Thomas Mulcair - Thread #7

I hate to say this, but I think Mulcair's French citizenship will be a bigger deal than we'd like to admit.

Of course there's the Conservatives playing to their anti-French, anti-cosmopolitan core constituency. They'll do that regardless of facts. But there's also Mulcair's concession that he will surrender his dual citizenship if he's elected. I have a problem with that if.

Even as Official Opposition, the NDP was always going to have huge obsticles to overcome in order to be perceived as a credible contender for government. The party, and Mulcair, have done amazing work doing just that. But I'm afraid it's undermined by Mulcair's conditional tone. If I'm elected only returns us to a position of doubt in the minds of the voters we need to convince. (It goes like this: If Mulcair isn't convinced he's going to be elected, how can he persuade me to vote for him?)

Still, I'm not suggesting that Mulcair should give up his citizenship. After all, he has a legitimate right to it, and the forces of ignorance and chauvinism would claim it as a victory. But it's a more complex and possibly thorny issue than I'd first allowed.

That "if" by Mulcair has been bothering me, too, and I voted for the guy in the leadership.

I thinking saying he will surrender it if elected is just another example of that habit he has to kill: de facto musing in public.

What he is really doing is conceding that its a problem. And then thinking out loud, what specifically to do about it.

I first thought it might be a trial balloon. But not a deliberate/deliberated one. Not the way he phrased it.

No...somebody with a subscription to ledevoir.com is NOT going to post the text of the article on the forum, thus breaking copyright rules, Rabble policy and circumventing Le Devoir's whole reason for requiring subscriptions in the first place.  

BUT...someone with a subscription might be tempted to PM the text to you, IF you would change your Rabble preferences to allow private messages!

doofy wrote:

Can someone who subscribes to Le Devoir post

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/347395/un-effet-mulcair-chez-le...

Thanks!

doofy wrote:

This is just a reflection of English Canadains' francophobia.

Layton, in reference to Dion, said a leader of a political party should not hold two citizenships.

Boom Boom wrote:

doofy wrote:

This is just a reflection of English Canadains' francophobia.

Layton, in reference to Dion, said a leader of a political party should not hold two citizenships.

Boom Boom, remind me what Layton's reasoning was in that regard?

I do believe that it is Rabble policy to avoid re-posting copywritten material in its entirety on these forums, regardless of their source or whether they were behind a "firewall" (from a paid subscription site).

To quote an article or excerpt from it is okay, but to post an article in its entirety, I was led to believe from prior posts, is a no-no.  Perhaps the moderators can chime in...

That said, I pay a monthly fee to subscribe to Le Devoir and would be more than willing to "violate" copyright to share the article with you, but I will not do so by posting it, in its entirety, on this forum.

doofy wrote:

Winston,

I did not know that Babble policy forbids psoting material behind firewalls. The QC wesbite www.vigile.net frequently posts "firewalled" material from le Devoir. Unfortunately, being sovereitnsits, the webmasters are not very interested in Mulcair's accomplishments...

Can I make a suggestion that when we have the indevitable 8th Mulcair thread we entitle it Tom Mulcair - Thread #8 - seeing as he is now going by Tom in English...and i like the fact that Tom sounds more informal and "HOAG"-ish (Hell Of A Guy)

We haven't had a Mulcair Mania thread yet.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/04/15/david-frum-on-obama-les...

This makes me think of Jack Layton and Mulcair. The analogy of Jack as JFK and Mulcair as Johnson, isn't perfect of course, had Jack lived he would have made a great Prime Minister, and both are very much to the left of the American Presidents, but at the end of the day it will fall to Mulcair to find away to make,Jack's dreams a reality.

Screw JFK, the mythology around that man is ridiculous. If Obama were to be assassinated in office I have no doubt he would be built up into the same kind of figure and he has been a craven servant of power, what an utterly useless president.

My first reaction to those who feel a PM should not have dual citizenship was "why is country so full of backwoods ignorant chawbacons?" Then I was asked how I would feel if Mulcair, or Harper, or Brian Mulroney, was also an American citizen and I had to pause and consider my own attitudes, but I came to the conclusion that it shouldn't be any different. I will be disappointed if Mulcair does renounce his French citizenship, not in him, but in the country that expects it of him. What a bunch of fucking rubes.

What leader of any country anywhere has held citizenship in a different country at the same time?  What these oh so sophisticated citizens of this hypothetical country must think of us.  The shame.

Seems even Canadian progressives cannot think out side of the American propaganda box.  Gee are there no Canadian comparisons?

The problem I see is that Tom is likely to go even further than Jack in the cult of personality and that means that we will never see a reduction in the PMO and its control of our elected parliamentarians.  We don't elect a President and seeing our party leader as a President-In-Waiting is a complete bastardization of our electoral system and does not bode well for our democracy.  The checks and balances built into a parliamentary democracy like ours are useless in a Presidential system.  Harper has proven that.  Maybe we should be getting back to the team approach to parliament not the hierarchical model the Liberals started and the Conservatives have enhanced. 

I don't want to play in a game that elects back backbenchers who are expected to toe the party line and not speak on behalf of their constituents. I am old school and prefer electing people of courage who will speak truth to power.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Seems even Canadian progressives cannot think out side of the American propaganda box.  Gee are there no Canadian comparisons?

The problem I see is that Tom is likely to go even further than Jack in the cult of personality and that means that we will never see a reduction in the PMO and its control of our elected parliamentarians.  We don't elect a President and seeing our party leader as a President-In-Waiting is a complete bastardization of our electoral system and does not bode well for our democracy.  The checks and balances built into a parliamentary democracy like ours are useless in a Presidential system.  Harper has proven that.  Maybe we should be getting back to the team approach to parliament not the hierarchical model the Liberals started and the Conservatives have enhanced. 

I don't want to play in a game that elects back backbenchers who are expected to toe the party line and not speak on behalf of their constituents. I am old school and prefer electing people of courage who will speak truth to power.

I agree with this completely. I hope for and expect the NDP to be the party of democratic reform, but we have no credibility on this issue and make no mistake, it does turn people off and drive them often to the Greens.  People who are looking for a party that is different than the others, which are so obviously corrupted by the political process itself, are exactly the people we should be trying to win over. Half the country doesn't even vote for pete's sake.

In NZ and, until recently, Australia, when the Labour party is in government, the caucus elects the cabinet. The caucus elects the cabinet! Can you imagine it??

Mixed feelings about this.

Three deputies is at least one too many. The title is now more meaningless than ever.

That none are from Quebec presumably signifies Mulcair has that covered. I don't know that's the best message to counter the Lib/Con smear that Mulcair is not a leader for all of Canada.

Is this really a promotion for Megan Leslie? She's been a great Environment critic. Presumably she'll be giving that up?

I suppose my feelings aren't as mixed as I'd first thought.

I'm not sure why we should assume that Megan Leslie would give up being Environment critic or that she might not also be made critic of something else. Up to now the position of Deputy leader has always been a bit of an honorific coupled with other job descriptions: Mulcair himself was previously Deputy Leader AND Finance Critic and then Deputy Leader AND House Leader. Libby Davies was previously Deputy Leader AND House Leader and then she became Deputy Leader AND Health Critic.

My guess is that the Deputy leaders will each have critic responsibilities but will have an additional role to play as regional representatives.

Word has it that Nathan Cullen is to be the new House Leader

http://www.vancouversun.com/Nathan%20Cullen%20receive%20major%20promotio...

any thoughts on that?

It means Nathan's getting a well deserved raise :D.

Brachina wrote:

It means Nathan's getting a well deserved raise :D.

Agreed, but the Opposition House Leader is ideally a master of parliamentary strategy and procedures etc...I wasn't aware of Cullen having those strengths...doesn't mean he isn't up to the task, just that I was not aware of it...then again, the House leader is the one who has to negotiate with the other two parties and maybe it is good to have a 'nice guy" like Cullen who claims to want more cooperation in that role.

Megan was someone I suggested in previous threads to be a deputy leader (go through all the NDP leadership threads to find it... haha).

But Dave Christopherson? A bit... surprising.

Haddy wrote:

If Nathan is being promoted to House Leader it means Joe Comartin is being moved out.  Nathan is a great guy but this is a HUGE loss for the Caucus.  Comartin and Mulcair never seem to get along especially given Mulcairs blanket support for Israel and villifying Libby.  

Wonder if Comartin will retire now.

Uh huh.

Anyways, Joe has been House Leader just for the past 6 months. I doubt things will fall apart if he's not in that specific role.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Megan was someone I suggested in previous threads to be a deputy leader (go through all the NDP leadership threads to find it... haha). But Dave Christopherson? A bit... surprising.

Christopherson is a super impressive person who was one of the most successful cabinet ministers in an ONDP government. He is a veteran and shows that Mulcair is serious about his support of labour.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I would prefer a BC MP to be the point person on the pipelines issues and thus the environmental critic. Nathan has great credentials in the North but the big fight is likely going to come in the South. The transport of the filthy bitumen is the major environmental issue facing us over the next ten years. Stopping it must be an NDP priority and whoever gets the environmental file needs to hit the ground running.  The Southern route is on the fast "steamroller" track. It would be a good time to have an MP who represents a Salish Sea riding front and center.

was thinkin along those lines myself. then I thought the east coast is having issues itself with fracking. whose plight is more important?

then i thought some more with Nathan being house leader he won't have time for it all plus his ever so sweet twins. 

the environment critic is going to need time and skill in the next couple of years. who else is there that has a big yen for environmental stuff?

subject change cause i am lazy to make another post

what's this about Cromartin though i have never really heard of him and Mulcair not getting along? and adding  Libby Davis into the equation bothers me. Libby is "a" deputy leader and i saw her speak front and centre yesterday about  that guy in Cuba. doesn't seem like Mulcair is treating her oh so badly to me. if she doesn't have an issue with mulcair why'd others have 'em?