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.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
What we garner from the statements of Québec economic and political élites: Watch Mulcair very very closely and keep him on a short leash lest he follow his earlier instincts and move right.
Maybe a preview of things to come?
Maybe, maybe not.
Cullen’s vision will help NDP, Canadahttp://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/1144954--cullen-s-vision-...
I could see Cullen, Mulcair and Rae atop the New Liberal Democratic Party.
The article is not actually about the meeting[s?] between Mulcair and the Conservatives, whatever one makes of those. It is about Mulcair's time in the Charest cabinet.
I know you don't agree that Mulcair is moving the party to the Right, but if he is, that would be a fundamental difference. And I said that the broad principles of the party are going to be same within the context of a leadership debate, not after with a new leader and a new direction who will change the platform and what those broad principles are.
Fundmental differences are also expressed through topical issues, i.e. dealing with Hamas. Having the position that Israel is the one that needs to stand down as they are the occupier is very different from the false-equivalency in rhetoric (but more like pro-Israel in reality) of Mulcair, Harper, and Obama.
Distancing ourselves from unions, and our traditional left wing values and the language we use to express those principles, his reactionary positions on Israel-Palestine, and his record and background much of which he has not repudiated or ominously lies about when he denies it. He told Dewar this wasn't true.
You don't think there is a smoking gun, but my challenge to you and other deniers: can you name me a major Third-Way social democrat who plainly stated that s/he was moving to the Right and did not dress it up in implications, opaque euphemisms and the like?
Yes that is why so many unions and union members are supporting Tom.
It sure sounds like some progressive folks aren't happy with the almost 60 seats we picked up in Quebec in the last election. Go figure.
So Martin himself has conceded it, likely because of Johal coming out like he did. Don't you all have to eat your hats or something now? That was the bet.
He has conceeded nothing and he is still in the race.
NorthReport: What about PATCO supporting Reagan in 1980? The UAW supporting Obama in 2012 after the unionbusting during the bailout? Unions who supported Bob Rae in the 1995 election? etc.. etc.. There is a long history of some union leaders supporting anti-union politicians against the interests of their members.
Um, he just conceded he's supporting Mulcair as his second choice, after emphatically denying it before. He didn't say "Yes, I made a secret deal with him" of course. But please, it's over, you guys were wrong.
And many of the skeptics said that if Singh was in cahoots with Mulcair, then he would do exactly this before the convention. I think he would have preferred to wait until the convention, but the Johal controversy happened and he was compelled to announce now.
Gaian, I did say who I'm supporting before. Have decided to support Nash as my first choice as she's the best hope to stop Mulcair, and is probably the strongest in 2015 against Harper because of how she'll charge up the base and could possibly make major gains in Ontario, finally supplanting the Liberals and winning enough seats to form gov't.
Why is that? Doesn't he have a mind of his own?
NDP leadership candidate Nathan Cullen speaks to Yahoo! about his surging campaign
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/ndp-leadership-candidate-...
I'm starting to feel really good about Cullen. He really knocked that last debate out of the park, and the joint nomination thing hasn't hurt him as much as I expected. Is there a path to victory for him?
Let's also consider the source here. Lisee is a very hard-core pur et dur sovereignist. It's in his interest to try to discredit ANYONE who is a player in Quebec politics who is not a pur et dur sovereignist in the Parti Quebecois. He wrote all kinds of disparaging stuff about Jack Layton in the past as well. I'm not saying that its impossible that any of what he writes in this case is true. I'm just saying that he definitely has his own agenda and axe to grind.
I personally think it's a legitimate question (I'm referring to the "why at all entertain courtship from the conservatives?" question) that in my view is not deflected by the point you make that he had discussions with all parties, but it's a separate issue from that which is examined in the post, which is, what was Mulcair's "positioning" during his time in the Charest cabinet.
As for the "objectivity" concern: it's a blog post, so I don't think there's any pretense to objectivity WRT to, shall we say, the starting point of the article.
The basic structure of the post is as follows:
- There is a legitimate question about why Mulcair entertained discussions with the conservatives at all
- But a different question was posed by Topp in a debate, regarding Mulcair's association with the Charest government's agenda
- When Mulcair left, he said he was inspired by the "Ryan liberal values"; this is taken by some as a symbol of the potential rift between those who adhere[d] to the Charest "réingénierie" program and more progressive Liberals, who might [have] be[en] more reluctant/show[ed] opposition to aspects of that program
- Let us now examine whether Mulcair's actual comportment in cabinet displayed any inklings of a possible opposition to the Charest program of "réingénierie"
- Sources say: no, no objections, in fact Mulcair seemed quite favourable to the "réingénierie" agenda, going so far as to criticize some who didn't go far enough in that direction
Lisée's post should be taken with the amount of salt that should be generally afforded to pieces that do not divulge their sources (although there are also a couple of named ones too). That said, I don't think the affirmations that are reported in the piece are particularly astonishing.
Thanks!
Sure.
But the post relies a lot on declarations from former ministers. I'm assuming you don't think he made up those quotes...?
And because Evan Solomon is an A-1 twerp and saboteur!
I respect that and would like to apologise if I caused any personal offence with my previous comments. I also hope it is clearer what I meant by them now.
Yes, I know. Had Mulcair not been running for his seat, the party would have been shut out in Quebec.
I sure hope not, because he's more than likely to bring Quebec down to one seat for the NDP: Mulcair's.