babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
NDP Leadership #123
March 13, 2012 - 10:32am
....
Mulcair: Committed to Canada's next war
Despite lack of unanimity at the UN Security Council to an R2P-style intervention in Syria and despite Canadians demonstrating little interest in such a military adventure, Thomas Mulcair has expressed his support for Canada's participation in such a military intervention in Syria.
For NDP members opposed to NATO's imperialist wars, you may wish to look at other candidates than Thomas Mulcair. Otherwise, the spector of Mr. Mulcair, Bob Rae and Stephen Harper standing together in support of Canadian air-bombing of Syria will be the reality.
Can anything be done to pressure Mulcair and the warmongers in the NDP?
I think it's a fair question to ask which of the leadership candidates are in favour of Canadian military intervention in Syria. I'm sure that Mr. Mulcair does not stand alone in that regard. Perhaps the list would be shorter of which leadership candidates do not support such NATO power projection.
And who pressed for a similar resolution and subsequently did the heavy lifting in Libya? And Syria is different how?
The point is that Harper, Rae, John McCain and Mulcair are all "ready to go".
i totally support military intervention in syria, it's just appalling what's happening there, and it has to stop.
Whatever you want- there is no substantial foreign policy difference among the candidates, except Mulcair viz Israel. On Syria and Libya, nothing I can see.
All I could find on NDP.ca on Syria is this: Statement by Official Opposition Foreign Affairs Critic Hélène Laverdière on Syria February 4, 2012
The New Democratic Party condemns the reported massacre in Homs yesterday by Syrian forces.
New Democrats stand in solidarity with the Syrian people and their democratic aspirations. We categorically condemn the Syrian government's violent crackdown on peaceful pro-democracy protests and are alarmed at the escalation in violence by Syrian forces yesterday. Canada should immediately recall our ambassador from Syria.
^^^ Another reality check.
Also, UN =/= NATO.
Ken S I see three distinct differences, two on foreign policy.
Tom supports Nafta because it protects the environment. Nobody else has that position for good reason. It makes no sense.
Tom think the world should have sent boots onto the ground in Syria. No one else has said that. Most would want to know whose boots? Nato jets, like in LIbya, where the NDP eventually dropped its support, or peacekeepers. I see support for diplomacy, pressure on rulers, not support for military action on behalf of the UN in Syria. Tom has that position to himself.
Tom has ruled out coalition with the Libs. His quote could not be more clear. This is not a negotiating position. This is no, everyway it can be said.
I have other reservations about him as a leader but these three policy differences with the other candidates are enough to take him off a preferential ballot as a choice to make.
Want I want to see in a leader is an activist who understands the importance of building a movement. Explained in more detail here:
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/03/want-win-canadian-politics-build-mov...
The Libs have completely ruled out Cullen's plan, I'm not certain they would return to supporting a coalition if the situation arose.
I agree Boom Boom, they collapsed before after all. I just want the NDP position to be clear. Canadians electa a Parliament, and it chooses the prime minister. Parties can form coalitionsl, and should to stop the Cons.
There's no guarantee that intervention would make a difference.
Yes, the Liberal "leadership" and main spin-doctors are almost all opposed to any sort of cooperation with the NDP as they see the last election as an abberation and are convinced they will ascend to their "rightful place" as the natural governing parrty after the next election. At laest this is the "brave face" they put on for the cameras and a lot of people in the media probably share that belief.
I think the important part of Cullen's message is that it is directed at voters who as a group, believe that all the parties are more concerned about their own narrow partisan interests than serving for the good of the country. That is I think the important part of his message - that he as leader would be open to working with others to defeat a government which feels it has a divine right to rule, based on a lop-sided victory which merely reflects the injustice of our antiquated electoral system.
I doubt we will see any joint nominations, even if Nathan Cullen is elected leader (and I'm not personally sold on the strategy). But unless we have cooperation of some sort with the Liberals, we are likely to see Conservatives easily cruising from majority to majority as more and more voters simply disengage.
Yes, all the leadership candidates say they want to increase voter turnout, but that has steadily been declining. So good intentions and fiery speeches aren't doing much to move us towards any sort of change at all.
When I listened to the debate on Sunday, I thought how much most sounded like the same old same old speeeches I have heard from NDP leaders since the 1970s. "New politics"? I think the NDP has been peddling that worn out message since its formation in 1961.
Some things take time. Maybe it's finally beginning to gel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03/10/ndp-leadership-thomas-mul_n_1336934.html?ref=canada
Is this taken out of context?
It's been repeated in Maclean's, tweeted by Coyne, and quoted elsewhere.
I can't find any comment by Mulcair that it was out of context.
Anyone?
You of all people should be happy about that. Let's face it - the Liberals are 100% pro NAFTA and pro-free trade - the more the NDP has to make deals with the Liberals, the more our policies get watered down even more. Do you really want a Mulcair-led government with Scott Brison as Minister of International Trade?
Stock, I think the NDP could keep the Libs honest, as in 1963-68.
If I thought Tom could bring off a win, I would be happy to see him replace Harper.
I like Brison, he just doesn't listen to me. Not a reason to quit commenting is it.
I mean this is just an example:
http://www.leadnow.ca/cooperate-report
All the candidates are willing to cooperate with other parties to pass electoral reform, for example.
Do we honestly think that if the choice is between 4 more years of Harper, and a minority government, that ANY of the NDP candidates will say "nah, no thanks, let's wait four more years"?
The roles are reversed this time...after 2015 the NDP is likely to be a far larger caucus than then Liberal rump. The NDP won't be in the position of "keeping the Liberals honest" - instead the it will be the third party Liberals trying their damndest to "keep the NDP DIShonest".
New BC endorsements for Tom:
Nicholas Simons, MLA for Rowell River -Sunshine Coast
Nelson Riis - former MP for Kamloops
Ian Waddell- former MP for Kingsway and MLA as well, and former federal leadership candidate.
Jack Munro, legendary former president of the IWA
I see Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan has now joined his wife, BC MLA Cathy in supporting Brian.
If you thought Tom could pull off a win? The guy doesn't know how to lose. He'll win all right, and he won't shy away from doing what has to be done to beat his opponents. I don't think that's a criticism one can make of him. With him as leader, I am very confident about 2015.
The movement of our party to a more aggressive position on military intervention in the Middle East is something that started before Tom.
Paul Dewar - with Jack's blessing - called for Canadian participation in the bombing of Libya. He was supported in this by Peggy Nash who said nothing publicly in opposition to that position. It was justified as being called for by the United Nations Security Council.
Tom Mulcair is saying nothing different.
We can disagree with the policy (as I vehemently do) - but let's stop the disingenuous spin and attempt to slime Mulcair for a position every other learship candidate implicitly or explicitly endorsed.
Incredible how some haven't yet figured out that the U.S. runs both NATO and the Security Council.
Atlas Peggy Nash was not in parliament for the term that ended May 2, 2011. She was there when the NDP did the dismount.