Jump to navigation
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/thomas-mulcair... I agree with Chantal that Jack would be happy with how the NDP has been functioning since his passing.
Btw is the RCMP detail assigned to Mulcair apart of the PMPD unit or is it a seperate unit? (PMPD protects the Prime Minister)
The boundaries of that are fuzzy on paper. Not so in practice. Strictly speaking they are all the same. But...
In practice, the PMO will have no informal, let alone formal, input about protecting the Opposition Leader. And my guess that it is left up to Mulcair and the RCMP to work out what he wants. You could say the same for the PMO when it comes down to it. Just that their demands are so excessive, and there are plenty in the RCMP hiararchy more than happy to make sure they get what they want.
Makes them appear more important to have all those Men In Black around them in sunglasses and talking into their coat sleeves.
What 'Men in Black'?
I stood right next to Mulcair when he was being introduced to the Nova Scotia NDP Convention by Robert Chisholm a few weeks ago, and while I could tell that there were security people there, no one who could be classified as 'Men in Black' were ever evident while he was there.
The Men In Black are reserved for Harper. Mulcair gets the leftovers.
[quote=Gerald Caplan]...That's why rich folks and their businesses have rich tax accountants. What would the NDP do about that?
Will an NDP government not be forced as well to raise taxes on the party's beloved "ordinary Canadians" in order to pay for the enhanced social programs and massive infrastructure the country desperately needs? Will it say so?[/quote]
Why not simply overall federal tax revenues as a percentage of GDP to just the [url=http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=21699][color=blue][u]OECD average?[/u][/color][/url] Is this not sheer genus?
Tens of billions of dollars more for social programs and infrastructure. And we don't even have to commit to the EU-15 average. And just forget about the communist Nordic country average. We don't have to go so far as to bring the wrath of rabid right wing think tankerists and their newz media down on us. Socialize the cost, like they do with corporate welfare programs for profitable corporations.
But we need to stop Harper from winning another phony majority in 2015. As Sherlock Holmes would say about the next federal election in Canada,
[quote=Sherlock Holmes(referring to Majoriarty)]"If we can stop him, we shall prevent the collapse of Western civilization... No pressure."[/quote]
I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Promoting some goal of higher taxation on its own isn't going to be very popular at all. Higher taxation must be justified by what it buys and of course, the assurance that government isn't wasting the money it has already.
It's done all the time in umpteen other capitalist economies. The rich are so far unable to throw a wrench into Belgian or Norwegian federal level tax regimes. Of course, Gerry Caplan didn't mention those real world examples. Why not?
For NDP conventions, Mulcair's security force wears corduroy.
I'm sorry but I just don't buy the we're worried about national unity line from the Tories, they couldn't give a rats ass about Quebec months ago when they thought they didn't need Quebec to win, the only thing that has changed is now thier affraid of the NDP whose ROC support is rising and that means Quebec as the NDPs strongest regional base can't be ignored now.
And the sleazy attempt at the baiting of young NDP MPs this so disgusting I might vomit.
The Tories are simply the scum of the earth.
They just don't get that thier politics of spite is why their losing support.
Mulcair says Tories damaging Canada's reputation excerpt: Federal NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says Canada and its once-admirable image around the world have become unrecognizable under the Conservatives, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Mulcair said he recently had a meeting with European Union ambassadors in Ottawa, and they are not happy with the federal government.
I think Paul Wells analaysis is over simplitic. I may have been convinced the Mulcair fits in an,idealogical blindspot for Harper, and I think for many ignorant tories he does, but his recent actions in Quebec show more fear of Mulcair then the PQ, because we all know Harper could give a crap about federalism, Mr. Firewall himself.
I've heard better ideas honestly.
Here is a really DAMNING article about Justin Sinclair, I mean Bieber, I mean Trudeau...
I don't know if it is damning or not Stock - at the end she suggests he has those shallow characteristics which will come in handy. But Justin's reality is that he has not contributed to any great thoughts or debates on public policy and has done nothing, except talk to youth about empowerment - which incidently, I'd really like if some of our young MPs who have done great things, get out and across Canada and speak to youth engagement and involvement.
[quote=janfromthebruce]I'd really like if some of our young MPs who have done great things, get out and across Canada and speak to youth engagement and involvement.
This is a terrific idea, and I hope someone at HQ takes note of it.
All those unexpectedly-elected Quebec MPs were supposed to be a running joke, right? The media seems to have dropped that some time back in the Fall, after they began proving themselves in the House, and looking like they were more fit to be there than most of the Conservative bench. They were supposed to be a liability, remember?
Interesting to see the perceptions of Trudeau (Sr. and Jr.) in Quebec.
I try to avoid the conventional wisdom about Quebec out here in the RoC, which usually amounts to "Quebeckers will only vote for a Quebecker", or worse "Quebeckers only want to know what's in it for them." I was able to catch a few insights that made the orange wave a little less surprising to me than the average pundit. But it's still somewhat of a black box to me.
Any rabblers from Quebec able to take the temperature out there? Not just among progressives, but among those crafty Conservatives, and those lacking Liberals.
This is also interesting - and a problem I hadn't thought of:
One topic that is beginning to concern thoughtful New Democrats is what to do about the Senate?
The NDP does not have a single caucus member in the Senate and, were the party to win government, it would be hard-pressed to even introduce legislation in the Red Chamber, since each bill requires a sponsor.
Abolishing or otherwise reforming the Senate isn't going to happen before an NDP government actually has to do anything else and so it will somehow have to find a way to introduce legislation there if the party plans on never having official NDP senators and have to come up with a strategy to work with Liberal and/or Conservative senators to get legislation through without having it torn apart too badly.
How very interesting:
[Joe] Clark says he's impressed with NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair.
"I don't know [NDP leader Thomas] Mulcair, except to watch him, and I've been very impressed. I think, if he is a difficult personality, as some people say, this grueling leadership campaign was very good for him, because it forced him to come to terms with his critics and his challenges," Clark said.
edit: whoops, wrong thread
Is that really a problem? Canadians aren't used to the senate actually doing anything. Wouldn't this unelected chamber suddenly blocking and altering popular legislation be the perfect runup to abolishing it? Who could argue if they started messing with democracy in such a fashion?
During theleadership campaign I asked Tom what he wd do if the Senate blocked his legislation. He sd that wd turn public opininion against it and hasten its abolition.
I can forsee the Senate being a major problem for an NDP government. It has potentially immense power under the constitution, almost as much as the Commons. It has a veto over constitutional amendments and , I believe , over legislation. Even the House of Lords only has a suspensive veto.
The Conservatives now control close to 60% of the Senate. By 2015 they may well have 80%. Harper has shown contempt for many constitutional niceties so why should we epect the Conservatives not to use the Senate as a weapon to frustrate an NDP government's program?
The Conservatives are becoming increasingly right-wing and are imbued with self-righteousness and the notion that the end justifies the means. They will not be foolish enough to use the Senate to block everything but we can surely expect them to amend legislation consitently with their ideological convictions.
We may well see a repeat of the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 which led to the defeat of the Labor government of Gough Whitlam. The conservatives in the Senate waited until the government was unpopular and then refused supply. The Governor General sacked the government and called an election which the opposition won.
Peter Stoffer on West Block
It'll be incredibly interesting to see Mulcair win the next election and have a showdown with the Senate.
Is that really a problem? Canadians aren't used to the senate actually doing anything. Wouldn't this unelected chamber suddenly blocking and altering popular legislation be the perfect runup to abolishing it?[/quote]
But they did just that two years ago, overturning an NDP private members' bill on climate change.
I think an NDP Lower House and an unelected Upper House would be a constitutional crisis. But fine: the constitution is a crisis. At last let's do something about it.
Not everybody in the senate is a complete fuck up, most are smart enough to realize that blocking NDP government bills would give the NDP the excuse to radically change the constitution or draft a new one more to our liking, even if we have to cheat when it comes to the amending formula (although a new constitution would have its own formula). It'd be insanely easy to scape goat the Senate for the whole thing including any rule bending or breaking because they feel they need to do.
Enough Senators know this and that the NDP hates them to begin with that they won't want to provoke a fight. The climate bill not being past was actually a fuck up, with Tory Senators blaming blaming Liberals Senators and visa versa.
Not everybody in the Senate is stupid enough to start blocking bills, but they are stupid enough to slow them down.
Of course I could be wrong, Harper has been stacking it with morons and the Senate could try and act like the minority partner in a government, thinking they can push the NDP to make concessions in exchange for passing bills. That would be a mistake, because the NDP will refuse and we'll be in the situation were the Senate has to back down or create a constitutional crisis that would grant the NDP extraordinary laditutude to deal with it.
The senate IS a huge x-factor. I suppose they'll be easy to deal with if they continue their time honored tradition of collecting their paycheck and shutting their mouths. But if they're suddenly activated by the Conservative party, I hope the NDP has a plan to get them out of the way (and fast). Perhaps threaten a referendum.
Have you met today's NDP? There's a plan all right, and I really hope the elitist fatcats in the senate are stupid enough to try to interfere with a democratically elected NDP government. The resulting public debate on this useless boondoggle of a chamber would go very well for us. Suddenly the NDP aren't just the champions of social spending and a more compassionate society, they're also the champions of trimming fat and waste and saving taxpayers' money. Abolishing the senate would be a dramatic legacy for the party.
[quote=nicky]I can forsee the Senate being a major problem for an NDP government. It has potentially immense power under the constitution, almost as much as the Commons. It has a veto over constitutional amendments and, I believe, over legislation. [/quote]
PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION OF CANADA
[quote]47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41, 42 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution.[/quote]
I think amendment of the Constitution to abolish the Senate would be under section 38, which requires the approval of 2/3rds of the provinces with more than 50% of the population.
My point was, the Senate has no veto on its abolition.
Arguably Senate abolition will require unanimous consent of the provinces, because an amendment to the Amending Procedure requires unanimous consent. To abolish the Senate while leaving the wording of the Amending Procedure unchanged would create some very curious wording. Maybe it could be done, but it would be a bit ugly.
I'm trying to get a read on the provinces. If we need 2/3 of the Premiers to buy in, that's 7 out of 10 provinces. Not a lot of room for error. If we need every province (again, not clear on the procedure), then it might be downright impossible.
The odds of Senate reform look low. And that's before you even take into account that those Premiers will look to extract various concessions from the Federal Government in order to sign onto such an amendment.
I'm not sure what the path to Senate reform looks like. I think our only hope is if we make the idea of more politicians so toxic, that even electing them would seem unfair. But then what would we say of replacing MMP with first past the post?
Ugh... she trying remind to Nunavut would vote Liberalss... but Jean Crowder already came visit to Nunavut couple weeks ago. I glad she come here.
next election nunavut ndp candidate slogan "Lower food price and eliminate Nutrition North Program" im sure they gonna vote it
I hope Mulcair support it.
Remember, provincial goverments don't necessarily have to agree with abolition. They just have to be convinced that they will pay a political price for opposing it. That's politics, right? After all, the Cons haven't made any moves to reform the senate. Instead they appointed a bunch of new senators. More of the same nonsense. I think that a lot of right-wing constituencies would get behind abolition if it seems the only alternative to the present state of affairs. Saskatchewan, for instance, could be sold, no matter what government they have. It might even turn into a winning issue for the NDP there.
The Globe defends the attack ads against Mulcair. The Globe would be a much better paper without the guys who wrote this artical.
Abolition of the senate requires UNANIMOUS consent of the provinces.
I wish it were true that he is in trouble. I think they are potentially in trouble. But as it stands, for what difference it does not make, the election next year is still their's to lose.... without backing down or molliying one bit their pimping for the neo-liberal agenda.
New Brunswick is holding senate elections in 2015, I think. I'm worried about the Tory attack ads on Mulcair. They look like an attempt to rewrite the facts about what Mulcair has done, said, stands for, etc. Some of the info is also from 2009 which is odd. Last time I checked there was an election the NDP ran on in 2011, so the voters had a chance to pass judgment then.
Harper is in trouble when his own press allies attack him.
Have you read on Marxist's website talk about NDP? its 6 page since 2003.They seem backing NDP than Liberal. Why not NDP and Marxist or Communist party merger? not need change name, just merge, share policy etc.
[url=http://notjacksparty.ca/]Not Jack's Party?[/url]
They should throw support to the NDP and PR if they ever want to get elected.
Funny how they missed [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3f5PIfzw-s]Jack's most recent statement on the Party's marijuana policy from the last campaign.[/url]
This is incredibly tacky.
back to the senate, i doubt there'll be a problem - mulcair can just pull a mulroney if he needs to and add 150+ ndp senators. i'd totally be senator for a few months if it meant that i could vote to reduce the senate's salary to $1/year, change their role to a recommendation body, etc. no problem. i still like my idea of a senate drawn by lots with a model based on bc's electoral reform commission all those years ago. but if we want to be realisitic, we'll just have to pack the senate and then nuke it within the parameters of parliamentary purview.
The Constitution limits the number of extra Senators that can be added to the senate.
Maybe Canada's constitution could be improved?
Here are a just a few possible improvemens:
- Quebec's signature and constitutional blessing should be achieved.
- The Senate's place in Canada.
- Municipalities should be insured adequate funding.
- Provinces should be insured adequate and equitable funding vis a vis each other.
- Proportional representation.
- First Nations issues.
Maybe the NDP should support a joint federal-provincial-municipal-First Nations effort to modernize the constitution for the 21st century?
[quote=JKR]Maybe the NDP should support a joint federal-provincial-municipal-First Nations effort to modernize the constitution for the 21st century?[/quote]
Jack always said that there was no rush to try to get Quebec to agree to a constitutional package until there was a "reasonable chance of success." He said constitutional discussions would not be a top priority for the NDP.
"There is a significant gap ... and [it] has to be addressed some day," Layton said. "We don't see it as an immediate issue. The issues of immediate concern to people are getting a job, the fact that they don't have doctors, the retirement security issues."
I agree. Another failure could be the death blow. It has to be agreed behind the scenes first.
Remember that when Mulroney tried to change the Constitution there was substantial agreement between every Provincial government and all three national political parties and the project still failed spectacularly.
Also lets please not bring proportional representation into the Constitutional arena, electoral reform is achievable with an ordinairy act of Parliament.
This is a well deserved attack on the new Premier of Alberta.
Time to take Mulcair seriously, even if we don’t like him
Clearly, his aggressive stance on energy — first slagging the oilsands for hurting Canada’s economy, now calling for the shutdown of a project vital to Alberta’s access to markets — is working. That’s because Mulcair both voices and shapes growing national opinion.
I like the whole white hat vs. black hat western vibe, vary clever on Tom's part. Plus he looks way better in a cowboy hat then Harper does.
[quote=Brachina] I like the whole white hat vs. black hat western vibe, vary clever on Tom's part. Plus he looks way better in a cowboy hat then Harper does.[/quote]
I was thinking the same and chiding myself for the shallow observation. But you know, this stuff matters. Mulcair is someone who looks comfortable in his own skin, even when it's trussed up in Stampede duds. Harper, never. And profoundly, especially when he tries to play cowboy. It's one more disconnect for Conservatives, and another plus in Mulcair's column.