Trudeau campaign 2015 Part 3 - August 4th

619 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Why does Justin Trudeau hate workers? Why did the LPC spend the day attacking the idea of $15.00. Surely, they've got a better argument then the NDP is being decpetive because it only affects a small number of people? They seriously don't think that's any kind of an argument. Just one more reasoon why no one in their right mind votes Liberal. They hate workers; they're neo-cons!

I guess you missed this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/05/ndp-15-minimum-wage-pledge-mulca...

On the streets of Toronto, Canadians of all ages were surprised to discover the NDP’s campaign promise was missing some important details.

Food truck worker Patrick McCormack said he thought the NDP’s $15/hr proposal meant that “that if you are working a job, regardless of what it is, you would be getting paid $15 an hour for that job.”

The NDP plan applies only to federally regulated industries not to service workers like himself.

“I would say it [the NDP ad] is probably a little bit unfair. I don’t think it is the coolest thing ever,” he said.

Gary Wright thought the NDP’s ad meant the party would be bumping up the minimum wage to $15 an hour across the country.

“It is definitely misleading. They should add the bit about federal employees,” he said after learning that his initial impression was wrong.

Waitress Katie Evans also described the NDP ad as misleading. She thought it meant people like her would be getting a salary boost.

“I’m an NDP supporter, [but] they need to make it clear what they are advocating,” said Naomi Garber. “I would have thought it was a minimum wage, which meant that anybody who gives a wage has to pay a minimum of $15 an hour.

“I would have been wrong.”

A young man soliciting funds at the corner of the street for a charitable group said he was “pretty pissed” that his impression of the ad wasn’t accurate.

People quite natually assume that minimum wage applies to everyone. When they find out otherwise they feel mislead. It reads as a huckster move.

Stockholm

So if increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour affects such a small number of people - why does Trudeau oppose it?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

What Stockhold said! Is it because the Federal Wage is a trend setter? You are right how dare the Federal Government try to use its moral sausion to force bosses to pay a fair wage? Those sinster Socialists!

Pondering

Stockholm wrote:

So if increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour affects such a small number of people - why does Trudeau oppose it?

Who says he opposes it?

socialdemocrati...

To be fair, the Liberal Party actually voted for an NDP motion to reinstate the Federal Minimum Wage at $15.

Of course, Justin Trudeau didn't show up to that vote.

Which wouldn't be so much of a problem... except he's now attacking that proposal. Is he hoping that a no-show of the vote means that he can dance around whether or not he actually thinks it's a good idea?

 

JeffWells

I don't understand the Liberal campaign, and I hope they keep it up. It looks total bush league.

"Real Change" - yeah, I want that. So I would vote Liberal, why? The JUSTIN branding. What's "Justin" without "Trudeau"? They can hardly fault Harper for adopting it. And the photo op this morning in the boxing ring. It looks both arrogant and a pathetic callback to his "finest hour." Thing is, he's also a drama teacher. He needs to work on his histrionics, not his left-feint, right hook.

And let's not even mention - no; let's - that they can't even get the font and kerning right on their own campaign bus.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/emmaloop/this-liberal-bus-fail-has-people-making...

Pondering

JeffWells wrote:

I don't understand the Liberal campaign, and I hope they keep it up. It looks total bush league.

"Real Change" - yeah, I want that. So I would vote Liberal, why? The JUSTIN branding. What's "Justin" without "Trudeau"? They can hardly fault Harper for adopting it. And the photo op this morning in the boxing ring. It looks both arrogant and a pathetic callback to his "finest hour." Thing is, he's also a drama teacher. He needs to work on his histrionics, not his left-feint, right hook.

And let's not even mention - no; let's - that they can't even get the font and kerning right on their own campaign bus.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/emmaloop/this-liberal-bus-fail-has-people-making...

Trudeau using his first name in campaign literature doesn't absolve the Conservatives from using basic rules of courtesy when addressing him. I urge them to continue using "Justin" because people can see that it is a cheap putdown. Disingenuous excuses won't fool anyone.

Please do focus on the kerning on his campaign bus. The more petty the attacks and insults the better it is for Trudeau. For the most part I think Trudeau's plan is working as intended if a little too well. He prefers being the underdog and being underestimated. Having been painted so convincingly as a lightweight will be to his benefit in this fight as it was in his fight against Brazeau.

Pondering

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

To be fair, the Liberal Party actually voted for an NDP motion to reinstate the Federal Minimum Wage at $15.

Of course, Justin Trudeau didn't show up to that vote.

Which wouldn't be so much of a problem... except he's now attacking that proposal. Is he hoping that a no-show of the vote means that he can dance around whether or not he actually thinks it's a good idea?

He isn't attacking the proposal. He is critical of the misleading manner in which it has been rolled out which is entirely different. His accusation seems to be substanciated by people on the street being interviewed who thought it was for everyone. It was obvious to me from day 1 that people would assume it meant for everyone. The NDP was using the wording "national minimum wage" and "federal minimum wage" as though that clarifies anything. Provincial minimum wages apply to everyone in the province therefore logically a federal minimum wage should apply to everyone in the country.

It appears the NDP plan is to suggest they were being accurate and it's not their fault if voters misunderstood. I doubt voters will agree.

mark_alfred

Yeah, I don't see the big deal behind the boxing ring shot.  Most leaders engage in some sort of workout or physical fitness while on the campaign trail to stay sharp, and if boxing Trudeau's thing, then so be it.

mark_alfred

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

To be fair, the Liberal Party actually voted for an NDP motion to reinstate the Federal Minimum Wage at $15.

Of course, Justin Trudeau didn't show up to that vote.

Which wouldn't be so much of a problem... except he's now attacking that proposal. Is he hoping that a no-show of the vote means that he can dance around whether or not he actually thinks it's a good idea?

 

That's just weird.

socialdemocrati...

What's misleading about this?

Mulcair says although the number of workers who would benefit is small -- overall federally regulated full and part-time workers make up only about six per cent of the Canadian workforce -- raising their wage will pressure the provinces to do more.

"This leadership we are showing today by talking about a living wage -- a $15-an-hour wage -- will have positive repercussions on the provinces," he said.

The New Democrats made a similar promise before the last two federal elections.

Mulcair is always out there giving details. He's been talking the same promises for YEARS. What else is he supposed to do?

Compare that to Trudeau's evasiveness on Bill C-51, where he always promises "more details later".

If this is the new line of attack from the Trudeau campaign, can we expect them to give Mulcair a chance to describe the details in the debate tonight? Or is the campaign going to wait until Monday, frame it as an attack, and wait a few hours before Mulcair even has a chance to defend it?

mark_alfred

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Mulcair is always out there giving details. He's been talking the same promises for YEARS. What else is he supposed to do?

Compare that to Trudeau's evasiveness on Bill C-51, where he always promises "more details later".

Yeah.  I'm not holding my breath waiting for that. 

Pondering

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

What's misleading about this?

Mulcair says although the number of workers who would benefit is small -- overall federally regulated full and part-time workers make up only about six per cent of the Canadian workforce -- raising their wage will pressure the provinces to do more.

"This leadership we are showing today by talking about a living wage -- a $15-an-hour wage -- will have positive repercussions on the provinces," he said.

The New Democrats made a similar promise before the last two federal elections.

Mulcair is always out there giving details. He's been talking the same promises for YEARS. What else is he supposed to do?

Not making a minor measure a primary platform item is one idea but it is up to Mulcair to figure it out not me. It doesn't matter what we say one way or another. If people don't feel mislead nothing I say will change their minds. If people are mislead they will blame the NDP. Telling people it's their own fault for not knowing what federal minimum wage means or not reading the fine print will only cause them to mistrust the NDP.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Compare that to Trudeau's evasiveness on Bill C-51, where he always promises "more details later".

There is nothing misleading about that unless he doesn't release the details before the election and even then it is not misleading.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

If this is the new line of attack from the Trudeau campaign, can we expect them to give Mulcair a chance to describe the details in the debate tonight? Or is the campaign going to wait until Monday, frame it as an attack, and wait a few hours before Mulcair even has a chance to defend it?

Mulcair will get his chance. There is nothing unfair about Trudeau saying it's misleading people. Either he is right or he is wrong. If he is wrong people will reject his accusation and judge him for making it. From the interviews with people on the street I think he is right.

socialdemocrati...

Again, there are lots of areas where the voters are confused or misinformed. Why is it that people are attacking mulcair instead of Trudeau?

Mulcair is the one repeating policies and explaining them at every campaign stop, items that he's been talking about for years and that have been NDP policy for even longer. Trudeau is the one asking for more time and promising more details later.

So why? The two reasons are (1) the same NDP policies that have been around for years are now on the verge of being implemented while the Liberals are on the verge of third place again, and (2) the Liberals have (former) Liberal employees like Althia Raj who went from parliament hill to a job giving "fair and balanced" news coverage.

I ain't complaining. It's nothing new. But don't act like Liberal double standards are clean politics.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/scott-piatkowski/2015/08/liberals-try-to...

Quote in part from this article, "If protections offered by the federal minimum wage were and are so insignificant, why did they abolish it?

Well? Why do Liberal party supporters, and their leader hate working men and women so much that they would lie about the positive effect raising the Federal Minimum Wage on the lives of ordinary people trying to live. Why do Liberal supporters so think the most imortant thing is to distract from a discussion about the minimum wage to one abouot what a contemptible, lying cur Mulcair is. Why must they try and confuse people in the name of improving the plight of the LPC?

CLEARLY, THE ONLY THIING LiBS and their supporters care about is tearing down the NDP, NOT, stopping Harper?

mark_alfred

Yeah, Liberals are campaigning against a raise to the federal minimum wage and campaigning against a raise to corporate taxes.  And thus they are campaigning against the NDP who believe in raising corporate taxes and believe in raising the federal minimum wage.  The Trudeau campaign -- something that I hope will be rejected by people.

Pondering

So do tell me why the NDP agreed to abolish the Federal minimum wage but is dishonestly implying that they weren't involved.

www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/09/16/delicate_politics_mark_tom_mulcai....

Canada used to have a separate federal minimum wage. But in 1996, the then Liberal government, with the support of the NDP, abolished it.

The NDP are hypocrites. Trudeau has nothing against a Federal minimum wage he just wants Canadians to know how few workers it applies to because anyone with half a brain knows that Canadians aren't aware that a federal or national minimum wage would not apply to everyone.

It may be a good thing but measures that apply to such a small percentage of the population are generally not central platform planks. Mulcair is screwed on this one because the first time people hear of it they think it applies to everyone because people don't pay attention to the details. When they find out otherwise they will feel mislead just like the random people on the street.

Trudeau is going to make sure people know it so I hope it doesn't disappear from the NDP's list of major platform planks.

terrytowel

mark_alfred wrote:

Yeah, I don't see the big deal behind the boxing ring shot.  Most leaders engage in some sort of workout or physical fitness while on the campaign trail to stay sharp, and if boxing Trudeau's thing, then so be it.

The Cons would critize Trudeau for just walking down the street.

Pondering

I love this link:

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/08/07/mulcair-lays-out-conditions-...

TORONTO — NDP leader Tom Mulcair says he's thrilled with his performance in his first national election debate — which is good news for him as it could end up being his only English debate during the entire 11-week campaign....

"But it goes without saying that since Stephen Harper is the person I'm looking to defeat and replace I'll take part in debates where he's present. Otherwise it wouldn't make much sense, would it?"....

Mulcair is assuming that the Liberals are not part of the contest but that is not true of Canadians. A lot of Mulcair's new support comes from people who do consider voting Liberal.  I doubt they will appreciate their votes being taken for granted to the point where Mulcair thinks he doesn't need to bother with debating Trudeau. Mulcair's attitude of disrespect echos Harper. For a party who has never won federally it is hubris.

He called it a "worthwhile exercise" and said he looked forward to several more but insisted there should also be an equal number of debates in English and French.

"There are two official languages in this country and one of those languages is not more equal than the other," he said at an early-morning event in Toronto.

"As prime minister, I'm going to make sure that the reality and equality of our official languages is understood, and I have to start sending a clear signal now."

The only leaders' debate confirmed so far in French is scheduled for Oct. 2.....

"It was my first debate and I quite enjoyed the experience and I'm looking forward to more."

 Harper isn't going to agree to more debates in French. He has no need to. The seats he will win in Quebec are few and can be held by the one debate on TVA.

If Mulcair keeps his word, which I doubt, the Macleans debate and the TVA debate will be the only ones he participates in.

In September Mulcair will miss the Globe and Mail debate between Harper and Trudeau and the debate on Women's Issues with Trudeau and May. He will also miss the not yet scheduled Munk debate on foreign policy with Harper and Trudeau.

In October, 3 weeks before the election, Mulcair will participate in a French debate while refusing to participate in the consortium debates on the 6th and 7th.

So the line-up is:

Macleans debate - Mulcair, Harper, Trudeau, May

Globe and Mail debate on the economy - Harper, Trudeau

Women's issues debate - Trudeau, May

Munk debate of foreign policy - Harper, Trudeau

French TVA debate - Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau, Duceppe

French Consortium Debate - Duceppe, Trudeau, May

English Consortium Debate - Trudeau, May

Trudeau will attend 6 debates (2 in French) and Mulcair will attend 2 debates, (the English one of which is over, so good thing Mulcair was thrilled with his own performance).

In October, the only debate Mulcair will be involved in will be in French.

Mulcair's excuse for skipping all the other debates will be that Harper isn't attending the only other French debate therefore he won't go either so he can't accept any more English debates.

That'll go over well. That won't seem at all like pandering to separatists by the ROC. (snicker)

Not that it will benefit him in Quebec. In Quebec they will see Trudeau face off against Duceppe in 2 debates with Mulcair refusing to participate in the second French debate because Harper won't be there.

Thank-you NDP.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau has nothing against a Federal minimum wage he just wants Canadians to know how few workers it applies to because anyone with half a brain knows that Canadians aren't aware that a federal or national minimum wage would not apply to everyone.

Is Trudeau also promising to raise the federal minimum wage like the NDP is?  Do you yourself approve of raising the federal minimum wage to $15 hour?

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering, your Toronto Star news article by Tom Walkom in post #68 answers your question about the NDP supporting the abolition of the federal minimum wage in 1996. According to your article, the federal minimum wage was lower than most province's minimum wages at that time. Therefore, the NDP supported the Liberals in dropping the federal minimum wage and having these federal regulated employees get the minimum wage that was set by the province the lived in. That way these workers would get a RAISE IN PAY to equal the hourly rates of other minimum wage earners in their province. I was not there, but I do suspect that the NDP would have argued vigorously for a raise in the federal minimum wage. However, since they were not the governing party and since the elimination of the federal minimum wage represented a boost to the incomes of these workers anyway, I can easily understand why they voted in favour of this elimination even though a minimum wage increase would have been more preferable from their standpoint.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau has nothing against a Federal minimum wage he just wants Canadians to know how few workers it applies to because anyone with half a brain knows that Canadians aren't aware that a federal or national minimum wage would not apply to everyone.

Is Trudeau also promising to raise the federal minimum wage like the NDP is?  Do you yourself approve of raising the federal minimum wage to $15 hour?

As far as I know Trudeau isn't planning it although I read somewhere that he did vote in favor of it when the NDP proposed it.

Yes I do approve of raising the federal minimum wage like the NDP is but I don't consider it a central campaign issue on the level of say, a national daycare program which does warrant being a central plank.

Mulcair giving Quebec alone (or all provinces) automatic opt-out rights from all federal programs that touch on provincial jurisdictions is a far more important measure and yet Mulcair and the NDP minimizes it and pretend it shouldn't even be discussed. That measure would allow Quebec to opt out of medicare and possibly UIC.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/scott-piatkowski/2015/08/liberals-try-to...

Quote in part from this article, "If protections offered by the federal minimum wage were and are so insignificant, why did they abolish it?

You tell me seeing as the NDP voted to abolish the Federal minimum wage.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Well? Why do Liberal party supporters, and their leader hate working men and women so much that they would lie about the positive effect raising the Federal Minimum Wage on the lives of ordinary people trying to live. Why do Liberal supporters so think the most imortant thing is to distract from a discussion about the minimum wage to one abouot what a contemptible, lying cur Mulcair is. Why must they try and confuse people in the name of improving the plight of the LPC?

CLEARLY, THE ONLY THIING LiBS and their supporters care about is tearing down the NDP, NOT, stopping Harper?

I missed the lie. What did the Liberals say that isn't true?

Pondering

Misfit wrote:
Pondering, your Toronto Star news article by Tom Walkom in post #68 answers your question about the NDP supporting the abolition of the federal minimum wage in 1996. According to your article, the federal minimum wage was lower than most province's minimum wages at that time. Therefore, the NDP supported the Liberals in dropping the federal minimum wage and having these federal regulated employees get the minimum wage that was set by the province the lived in. That way these workers would get a RAISE IN PAY to equal the hourly rates of other minimum wage earners in their province.

But the NDP is attacking the Liberals for abolishing it in 1996 when the NDP also voted to abolish it. That is dishonest and it is deliberate. It seems the NDP doesn't think they can win if they stick to the truth.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

OK, he spoke from the heart. He spoke from the heart when he voted fo C51 because he didm't want to be attacked by Harper, spoke from the heart when he voted for S7, a bill that arbitrarily takes away civil rights when someone is banded a "Terrorist", and spoke from when he voted fo FIPA, a trade agreement that puts the rights of Corporations ahead of Canadians. His dad the same thing, spoke fromt the heart at the SAME time he raised inteest rates to econonomy crushing, depression causing economic catastrophe, and wage controls, that screwed working people in the name of slaying inflation. That is what Liberls actually DO, in power. I can't believe it, more Trudeaumania. Yeah, it doens't matter what he actually does, becaus he talks so nice. Ad in spite of all of it, Viewers STILL thought Mulcari was the better potential Prime Minister. So, post away all you want. Tom resonated in the way Canadians want, a real leader who will act for Candians and not for Corporations or spy agences and police that want to take away our rights in the names of security, Oh and also spoke from the heart when he attacked the NDP for proposing an increase in the Federal Minimum wage. Why would he do that? Why does he oposed raising Corprate tax rates. Not thanks, I don't want to exchange nasty Harper with nice Harper. He votes WITH Harper; TOM, DOESN'T!Like · Reply · Just now 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Here is what Labour thinks of Le Dauphin, the LPC, and the shills that support it, http://criticalperspectives.org/2015/08/09/trudeaus-15-minimum-wage-jabs...

quizzical

thanks arthur good and easy read

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

RT "@kinsellawarren: RT @stephen_taylor: Justin Trudeau goes negative, releases attack ad. He said he never would. https://youtu.be/qA64vnPfQgY

Does anyone want to suggest the Libs see Harper as the enemy still? Seriously? I guess its better to elect Harper then Tom, as far as Justin and the Liberals are concerned. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Amazing, LPC supporters say the anti NDP ad is OK because it "isn't an ad like Harpers". That is just plain, sadly, pathetic!

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Also, Arthur, if this ad is the best attack the Libs can come up with, Mulcair has nothing to worry about. Nobody will be influenced by this silly ad.

lagatta

Pondering, do you really want them to send in the troops?

There is very little appetite for a referendum here nowadays, and independence is not a priority issue for most QuébécoisEs (not "separatism" - only people who favour national oppression say that). Moreover Mulcair has always been a strong federalist.

The right to self-determination is a matter of democracy, not of preferring independence for Québec or for any other nation within the Canadian state. One can be committed to a happy marriage and recognize the right to divorce. The only other alternative to that is military violence.

Trudeau has been making rather vile comments denying that there are any threats to the French language in Québec. I sure as hell won't vote Bloc with former trade-unionist Gilles Duceppe in tandem with the union-busting slime PKP. But there has been a definite erosion in the status of French here, in particular in Montréal, our major city.  Trudeau is practically advocating a regression to a bilingual Québec. (And I speak several languages, three of them fluently, obviously including English as well as French). Learning languages is great. National oppression sucks.

Pondering

lagatta wrote:
Pondering, do you really want them to send in the troops? 

I doubt there will ever be another referendum and I don't see why we would need to "send in the troops". That's just fear-monguering. If it came down to a battle it would be economic not physical. Our federation is a legal contract and has always been voluntary. Quebec chose to create Canada with the other provinces and didn't exist with its current borders prior to Confederation. A great deal of the territory of Quebec is indigenous lands whose people have treaties with Canada and are very unlikely to want to secede with Quebec. Montreal is large enough to be a city state so does it too have the right to self-determination?

If ever there were a need to send in troops it would be to protect citizens of Quebec and Canada from being attacked by separatists who can't take a democratic no for an answer. Slightly more cheating by separatists would have had Parizeau declaring "independence" and setting up a thinly veiled tin-pot dictatorship to better exploit Quebecers.

lagatta wrote:
There is very little appetite for a referendum here nowadays, and independence is not a priority issue for most QuébécoisEs (not "separatism" - only people who favour national oppression say that).

Quebec already has independence. Quebec independently chose to continue being a founding member of Canada. The majority of Quebecers do not want to give up their Canadian citizenship.

I agree there is little appetite for a referendum so why is the NDP planning on legislation to give Quebec what it isn't asking for? How many times do we have to say "no"? The Sherbrooke declaration isn't going to just backfire in Canada it will in Quebec too.

lagatta wrote:
The right to self-determination is a matter of democracy, not of preferring independence for Québec or for any other nation within the Canadian state. One can be committed to a happy marriage and recognize the right to divorce. The only other alternative to that is military violence. 

Yes it is a matter of democracy and Quebec has self-determination, more so than any other province. How about the right not to get divorced? How about the rights of Quebecers to the benefits of being a province of Canada? I don't want Quebec opting out of UIC and Medicare or a future Pharmacare or a National Daycare program. I don't appreciate the NDP's push for asymmetrical federalism. The only government more corrupt than our federal government is our provincial government. At least by having two levels one is a small check on the other.

lagatta wrote:
Trudeau has been making rather vile comments denying that there are any threats to the French language in Québec. I sure as hell won't vote Bloc with former trade-unionist Gilles Duceppe in tandem with the union-busting slime PKP. But there has been a definite erosion in the status of French here, in particular in Montréal, our major city.

Forcing all immigrants into French schools and choosing immigrants from French countries was needed to preserve French in Montreal and to make it the primary language of work. An unintended consequence was French parents choosing to leave the city because they want their children immersed in Quebecois culture as well as language.

At some point you have to respect the right of people to choose the language they speak as well as the religion they follow. Complaining about the language people speak in their homes is going way too far. Separatists don't just reject English they reject multiculturalism.

lagatta wrote:
Trudeau is practically advocating a regression to a bilingual Québec. (And I speak several languages, three of them fluently, obviously including English as well as French). Learning languages is great. National oppression sucks.

I have heard absolutely nothing suggesting that Trudeau is pushing bilingualism in Quebec. All forms of oppression suck. L'office de la langue française is scraping the barrel looking for offences. Trying to prevent people from learning or speaking English is oppression too. What about the rights of a town to choose to serve citizens in English as well as French? It is ridiculous that it is illegal unless a town can maintain official bilingual status. That isn't freedom or "independence". Why would you support a regime in which a language is actively suppressed?

As far as I can tell the majority of Quebecers are good with the status quo. It is telling that the most unilingual least multicultural areas of Quebec are the most worried about an English invasion. They are becoming even more worried about the Muslim invasion and the imposition of Sharia law in Quebec. That's the thing about stoking fear of and resentment against people based on language, culture or religion. You never know where it is going to end.

The Quiet Revolution was about power and exploitation not language. Substituting more French oligarchs for English oligarchs is not a solution.

There is absolutely nothing standing in the way of Quebec maintaining it's distinct language and culture and nothing preventing Quebec from becoming an independent country if the people of Quebec desire it. The Sherbrooke Delclaration is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It's legislation the NDP intends to pass if elected therefore it is pertinent in both French and English.

lagatta

There is no point in discussing with you if you see yourself in the role of "us" sending in the troops.

No, I don't think that is why some Québécois-de-souche parents move off-island. It is the same carcentric, ecocidal madness as many others in North America. And it has to be stopped, as it means planetary death.

I don't get the impression that you are much in touch with progressive movements here. I'm not a "nationalist" for any nation, but I'm very much against national oppression or North American sprawlish idiocy.

Pondering

lagatta wrote:

There is no point in discussing with you if you see yourself in the role of "us" sending in the troops.

No, I don't think that is why some Québécois-de-souche parents move off-island. It is the same carcentric, ecocidal madness as many others in North America. And it has to be stopped, as it means planetary death.

I don't get the impression that you are much in touch with progressive movements here. I'm not a "nationalist" for any nation, but I'm very much against national oppression or North American sprawlish idiocy.

The troops belong to Quebec as much as they do any other province and as I noted they wouldn't be used anyway just like troops were not required in Greece.

I don't get the impression that you are much in touch with regular people that aren't particularly into politics progressive or otherwise. Although I step up for various causes I am not part of any movements in Quebec or elsewhere. As far as I can tell oligarchs of all languages have the same goals. Language is just another tool to divide us.

lagatta

You think it is a GOOD thing not to be involved in social movements?

I sure as  hell meet so-called ordinary people who aren't particularly progressive or informed, for example in the tenants' association. But we try to educate them, and also learn from their life experiences. We don't ask tenants who they vote for or whether they support gay or Indigenous rights.

Go back to being a static lump, not involved in social movements, not useful in any way to social progress. Why the F are you contributing to what was founded as a progressive alternative to corporate media, coming out of the countersummit at Québec 2001?

Or supporting pretty-boy Justin, who just wants to grind us down, with better manners than Stevie?

Mulcair is bad enough...

Jacob Two-Two

So Pondering has been spending months telling us how this gaffe won't hurt Justin, and that mistake won't hurt Justin, and this attack on Justin will backfire on his opponents, and that criticism will only drive voters away from the ones criticising. In the midst of this incessent refrain of invulnerable Justin and his hapless rivals who are only hurting themselves... the Liberal party has fallen from a strong first to a clear third.

You need to wake up and smell the overreaching dilettante, Pondering. You can't keep telling us that nothing hurts Justin when he is so obviously being hurt. I mean, not if you want to be taken seriously, but I have to admit that you don't seem to prioritise that very highly.

mark_alfred

lagatta wrote:

Go back to being a static lump, not involved in social movements, not useful in any way to social progress. Why the F are you contributing to what was founded as a progressive alternative to corporate media, coming out of the countersummit at Québec 2001?

Or supporting pretty-boy Justin, who just wants to grind us down, with better manners than Stevie?

Good questions.  But anyway, regarding Quebec 2001, I was there, tear gas and all.  Good times.

Pondering

lagatta wrote:
You think it is a GOOD thing not to be involved in social movements? 

I don't think it makes someone a bad person to be uncomfortable with organized groups.

lagatta wrote:
I sure as  hell meet so-called ordinary people who aren't particularly progressive or informed, for example in the tenants' association. But we try to educate them, and also learn from their life experiences. We don't ask tenants who they vote for or whether they support gay or Indigenous rights. 

There is a difference between learning from someone versus accepting their priorities and the different way in which they are informed.

lagatta wrote:
Go back to being a static lump, not involved in social movements, not useful in any way to social progress. Why the F are you contributing to what was founded as a progressive alternative to corporate media, coming out of the countersummit at Québec 2001? 

I am a bit of a recluse by choice. I find it very stressful to be around strangers. That doesn't make me a static lump. I still attend large demonstrations. I do what I can to help people that I know in the ways that I am able which happens to be in the traditional areas of child and elder-care.

lagatta wrote:
  Or supporting pretty-boy Justin, who just wants to grind us down, with better manners than Stevie?

Mulcair is bad enough...

I consider Mulcair and Trudeau pretty even. I don't believe that Trudeau wants to grind us down. I think he is sincere if misguided on some issues. In my opinion Trudeau is in the best position to make positive concrete changes over the span of the next administration which will probably be no more than 2 years, 4 at the most.

We are on opposite sides of the Sherbrooke Declaration and the independence movement so it is inevidable that we won't agree on which of the two parties should form government. I want stronger federal programs that apply from coast to coast to coast. Asymmetrical federalism is a threat to the kind of Canada I want in which we are more tightly bound through national programs that allow us to move freely throughout the country.

As much as you don't trust Trudeau I don't trust Mulcair.

lagatta

I think that to be "opposite sides of the Sherbrooke Declaration and the independence movement" from your prison-house of nations viewpoint, I'd have to be a raving ethnic nationalist like Mario Beaulieu. I support self-determination for Indigenous nations as well, which is hardly the outlook of such "blueshirts". And I'd certainly have to vote Bloc, not for a federalist party such as the NDP.

When one is involved in social movements, one's comrades don't remain "strangers". Some become close friends. Obviously not all or even most of them, and there are some one inevitably can't stand, but that is no different from biological family, co-workers, neighbours or other groups one associates with out of proximity or choice.

I'm rather an introvert myself, and prefer working at home if I can do it. But non-involvement means being pushed around by others and a lack of "self-determination" in one's own life.

 

 

 

mark_alfred

Trudeau is making an announcement on policy regarding First Nations education.  link

ETA:  Proposes to close the funding gap.  So, if I heard right, immediate injection of $500M, followed by $750M per year for four years for primary schools.  $50M per year for secondary schools.

Pondering

Trudeau is also pledging to scrap the governing Conservatives' stalled First Nations education act and re-engage on the 2005 Kelowna Accord as part of a broad multilateral discussion with indigenous peoples on ways to improve their quality of life.

"First Nation students are falling behind in reading, writing, and numeracy, and less than half of all First Nations students on reserves graduate from high school,'' Trudeau told supporters at a downtown Saskatoon hotel.

"Canadians know that that's just not right.''

....

Trudeau said a Liberal government would budget:

  • $515 million per year over four years in core annual funding for First Nations K-12 education, rising to over $750 million per year by the end of the first mandate.
  • $500 million over three years for First Nations education infrastructure.
  • $50 million for the post-secondary student support program, which provides financial assistance to Indigenous students who attend post-secondary schools.

The Assembly of First Nations welcomed Trudeau's announcement, calling it "a substantive plan for action."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/13/trudeau-pledges-millions-for-fir...

Pondering

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-heart-economy-care-bears-1.3190219

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau became the butt of a few internet jokes after saying he wants to grow Canada's economy "from the heart outwards" during a campaign event in Regina on Wednesday. 

"We're proposing a strong and real plan, one that invests in the middle class, so we can grow the economy, not from the top down, the way Mr. Harper wants to, but from the heart outwards. That's what Canada has always done well," Trudeau said.

The remarks prompted many to ask just what growing an economy "from the heart outwards" actually means.

I assumed this was a negative at first but it might not be if you scroll farther down and read the more positive comments.

Pondering

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/trudeau-playing-with-t...

Analysis Trudeau playing with Tories? Grit leader may benefit from pummelling

In the current election campaign, some Conservatives are only too aware they may be unwittingly playing into Trudeau's hands. One senior Tory source said that for some time, it has been thought Trudeau actually prefers to play the underdog in this election. It's a position, the source said, that allows him to exceed voter expectations with a minimum of effort....

However, early trends suggest Trudeau's role as the Conservative whipping boy, along with his third-place positioning, may be exactly what he wants at this stage of the campaign.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/trudeau-playing-with-t...

Analysis Trudeau playing with Tories? Grit leader may benefit from pummelling

In the current election campaign, some Conservatives are only too aware they may be unwittingly playing into Trudeau's hands. One senior Tory source said that for some time, it has been thought Trudeau actually prefers to play the underdog in this election. It's a position, the source said, that allows him to exceed voter expectations with a minimum of effort....

However, early trends suggest Trudeau's role as the Conservative whipping boy, along with his third-place positioning, may be exactly what he wants at this stage of the campaign.

 

Well, when your ship is taking on water, the pumps are out, and torpedos are still hitting it, you'll grasp at anything. I'd say I'd be tempted as the Captain to issue the command "abandon ship, abandon ship; all hands, abandon ship"! Oh, and don't forget your life jackets!

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/trudeau-playing-with-t...

Analysis Trudeau playing with Tories? Grit leader may benefit from pummelling

In the current election campaign, some Conservatives are only too aware they may be unwittingly playing into Trudeau's hands. One senior Tory source said that for some time, it has been thought Trudeau actually prefers to play the underdog in this election. It's a position, the source said, that allows him to exceed voter expectations with a minimum of effort....

However, early trends suggest Trudeau's role as the Conservative whipping boy, along with his third-place positioning, may be exactly what he wants at this stage of the campaign.

 

That Dan Lett who wrote the article probably has a score of 10 on the Standard Gullibility Scale. No politician ever wants to be in any position other than first, regardless of what his/her spin doctors say. You can take it to the bank that both Justin and Gerald would much rather be in first place right now, but they got lemons, so they are trying to make lemonade.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Dan Lett is a Tory. This is simply mischief on his part. That's pretty comical, a Liberal quoting a Tory anti-NDP hit piece. HA!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/a-coalition-why-trudeau-has... don't know what's more entertaining, Ibbitson confirming what most New Dems think of the Libs and know to be true, or all the whining from LPC partisans screaming because Ibitson lays out so clearly how Trudeau really does equal harper. Love it!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/08/20/would-liberals-prop-up-a-har...

Someone should ask him. All these "progressives" saying vote Liberal should get to know whether this guy would do this. He gets away with flippant pretty boy politicis without anyone trying to hold him to account. Step up Justin! Tell us you clown!

Pondering

We have just entered round 2. Round 3 will only begin after labour day and even then just barely. The fight ends on October 19th.

All the pundits acknowledge that the majority of voters will only make up their minds in the last two weeks before the election, many on the very day of the election.

Pollsters ask, if the election were tomorrow who would you vote for? The problem is the election isn't tomorrow therefore people haven't bothered to pay attention and the platforms aren't out. The answers have very little bearing on what voters will decide after they have become more familiar with what's on offer. Polls are answered flippantly.

Pundits aren't even sure whether or not the Duffy affair will impact the Conservatives because the hearings will end in August and not resume until November.

The NDP are certainly in fine shape right now. We will see if that holds until election day.

Pondering

The generational difference between Trudeau and the others will show during the campaign in moments like these.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/justin-trudeau-to-protesters-take-a-minute...

versus

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/21/mulcair-energy-east-hecklers-fir...

It isn't just what was said, listen to the tone of voice used by both. While it is true the Mulcair protesters did interrupt him talking about First Nations, the future of the planet and mankind is a pretty important topic too and it very much involves First Nations who object to Energy East and other projects that threaten the land.

Mulcair reacted with anger and attacked the protesters seeking to humiliate them and had security haul them out.

Trudeau reacted by thinking about what the protesters wanted and giving them a platform. He treated them respectfully and was respected in return.

As the campaign heats up the leaders personalities will be revealed. Trudeau has strengths that haven't yet been noted. Contrary to the popular opinion of his enemies it is when Trudeau is off script that he shines.

Pages