again for the LPC. Hopefully this time for good. And hopefully as well for the NDP imposters - hint, hint.

NorthReport

Oh my, what a surprise, another deceiving Liberal, mascarading as a leadership candidate, when all he wanted is a chance to win a LPC nomination somewhere in the Toronto area.

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/george-takach-withdraws-from-liberal-lead...

NorthReport

What a coward!

If he was that confident with his ideas Trudeau would have risen to ther challenge. Too bad!

The LPC will attempt to sugarcoat this, but it is there for all to see.

Trudeau says no to Garneau offer of 1-on-1 debate

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/25/pol-garneau-trudeau-debat...

David Young

I see that one of the Liberal Leadership candidates, George Takash,  has withdrawn, and decided to support Justin (It For Me!) Trudeau.

Will there be any others who follow suit, I wonder?

 

 

Brachina

Hopefully, stop wasting our time with this farse of a race. Unless one of them pulls off the kit gloves and grows some claws against Justin.

socialdemocrati...

Hey guys of course it's not a coronation! Remember when the media wasn't sure who would win, and called it anybody's race? Remember when the frontrunners had a vigorous policy debate? Remember when the fundraising dollars didn't overwhelmingly go to one person? Remember when the frontrunner wasn't a former Prime Minister's overprivileged flakey son?

Me neither. Because saying this isn't a coronation is fucking stupid.

(Apologies in advance if stupid people are considered a group that we're not supposed to discriminate against according to rabble policy.)

clambake

lol

Five star rant.

NorthReport

Laughing

Worthy perhaps of babble's hall of fame

NorthReport

Garneau calls Trudeau's Clarity Act line a 'rookie mistake

'Liberal leadership contender says it would be 'more mature' of colleague to stay out of it

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/22/pol-cp-garneau-trudeau-...

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Hey guys of course it's not a coronation! Remember when the media wasn't sure who would win, and called it anybody's race? Remember when the frontrunners had a vigorous policy debate? Remember when the fundraising dollars didn't overwhelmingly go to one person? Remember when the frontrunner wasn't a former Prime Minister's overprivileged flakey son?

Me neither. Because saying this isn't a coronation is fucking stupid.

(Apologies in advance if stupid people are considered a group that we're not supposed to discriminate against according to rabble policy.)

 

Not the sort of politics I ascribe to.

Brachina

NorthReport wrote:

Garneau calls Trudeau's Clarity Act line a 'rookie mistake

'Liberal leadership contender says it would be 'more mature' of colleague to stay out of it

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/22/pol-cp-garneau-trudeau-...

Did I nail it or what. I said the Unity Bill was Mulcair's trap for Trudeau and the Bear trap snapped around Justin's ankle.

And Garneau did the dirty work of attacking Justin directly.

Debater

NorthReport wrote:

What a coward!

If he was that confident with his ideas Trudeau would have risen to ther challenge. Too bad!

The LPC will attempt to sugarcoat this, but it is there for all to see.

Trudeau says no to Garneau offer of 1-on-1 debate

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/25/pol-garneau-trudeau-debat...

The LPC already has scheduled leadership debates - candidates are not supposed to come up with their own debates outside those already planned.  It is insulting to the other candidates and it is Garneau who looks bad for doing this.  Trudeau handled it correctly and is receiving praise.

Ippurigakko

Hahahahaa, Too bad Justin Trudeau cant become PM because he too young and no experience! XDXDXD

Debater

Brachina wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Garneau calls Trudeau's Clarity Act line a 'rookie mistake

'Liberal leadership contender says it would be 'more mature' of colleague to stay out of it

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/22/pol-cp-garneau-trudeau-...

Did I nail it or what. I said the Unity Bill was Mulcair's trap for Trudeau and the Bear trap snapped around Justin's ankle. And Garneau did the dirty work of attacking Justin directly.

You haven't nailed anything.  Mulcair is the one who is trapped!  Polling reveals that 75% of Canadians disagree with Mulcair's position! Even the NDP Premiers are staying away from him on this.

And Garneau is losing the race and is desperate for attention.

---

Mulcair’s plan to replace Clarity Act not gaining traction with Canadians, provincial NDP leaders

Federal NDP Leader Tom Mulcair isn’t getting much support from his provincial counterparts for his controversial approach to national unity – and a new poll may help explain why.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggests almost three-quarters of Canadians don’t buy Mr. Mulcair’s assertion that a bare majority of 50 per cent plus one vote should be sufficient to trigger negotiations on Quebec secession.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mulcairs-plan-to-replace-cl...

theleftyinvestor

Joyce Murray's son Baba Brinkman releases the obligatory pro-mommy rap video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgZQD1MWGMI

Debater

According to Kady O'Malley, Independent/Former NDP MP Bryce Hyer has just endorsed Joyce Murray.

 

https://twitter.com/kady/status/306842588730773505

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

For those who don't know, Joyce was a cabinet Minister in Gordon Campbell's government for years.  Her record as progressive politician speaks for itself

Money mouth

ETA:

I must say though that I quite liked the video. Catchy, upbeat and anti-Harper.  Not that I would ever vote for a fucking Liberal. Hell I would vote for the Rhinos or Natural Law party first.

theleftyinvestor

Well she was in Campbell's government for one term. She was trounced in 2005.

Yeah she had a pretty mixed record in cabinet. 

Then again there's someone else who used to be a provincial environment minister in a very-big-tent Liberal party... Tom Mulcair. It's just that he openly expressed dissent with Charest's government, while Murray pressed for sustainability policies in the back rooms of Campbell's.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

According to this report the major damage to our environmental protections in BC came while she was Minister.  She was named a cabinet minister by Premier Campbell and served from 2001-2004 as the first ever Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection.

So much for working in the back rooms for good outcomes.  I expect if elected federally as a Liberal PM she would be just as bad as she was in BC.  She is a true Liberal in her ability to talk the progressive talk while walking the corporate walk.

Quote:

In 2001 the BC provincial government set a target of eliminating one third of all regulations. Between 2001 and 2005 the government repealed, amended or replaced a wide range of environmental statutes, as well as cutting funding to environment-related ministries. Despite promises that the changes would maintain high environmental standards, these changes severely weakened the province’s environmental regime.

Since 2005 the BC government has maintained a more balanced approach to environmental legislation. However, many of the province’s environmental laws still bear the mark of this period of deregulation. The reports on this page summarize some of the laws that were enacted in this period and discuss how they continue to affect British Columbia’s environment.

Three reports provide a comprehensive picture of what staffing cuts and regulatory changes mean to British Columbia.

  • Cutting Up the Safety Net looks at changes to environmental regulation from 2001 to early 2005, examining their impact on government's ability to protect our environment and achieve a sustainable economy.
  • No Response documents and explains a collapse in provincial enforcement of environmental laws between 1990 and 2005.
  • Please Hold looks at staffing cuts and the impacts these have had on the ability of government to monitor and enforce environmental laws.

In addition, a series of de-regulation backgrounders discuss the changes to BC’s environmental laws in the context of specific issues:

  • Water - The provincial government's Riparian Areas Regulation, enacted in July 2004, weakens protection for fish habitat, giving wriggle room for developers who want to build close to the banks of fish bearing streams. However, local governments can still protect the environment by developing more stringent protection for fish-bearing streams.
  • Mining – A series of amendments to the province’s laws governing mining in 2002 have reduced protection for land owners and the environment. See our backgrounders on Bill 54: Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act 2002; Bill 36: the Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act; and Bill 32: the Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002.
  • Pesticides – In 2003 the Pesticide Control Act was replaced with a new Integrated Pest Management Act. In addition to our backgrounder on the Act, see our page on Pesticides for more information.
  • Pollution – In 2003 BC enacted a new Environmental Management Act, replacing the Waste Management Act. The new act and its Waste Discharge Regulation shifted from requiring government approval before waste can be released to (in many cases) a system of regulations – under which industry can pollute as long as the rules are followed. We released backgrounders discussing both the new Bill 57: the new Environmental Management Act and the Bill 57: Environmental Management Act - Waste Discharge Regulation.
  • Parks – Amendments to the Park Act in 2003 weakened restrictions on development in provincial parks, authorizes petroleum and natural gas removal from parks and changes seven park boundaries. Our backgrounder discusses the changes.
  • Environmental Assessment – In 2002 an entirely new BC Environmental Assessment Act replaced the previous assessment process. Environmental Assessment allows the environmental impacts of major developments to be examined before environmental harm occurs. West Coast's analysis demonstrated that this change was a dramatic step backward for environmental protection in BC.

http://wcel.org/our-work/environmental-deregulation

NorthReport

Trudeau may win the LPC leadership but there are a lot of Canadians who agree with this writer.

 

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Trudeau+should+step+aside/8026550/stor...

 

felixr

The self-sacrificing Trudeau's and the destiny that is their cross to bear link

Debater

Brachina wrote:

Did I nail it or what. I said the Unity Bill was Mulcair's trap for Trudeau and the Bear trap snapped around Justin's ankle.

Well this one sure came back to haunt you, Brachina!  It's not good to prematurely gloat.

It looks like "Mulcair's trap" (it was actually a Bill to pander to BQ supporters) ended up snapping around Mulcair's own ankle and costing him an NDP MP crossing over to the BQ!  Whoops.  Rather than wishing for misfortune to be-fall the Liberals all the time, perhaps you should look at the issues within your own party.

 

NDP defection leaves Mulcair facing a mess of his own making


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/28/michael-den-tandt-ndp-def...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Did I nail it or what. I said the Unity Bill was Mulcair's trap for Trudeau and the Bear trap snapped around Justin's ankle.

Well this one sure came back to haunt you, Brachina!  It's not good to prematurely gloat.

It looks like "Mulcair's trap" (it was actually a Bill to pander to BQ supporters) ended up snapping around Mulcair's own ankle and costing him an NDP MP crossing over to the BQ!  Whoops.  Rather than wishing for misfortune to be-fall the Liberals all the time, perhaps you should look at the issues within your own party.

 

NDP defection leaves Mulcair facing a mess of his own making


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/28/michael-den-tandt-ndp-def...

Are you SURE you don't have some shoes to polish?

autoworker

Debater wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Did I nail it or what. I said the Unity Bill was Mulcair's trap for Trudeau and the Bear trap snapped around Justin's ankle.

Well this one sure came back to haunt you, Brachina!  It's not good to prematurely gloat.

It looks like "Mulcair's trap" (it was actually a Bill to pander to BQ supporters) ended up snapping around Mulcair's own ankle and costing him an NDP MP crossing over to the BQ!  Whoops.  Rather than wishing for misfortune to be-fall the Liberals all the time, perhaps you should look at the issues within your own party.

 

NDP defection leaves Mulcair facing a mess of his own making


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/28/michael-den-tandt-ndp-def...

I think Den Tandt 'nails it' pretty good! Mulcair's in a straight-jacket. It'll be fun to watch how he attempts to dissemble his way out of it.

socialdemocrati...

I'm still not seeing this mess or this straight-jacket. An MP defects because he thinks the NDP is too federalist, and the NDP holds onto first place in the Quebec polls for two years since the election. I somehow doubt that Mulcair is losing sleep over this. Seems that the Liberals are losing sleep wondering why their smear attacks don't gain traction for them in Quebec.

janfromthebruce

felixr wrote:

The self-sacrificing Trudeau's and the destiny that is their cross to bear link

 

ha ha ha - I loved this snerk

Destiny didn’t invite Hello Canada into your living room.

Ah, the right of kings and crown princes.

 

egads

autoworker

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I'm still not seeing this mess or this straight-jacket. An MP defects because he thinks the NDP is too federalist, and the NDP holds onto first place in the Quebec polls for two years since the election. I somehow doubt that Mulcair is losing sleep over this. Seems that the Liberals are losing sleep wondering why their smear attacks don't gain traction for them in Quebec.

That depends on how many others in his QC caucus are inclined in that direction, just as a number of his MPs elsewhere in Canada begin to realize that they are increasingly perceived as members of a Quebec party. Time will tell.

socialdemocrati...

Now I've just been given a lesson on "perception" from the Liberal Party.

My three word response:

Ha ha ha!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I've got nothing against Justin Trudeau personally - I've never met him - but I think he's one of the weakest debaters in the Liberal caucus. The only reason he's doing so well is he's riding the Trudeau legacy - on the coattails of his father who was a better politician in every way, even though I thought PET was a bit of a prick in a number of ways - especially the October crisis of 1970. And he appointed Otto Lang, Robert Andras, and Bryce Mackasey as head of the department where I worked (M&I) in the 1970s. I couldn't stand any of them. Justin is another Iggy, and will be forgotten after he loses the next election.

felixr

Debater wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Did I nail it or what. I said the Unity Bill was Mulcair's trap for Trudeau and the Bear trap snapped around Justin's ankle.

Well this one sure came back to haunt you, Brachina!  It's not good to prematurely gloat.

It looks like "Mulcair's trap" (it was actually a Bill to pander to BQ supporters) ended up snapping around Mulcair's own ankle and costing him an NDP MP crossing over to the BQ!  Whoops.  Rather than wishing for misfortune to be-fall the Liberals all the time, perhaps you should look at the issues within your own party.

 

NDP defection leaves Mulcair facing a mess of his own making


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/28/michael-den-tandt-ndp-def...

I love that Debater is quoting Den Tandt, a Liberal loathing out and out Tory. Laughing I will be sure to post more of the articles where Den Tandt ridicules Canada's Flake Party. I may also have to post all the editorials where he calls for a useless Liberal Party to merge with the NDP, including the one where he says "Don't run Trudeau, don't run! You ain't got the skills for the job!" Laughing

Debater

felixr wrote:

Debater wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Did I nail it or what. I said the Unity Bill was Mulcair's trap for Trudeau and the Bear trap snapped around Justin's ankle.

Well this one sure came back to haunt you, Brachina!  It's not good to prematurely gloat.

It looks like "Mulcair's trap" (it was actually a Bill to pander to BQ supporters) ended up snapping around Mulcair's own ankle and costing him an NDP MP crossing over to the BQ!  Whoops.  Rather than wishing for misfortune to be-fall the Liberals all the time, perhaps you should look at the issues within your own party.

 

NDP defection leaves Mulcair facing a mess of his own making


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/28/michael-den-tandt-ndp-def...

I love that Debater is quoting Den Tandt, a Liberal loathing out and out Tory. Laughing I will be sure to post more of the articles where Den Tandt ridicules Canada's Flake Party. I may also have to post all the editorials where he calls for a useless Liberal Party to merge with the NDP, including the one where he says "Don't run Trudeau, don't run! You ain't got the skills for the job!" Laughing

You totally ignored the points made about the trap Mulcair and the NDP got themselves into over the Clarity Act.

I think that speaks for itself.  You essentially conceded the issue.

Debater

Boom Boom wrote:

I've got nothing against Justin Trudeau personally - I've never met him - but I think he's one of the weakest debaters in the Liberal caucus. The only reason he's doing so well is he's riding the Trudeau legacy - on the coattails of his father who was a better politician in every way, even though I thought PET was a bit of a prick in a number of ways - especially the October crisis of 1970. And he appointed Otto Lang, Robert Andras, and Bryce Mackasey as head of the department where I worked (M&I) in the 1970s. I couldn't stand any of them. Justin is another Iggy, and will be forgotten after he loses the next election.

Justin doesn't have to win the next election - he only has to increase the Liberal seat count.  If he does that he will stay on to do the same in the election after that.  Layton was leader for 4 elections and only made a big breakthrough in the final one.  Up until 2011 there were only incremental gains in 2004, 2006 & 2008.  If Justin follows that same path he will be in good shape.

It's Mulcair who will be in danger after the next election.  He has to build on Jack Layton's 2011 gains and increase the number of NDP seats.  If he loses them, he may be done as leader.  And at this point in time, Mulcair is looking at seat losses in both Quebec and Ontario.  And that's just for starters.

theleftyinvestor

Debater wrote:

It's Mulcair who will be in danger after the next election.  He has to build on Jack Layton's 2011 gains and increase the number of NDP seats.  If he loses them, he may be done as leader.  And at this point in time, Mulcair is looking at seat losses in both Quebec and Ontario.  And that's just for starters.

Depends, I suppose. If the roll of the dice happens to produce a seat count that would allow an NDP-led coalition (sans Bloc) to knock the Conservatives out, then I'm sure Mulcair would get to keep the leadership even if there is a drop in seat count. A Liberal-led coalition, now that might make his job a little less safe. If it's another Con majority or if it's a minority spoiled by a Bloc resurgence, then Mulcair is not going to survive.

(For all of the talk about what the NDP and Liberals do and don't have in common, I think it's safe to say that if the 2015 election yields a Con plurality with NDP+LIB=majority, they will find some way to work together.)

felixr

Debater wrote:

felixr wrote:

Debater wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Did I nail it or what. I said the Unity Bill was Mulcair's trap for Trudeau and the Bear trap snapped around Justin's ankle.

Well this one sure came back to haunt you, Brachina!  It's not good to prematurely gloat.

It looks like "Mulcair's trap" (it was actually a Bill to pander to BQ supporters) ended up snapping around Mulcair's own ankle and costing him an NDP MP crossing over to the BQ!  Whoops.  Rather than wishing for misfortune to be-fall the Liberals all the time, perhaps you should look at the issues within your own party.

 

NDP defection leaves Mulcair facing a mess of his own making


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/28/michael-den-tandt-ndp-def...

I love that Debater is quoting Den Tandt, a Liberal loathing out and out Tory. Laughing I will be sure to post more of the articles where Den Tandt ridicules Canada's Flake Party. I may also have to post all the editorials where he calls for a useless Liberal Party to merge with the NDP, including the one where he says "Don't run Trudeau, don't run! You ain't got the skills for the job!" Laughing

You totally ignored the points made about the trap Mulcair and the NDP got themselves into over the Clarity Act.

I think that speaks for itself.  You essentially conceded the issue.

Shove your "scholastic rules" debating, Debater, I conceded nothing. If anything I thought Den Tandt's editorial was too dumb to comment on. Just like the column he has published almost verbatim four or five times saying that if Mulcair doesn't greenlight environmentally unfettered natural resource development then he will be destroyed in the next election. Den Tandt's arguments might make sense from an Ontario perspective but from a Quebec perspective they are thoroughly foolish. Here is what Mulcair did:

1) The Bloc Quebecois and sovereigntists were complaining that the NDP does nothing or doesn't stand for Quebec nationalist interests. 2) They claimed the NDP were either cowardly or dishonest about their support (JUST LIKE THE QUEBEC LIBERALS WHO ARE SIMILAR IN THEIR SUPPORT WITH VIRTUALLY NO EXCEPTIONS) for some Quebec nationalism 3) They presented a bill calling for the repeal of the Clarity Act and dared the NDP not to vote for it 4) The NDP caucus (not just their electoral base) contains many Quebec nationalists or former or post-sovereigntists in addition to federalists. It is a true pan-Quebec party. 5) The NDP has a policy on sovereignty, it is called the Sherbrooke Declaration and was a key element in the 2011 breakthrough 6) The NDP presented the Sherbrooke declaration (in existence for many years now and approved by the Federal NDP membership at convention) as legislation.

Why this makes sense politically in Quebec:

1) The NDP is keeping its word. It's actually putting forward the policies it campaigns on. The Liberals should trying doing that sometime, it'd be strangely honest of them.

2) The NDP is proposing a position that represents the position of all but the most extreme sovereigntists or "soft federalists" in Quebec. Namely, that 50%+1 vote is the barest of majorities that could be considered a vote in favour of sovereignty. Additionally, the Sherbrooke Declaration and NDP don't call for immediate separation, JUST LIKE RENE LEVESQUE, they can follow (constitutional) negotiations following such a vote. Almost anyone that voted for the NDP in 2011 can accept such a policy, except for the most extreme or contradictory on either side of the issue: like Claude Patry who said that sovereignty was a thing of the past when he sought the NDP nomincation.

3) Nothing changes. The NDP is still a federalist party. It still has a Sherbrooke Declaration. The difference is it has tabled a key part of this Declaration as legislation, as opposed to shoving it, like the Liberals like to do with their policies and political promises after every election. How's the Liberal's implementation of the 1993 Red Book coming along Debater? Was over a decade in power and record surpluses not enough lattitude to get anything done? When did the corporate tax payouts to your true (not the voters) masters have to end? Where in the Red Book was it listed that the key priority of the Liberal Party would be the large scale expansion of a Corporate Welfare State?

Liberals: we stand for bald faced lies to the public, and massive pay outs to the corporations that used to fund our campaigns.

How I don't miss the Liberal Party of old.

 

felixr

Debater wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

I've got nothing against Justin Trudeau personally - I've never met him - but I think he's one of the weakest debaters in the Liberal caucus. The only reason he's doing so well is he's riding the Trudeau legacy - on the coattails of his father who was a better politician in every way, even though I thought PET was a bit of a prick in a number of ways - especially the October crisis of 1970. And he appointed Otto Lang, Robert Andras, and Bryce Mackasey as head of the department where I worked (M&I) in the 1970s. I couldn't stand any of them. Justin is another Iggy, and will be forgotten after he loses the next election.

Justin doesn't have to win the next election - he only has to increase the Liberal seat count.  If he does that he will stay on to do the same in the election after that.  Layton was leader for 4 elections and only made a big breakthrough in the final one.  Up until 2011 there were only incremental gains in 2004, 2006 & 2008.  If Justin follows that same path he will be in good shape.

It's Mulcair who will be in danger after the next election.  He has to build on Jack Layton's 2011 gains and increase the number of NDP seats.  If he loses them, he may be done as leader.  And at this point in time, Mulcair is looking at seat losses in both Quebec and Ontario.  And that's just for starters.

The NDP is not a king-killing party. Another useful lesson to the party that is on its 7th leader in 10 years!!!! Now that's a credible party!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

No the NDP does not kill Kings.  However what it does with Queens is a different matter.  The treatment of AM shows for some leaders there is little loyalty without electoral success

Who knows what will happen to Tom but Audrey who inherited the party at a historic high point had one election before the NDP's historic meltdown. Eerily for the current party it was after the party jumped into the constitutional debate and backed the wrong horse in the Accord referendum. When the party lost seats she was forced out and it was toxic and nasty inside the party. The only thing that kept the deeply divided party together in the subsequent leadership race was Svend taking the high road. It is also worth noting that Svend's campaign team mostly supported Jack in the next leadership campaign. The party in those years had three leaders in seven years not anything like the Liberals over the last decade as their fortunes have tanked but nothing to brag about either.

So while the NDP is generally better than the Liberals have been in the last decade it remains to be seen what it will do if it fails to consolidate its breakthrough in Quebec.

socialdemocrati...

Debater wrote:
I think that speaks for itself.  You essentially conceded the issue.

Since we're making up debate rules now, while you're dodging MY points, does that mean you've conceded the issue that there's no point on putting the Liberals back in power?

Honest question: when the Liberals ignore that Justin Trudeau agrees with Harper on more oil, more foreign takeovers, more corporate tax giveaways, and no more gun registry, is it because you guys also agree with Harper? Or is it because you honestly don't give a shit?

felixr

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Debater wrote:
I think that speaks for itself.  You essentially conceded the issue.

Since we're making up debate rules now, while you're dodging MY points, does that mean you've conceded the issue that there's no point on putting the Liberals back in power?

Honest question: when the Liberals ignore that Justin Trudeau agrees with Harper on more oil, more foreign takeovers, more corporate tax giveaways, and no more gun registry, is it because you guys also agree with Harper? Or is it because you honestly don't give a shit?


+1

Debater
NorthReport

Serious damage is happening to the Liberal party name now in BC with their slimeball political strategy over ethnic votes. Premier Clark who has had very close ties with the federal Liberals, is in serious trouble. How much of this will spill over and eventually damage the federal Liberals as well? 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

jerseystar118 wrote:

input this URL:

( http://www.jerseystar.us/ )

you can find many cheap and high stuff

lower price fast shippment with higher quality!!

BEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!!

SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!!

FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!!

Cheap high stuff. Really? What can I mail order a LPC leadership candidate?

autoworker

jjuares wrote:

autoworker wrote:
Socialist Feminist wrote:

Debater wrote:

 

 Not to mention saying he is 'stupid', 'corrupt', 'fool' etc.

 

Justin calling guns "this important facet of Canadian identity" was stupid. Do you agree?

It's no dumber than maple syrup, beaver tails, and moose hunting. Personally, I think Justin should advocate for the return of stubby beer bottles-- a lost icon of Canadian identity.

 

What makes Justin's comments so stupid is that he takes an artifact, (ie guns) never associated with our mythology  and rather clumsily attempts to make them into something that is part of our national identity. First time I ever heard that-we have no constitutional  amendment. Does he know what country he lives in? It wasn't just pandering but rather stupid pandering at that.

I think it's a myth that Canada has a mythology.

NorthReport

If you scratch below the surface deep enough, and long enough, you can often find the Liberal party connection in these kind of situations. And don't forget to vote Liberal if this is the kind of politics you want.

Quote:
In her time away from the legislature, Holman reported, Haakstad worked for the federal Liberal Party as its executive director in B.C., as a senior manager for the Karyon Group and as executive director of the liquor lobby group Alliance of Beverage Licensees
.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/03/01/Haakstad-Resigns/

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well AW, one thing that is true is Canada does not have a gun culture. Justin was pandering.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Debater wrote:

Irwin Cotler endorses Justin Trudeau

 

http://irwincotler.liberal.ca/blog/cotler-endorses-justin-trudeau-leader...

Who cares? Serioulsy. What do I care what a Liberal thinks about anything? The Candian Civil Liberties Association joined a number of NGOs who support the Ontario Teachers lawsuit against the LPC governments anti teacher legislation. I have emailed Cotler 3 times asking if he will join the CCLA and he hasn't replied. Seriously Debator, why should I care what someone guy who calls himself a civil rights champion says when he refuses to join in fighting injustice if the injustice is being inflected by a Liberal government? And while we are at, what about you sport, do you support the teachers and will you on this board condemn the Ontario Government's attack on the teachers rights to bargain collectively and in good faith? Here's you chance. Where do you stand? Well? Or is abuse of someone's rights OK as long as the Liberals are the abusers?

David Young

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Well AW, one thing that is true is Canada does not have a gun culture. Justin was pandering.

I wouldn't say that Canada doesn't have a 'gun culture'; it's just not at the same level as the U.S.

The Conservatives sought the support of the 'gun culture' in the last election over the Gun Registry, and it helped them here in South Shore-St. Margaret's.  Almost every poll north of Highway 103, the most rural part of this riding which runs between Halifax and Yarmouth, voted Conservative.  They picked up a lot of former Liberal voters who had been frightened by the anti-NDP propoganda that the Conservatives were using.  South of Highway 103, where the majority of family incomes are generated by tourism or the fishing industry, the NDP gained some soft Liberal vote, but nothing likie the votes that went to Conservatives, which helped them to retain this seat.

If Trudeau convinces enough of those swing voters to vote Liberal again, we might finally see the end of the Conservative here!

 

autoworker

ghoris wrote:

I will be curious to see if Joyce Murray's cooperation platform has any legs. Despite the scorn rained upon him by various sectors of the party establishment, Nathan Cullen turned in a surprisingly impressive third place finish, leaping over such perceived favourites as Paul Dewar and Peggy Nash. We could see Murray's position having a similar resonance among the Liberal Party rank-and-file (and 'supporters' entitled to vote). If nothing else, it sets her apart from the rest of the field.

I hope she has a strong finish, and eclipses Garneau.

Pages