Mulcair on the campaign trail

174 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

This analysis here says his position on the Senate might make it difficult, but not necessarily impossible to pass legislation.

Tom Mulcair's Senate pledge could lead to stalemates and standoffs

Sean in Ottawa

Mulcair's position could work -- I assume he would want to discuss with the provinces what it would take to abolish. If there is a roadbloack there are other options.

I hate the idea of an elected Senate. This would mean gridlock and competition for supremacy, authority and credibility.

I would prefer an upper house redesigned to include voices not heard enough at the centre of government -- a truly represenative sample of the population. Including a strong Aboriginal component.

Policywonk

pookie wrote:

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?

Harper is leaving it up to the premiers to make a proposal. While I would prefer that Mulcair had a plan B, the provincial objections (proportion of HoC seats mainly) can be dealt with in other ways. As for getting legislation through the Senate, how is that different than a Liberal government dealing with an overwhelming Conservative majority in the Senate (or vice versa when Harper got in)? I think an attempt to abolish the Senate should at least be made. It was much easier for the provinces to eliminate their upper houses, but the Senate serves no more useful purpose than they did.

Policywonk

Michael Moriarity wrote:

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.

He did make a fire in the belly comment, but then he talked more about policy.

JKR

Michael Moriarity wrote:

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.

An NDP government could "abolish" the current Senate and replace it with a new one with the agreement of just 7 provinces representing 50% of the population. I think that's what Mulcair has in the back of his mind when he uses the word "abolish."

pookie

JKR wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

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.

An NDP government could "abolish" the current Senate and replace it with a new one with the agreement of just 7 provinces representing 50% of the population. I think that's what Mulcair has in the back of his mind when he uses the word "abolish."

 

If so, Mulcair has needlessly hamstrung himself by referring to "abolition" (requiring unanimity) and not simply "reform" (requiring the general formula).  And will look completely idiotic when he tries to backpeddle on what "abolish" means. 

At the very least, it sets him up to look like he is beating a fast retreat.

Why, pray tell, would he do that?

And why, when pressed to explain how he intends to get unanimity, has he not said "Under my plan you don't need it"???

pookie

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mulcair's position could work -- I assume he would want to discuss with the provinces what it would take to abolish. If there is a roadbloack there are other options.

I hate the idea of an elected Senate. This would mean gridlock and competition for supremacy, authority and credibility.

I would prefer an upper house redesigned to include voices not heard enough at the centre of government -- a truly represenative sample of the population. Including a strong Aboriginal component.

Of course it's possible to abolish the Senate.  Just extremely unlikely.  And more so if that is ALL that would be on the table.

There have been no serious constitutional negotiations in over two decades.  You really think it can be confined to one issue?  You think Quebec could come to the table under those circs?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

pookie wrote:

If so, Mulcair has needlessly hamstrung himself by referring to "abolition" (requiring unanimity) and not simply "reform" (requiring the general formula).  And will look completely idiotic when he tries to backpeddle on what "abolish" means. 

At the very least, it sets him up to look like he is beating a fast retreat.

Why, pray tell, would he do that?

And why, when pressed to explain how he intends to get unanimity, has he not said "Under my plan you don't need it"???

In my opinion, Mulcair and his handlers have decided that it is a political necessity to stick with the longstanding party position until after he forms a government, to avoid appearing to be the ultimate flip-flopper. If he then makes a serious but unsuccessful effort to get agreement on abolition, he will be able to try negotiating Senate reforms to get rid of the ugliest defects of that institution. If such a reform is seen as effective, he will most likely be forgiven for failing to achieve abolition.

mark_alfred

Mulcair made a pretty impressive infrastructure announcement today.  Interesting too is that both Mulcair and Trudeau have decided to stop ignoring one another, and are now attacking each other as much as they attack Harper.  Regarding Trudeau, I note that Trudeau's infrastructure announcement was both predicated on running a deficit for three years and it included "social infrastructure" (IE, stuff like child care, etc.) -- so, likely the amount of "shovels in the ground" infrastructure spending isn't much greater (if greater at all) then the NDP's infrastructure spending (which, I believe, relies upon gov't revenues from taxation such as gas tax, etc.)  Also it appears that the NDP's is more long term (20 years rather than 10 years).

It'll be interesting to see the platforms when they come out.

Aristotleded24

pookie wrote:
You really think it can be confined to one issue?  You think Quebec could come to the table under those circs?

Why would average citizens in Quebec view the Senate any more favourably than their counterparts in the rest of the country?

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

pookie wrote:
You really think it can be confined to one issue?  You think Quebec could come to the table under those circs?

Why would average citizens in Quebec view the Senate any more favourably than their counterparts in the rest of the country?

Quebec has guaranteed power in the Senate, and even if that were not the case knowing the RoC wants it would result in Quebec making demands in exchange for their agreement.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

pookie wrote:
You really think it can be confined to one issue?  You think Quebec could come to the table under those circs?

Why would average citizens in Quebec view the Senate any more favourably than their counterparts in the rest of the country?

Quebec has guaranteed power in the Senate, and even if that were not the case knowing the RoC wants it would result in Quebec making demands in exchange for their agreement.

Maybe sanity will prevail and Mulcair, Couillard and the other premiers will reach a deal that will satisfy Canada and Quebec whereby Quebec signs the constitution and some kind of deal is reached on the Senate before the Parti Quebecois returns to power?

Stockholm

Pondering wrote:

Quebec has guaranteed power in the Senate,

What "power" does Quebec have in the Senate??? There are 24 so-called senators from Quebec all of whom are appointed for life by the Prime Minister of Canada and who are responsible only to the Prime Minister of Canada. They do not owe the premier of Quebec or the Quebec National Assembly or the people of Quebec ANYTHING. Does anyone try to say with a straight face that all the brain dead automatons that Harper has appointed to the senate from Quebec have EVER represented their province in any way???

The traditional position of the Government of Quebec has been that only the National Assembly of Quebec represents the interests of Quebec. The last thing any Quebec Government wants is for 24 Conservative hacks appointed by Harper to suddenl;y start trying to claim that they speak for Quebec.

 

pookie

Aristotleded24 wrote:

pookie wrote:
You really think it can be confined to one issue?  You think Quebec could come to the table under those circs?

Why would average citizens in Quebec view the Senate any more favourably than their counterparts in the rest of the country?

That wasn't my question.  

My question was whether you honestly think it likely that Quebec (govt OR people) would come to a constitutional negotiation process that was limited to the Senate.

Sean in Ottawa

pookie wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

pookie wrote:
You really think it can be confined to one issue?  You think Quebec could come to the table under those circs?

Why would average citizens in Quebec view the Senate any more favourably than their counterparts in the rest of the country?

That wasn't my question.  

My question was whether you honestly think it likely that Quebec (govt OR people) would come to a constitutional negotiation process that was limited to the Senate.

What demands from Quebec would you see not being satisfied? I see a Queebc government that might be very motivated to sign on to the constitution.
I see the Senate as being a carrot that might be exactly what it could take for the others to agree.

The Constitution is always difficult but I would not rule out the possibility of having a deal on this -- even with the current posturing. There are very good reasons why each might want this to succeed.

pookie

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

pookie wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

pookie wrote:
You really think it can be confined to one issue?  You think Quebec could come to the table under those circs?

Why would average citizens in Quebec view the Senate any more favourably than their counterparts in the rest of the country?

That wasn't my question.  

My question was whether you honestly think it likely that Quebec (govt OR people) would come to a constitutional negotiation process that was limited to the Senate.

What demands from Quebec would you see not being satisfied? I see a Queebc government that might be very motivated to sign on to the constitution.
I see the Senate as being a carrot that might be exactly what it could take for the others to agree.

The Constitution is always difficult but I would not rule out the possibility of having a deal on this -- even with the current posturing. There are very good reasons why each might want this to succeed.

My point is that Mulcair has said exactly nothing about his view on other possible points of negotiation (examples of which can be found in Charlottetown and Meech).  All of his messaging and framing is about a single issue: the Senate.  Which makes political sense in one way, but is quite empty in another.

And, really, the same issue will have to be faced for all of the provinces that are opposed to abolition/argued for unanimity .  

mark_alfred

Some report that 5000 people were at the recent rally in Vancouver.  Mulcair pledged $1.8B for seniors' health care:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-democrats-pledge-1-8b-for-seniors-he...

Jacob Two-Two

I'm at work and had to miss it. Would have liked to have been there.

terrytowel

Mulcair takes a shot at Jean Chretien campaigning for Trudeau today. Calling his appearance the "golden oldies" tour. 

David Young

terrytowel wrote:

Mulcair takes a shot at Jean Chretien campaigning for Trudeau today. Calling his appearance the "golden oldies" tour. 

First Paul Martin, now Jean Chretien!  All we need is for John Turner to make an appearance, and the 'Fossil Rock' tour of ex-Liberal P.M.s will have began!

 

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

I was at the Mulcair rally earlier today in Vancouver, and I found it much more inspiring than the August 9th Vancouver rally.

The August 9th rally was held at the Westin Bayshore hotel. It was a fairly staid affair, and mulcair tried to portray himself as prime-ministerial because the NDP was the presumptive front-runner at that point -- Muclair emphasized the balanced budget proposal, for instance. Also, the crowd at that rally was heavily tilted towards older people (grey haired), and about 3/4 of those present were seated.

Todays rally was held outdoors at the Jack Poole Plaza, right next to the new Vancouver Convention Centre (site of the Olympic flame during the Vancouver Olympics). This was a wise choice, both in terms of appearing like a much more invting event, and providing a great backdrop for Mulcair (Burrard Inlet and the north shore mountains). The crowd included a lot more younger people, and was much more energetic, and about 1/3 to 1/2 were seated.

Mulcair was much more animated at this rally than the last one, and his speech was more traditionally social democratic. There were some repeats from the earlier rally, such as repealing C-51 and launching a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. There were also some new topics not mentioned at the earlier rally, such as lifting seniors out of poverty. The main announcement was a health care strategy, which was a bit vague, but included a promise to address cuts to health care funding under the Conservatives, a promise to help reduce prescription drug costs, and a promise to create a national mental health strategy.

Mulcair only deviated from traditional social democratic themes during his boiler plate bit about himself -- how he grew up in a large family, learned to live witin his means, became a lawyer and then dedicated himself to public service. He didn't mention the balanced budget promise at all (not that he isn't still promising it).

One of my take-aways is that Mulcair's handlers have given him good advice on how to proceed with the campaign now that the NDP is no longer in the front-runner position. Or Mulcair may have simply improved his delivery in the month since the last rally.

My other take-away is that a broader swath of voters appear to be engaged with the NDP caimpaign now that Labour Day is over. Some of the younger demographic present at the rally may have been staff from the various Metro Vancouver campaigns, as campaign staff do tend to tilt towards a younger demographic (not-yet grey haired). I certainly know that Kennedy Stewart's campaign team (my riding) all went to the rally, and closed down their campaign office for part of the day (their staff look to be in their mid-20s to early 40s).

JKR

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I'm at work and had to miss it. Would have liked to have been there.

I was there. Mulcair spoke well. I was sitting in a place where I could see the TelePrompTer and I thought that Mulcair spoke best when he went off script and spoke with more "fire in his belly." I thought Mulcair was very "prime-ministerial." He spoke well about how the Conservatives are likely to reduce health care spending now that the previous health accord is coming to an end. Watching Mulcair walk through the crowd to his bus at the end of the event I felt admiration for a man who seems to not come naturally to glad-handing but seems intent on doing whatever it takes in order to establish a "progressive" government for Canada, a government that works for everyone, not just the elites and well off. An image of a Viking warrior came to mind.

Don Davies opened up the proceedings and Constance Barnes introduced Mulcair. Both Davies and Barnes spoke well. The candidates from the Lower Mainland were present. They made up for an impressive team that has a good chance of winning many ridings. Hopefully Vancouver and BC will help put the NDP over the top and see the party form government, which would probably be a minority at this point. I think the NDP would clearly win a majority If they could come up with a "killer issue" to run on. But that's obviously easier said than done. Many of the people I talked to and overheard speaking were talking about how the NDP and Liberals will hopefully cooperate after the election to oust Harper and the Conservatives. The current number one issue for people at the rally seemed to be ending Harper's reign.

I also thought the bright orange t-shirts were eye-catching and a good way to advertise the NDP and heighten momentum for the party. It works for pro-sports teams, so why shouldn't it work for political parties? During the Canucks Stanley Cup runs, you couldn't walk more than a block or so in Vancouver without seeing a Canucks jersey. It would be great if by mid-October many people were spotted everywhere in Canada wearing NDP orange-crush t-shirts.

Brachina

 I think the shift is in part due to critisms of his subdued at times proformance at the Macleans debate, his slight dip in the some polls, and this might surprise some people, but the rise of Sanders and Corbyn in America and the UK respectively. The shift in themes towards a more leftwing lingo and the massive crowd at the rally is right out of the Sanders playbook (maybe Corbyn too, does anyone know if Corbyn had massive rallies?)

mark_alfred

Great stuff.  The NDP is spending the week focusing on health care:

Tom Mulcair makes multiple pledges to improve health care
Announcements come 1 day after NDP promised $1.8 billion to improve seniors care

quizzical

i heard some stuff from some Liberal supporters and want to know if anyone knows if it is true? i don't believe it but am just checking facts.

was Mulcair on the team of lawyers which drew up NAFTA?

Policywonk

Stockholm wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Quebec has guaranteed power in the Senate,

What "power" does Quebec have in the Senate??? There are 24 so-called senators from Quebec all of whom are appointed for life by the Prime Minister of Canada and who are responsible only to the Prime Minister of Canada. They do not owe the premier of Quebec or the Quebec National Assembly or the people of Quebec ANYTHING. Does anyone try to say with a straight face that all the brain dead automatons that Harper has appointed to the senate from Quebec have EVER represented their province in any way???

The traditional position of the Government of Quebec has been that only the National Assembly of Quebec represents the interests of Quebec. The last thing any Quebec Government wants is for 24 Conservative hacks appointed by Harper to suddenl;y start trying to claim that they speak for Quebec.

Senators no longer serve for life; their retirement age is 75. The issue is not the power of the Senate per se or who they represent, but the impact the number of Senators in each province and territory has on the number of MPs. The only real argument in favour of the Senate is the difficulty in abolishing it, but that shouldn't stop the attempt.

bekayne

quizzical wrote:

i heard some stuff from some Liberal supporters and want to know if anyone knows if it is true? i don't believe it but am just checking facts.

was Mulcair on the team of lawyers which drew up NAFTA?

http://ipolitics.ca/2011/10/14/weve-got-to-stop-being-such-chumps-mulcai...

Although the party he seeks to lead has vigorously opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement in the past and former NDP Leader Jack Layton called for it to be re-opened, Mulcair says he supports NAFTA and helped draft some of its provisions on professional services.

“To some people, the NAFTA is an anathema,” he said. “The NAFTA is the first international agreement that had provisions dealing with the environment. You can’t throw out the baby with the bath water.”

 

quizzical

tks

mark_alfred

Fascinating and a bit surprising.  The Star's editorial on the NDP's fiscal plan was almost positive.  And it almost seemed critical of Trudeau.  Pigs may fly.  The NDP’s prudent bid for credibility: Editorial

The Toronto Star wrote:
But when all is said and done, Mulcair’s bid for fiscal credibility deserves a pass. The program may not exactly fire up NDP true believers, but it is likely to survive the sniff test with voters who are giving the NDP a serious look, but who hesitate to hand them a blank cheque.

[..]

There’s also no sign of the “austerity and cuts” that Trudeau has been suggesting would result from Mulcair’s budget-balancing act. Indeed, the focus now shifts to Trudeau and the Liberals, who have yet to fully cost out their own program with a similar document.

[..]

But rather than hike taxes to pay the full freight, as the NDP proposes to do, Trudeau is prepared to run a deficit of up to $10 billion for the next three years, hoping to grow the economy back into surplus down the road.

While the Liberals say they have already announced their broad “fiscal framework,” the public will be looking for more detail well before we go to the polls. The party promises a “comprehensive, complete” document, and it should be unveiled soon.

As untested as the NDP is at the federal level, Trudeau is also an untested quantity. Canadians now have two credible, progressive alternatives to the current government. The Liberals cannot afford to have a credibility gap opening up in the campaign’s final weeks.

It almost seems that their confidence in Boy Wonder is beginning to wane.

mark_alfred

Donald Sutherland supports Mulcair's NDP:  http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Arts/ID/2675593848/

mark_alfred

Mulcair is making an announcement about lowering the high cost of prescription drugs.  He's saying that his national plan (bulk purchasing?  I'm still not clear) to do this will help the provinces save three billion a year that can be put toward health care spending, and help make prescription drugs more affordable for people.  Anyway, he's pulling no punches against Justin Trudeau in this announcement.

mark_alfred

Here's an article about the above announcement:  Tom Mulcair commits $2.6B to support pharmacare plan

This is great stuff.  I'm very impressed with this campaign.  Universal child care, a good focus on health care with a plan to begin a move toward pharmacare, support for women's shelters, bringing the troops back and focussing our efforts more on peace, increasing the tax on corporations.  So much good stuff.

Charles

Yep, sounds like a campaign Thatcher would be proud of. The closet conservative that is Mulcair has finally been truly outed. 

 

mark_alfred wrote:

Here's an article about the above announcement:  Tom Mulcair commits $2.6B to support pharmacare plan

This is great stuff.  I'm very impressed with this campaign.  Universal child care, a good focus on health care with a plan to begin a move toward pharmacare, support for women's shelters, bringing the troops back and focussing our efforts more on peace, increasing the tax on corporations.  So much good stuff.

DLivings

I assume this is humour.  Wink   National pharmacare, universal child care, increased spending on health and wellness care, bringing troops home, increasing corporate taxes...   these phrases just don't fit in the same sentence as Thatcher!

 

 

 

Charles wrote:

Yep, sounds like a campaign Thatcher would be proud of. The closet conservative that is Mulcair has finally been truly outed. 

 

mark_alfred wrote:

Here's an article about the above announcement:  Tom Mulcair commits $2.6B to support pharmacare plan

This is great stuff.  I'm very impressed with this campaign.  Universal child care, a good focus on health care with a plan to begin a move toward pharmacare, support for women's shelters, bringing the troops back and focussing our efforts more on peace, increasing the tax on corporations.  So much good stuff.

Jacob Two-Two

Unless they promise to end the system of global capitalism by their next term, I won't believe they're anything but neoliberals.

DLivings

Kind of like the instant breakfast served up by MacDonalds.   I want it now!

felixr

With the polls suggesting the NDP is losing traction in Ontario, I think it is time for the NDP to start subtly playing the unity card. The NDP is the only party that has any significant support in Québec and it is the only party with support across the country. The NDP is running second or first in virtually every province- it is the only party that can lay claim to uniting Canada. Unity could be a good theme in a campaign polarized against Harper and where the vote is so badly split.

mark_alfred

Jobs, not unity.  The NDP needs to emphasize jobs to gain in Ontario.

Aristotleded24

felixr wrote:
With the polls suggesting the NDP is losing traction in Ontario, I think it is time for the NDP to start subtly playing the unity card. The NDP is the only party that has any significant support in Québec and it is the only party with support across the country. The NDP is running second or first in virtually every province- it is the only party that can lay claim to uniting Canada. Unity could be a good theme in a campaign polarized against Harper and where the vote is so badly split.

No. It's time for the NDP to start seriously eating Harper's lunch in Western Canada. There's a large enough number of seats there to put the NDP ahead regardless of how well the Liberals do in Ontario, and it would be a stark reminder that Ontario is not representative of Canada as a whole.

mark_alfred

Actually, that might be true.  Hold BC and Quebec while eating into the Cons in the Prairies, and let the Libs eat into the Cons in backward Ontario.

mark_alfred

Good article in Now Magazine (Toronto's entertainment weekly) by Michael Hollett:  Why the #imagineOct20th Dump Harper concerts are misguided

Quote:

I wish #imagineOct20th were designed to get out the youth vote for the party most likely to defend their interests. This is not the time to water down the vote with “anybody but Harper” sentiment. It’s time to consolidate the vote behind Canada’s true progressive party, one with a consistent history of taking courageous and forward-thinking stands on tough issues, like opposing Bill C-51 and the bombing campaign against ISIS in the Middle East. 

It’s time to see what this party of promise can actually do when given the keys to government. Well-intentioned calls for anybody but Harper could actually scuttle this historic opportunity.

terrytowel

felixr wrote:

With the polls suggesting the NDP is losing traction in Ontario, I think it is time for the NDP to start subtly playing the unity card. The NDP is the only party that has any significant support in Québec and it is the only party with support across the country. The NDP is running second or first in virtually every province- it is the only party that can lay claim to uniting Canada. Unity could be a good theme in a campaign polarized against Harper and where the vote is so badly split.

Latest polls show the NDP dropping 8 points in Quebec. They still lead though

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-losing-momentum-in-queb...

mark_alfred

A recent poll shows the Cons seriously leading both the NDP and Libs, to the point where the Cons might win a majority. 

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/09/24/conservatives-sw...

I think NR was right:  to win, it's all about jobs and income security.  All the social programs the NDP has announced have been great, but to win they need to emphasize that better income security and jobs will be obtained with an NDP government.  When the focus was on how Harper screwed up the economy along with all the corruption (enough, not working), that was good for a while.  But with things economically not that terrible, perhaps a new theme is needed.  And the performance review ad is a dud, I feel.  Too cute.  They need to get back to being super aggressive with the Cons.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Re: Donald Sutherland supporting Mulcair. I would hope so. Donald Sutherland was married to Shirley Douglas, daughter of Tommy Douglas. Keifer Sutherland is Tommy Douglas's grandson. I don't think you can get more NDP than that.

terrytowel

Misfit wrote:
Re: Donald Sutherland supporting Mulcair. I would hope so. Donald Sutherland was married to Shirley Douglas, daughter of Tommy Douglas. Keifer Sutherland is Tommy Douglas's grandson. I don't think you can get more NDP than that.

But then where is Shirley? She was front and centre in 2011. Unless you agree with Mulcair remarks when Trudeau had Martin & Chretchien by his side. That he was with the "oldies" tour.

jjuares

mark_alfred wrote:

A recent poll shows the Cons seriously leading both the NDP and Libs, to the point where the Cons might win a majority. 

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/09/24/conservatives-sw...

I think NR was right:  to win, it's all about jobs and income security.  All the social programs the NDP has announced have been great, but to win they need to emphasize that better income security and jobs will be obtained with an NDP government.  When the focus was on how Harper screwed up the economy along with all the corruption (enough, not working), that was good for a while.  But with things economically not that terrible, perhaps a new theme is needed.  And the performance review ad is a dud, I feel.  Too cute.  They need to get back to being super aggressive with the Cons.


I am convinced this poll is an outlier. Both the NDP and Liberal vote has collapsed?

Misfit Misfit's picture

Terry, I was commenting on a post from a week ago. Donald Sutherland and Keifer Sutherland were on the red carpet at the TIFF promoting their movie. There is no comparison between NDP supporters promoting a movie at the TIFF and adding that they support Mulcair to the media vs Trudeau personally bringing out Cretien and Martin for the campaign.

terrytowel

Misfit wrote:
Terry, I was commenting on a post from a week ago. Donald Sutherland and Keifer Sutherland were on the red carpet at the TIFF promoting their movie. There is no comparison between NDP supporters promoting a movie at the TIFF and adding that they support Mulcair to the media vs Trudeau personally bringing out Cretien and Martin for the campaign.

And what if Mulcair brings out Ed Broadbent, Shirley Douglas and Alexa McDonough. Would you say he was travelling with the "oldies" tour like Trudeau?

Misfit Misfit's picture

How you convolute every conversation into something totally different is beyond childish. I commented on a post from a week ago to add some interest and context for those who were interested and now you have cork screwed it into something else. I'm bowing out.

quizzical

fkn Liberals just fabricate and twist.

if i had continued past the Liberals C51 support to think i was voting Liberal i would never now. the bs rollling out of Liberals mouths and those pretending they're NDP has turned me right the fk around.

could never vote for such lying sacks of shit. and some even note how "honourable" they believe themselves to be while pushing their bs fabrications.

Pages