....
Issues Pages:
NDP Leadership #123
Tue, 2012-03-13 10:32
#1
NDP Leadership #123
Tue, 2012-03-13 10:34
#2
Can anything be done to pressure Mulcair and the warmongers in the NDP?
Tue, 2012-03-13 10:34
#3
[b]Mulcair: Committed to Canada's next war[/b]
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.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03/10/ndp-leadership-thomas-mul_n_1336...
But, unlike some of his other colleagues, Mulcair is not a pacifist and said he would want Canada to join military action in certain cases if sanctioned by the UN.
"I do think that we should have long ago been in Syria to stop the wholesale slaughter of the civilian population there...It is absolutely unthinkable that the world today would allow such an attack," he said.
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.
Tue, 2012-03-13 10:37
#4
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.
Tue, 2012-03-13 10:46
#5
"...he would want Canada to join military action in certain cases if sanctioned by the UN."
Incredible how some are able to airbrush away the distinction between NATO and UN decisions.
"For NDP members opposed to NATO's imperialist wars, you may wish to look at other candidates "
Piss-poor propagandists at work.
Tue, 2012-03-13 10:53
#6
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".
Tue, 2012-03-13 10:54
#7
Check your world Atlas.
Tue, 2012-03-13 11:01
#8
i totally support military intervention in syria, it's just appalling what's happening there, and it has to stop.
Tue, 2012-03-13 11:13
#9
I think we need a better plan we had in Libya for post war era. I guess I'm a hawk by NDP standards, so I do want something done in Syria. The problem I have with military invovlement is the I don't trust Obama and Harper to do it right or to prepare to rebuild it.
Obama and Harper couldn't rebuild a small castle made out of lego, never mind a country.
So for me its a difficult situation, I don't want us to turn our back on these being mass murdered by thier own government, but I don't want it to turn into another Libya.
If that makes me an Imperialist because I want to see the innocent Syrians protected, whatever. I don't want anything from Syria except for them to be safe and free.
Tue, 2012-03-13 11:20
#10
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.
Tue, 2012-03-13 11:30
#11
http://www.therecord.com/iphone/opinion/article/685807--mulcair-still-po...
If you scroll down to the end of the artical Tim Harper does compliment Brian Topp on his last debate preformance.
Tue, 2012-03-13 11:38
#12
Boom Boom
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.
Tue, 2012-03-13 12:02
#13
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.
^^^ Another reality check.
Also, UN =/= NATO.
Tue, 2012-03-13 12:28
#14
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.
Tue, 2012-03-13 12:30
#15
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...
Tue, 2012-03-13 12:31
#16
Boom Boom
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.
The Libs have completely ruled out Cullen's plan, I'm not certain they would return to supporting a coalition if the situation arose.
Tue, 2012-03-13 12:57
#17
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.
Tue, 2012-03-13 13:12
#18
i totally support military intervention in syria, it's just appalling what's happening there, and it has to stop.
There's no guarantee that intervention would make a difference.
Tue, 2012-03-13 13:18
#19
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.
The Libs have completely ruled out Cullen's plan, I'm not certain they would return to supporting a coalition if the situation arose.
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.
Tue, 2012-03-13 13:21
#20
Some things take time. Maybe it's finally beginning to gel. 
Tue, 2012-03-13 13:23
#21
One thing Mulcair is clear on is that he'll go after Liberal supporters, but won't work with the rival party."N.O.," he told HuffPost. The NDP tried to form a coalition with the Liberals in 2008 and then the Grits "lifted their noses up on it," Mulcair said.
The coalition experience taught Mulcair everything he needs to know about the Liberals. They're untrustworthy and he said he'll never work with them again, whether in a formal or informal coalition.
"The no is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It's no. End of story. Full stop," he said.
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?
Tue, 2012-03-13 13:28
#22
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.
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?
Tue, 2012-03-13 13:39
#23
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.
Tue, 2012-03-13 13:40
#24
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"?
Tue, 2012-03-13 13:56
#25
Stock, I think the NDP could keep the Libs honest, as in 1963-68.
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".
Tue, 2012-03-13 14:04
#26
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
Tue, 2012-03-13 14:09
#27
I see Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan has now joined his wife, BC MLA Cathy in supporting Brian.
Tue, 2012-03-13 14:19
#28
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.
Tue, 2012-03-13 14:25
#29
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.
Tue, 2012-03-13 14:44
#30
M. Spector
Incredible how some are able to airbrush away the distinction between NATO and UN decisions.
Incredible how some haven't yet figured out that the U.S. runs both NATO and the Security Council.
Tue, 2012-03-13 14:46
#31
Atlas Peggy Nash was not in parliament for the term that ended May 2, 2011. She was there when the NDP did the dismount.
Tue, 2012-03-13 14:49
#32
Duncan Cameron - the decision re : Libya happened THIS Parliament AFTER May 2. Peggy Nash was indeed there.....
Tue, 2012-03-13 14:49
#33
Stock, I prefer to have the NDP dominant, that way they drive the agenda. Agreed it is not as good as having a majority, but I see it as preferable to trying to make a minority parliament work, which is where Tom ends up.
Tue, 2012-03-13 14:51
#34
Atlas Libya was bombed in March 2011. The NDP was on board then.
Tue, 2012-03-13 14:56
#35
Hoodeet (JW)i totally support military intervention in syria, it's just appalling what's happening there, and it has to stop.
If you had your say, would you choose intervention the way it was done: (a) in Afghanistan (b) in Iraq (c) in Libya (d) in Palestine (e) in Central America (f) in the Dominican Republic 1964-65 (g) in the Philippines circa 1900 (h) in Indochina?????
Tue, 2012-03-13 15:06
#36
Duncan, the votes in Parliament on Libya happened in May and June, 2011. The motion to support the mission with the 3 month condition was voted on then. I personally exchanged correspondence with Jack at that time.
Tue, 2012-03-13 15:10
#37
flight from kamakura, I agree with you that it is appalling what's happening in Syria and it DOES have to stop. However, military intervention in Syria is designed to do precisely the opposite. This is an imperial ploy designed to create a problem it then 'solves' with another Libya style NATO satrapy. See the Syria thread.
Tue, 2012-03-13 15:10
#38
the way it was done in the former yugoslavia would suit me fine, or maybe the way it was done south sudan. there were actually a lot of good things about libya, though a lot went off the rails.
Tue, 2012-03-13 15:20
#39
When did the party commit to the mission Atlas, speak in support. Two months after the bombing?
Tue, 2012-03-13 15:21
#40
NDP leadership hopeful Thomas Mulcair visits Langley
Tue, 2012-03-13 15:22
#41
It always amazes me how much people waste time comparing one candidate to their preferred position, let alone comparing positions between babblers.
The only comparison that matters is the candidates to each other, and to a lesser extent, the candidates compared to Jack Layton.
None of the candidates are withdrawing from NATO. All of the candidates have supported a NATO-involved war at some point.
Tue, 2012-03-13 16:16
#42
Well well, very interesting piece about Mr. Sukh Johal. Looks like I was right. But don't worry, I'm going to be magnanimous in vindication and not point out how intellectually dishonest and hypocritical some of the Babblers here are....We did need some comic relief around here.
Thanks for that.
And someday M.Rakhmetov will get honest and tell us who he supports, and why.
In the meantime, his following provides all the comic relief needed.
Yeah, comic relief all right, it's hilarious that a very credible piece of evidence emerged in regards to a debate we were just having over the Mulcair-Singh alliance, and instead of showing some honesty and humility, those who hyperventilated about the possibility of this going on just sneer as if that's a compelling rebuttal. And where's the comparable evidence of Harper being behind knowmulcair.ca which is somehow kosher?
As for whom I'm supporting, obviously the anti-Mulcair. It looked like Topp at the beginning of the race, and I haven't made up my mind about ranking my ballot, but have decided to put Nash as my first choice as she's likely the best hope to beat him now. I think she'll animate the base the most, win a plurality of women in 2015 (which we need to form gov't) and probably is the best national candidate to make gains in Ontario. I don't see us managing to win enough seats to form gov't and decisively supplant the Liberals unless we make major gains in Ontario (which she's helped do in the Liberal's Fortress Toronto).
Careful you're drifitng into self-parody at this point,
I don't know what you think it proves that lots of people within the party support Thomas Mulcair, *gasp* some of them are even Sikh.
Um, so it's not evidence of a Singh-Mulcair deal that one of Singh's main organizers in the West just explicitly revealed all this? And trying to obliquely imply that maybe I'm a racist is pretty low even for the GOP-style standards of some Mulcair supporters around here. It's not an attack on Singh or Mulcair or the
Sikh community to point this out, it's simply an observation of what's happening.
Tue, 2012-03-13 16:19
#43
M. Spector
Duncan, the votes in Parliament on Libya happened in May and June, 2011. The motion to support the mission with the 3 month condition was voted on then. I personally exchanged correspondence with Jack at that time.
The votes were in March, June, and September. The NDP voted unanimously YES, YES, and NO respectively.
Tue, 2012-03-13 16:22
#44
It always amazes me how much people waste time comparing one candidate to their preferred position, let alone comparing positions between babblers.
The only comparison that matters is the candidates to each other, and to a lesser extent, the candidates compared to Jack Layton.
None of the candidates are withdrawing from NATO. All of the candidates have supported a NATO-involved war at some point.
It's a leadership race, of course all the candidates are going to mostly share the same policies and embrace the current NDP platform. It was the same with Obama and Clinton in the 2008 primaries, but there were clearly major differences in how they would lead the Democratic party and govern as President. It's a total non-sequitur to claim that this means there are no differences between candidates on policy. All of them would take the party in substantially different directions if they became leader because they're all different people with different perspectives and approaches.
Tue, 2012-03-13 16:26
#45
Duncan: The NDP spoke in favour of the bombing of Lybia in June 2011, after Peggy Nash was elected.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/06/14/pol-libya-debate.html
To your earlier post (13) about policy difference b/w Mulcair and the other candidates:
Don't you think that if any of them had actually been real, one of the others (say Peggy Nash) would have raised them at the Vancouver debate? Seems a better strategy than going in circles over Mulcair's comments to the Star editorial board... Unless you assume the other candidates are complete dunces (which may be true, but if so, do we really want them as our leader anyway?), you have to come to the conclusion that there really is no difference b/w the candidates w/ regards to the issues you raise.
Here is what I think:
On Syria, they all agree; if the UN authorizes military action for "humanitarian reasons" (like Kosovo, Lybia), the NDP spports it. I am not necessarily comfortable w/ this position, but it's become sort of NDP tradition.... (BTW, in her interview with HuffPost Nicki Ashton seemed to say that she opposed military intervention in all cases. The journalist was too stupid to ask her how she reconciled that with her position on Lybia).
On coalitions, Mulcair probably meant Cullen's cooperation scheme. If he now changed his mind about post-election coalitions, that would be quite a reversal from march 2011.
http://lesfrancstireurs.telequebec.tv/episode.aspx?id=53
(The interview is worth listening to, just to see how many of Mulcair's predictions actually turned out to be true...)
Tue, 2012-03-13 16:32
#46
Um, so it's not evidence of a Singh-Mulcair deal that one of Singh's main organizers in the West just explicitly revealed all this?
I don't know, did you go off on a similar tinfoil hat rant when Françoise Boivin, one of Topp's key early supporters and the first MP beside him when he launched his Leadership campaign, announced that she would be supporter Tom as her second choice?
Every member is entitled to support whoever they like, even if they happened to be Sikh.
Tue, 2012-03-13 16:42
#47
It always amazes me how much people waste time comparing one candidate to their preferred position, let alone comparing positions between babblers.
The only comparison that matters is the candidates to each other, and to a lesser extent, the candidates compared to Jack Layton.
None of the candidates are withdrawing from NATO. All of the candidates have supported a NATO-involved war at some point.
It's a leadership race, of course all the candidates are going to mostly share the same policies and embrace the current NDP platform. It was the same with Obama and Clinton in the 2008 primaries, but there were clearly major differences in how they would lead the Democratic party and govern as President. It's a total non-sequitur to claim that this means there are no differences between candidates on policy. All of them would take the party in substantially different directions if they became leader because they're all different people with different perspectives and approaches.
Speaking of non-sequitors, I appreciated how you read what I said, and then misattributed to me "no differences between candidates on policy". (I'll give you a couple: Cullen and Topp are the only ones to have proposed a tax increase on the wealthiest Canadians.)
My point is people are ranting about how we need to withdraw from NATO and NAFTA immediately, when none of the candidates support a withdrawal. (They're reformers at best.)
I envision a bunch of people complaining that Pepsi has no alcohol in it, while standing in the soda aisle.
Tue, 2012-03-13 16:44
#48
Um, so it's not evidence of a Singh-Mulcair deal that one of Singh's main organizers in the West just explicitly revealed all this?
I don't know, did you go off on a similar tinfoil hat rant when Françoise Boivin, one of Topp's key early supporters and the first MP beside him when he launched his Leadership campaign, announced that she would be supporter Tom as her second choice?
Every member is entitled to support whoever they like, even if they happened to be Sikh.
Oh, I didn't know that Boivin also announced then that Topp is secretly supporting Mulcair.
And um, when did I claim that Sikhs don't have a right to support whomever they want? Are these the new Mulcair talking points, anyone who doesn't support him is now a racist too? It fits in nicely with some of the other Mulcair classics like "opponents of Mulcair want to lose in 2015" or "any other candidate but Mulcair will lead directly to Quebec seceding and destroying Canada" and the like.
Tue, 2012-03-13 16:49
#49
Speaking of non-sequitors, I appreciated how you read what I said, and then misattributed to me "no differences between candidates on policy". (I'll give you a couple: Cullen and Topp are the only ones to have proposed a tax increase on the wealthiest Canadians.)
My point is people are ranting about how we need to withdraw from NATO and NAFTA immediately, when none of the candidates support a withdrawal. (They're reformers at best.)
I envision a bunch of people complaining that Pepsi has no alcohol in it, while standing in the soda aisle.
Oh come on, have you not been saying thread after thread, along with many others here, that the policy differences between the candidates is very small? And you've been claiming that here again due to NATO. Right, no candidate is calling for pulling out of NATO and they mostly all stick to the NDP platform, doesn't mean there aren't fundamental differences between them on foreign policy, and everything else.
Tue, 2012-03-13 16:58
#50
Nash and Mulcair have sounded about the same on Libya, but there do seem to be some significant contrasts between her and him on Israel-Palestine at least,
http://progressiveproselytizing.blogspot.com/2012/02/ndp-leadership-cand...
Tue, 2012-03-13 17:00
#51
On coalitions, Mulcair probably meant Cullen's cooperation scheme. If he now changed his mind about post-election coalitions, that would be quite a reversal from march 2011.
It would indeed. But he hasn't clarified. The media thought he was clear:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/03/12/end-of-story/
Thomas Mulcair rules out any kind of coalition with Liberals.