If Mulcair drops scripted talking points next time & is just his natural self, a win is assured

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

quizzical wrote:

the problem has arose pondering. it's called a currently noted budget shortfall of 900 million at least.

if you're suffering under austerity in Quebec pondering you should be concerned about a 100 million or so being off loaded to your province or city.

people who are suffering are concerned they'll get less. the money has to come from somewhere and there should be clear messaging by the Liberals to settle the scared people down and hopefully tomorrow we will see it. they're not being racist just concerned for their own well being.

who cares about the racists they'll be racist no matter the messaging or by positive actions in expanding the budget federally not provincially.

and if the 250 million they budgeted is spent on screening then all the costs could be off loaded to the provinces couldn't it?

Well said. Criticizing the NDP for raising what is a reasonable question in the light of a significant amount of money is typicxal of Liberals here -- the reason is obvious given the context of Mulcair's statement just as the PM will meet the premiers.

Oh I see, Mulcair must be afraid that the premiers will forget to ask for money, or maybe be too shy to ask for it so he has to preempt them rather than waiting until after the meeting to see what arrangements were made.

It's important to get Canadians worried about the funding before the refugees arrive.  I guess Mulcair must think if it adds to the deficit we can't afford to have them here, or the Liberals should pay a political price for adding to the deficit by accepting so many refugees. 

Mulcair's attitude is going to backfire on the NDP.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering this is typical of you -- contorting a story to make it an attack on the NDP and praise for the Liberals. This tactic of yours is transparent to all including, I would guess, most Liberal supporters here.

It is right for Mulcair to raise this and it was a question most agreed was a problem when it was first brought up earlier in the campaign when it was the Conservatives doing the same thing with their picks of the refugees.

Your attempt at justifying this is shameful.

The idea of picking one gender to allow to come to Canada and leaving the other behind is something Canada has a history with.

I am criticizing Mulcair not the NDP, nor am I praising the Liberals. I think they can justify their choice to Canadians based on moral and political grounds. The Liberals are in a win-win situation because objectively, we are logistically and financially able to do this successfully. When everything goes fine the fear-monguering won't be remembered so whatever Mulcair says will be long forgotten.

I don't believe that Mulcair took his stand on either single male refugees or deficit spending for principled reasons. I think his reasoning is political and it's poor strategy that will backfire not only on him but also on the party. Mulcair's "listening" tour will have about as much depth as the "roll up the red carpet" tour. In my opinion it's intended to shore up support for Mulcair ahead of the leadership review. It's a campaign tour that the NDP will foot the bill for.

What's happening right now will not impact the 2019 election. Individually the stuff Mulcair has said will be completely forgotten. Look how long it took for the Duffy scandal to lose all impact. What will linger is his tone if he doesn't change it. Mulcair is going to search for and take every opportunity to criticize Trudeau and will qualify any approval with a "but" if he can find one. He risks creating a naysayer persona.

Sean, man, I like your posts in general, a lot, but when you respond to Pondering I just skim them now; too much vitriol and wild conjecture about motivation.  It comes across as petty and mean, not insightful.  This bickering also derails a lot of threads.  Would you please consider stopping it?  I would appreciate more of your otherwise excellent analyses instead -- you could certainly take occasional issue with things brought up by Pondering, but without the personal attacks and the snide tone.  I've written other people off completely already because they never say anything useful, but only attack suspected Liberal "sympathizers" (there don't seem to be any mods here?), but you're mostly reasonable, so I thought I say something. I know I'm just a newb here, but please consider the message.  Is anything really gained by the attacks?

Anyway.  It does provide an interesting analogy to some of the problems I saw with Mulcair during the election, and still see now.

Even if it is justified to point out that the provinces might be facing a shortfall (MIGHT, we don't even know yet what the agreements will be), I AM concerned that Mulcair brings up greater financial cost at this point and makes more "boo, deficit" noises, because it does add into public sentiment which is already whipped up against the refugees, and I consider financial concerns an overblown notion, all considering.  Yes, we can definitely afford it because we are rich, as a country.  Yes, the money has to come from somewhere, but I don't think it'll be hard to find. Hey, I'm personally willing to pitch in; I don't need no tax cut.  I'm volunteering for a literacy program too.  I think maybe it's just more tone-deafness of Mulcair to concentrate on that aspect; he seems stuck in this mode and I wish he'd snap out of it.

This whole "fiscal responsibility" shtick Mulcair is harping on like the broken needle on an old record really gets on my every last nerve.  What I want my NDP to worry about is how we can successfully integrate an influx of refugees who can't choose Canada freely, but who just fear for their lives and run, anywhere; who don't speak the language; who don't know the culture; and who will face racism and distrust at every step.  They will need a lot more social help than the average immigrant.  I don't want us to quibble over dollars, I want us to get our act together to actually help (instead of bombing people).  France has a lot of homegrown problems with their Muslim population not integrating well; we need to, and can do a better job.

I do like Muclair a lot more when he points out that it is a problem to exclude many men solely for reasons of national security; I agree.  But I also think that we should privilege the most vulnerable at this point, and while that should include some men, it might mean fewer men percentage-wise than are waiting for help, and I am ok with that.  I think we should take more total than 25,000 anyway.

I am not a Liberal plant or even sympathizer (I've always been on the democratic socialism side of politics, and slide further left as I have grown older), and I've not been bowled over by "sunny ways" promises, but I was damn tired of Harper's divisive tone, and I am on board for something more positive.  Angry Tom worked great in opposition to Harper, it was necessary -- every one of us should have been damn angry.  This is a new government which is, at least on the surface, trying to do some things right so far (we can debate in how far it's justified to call that progressive, but let's do that elsewhere).  Angry Tom will be called for when they start breaking promises, or do things like signing the TPP; that's when i WANT Angry Tom to unleash his powers.  Until then I want him to be critical Tom, by all means, but in a reasonable, constructive way that does not fan irrational fears.  I don't want my party to be the party of Scrooge, petty and small-minded.  Point the Liberals in the right direction about social issues, so they don't just shuffle 25,000 refugrees to the provinces as a grand gesture without social support efforts.  Let the fiscal stuff slide for now, that is really not what matters to me in this case.  So far I've seen too much quibbling; I want to see more principled, respectful leadership.

Pondering wrote:

I am criticizing Mulcair not the NDP, nor am I praising the Liberals.

I don't think so Tim!

No question, this decision to screen out young males from Syria is simply knee jerk, fear reaction. What a fail of leadership! Junior is CLEARLY unable to think on his own, and NOT, up to the job!!!!!!!!!!!!! FAIL!!!!

pir wrote:

I am not a Liberal plant or even sympathizer (I've always been on the democratic socialism side of politics, and slide further left as I have grown older), and I've not been bowled over by "sunny ways" promises, but I was damn tired of Harper's divisive tone, and I am on board for something more positive.  Angry Tom worked great in opposition to Harper, it was necessary -- every one of us should have been damn angry.  This is a new government which is, at least on the surface, trying to do some things right so far (we can debate in how far it's justified to call that progressive, but let's do that elsewhere).  Angry Tom will be called for when they start breaking promises, or do things like signing the TPP; that's when i WANT Angry Tom to unleash his powers.  Until then I want him to be critical Tom, by all means, but in a reasonable, constructive way that does not fan irrational fears.  I don't want my party to be the party of Scrooge, petty and small-minded.  Point the Liberals in the right direction about social issues, so they don't just shuffle 25,000 refugrees to the provinces as a grand gesture without social support efforts.  Let the fiscal stuff slide for now, that is really not what matters to me in this case.  So far I've seen too much quibbling; I want to see more principled, respectful leadership.

Even though I have supported the Liberals since Trudeau became leader that has been based on specific policies such as marijuana legalization. The Liberals certainly had the most progressive position on that topic.

I'm angry that we don't have a major political party willing to seriously tackle the greatest challenges of the 21st century, climate change and income inequality. The NDP was and is uniquely placed to show foresight on these two issues. Both are issues of the 99%.  Instead the Liberals were able to co opt the language of Occupy, the 1% versus the 99% and they are going to get credit for moving forward on climate change and they are going to move ahead on indigenous rights as well.

Now the NDP has a chance to do what the Liberals had to do in 2011, rebuild the party from the ground up. That won't happen under Mulcair or the team behind him.

blairz wrote:

The biggest problem l see with Mulcair,and with most of the party spokespeople is their insistence that their position on balanced budgets was prescribed by public perceptions about Socialism and the NDP. Their inability to credit Canadians with a more sophisticated view of economic policies and politics  doesn't really bode well for how they would govern. I don't know if there's a better candidate for leadership, but Mulcair needs to face some process of review.

I agree that balancing the budget at all costs is not helpful, but there are other ways that the balanced budget issue can be framed. In the portrayl of Tommy Douglas in Prairie Giant, there is a scene where Douglas and his Finance Minister are talking to some bankers in Boston about eliminating Saskatchewan's debt. When the banker says they are supposed to be socialists, Douglas replies by saying (and I'm paraphrasing) that he felt that spending money you don't have isn't socialist, it's irresponsible. The other big problem with the balanced budget issue is that it's often framed as a choice between balanced budgets or necessary social spending, and let's not forget that right-wing governments that find themselves in deficit use that as a cover to cut the programs people need. If you can convince people that you will spend on important social programs while maintaining balanced budgets, with the 1% paying their fair share to make up any budget shortfalls, that makes it much harder for right-wingers to cut-cut-cut.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

pir wrote:

Sean, man, I like your posts in general, a lot, but when you respond to Pondering I just skim them now; too much vitriol and wild conjecture about motivation.  It comes across as petty and mean, not insightful.  This bickering also derails a lot of threads.  Would you please consider stopping it?  I would appreciate more of your otherwise excellent analyses instead -- you could certainly take occasional issue with things brought up by Pondering, but without the personal attacks and the snide tone.  I've written other people off completely already because they never say anything useful, but only attack suspected Liberal "sympathizers" (there don't seem to be any mods here?)

Right pir -- you are missing a whole hell of a lot of history here having just got here.

I did not get fed up with Pondering in the month since you got here.

Pir, I have to support what Sean wrote just above here. This back and forth with Liberal "sympathizers" on this board has a very long history. Given you are so new here, you'd really not have any famiiiarity with this.

And as to the prescense of Mods, if you are reading these threads at all, you'd know that posters such as myself get called out. The Mods are here and act as they judge approrpriate.

There is plenty of history that explains the "current state of affairs" here. It is not anywhere nearly as one sided as your enjoining would imply.

double post

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pir, I have to support what Sean wrote just above here. This back and forth with Liberal "sympathizers" on this board has a very long history. Given you are so new here, you'd really not have any famiiiarity with this.

And as to the prescense of Mods, if you are reading these threads at all, you'd know that posters such as myself get called out. The Mods are here and act as they judge approrpriate.

There is plenty of history that explains the "current state of affairs" here. It is not anywhere nearly as one sided as your enjoining would imply.

Actually AC, the constant rudeness and insults are one-sided and it is really easy to see. I've said multiple times that your behavior reflects on you not me because I don't respond in kind anymore. By refusing to get dragged into a flame war it becomes obvious who the instigators are. Pir is not the first person to notice and won't be the last. That's why it doesn't bother me any more. If a few of you want to trash your own reputations I'm not going to interfere.

You are mistaking anger with you for many other things. And there is a lot of history behind that anger. There is also disgust and I see no reason to hide it. No doubt you want to pretend this is all about other people who are assholes to you and nothing to do with you. I can see you are protected in that way.

see pondering  what you write in some cases is the problem. some comments of yours are flat out fabrications, some are shifted points of discussion not resembling what was under discussion first and some are outright distortions of other people's words. your use of propaganda ploys is very well done. even the use of your sympathy ploys or what some would call passive aggression is just one big propaganda ploy.

then you have some unusual bursts of really good points.

and your not talking politics so much as propagandizing mostly.

but as a positive i've learned a lot from people calling you on your fabrications so......

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I agree that balancing the budget at all costs is not helpful, but there are other ways that the balanced budget issue can be framed. In the portrayl of Tommy Douglas in Prairie Giant, there is a scene where Douglas and his Finance Minister are talking to some bankers in Boston about eliminating Saskatchewan's debt. When the banker says they are supposed to be socialists, Douglas replies by saying (and I'm paraphrasing) that he felt that spending money you don't have isn't socialist, it's irresponsible.

Which is wrong. Most people who buy a house go into debt to do it. That isn't irresponsible. Green technology pays for itself and it's a false economy to short-change schools. The size of our deficit is easily managed through growth.

It's true that at some point we will need to raise taxes but in the meantime it is a false economy to curtail our spending.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The other big problem with the balanced budget issue is that it's often framed as a choice between balanced budgets or necessary social spending, and let's not forget that right-wing governments that find themselves in deficit use that as a cover to cut the programs people need. If you can convince people that you will spend on important social programs while maintaining balanced budgets, with the 1% paying their fair share to make up any budget shortfalls, that makes it much harder for right-wingers to cut-cut-cut.

Harper cut taxes then used the deficit as an excuse to cut spending. The Liberals cut all the way through the 90s right up to 2005 at which point they were going into a spending cycle but instead Harper won and just kept going. Emphasizing the importance of balancing the budget plays into the hands of the right wing.

Apparently 70% of jobs will require post-secondary education. Our country's success is dependent on making that happen. Reducing our dependence on carbon is also more important than a balanced budget. We can't afford not to invest in alternate forms of power. Those are the deficits we are leaving on the shoulders of the next generation.

Basic income isn't only better for those who recieve it, it's cheaper than the piecemeal system that we use now. Housing first programs also save money. It's a false economy to leave people on the streets.

The notion that a balanced budget is the be all and end all of good governance is a right wing fallacy.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The notion that a balanced budget is the be all and end all of good governance is a right wing fallacy.

Oh, and what you say then to Paul Martin? And how do you explain Junior taking his marching orders for Martin and his Bay Street 1%ers?

I say that he was wrong. I think Trudeau and his team are more Keynesian which seems to be the direction many mainstream economists are leaning in.

Someone shared this link on the board, I am not sure who but it's a very interesting read if long. Page 7 seems a good description of the Liberals economic policy but I won't quote it.

http://www.liberal.ca/files/2011/11/BuildingaModernLiberalParty.pdf

Not surprisingly then, experience has proven that reform, renewal and rebuilding have been most seriously undertaken and most successfully accomplished by LPC following the most severe of its electoral defeats, when the Party has emerged as a dramatically reduced opposition in a majority Conservative House of Commons. The experience of the early 1930’s was only the first such example of this ‘renewal’ phenomenon3. Notably, on being re-elected in 1934, the Party went on to enjoy an uninterrupted period of 22 years in power......

Ultimately, however, efforts to ‘institutionalize’ concepts of participatory democracy for grassroots partisans met with only mixed success. Lofty ideals about ‘member engagement’ collided headlong with the harsh reality of the ever more powerful machinery of government, the increased complexity of public policy problems and, above all for a ‘government’ party, the centralizing tendencies of a system designed to facilitate the management of it all by Prime Minister and Cabinet. The modernization of the Party’s apparatus accomplished in the Pearson/Trudeau era served its elite influencers and professional operatives well, but it could not effectively confer the real political efficacy on the broader membership base that its early champions had hoped. Over 21 years, the realities of power simply drained the extra-parliamentary wing of the Party of much of the energy and idealism that had driven its early on-the-ground activism, leaving LPC a mere shell of a structure at the end of the Trudeau era, vulnerable to defeat....

More recently, the emerging ‘Occupy’ movement is definitely worth noting. Following in the wake of the events of the so-called ‘Arab spring’, it is perhaps the most interesting example to date of non-partisan, Internet-enabled political activism and engagement appearing in advanced liberal democracies –connecting online organization with on-the-ground activism. Originating in the US and now ‘spontaneously’ appearing in Canada and around the world, ‘Occupy’ appears to be directing its protest, albeit amorphously, against the ‘greed’ of banks and large corporations, as well as the growing inequity, including in developed countries, between the ultra-rich and everyone else. Fuelled by social media and other online communication against a backdrop of global financial stress and uncertainty, the targets of its anger include politicians who are seen as aiding and abetting the status quo.

‘Occupy’ presents itself as a ‘grassroots’ phenomenon inspired by ordinary people. Its messages are clearly left-wing and anti-capitalist in orientation, but its philosophical underpinnings and practical objectives remain unclear.Striving for the ‘purity’ of any new protest movement, ‘Occupy’ nevertheless appears vulnerable to being co-opted by the organized labour movement, ambitious union leaders and/or those with radical left-wing (i.e. Socialist/Marxist) or even anarchist sympathies and affiliations. Still, given the nature of the ‘Occupy’ issues32, their broad linkage to ‘liberal’ values (i.e. equity, fairness, the need for regulated markets, human rights including economic rights) and growing criticism, especially in the US, as to the sell-out of traditional ‘liberalism’ to corporate interests33, LPC activists should be paying very close attention to its message about the failure of liberal democratic societies to counter a growing sense of disenfranchisement and helplessness on the part of ordinary citizens....

It is 79 pages long (I'm still working my way through it). It provides insight into the Liberal party but some of it is generally applicable to all political parties or is about Canadians.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Oh Keynsians eh? Well, then why is he pushing P3s? Keynes NEVER talked about public-partnerships, which have been shown over and over to result in theft from the public purse. Secondly, why is Chrystia Feeland floating the idea oof taking money from CPP for pubic investment.? Keynes never mentioned any of that. He never mentioned any of that because he saw ONLY the government as capable of marshalling the needed resoruces, and to work in the public interest. On top of that, everyone knows Junior will have to cut spending to balance the budget before the next election. It is neo-con sleight-of-hand. On top of that, he won't raise the Corproate tax rate. Mulcair was wrong not to talk about taxing he rich, and for not saying he was going to raise the Corproate tax rate more. On top of that, I'll point out to you Junior's Daddy killed the Carter Commission that would have got rid of the Captial Gains exemption. Keynes would in no way recognize what Junior was doing. This part of your post is more just one more attempt to obfuscate, and try to move the frame. Junior is surrounded by guys from CD Howe, Martinites and Bay Stret 1%ers. They are in no way "progressive"; I hate that word, really what you are trying to do is convince people that lefties are bad, and that progressive,s, really wishy-wash LPC centerists, are goood. 

I don't support P3s and whenever I answer online surveys I am far left. I agree that Trudeau's economic team leans right. The party also supports social programs and yes I know about the cuts of the Martin years. It's a matter of degrees.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Its philosphical underpinnings are quite clear Pondering. I followed this very clearly. I listend to Ceny Uygar of the Young Turks, Sam Seder of the Majroity Report, Mike Malloy, and Tom Hartmann all talk about and with the people involved with the mvoement. They were to the left. They aren't centerists like your party; to them, you and your  party would look like 3rd way Democrats. They wouldn't want to have anything to do with you and would fight your attempts to co-opt it for LPC politicial purposes. 

Too late, the Liberals already co-opted it with their talk of taxing the 1%.  I wasn't saying they were right about Occupy but some of the comments were insightful.

Pondering wrote:

(from liberal paper) Striving for the ‘purity’ of any new protest movement, ‘Occupy’ nevertheless appears vulnerable to being co-opted by the organized labour movement, ambitious union leaders and/or those with radical left-wing (i.e. Socialist/Marxist) or even anarchist sympathies and affiliations.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Bashing unions again. Do you Libs EVER get tired of this? Radical left wing and anarchists? What is the difference between this kind of characterization of this movement and how it was described on FOX News?

I just picked quotes out of the the first 20 pages or so that I thought were interesting and offered insight into the Liberal party. I wasn't making a judgement as to whether they were right or wrong.

I don't know about other cities but in Montreal it is true that the Occupy movement rapidly became dominated by sub-groups pushing their own causes rather than focusing on the 99% which is what brought Occupy so much success in the first place. Unions did offer some support but I don't recall them being prominent. There were few POC.

Pondering wrote:

(from liberal paper) Still, given the nature of the ‘Occupy’ issues32, their broad linkage to ‘liberal’ values (i.e. equity, fairness, the need for regulated markets, human rights including economic rights) and growing criticism, especially in the US, as to the sell-out of traditional ‘liberalism’ to corporate interests33, LPC activists should be paying very close attention to its message about the failure of liberal democratic societies to counter a growing sense of disenfranchisement and helplessness on the part of ordinary citizens....

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Here we see the real LPC objective, the continued effrot to co-opt well meaning, and socially resoonsibe individuals to support a party, the LPC, which historically sells out and in fact attacks those grups whenvver they get in the way 

Notice the writher put "liberal" in quotes and a small "L" meaning the reference was not to the party. His synopsis of the purpose of the original anti-Wall street Occupy is correct.

They aren't co-opting anyone. It's an internal document that reveals their opinion on what drove the support for Occupy which is the failure of liberal democratic societies. The Liberal solution is to turn back the clock to when the Liberals placed more emphasis on social well-being. That is pretty much in tune with what Canadians want.

I wonder if to counter a growing sense of disenfranchisement and helplessness on the part of ordinary citizens was the inspriration for allowing supporters to vote for the leader of the party.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

THe LPC is NOT a progressie party. It is a Clintonesque party at its roots that is about looking after the Rich and Corproations first in the hope that some of the left over scraps will falll into the laps of the poor....The LPC is a party of the right. Liberal/Tory, SAME old story.

That is just not true. The Liberals have just as much similarity to the NDP as they do to the Conservatives. The NDP didn't make a big deal of TPP until the last week of the election when they saw their support melting away. The Liberals and the NDP both made their decisions based on what they thought would win them the most support. The NDP chose to move to the centre and chose to present themselves as similar to the Liberal Party.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Again, this electioon showed how stupid the NDP was. They let the Liberals dupe people and the long term effects of this will become quite clear. 

The Liberals didn't "dupe" anyone. Liberal history is open and the people on his economic team are well known. His platform was detailed.

Many people believe our capitalist system is the best there is and it's just a matter of running it correctly. All three main parties hold that view. Most people who vote for mainstream parties are voting for the status quo but with a better manager.

That paper seems to have been written just after 2011 when the party was at it's lowest and was trying to figure out how to rebuild. Defining core values was part of that. Within it they discuss the atrophy that occurs when they are in power for a long time, the centralization of power, and previous times of renewal after great loss.

This sort of critical yet supportive autopsy is what led to allowing supporters of the party to vote for the leadership.The NDP needs to do the same kind of examination of the NDP and its core purpose but there is no sign that the execute has any interest in the exercise.

The opening page of http://www.ndp.ca/ is all about Tom. His name is even more prominent and in larger font than the NDP name. There is no policy or platform. It looks like the Tom Mulcair and associates party. 

Contrast that with the Liberal party's current website.

http://www.liberal.ca/

The Liberal party name is most prominent. There is no picture of Trudeau. His name is in the same size font as the platform and the link to MPs. Although there is a link to get email sign-offs COP21 dominates the page.

thorin_bane wrote:

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/hell-and-high-water

Canadians may remember Paul Martin’s pledge upon becoming Finance Minister that he would eliminate the government’s deficit, “come hell or high water. He fulfilled that promise mainly by slashing support for health care and other social programs, giving Canadians in the process painful doses of both hell and high water.

So really when did you libes convert from one to the other. When McQuaig had asked back in 2002 why we had to pay off the debt even while running surpluses when we could allow the economy to simply catch up in percent. Liberals said it was an irresponsible position to leave debt to future generations. While I wan't thrilled about Mulcairs stand. Tell me how this major flip flop has come to pass under the super team the Liberals assembled including Mr Hell Or HighWater himself Paully pockets Martin.

Here you go.

http://www.liberal.ca/files/2011/11/BuildingaModernLiberalParty.pdf

I don't know about you but my expectations of the Liberal party are different than my expectations of the NDP. I didn't expect Mucair to agree with the Martin of the 1990s and early 2000s. The Liberals change with the times generally reflecting mainstream economic orthodoxy and conditions.

Mulcair is continuing to demonize deficits.

“Will the Liberal government backtrack on their promises for change? Will they run larger deficits? Or will they cut public services even further?” asked Mr. Mulcair. “Those options are not progressive and they will hurt Canadian families expecting change.”

http://www.ndp.ca/5-issues-the-government-must-act-on-now

I also don't get what he hopes to gain from comments like this:

Following the government’s Economic Update last week, Mr. Mulcair is calling on Liberals to come clean about their fiscal plans.

What wasn't clear about the Economic Update? It predicted a larger deficit. The ominous slurs from Mulcair are going to backfire. It's obvious he will look for any excuse to insult Trudeau and the Liberals. He is proving that there is no way he could ever have participated in a coalition government. I wouldn't even trust Mulcair to be on an all party committee because his only interest would be sabotage.

I said it a long time ago. Mulcair is politically tone deaf. Maybe he thinks attacking the Liberals will gain him more votes during the leadership vote? This is going to continue. No matter what the Liberals do Mulcair will look for a way to take a dig at them. That is just making him look like a sore loser. People are going to be even more grateful that they gave the Liberals a majority so Mulcair won't be able to be obstructionist.

People don't remember the details. All they will remember is Mulcair predicting doom with a bizarre grin on his face as he celebrates the NDP's second best win ever.

Pondering wrote:

The opening page of http://www.ndp.ca/ is all about Tom. His name is even more prominent and in larger font than the NDP name. There is no policy or platform. It looks like the Tom Mulcair and associates party. 

Contrast that with the Liberal party's current website.

http://www.liberal.ca/

The Liberal party name is most prominent. There is no picture of Trudeau. His name is in the same size font as the platform and the link to MPs. Although there is a link to get email sign-offs COP21 dominates the page.

welllll...if it's factual Gerald Butts is the real PM, then Justin  hardly claim to be the PM and not just a member of the team.

Pondering wrote:

AC, I was going to answer point by point but it wouldn't matter because you are determined to misunderstand anything I say.

Co-op

• divert to or use in a role different from the usual or original one."social scientists were co-opted to work with the development agencies"
• adopt (an idea or policy) for one's own use."the green parties have had most of their ideas co-opted by bigger parties"

Trudeau co-opted the language of Occupy in talking about taxing the 1% who can afford to pay more.

In my opinion the document is an interesting snapshot of what the Liberals were thinking after dropping to third place in 2011 and the type of "soul searching" they had to do to come back. Now the NDP has fallen back to third place and hopefully entering it's own phase of "soul searching".

The emphasis on Mulcair rather than on the party and policy is not a good look. Everything is gone.

The Conservatives still have their stuff up:

http://www.conservative.ca/our-party/governing-documents/

 

Pondering, seriously, if you can't stop patronizing me, than stop replying to my  posts. Its really getting tiresome. I've told you, you're not any smarter than me. And I've also told you, you aren't fooling anyone. Spare me. I have an University Degree, am well read, and have a diverse and very real, really hands-on life time of experiene. I have no need to have anything explained to me by you; and you definitely have NOTHING to teach me.

I'm not prepared to admit you're my superior. You aren't. I'm not yours either. But if you can't figure that out, that's your problem, and certainly not mine. Stop talking to me like a bumpkin, a rube, a ingnorant peasant or a dellusional lunatic. I'm not. I don't appreciate it and I'd ask you stop.

ETA: I take your last reply above to be an admission that you have no counter to anything I wrote.

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering, seriously, if you can't stop patronizing me, than stop replying to my  posts. Its really getting tiresome. I've told you, you're not any smarter than me. And I've also told you, you aren't fooling anyone. Spare me. I have an University Degree, am well read, and have a diverse and very real, really hands-on life time of experiene. I have no need to have anything explained to me by you; and you definitely have NOTHING to teach me.

I am not patronizing you. Either you didn't understand my use of the term "co opt" or you read blindly just looking for something to jump on or you were deliberately misrepresenting what I said. You write as though you think you are psychic and know what I am thinking so argue with that instead of what I actually write.

You have often stated that you don't believe anything I say. I find some of your claims really difficult to believe based on your behavior. I guess neither of us will ever know.

Your posts are a series of accusations against me not a discussion of political ideas.

You''re projecting again, Pondering.

It's a truly embarassing web page, a cult of personality for a leader without much public personality. 

I actually like Tom Mulcair. On a regualr basis I go through the part of Mount Orford Park that he did so much to protect. I think the campaign he and Randall Garrison led for the NDP against Bill C-51 turned public opinion around from overwhelming support to opposition. I respect his stand on principle on issues like the niqab. But I'm still confused why the NDP felt it had to destroy its longtime imege as a party that fights for the little people into a leader-driven campaign, based around a man who was once, for a while, a mid-ranking minister in a provincial government - as if that epitomized managerial competence and expererience. [i]And why, after that gambit failed, the NDP continues to do it.[/i] 

I was gob smacked when I went to it. If Mulcair stays on the party will finish with even less seats than they got this election. If it unmuzzles its left wing MP's and allow them to speak from the heart they might gain ground again. Becoming Mulcair's NDP is no way to sell a left wing vision. He cannot run from the left because he is not a leftist he is at heart a liberal. The website tells us who he is and it sends that message loud and clear, even more so than during the election.

swallow wrote:

But I'm still confused why the NDP felt it had to destroy its longtime imege as a party that fights for the little people into a leader-driven campaign, 

Welcome to the the 21st century (or even the 20th century) - parties are leader driven - there is nothing new in this - the whole time Jack layton was leader - Layton was the "brand" and the NDP was essentially "the Jack layton Party" and before that for many years it was "the Broadbent Party" and as i recall in 1984 and 1988 - the national NDP campaign totally revolved afround promoting the leader. I'm not saying this is good or bad - only that there is nothing new here and that the NDP has been running leadership focussed campaigns for at least the last 30 years if not longer. 

Layton became the brand, I agree, but not in his first couple of elections. By the time the NDP started branding itself the Jack Layton party, people knew him and liked him. Do people know and like Tom Mulcair? I see little evidence of it. The Liberals spoke of their "team" a lot. The NDP only of Tom, Tom, Tom. This remains the case - the Liberals showcase their well-liked leader, but also his cabinet. The NDP, which had an inceedibly talented opposition caucus and still has good people to showcase, seems to have decided to hide them, so that there's more space for Tom, Tom, Tom. I can't understand why - it has not and is not working. Even if you can't maek the party responsive to its supporters, do what the Liberals did and are doing - it works better.

I am tired of the argument that Mulcair has done so well if you just forget about 2011 (which is hardly a reasonable approach since that is what he started with). Mulcair had more publicity than any other NDP leader and the resources and attention of the Official Opposition position.

Before 2008 the NDP registered little support and no seats in Quebec. We know that the Orange wave in Quebec of 2011 was devastated. And some people want to forget the wave of 2011 as if it did not happen and was not an advantage for Mulcair.

How did things look outside of Quebec comparing to 2008 and 2006 and earlier? First, let us remember when we are talking about results being compared back to 1993-2000: these were single digit years in popular vote and the party hovering around party status.

Given the NDP's hostiry a look at what has happened outside Quebec is valuable:

BC: Mulcair did slightly better (less than 1% in votes) in 2015 than Layton did in 2008 but less than Layton's performance of 2006 and 2004. Better splits and new seats helped the NDP and greater distance from unpopular provincial NDP governments also helped. There is nothing to suggest that the uptick in BC was Mulcair's doing.

Alberta: After the election of the NDP in the Spring, it may come as a shock that the NDP did not do as well as it had in 2008 and only matched the popular vote of 2006 although retaining the seat the NDP had back in 2008.

SK: The NDP is happy to have 3 seats in Saskatchewan but this is only due to better seat boundaries. The popular vote in SK is below that of 2008, barely above that of 2006 and 2004 and below that of the year 2000. hardly a good year.

MB: The NDP vote in Manitoba is the worst in modern history -- worse than 1997 and 1993. On this we can partly blame the provincial government but the scale of the result is especially serious.

ON: You have to go back to the year 2000 to get a result in Ontario worse than this. The 2004 election saw one fewer in seats but the new seats make 2015 not really an improvement. Forget 2011. The Mulcair total is less than Layton's 2008 total and a third less than his 2006 total in seats.

NB: This is the worst result in seats since the single digit years of 1997 and worst in popular vote since 2000.

NS: You have to go back to 1993 to get a result that is worse than this in popular vote. And that far back to get a result this bad in seats.

NL: You have to go back to 2006 to get a result worse than this in popular vote and this bad in seats.

North: For the NDP to be shut out in the North you have to go back to 2004 to have a result this bad.

Summary:
In more than half of the Provinces Mulcair has erased almost compeltely the NDP progress since BEFORE Layton first appeared. Mulcair's outside of Quebec performance measures poorly against the 2004, 2006, 2008 elections nevermind the 2011 election. In some provinces you ahve to go back to the very worst days in NDP history to find anything that compares. Considering this came after the best years in the NDP's history, this defeat was one of the worst, if not the worst ever for the party (dependeding on how you measure it). Outside Quebec, Mulcair has set the party back a whole generation.

thorin_bane wrote:

I think its a name recognition thing.

Yes, I think it definitely started out that way; Layton's death wasn't something people had necessarily planned for, he had great name recognition at that point, and nobody outside the party and outside of Quebec knew Mulcair well.  And so the NDP pretty much had to push him and his face out there in front, to get him that name recognition by the time the election rolled around.  They did IMO a good job of it, and it worked, at least in regard to the name recognition.  I forgot how many emails I got where Tom invited me to come to a hockey game with him, *snicker*.

But I sure would like to see the NDP let that go instead of making the NDP website all about Mulcair.  Everybody knows his name now, and to me this smacks of him cementing his position, going full-throttle for the cult of personality instead of doing much-needed soul searching.  And I don't see the point, considering he really has no chance to beat Trudeau on personality cult points -- are they still sticking with the old saw about Trudeau's inexperience, hoping for a long game that will show him up?  IMO that's a losing proposition, even if it were true -- Trudeau is too damn personable for that to stick.  The NDP site really bugs me, and it ticks me off that I consistently find the Liberals doing what I want the NDP to be doing, marketing-wise.

Would the name recognition of Mulcair help next time around?  I am not so sure, actually.  Next time will be a different situation, and nobody yet knows exactly what will drive the Canadian voter.  Mulcair did not cover himself with glory, and however little he seems willing to admit that at this point, is that something that will even come up at the leadership convention?  I think there's enough time to push another person, just like was done with Mulcair after Layton died, though there will be somewhat less time, and maybe less opportunity for a new leader to make a name for themselves. 

What I see as a much larger problem is that the leadership vote showed a decisive lead for Mulcair and his centrist ideas (57 to 42%, and he led comfortably through all 4 ballots IIRC).  But I don't really know how much of that support was for those centrist ideas versus for Mulcair over Topp personality-wise, you know?  I'm not a party insider, nor do I know any.

I don't have a good feel whether the majority of the NDP membership actually approves of the move towards the centre, and the whole "middle class" appeal.  If it does, we're all just howling against the wind here.