Mulcair on the campaign trail

174 posts / 0 new
Last post
MegB
Mulcair on the campaign trail

http://www.24news.ca/the-news/canada-news/149294-the-making-of-tom-mulca...

Quote:
“I’m a very determined person and I’ve always been able to take on an opponent – whether it was the separatists in Quebec City or Stephen Harper in Ottawa. People know that about me. And they know that I don’t shy away from a fight.”

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

LOL. Harper can't even deliver the mail.

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/video?playlistId=1.2537473

mark_alfred

MegB wrote:

http://www.24news.ca/the-news/canada-news/149294-the-making-of-tom-mulca...

Quote:
“I’m a very determined person and I’ve always been able to take on an opponent – whether it was the separatists in Quebec City or Stephen Harper in Ottawa. People know that about me. And they know that I don’t shy away from a fight.”

Good article.  Very thorough.  Shows there's some interest developing.

There was a front page article in Toronto's Metro today on Mulcair:  Is Tom Mulcair's move to the right wrong for Toronto?  Metro is a subsidiary of the Toronto Star, which tends to deride the NDP whenever it can.  Thus, the theme of the NDP being less progressive than the Liberals is present (a theme which the Star has featured in every single election over the past thirty years that I can recall).  Still, I feel the coverage may be helpful in this case.  The more exposure the better, I figure.

There's a section of the article at the end which gives some time to the argument that the NDP is not more right-wing than the Libs:

Quote:

Kathleen Monk, former communications director for late NDP leader Jack Layton, called any suggestion the NDP is moving right “laughable.”

“The NDP has never presented a more progressive platform than it has in this election,” she said, touting policy planks like increased corporate taxes, affordable childcare and a $15 federal minimum wage.

If anything, Trudeau’s support for the Conservative’s controversial anti-terror law, Bill C-51, has caused Liberals to enter the NDP fold, Monk said.

“Mulcair actually voted against Bill C-51 and stood up for Canadians’ civil liberties,” she said.

The notion of the NDP’s rightward shift is being pushed by “Liberal spinners” in an effort to slow NDP gains in Ontario, Monk said.

“Liberals in the 416 want to take back seats from NDP incumbents,” she said. “They feel they can do that by creating a false narrative around Tom Mulcair.”

NDPP

One of the litmus tests of  political stupidity we've passed with flying colours is the nearly $1 billion Harper has given to the US-installed Nazi oligarchy in Ukraine, starving the domestic enconomy, and nobody even asks the question where it's gone. What a servile, idiotic society.

Aristotleded24

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-says-there-s-too-much-povert... child poverty scores higher than professional sports:[/url]

Quote:
Tax dollars shouldn't be spent on big league sports franchises when hundreds of thousands of Canadian kids live in poverty, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said Friday in Montreal.

The return of major league sports teams is a hot topic in Quebec, with both Quebec City and Montreal looking to regain lost franchises, but Mulcair said sports fans shouldn't expect any help from the federal government.

"I think that nothing would be better than for the private sector to get together and put everything in place to have a Major League Baseball team (in Montreal)," he said. "But in a society that knows still to this day far too much poverty and when I have hundreds of thousands of children going to school hungry, it's hard to understand that the taxpayer would be asked to fork over money for franchises that are worth billions."

mark_alfred

Aristotleded24 wrote:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-says-there-s-too-much-povert... child poverty scores higher than professional sports:[/url]

Quote:
Tax dollars shouldn't be spent on big league sports franchises when hundreds of thousands of Canadian kids live in poverty, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said Friday in Montreal.

Great article.  Definitely shows the right priorities.

Here's the NDP events page, for those who might be interested.  http://www.ndp.ca/events

David Young

Mulcair will be in Halifax tomorrow for a rally at the World Trade and Convention Centre, and I'll be there along with some others working on Alex Godbold's campaign here in S.S.S.M.

Watch for me on the news...I'll be the one wearing the orange shirt! Wink

mark_alfred

I believe Tom is going to be speaking live from Halifax shortly:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ndp-leader-tom-mulcair-live-at...

ETA:  That was good.  It was less the smiling teddy-bear approach of late and more the pull-no-punches approach that most of us here are familiar with. 

ETA2:  I think this is the speech he gave in Halifax today.  Unforutunately I couldn't find the question and answer session with the press, which I always find more interesting.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

That was a pretty convincing speech. I'll feel better if Mulcair comes across as confident in the next debates.

I also hope he's serious with his swipe at Paul Martin's austerity agenda. I now expect an NDP government to refrain from any austerity measures.

I'm going to hold him to his promises. If breaks any of them,he'll prove himself no better than a LIberal rule.

mark_alfred

They plan to cut the income splitting pledge of the Conservatives, but I haven't heard anything else.

David Young

I just got back from Halifax!

What a crowd!

If they don't show any panning shots of the room, you wouldn't know that there was close to a thousand people there.

And to see my candidate, Alex Godbolt, get to introduce Tom alongside Halifax West candidate Joanne Hussey was great!

 

mark_alfred

David Young wrote:

I just got back from Halifax!

What a crowd!

If they don't show any panning shots of the room, you wouldn't know that there was close to a thousand people there.

And to see my candidate, Alex Godbolt, get to introduce Tom alongside Halifax West candidate Joanne Hussey was great!

 

I found a shot on Twitter.  Did it look like this?

 

Perhaps Nova Scotia is the next region to have an orange wave.

David Young

mark_alfred wrote:

David Young wrote:

I just got back from Halifax!

What a crowd!

If they don't show any panning shots of the room, you wouldn't know that there was close to a thousand people there.

And to see my candidate, Alex Godbolt, get to introduce Tom alongside Halifax West candidate Joanne Hussey was great!

 

I found a shot on Twitter.  Did it look like this?

 

Perhaps Nova Scotia is the next region to have an orange wave.

Thanks.

That's a shot from the platform where the cameras were set.  I was on the right side of the room.

Although this photo doesn't show it very clearly, there were a lot of younger people (15-29) in the room.

The woman in the white blouse at the bottom centre is a co-worker of mine at the Lunenburg Post Office, Nancy Rogers!

 

Brachina

 I LOVE the name Godbolt, it sounds like he should be smiting the wicked, instead he looks like Bob Saget.

 

mark_alfred

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-pledges-funding-for-women-s-...

Quote:

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said Monday he will develop a national action plan to end violence against women and pledged millions in funding for shelters.

Video here.

mark_alfred

Mulcair answering answering some questions about the economy, declaring he's committed to a balanced budget.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvmRJpLa2ng

quizzical

i believe it can be done and money spent on social and urban infrastructure

increased corporate taxes - billions

decreased advertising budgets - billions

decreased security budgets - millions

decreased private contracting out costs or feeding your friends money - billions

income splitting gone - billions

taxing off shore Canadian companies - trillions

Brachina

 Removing stock loophole-billion

 Economic dividends of goofmd policy- Eventually billions (needs time to have an effect).

 Axing F-35s- Billions.

 Ending pointless wars- Billions.

Jacob Two-Two

Exactly. There's plenty of money. The Libs and Cons are just ideologically opposed to touching it. They tell you the cupboard is bare while billions go out of public coffers to the richest Canadians. It won't be hard to balance the budget if you don't mind pissing off a few rich people.

quizzical

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
 It won't be hard to balance the budget if you don't mind pissing off a few rich people.

 

and what's with people thinking we shouldn't? and pretending balancing a budget means cuts to social programs why do they never realize it SHOULD  and CAN be cuts t the rich

NorthReport

Economics is turning out to be a win-win for the NDP.  Liberals not so much!

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  4h4 hours ago

Heh.  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/parties-spin-the-recession-but-all-voters-want-to-know-is-whats-next/article26183573/ …

Embedded image permalink 3 retweets0 favorites Reply Retweet 3 Favorite  

 

 

quizzical

crickets chirping after the obvious is pointed out to those here trying to drum up Liberal support.

mark_alfred

Tom Mulcair and the NDP will invest $28 million to help kids from low income families take part in organized sports.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRCJZ2NQ_0Q

JeffWells

Unscripted moments that reveal a candidate's character are pretty rare during campaigns these days. Today Mulcair showed his character, and sounded like a Prime Minister while doing it.

mark_alfred

JeffWells wrote:

Unscripted moments that reveal a candidate's character are pretty rare during campaigns these days. Today Mulcair showed his character, and sounded like a Prime Minister while doing it.

Agreed.  link

quizzical

ya i saw it on the news earlier, real person not politiking

mark_alfred

Here's a quote from the article Refugee crisis coverage, rivals' criticism frustrates Conservative campaign

Quote:
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said in his view there was no legitimate role for the Canadian Forces in Syria. The party also reiterated its call to increase the number of refugees Canada would accept.

Here's a video of Mulcair talking about it:  http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2674942075/

quizzical

"frustrates" Conservative campaign. wtf?

yup, you've been there along Teneycke.

 

The Buried Canadian State Connection to ISIS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlDDpt65Tuo&feature=youtu.be

 

Pondering
NDPP

Obviously not everyone knows Tom Mulcair is 'a fervent supporter of Israel in all situations and circumstances'.

 

Leftist Canadian Prime Minister Candidate Thomas Mulclair With Islamic Supremacist Jew-Hating Jihadi Supporter  -  by Pamela Geller

http://pamelageller.com/2015/08/photo-leftist-canadian-prime-minister-ca...

"Freedom lovers need to do all they can to make sure that Stephen Harper gets reelected."

mark_alfred

Video specifically geared to Toronto:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6M9Qo9Xyls

quizzical

NDPP wrote:
Obviously not everyone knows Tom Mulcair is 'a fervent supporter of Israel in all situations and circumstances'.

 

"Freedom lovers need to do all they can to make sure that Stephen Harper gets reelected."

 

ha.... you've gone to openly campaigning for Harper. wtg knew you had it in ya.

mark_alfred

Mulcair is interviewed by Mansbridge tonight on the National (or at 9PM ET on CBC Newsworld).  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tom-mulcair-1.3220022

YouTube

knownothing knownothing's picture

Great job on Mansbridge Tom! He is no match

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

The Libs are spinning it that Tom was vague and sucked badly, to be blunt. I didn't watch; can't take the suspense. Can someone tell me what they though, other then LPC shills please?

mark_alfred

It was very good.  Many good points.  The only minor quibble was his answer to the final touchy-feely question of "what is it about you, outside of policy or politics, that makes you feel you would be a good prime minister?"  It was an opportunity to talk about his upbringing (IE, hard-worker from a 10-child family, etc -- like the recent NDP ad) but instead he kinda kept on policy and lost that opportunity.  Otherwise it was good.

And he was not at all vague.  He was quite direct and specific.  He knew his stuff.

Policywonk

Arthur Cramer wrote:

The Libs are spinning it that Tom was vague and sucked badly, to be blunt. I didn't watch; can't take the suspense. Can someone tell me what they though, other then LPC shills please?

I haven't seen it yet, but if he was vague that's like calling the kettle black. I don't think Trudeau said anything substantial at all.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

It was very good.  Many good points.  The only minor quibble was his answer to the final touchy-feely question of "what is it about you, outside of policy or politics, that makes you feel you would be a good prime minister?"  It was an opportunity to talk about his upbringing (IE, hard-worker from a 10-child family, etc -- like the recent NDP ad) but instead he kinda kept on policy and lost that opportunity.  Otherwise it was good.

And he was not at all vague.  He was quite direct and specific.  He knew his stuff.

I agree with this summary.

mark_alfred
pookie

Sorry to burst the bubble, but Mulcair's position on the Senate is just dumb.  How he proposes to get his legislation through remains a mystery. 

http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/kady-no-possible-future-prime-ministe...

 

Ciabatta2

He didn't match Justin's hope and enthusiasm but definitely had more meat on his answers than any of the other two leaders.  His stance on the senate is correct - it's not like this is new NDP policy - but to everyday voters is just not doable, not important, and looks opportunistic.

Aristotleded24

I agree that the NDP has painted itself into a corner on the issue of the Senate, however I'm also convinced that should Mulcair call a referendum that essentially asks the pubilc, "do you want more or less entitled over-paid politicians" then the public will overwhelmingly endorse Mulcair's position and at that point it would be political suicide for anyone to stand in the way of Senate abolition.

pookie

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I agree that the NDP has painted itself into a corner on the issue of the Senate, however I'm also convinced that should Mulcair call a referendum that essentially asks the pubilc, "do you want more or less entitled over-paid politicians" then the public will overwhelmingly endorse Mulcair's position and at that point it would be political suicide for anyone to stand in the way of Senate abolition.

Hm.

I sure hope the question is a little more precise than that.

I also think there would be regional variations.  Which would complicate the political calculus for, say, the Premier of Nova Scotia.

Still doesn't explain how Mulcair expects to get his legislation through Parliament.  It`s fine for him to hate the Senate, but someone could just as easily take a disliking to the Supreme Court: unelected, seen by some as overly political, and also requires unanimous consent for change.

Serious question:  Why is Mulcair`s position on the Senate different from a PM refusing to appoint new SCC justices unless he gets what he wants?  How is it different from a PM saying the SCC had better just rubber-stamp his legislation, because he/Parl has legitimacy and they don't?

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

pookie wrote:

Serious question:  Why is Mulcair`s position on the Senate different from a PM refusing to appoint new SCC justices unless he gets what he wants?  How is it different from a PM saying the SCC had better just rubber-stamp his legislation, because he/Parl has legitimacy and they don't?

Because, whatever the legal niceties may be, the NDP and its predecessors have always accepted the legitimacy of the HoC and SCC, but have never accepted the legitimacy of the Senate. It is, and always has been regarded by them (and me personally) as an illegitimate relic of colonial times.

Rev Pesky

Apparently the requirements to change the Senate are less onerous than those required to abolish it. I wonder if one may be able to change the Senate to allow a new Senate after each election, based on percentage of vote. In other words, turn the Senate into a proportional representation house. I realize this would be difficult to achieve, but it might be a step on the way to proportional representation, and turn the Senate into a relevant instutution. It would also allow those smaller parties who can't get a House of Commons seat a level of representation.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

That's a very interesting suggestion, RP, but I don't know whether that kind of radical reform would require unanimous consent of the provinces. I think it would if it changed the number of Senators from each province. However, I suspect that if Mulcair becomes PM, he may well end up working out some sort of Senate reform with the approval of the majority of the provinces, which does not require unanimous consent, and then admitting that this was the best he could do, lacking the consent for abolition. If the reform is a good one, I think most voters will accept that.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Why not have elected Senators with elections two years after the major election? That would be a good step to triple E, and would be easily be supported by the public and the provinces.

pookie

Michael Moriarity wrote:

pookie wrote:

Serious question:  Why is Mulcair`s position on the Senate different from a PM refusing to appoint new SCC justices unless he gets what he wants?  How is it different from a PM saying the SCC had better just rubber-stamp his legislation, because he/Parl has legitimacy and they don't?

Because, whatever the legal niceties may be, the NDP and its predecessors have always accepted the legitimacy of the HoC and SCC, but have never accepted the legitimacy of the Senate. It is, and always has been regarded by them (and me personally) as an illegitimate relic of colonial times.

That may explain the NDP's view but I hope you agree that it hardly operates as a justification for it!

I mean, you either accept the constitutional framework, or you don't.

mark_alfred
Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

pookie wrote:

I mean, you either accept the constitutional framework, or you don't.

That may be true for lawyers, and certainly it is required of judges, but I don't agree that it is a requirement for politicians or private citizens, who can quite coherently reject part of it, such as the Senate.

pookie

Michael Moriarity wrote:

pookie wrote:

I mean, you either accept the constitutional framework, or you don't.

That may be true for lawyers, and certainly it is required of judges, but I don't agree that it is a requirement for politicians or private citizens, who can quite coherently reject part of it, such as the Senate.

That is a dangerous view, especially for a Prime Minister.

Seek to change it.  Ignoring is quite another matter.

Pages