Mulcair-led NDP (thread #12)

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brachina

http://sixthestate.net/?p=5022 The right is so threatened by Quebec's reengagement with the rest of Canada that they're become seperatists. Two key elements threaten them the most, the student protests whose influence is spreading beyond Quebec boarders and the NDP lead be Thomas Mulcair who can defeat Harper and put an end to his nightmare. So thier willing to kick Quebec out to cut off the "leftwing infection" before it spreads. Yet they attack Tom on National Unity, how laughable.

JeffWells

Brachina wrote:
The right is so threatened by Quebec's reengagement with the rest of Canada that they're become seperatists.

Yes. It was the tragedy of election night, IMO. Quebec said yes to Canada and Canada said meh

Harper leading the "No" side will be a wonder of passive aggressiveness. Quebec out of Canada is the Reform Party long-game. 

 

JeffWells

dupe.

NorthReport

;;

NorthReport

Rookie Tory MP backtracks on opposition to budget bill

 

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rookie-tory-mp-backtracks-o...

 

The Revelstoke Times Review reported on the meeting, stating that the MP vowed to vote against the budget bill if - a “big if” he stressed - 12 other government MPs vote with him.

“I will stand up and say the Harper government should get rid of Bill C-38,” he was quoted as saying.

The report also quotes the MP saying that he’s hearing a lot of concern about the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline that would link the Alberta oil sands to the Pacific Coast.

“We're getting it from all sides on Enbridge. I'm not as convinced as some people are that Enbridge will go ahead,” Mr. Wilks is quoted as saying.

The Conservative government is a strong supporter of the Enbridge pipeline proposal and the budget bill contains extensive changes to environmental regulations that would speed up the regulatory approval process for such projects.

According to the news report, the audience at the Tuesday meeting included at least one member of the Occupy Revelstoke group and all of the roughly 30 participants were opposed to the sweeping nature of the budget bill.

In the video of the meeting posted online, the Conservative MP said he and his colleagues are concerned by the lack of internal debate and input that backbenchers have in government policy.

“Certainly it concerns some of us backbenchers [that] the decisions are made predominantly by the cabinet and then they come back to us informing us how this is going to move forward. Some backbenchers, including myself, can go meet with [Finance Minister Jim] Flaherty, or [Natural Resources Minister Joe] Oliver or [Environment Minister Peter] Kent or whomever it may be that you want to meet with, but at the end of the day, in my opinion, they’ve made up their mind and this is how it’s going to move forward and one person is not going to make a difference. One MP is not going to make a difference.”

Also in the video, Mr. Wilks is asked how he can approve a bill that contains so many different measures.

“I think you’ll find a barrage of Conservatives that do hold your concerns, and I am one of them,” he said. “I do believe that some could be separated out.”

Brachina

NorthReport wrote:

Rookie Tory MP backtracks on opposition to budget bill

 

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rookie-tory-mp-backtracks-o...

 

The Revelstoke Times Review reported on the meeting, stating that the MP vowed to vote against the budget bill if - a “big if” he stressed - 12 other government MPs vote with him.

“I will stand up and say the Harper government should get rid of Bill C-38,” he was quoted as saying.

The report also quotes the MP saying that he’s hearing a lot of concern about the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline that would link the Alberta oil sands to the Pacific Coast.

“We're getting it from all sides on Enbridge. I'm not as convinced as some people are that Enbridge will go ahead,” Mr. Wilks is quoted as saying.

The Conservative government is a strong supporter of the Enbridge pipeline proposal and the budget bill contains extensive changes to environmental regulations that would speed up the regulatory approval process for such projects.

According to the news report, the audience at the Tuesday meeting included at least one member of the Occupy Revelstoke group and all of the roughly 30 participants were opposed to the sweeping nature of the budget bill.

In the video of the meeting posted online, the Conservative MP said he and his colleagues are concerned by the lack of internal debate and input that backbenchers have in government policy.

“Certainly it concerns some of us backbenchers [that] the decisions are made predominantly by the cabinet and then they come back to us informing us how this is going to move forward. Some backbenchers, including myself, can go meet with [Finance Minister Jim] Flaherty, or [Natural Resources Minister Joe] Oliver or [Environment Minister Peter] Kent or whomever it may be that you want to meet with, but at the end of the day, in my opinion, they’ve made up their mind and this is how it’s going to move forward and one person is not going to make a difference. One MP is not going to make a difference.”

Also in the video, Mr. Wilks is asked how he can approve a bill that contains so many different measures.

“I think you’ll find a barrage of Conservatives that do hold your concerns, and I am one of them,” he said. “I do believe that some could be separated out.”

 

Imagine how fed up and worried about his job this guy must be for him to go public like this, I mean this is no Bruce Hyer who has a history of being a bit of a maverick.

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Who is unhappy now?

Criticism by Conservative MP shows depth of unease over omnibus budget bill

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/23/john-ivison-criticism-by-...

NorthReport

Have you ever seen rich people volunteer to share their resources? Just not gonna happen, so I wouldn't take the braying of Alberta and Sask leaders too seriously, as their whinning was to be expected. Trudeau did the right thing in the 80s with the NEP, and Mulcair is doing the right thing now. And I tend to agree with JKR that we need to reconsider our political structures in Canada and perhaps, apart from Quebec, eliminate our provincial governments are they are a colossal waste of money and time.

 

madmax

NR, Could you put a small comment next to your links. Sometimes you do , sometimes you don;t

It is helpful if you do.

6079_Smith_W

NorthReport wrote:

Have you ever seen rich people volunteer to share their resources? Just not gonna happen, so I wouldn't take the braying of Alberta and Sask leaders too seriously, as their whinning was to be expected. Trudeau did the right thing in the 80s with the NEP, and Mulcair is doing the right thing now. And I tend to agree with JKR that we need to reconsider our political structures in Canada and perhaps, apart from Quebec, eliminate our provincial governments are they are a colossal waste of money and time.

Kinda funny to hear Saskatchewan being referred to as "rich people" seeing as we're still paying off the debt left over by Grant Devine, and we still have a lower per capita income that the two central Canadian provinces.

And why on earth would you want to take a political system that is already top-heavy and vulnerable to authoritarian control, and make it even more vulnerable by removing two whole levels of government - the provincial and the municipal, which is currently under provincial jurisdiction? You might want to note the differences, however slight, between the political climates in different provinces before going through with that plan. 

Me, I have no desire to pay HST or private insurance, so I am just fine with having strong and separate provincial governments, thank you.

 

NorthReport

It is always about money, isn't it.

We would do fine with municipal and federal governments, except Quebec needs its provincial government, and get rid of these unelected fiefdoms like Metro Vancouver. Harper is basically crippling our federal government, and we are only 35 million. Surely we can have national programs.

6079_Smith_W

All about the money? Hey, I'm not the one who started talking about rich people.

I don't know about down east, but the four western provinces all have quite distinct political landscapes, to a great degree shaped by our provincial governments. And frankly, I don't get the sense of the argument to remove them, since the federal and provincial systems have always functioned as a sort of check and balance on each other

If anything, I think we would probably do better with a few city-states  like they have overseas. Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal would all be fine candidates.

 

quizzical

an ON MP Tony Clemment was on AB tv tonight. guess he was speaking in Calgary 'bout this. tryin to tell his audience AB tar sands help all Canadians 'cause he is from Ontario and he knows.

he speech should be taken apart exposing the lies IMV.

NorthReport
love is free love is free's picture

it seems like opinion pieces in all the canadian papers these days are divided evenly between condemnation of the quebec students, a broader anti-quebec line as equalization negotiations approach, and ludicrous anti-mulcair articles accusing him of being everything from anti-canada to a raving lunatic.  it's at the point where i can't even browse national newswatch anymore without becoming bored and depressed.  even reading left-wing sites gets me down.

sometimes, even when things have never been better for your side, politics is just a bummer.

NorthReport

And it always will.

 

Economic unity beats out crime as hot issue, poll finds

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/economic-unity-beats-out-cr...

socialdemocrati...

NorthReport wrote:

And it always will.

 

Economic unity beats out crime as hot issue, poll finds

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/economic-unity-beats-out-cr...

Does anyone find it odd how nanos phrased the question?

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W12-T538E.pdf

In past surveys, it's always been "name your top issue". And the issues are simple one or two word answers: health care, crime, education, or "jobs/economy".

This time, it's "strengthening Canada's economic union". Which the globe and mail reports as "economic unity".

I'll be the first to say economic unity sounds nice. I'm tired of just focusing on "growth", when most Canadians don't ever see the fruits of that growth. A little unity is long overdue. I might even call it "solidarity".

But considering the timing of the oilsands debate... I can't help but feel that "economic unity" is code for "STFU and let foreign companies looting our natural resources and leaving us with the mess. Criticizing them is divisive."

Am I missing some other reason behind the choice in wording?

NorthReport

Semi-rogue Tory MP shouldn’t underestimate caucus unrest

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/24/matt-gurney-semi-rogue-to...

NorthReport

Mulcair’s ‘Dutch’ Remarks Bring Economic Policy to Focus

 

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/canada/mulcairs-dutch-remarks-bring-econ...

NorthReport

Agitators, eh! 

Well you have to hand it to Harper at least for for being brazen.

Tories say ‘professional agitators’ behind robo-calls legal fight

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-say-professional-agi...

finois finois's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

And it always will.

 

Economic unity beats out crime as hot issue, poll finds

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/economic-unity-beats-out-cr...

Does anyone find it odd how nanos phrased the question?

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W12-T538E.pdf

In past surveys, it's always been "name your top issue". And the issues are simple one or two word answers: health care, crime, education, or "jobs/economy".

This time, it's "strengthening Canada's economic union". Which the globe and mail reports as "economic unity".

I'll be the first to say economic unity sounds nice. I'm tired of just focusing on "growth", when most Canadians don't ever see the fruits of that growth. A little unity is long overdue. I might even call it "solidarity".

But considering the timing of the oilsands debate... I can't help but feel that "economic unity" is code for "STFU and let foreign companies looting our natural resources and leaving us with the mess. Criticizing them is divisive."

Am I missing some other reason behind the choice in wording?

Nanos must have a direct line to Con talking points.

Having some knowledge of this science, i can't see a pro con issue poll being better framed for their benefit.

In my opinion we should start calling his polls WHAT THEY REALLY APPEAR TO BE " propoganda tools" for the HARPER GOVERNMENT rather than true information polling.

nicky

Canadians split over NDP leader Thomas Mulcair’s opinion of Alberta’s oil sands: poll

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/25/canadians-split-over-ndp-leader-thomas-mulcairs-opinion-of-albertas-oilsands-poll/

nicky
NorthReport

The headline should read: More Canadians than not support Mulcair's position on Canada's economy!!! 

New poll suggests Canadians split over NDP Leader Tom Mulcair's energy views

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/new-poll-suggests-canadians-spli...

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggests slightly more Canadians disagree than agree with Mulcair — 45 per cent compared to 41 per cent 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Not everyone is a Mulcair groupie like you, NR. Laughing

NorthReport
NorthReport

Make the polluter pay - what's wrong with that?

The NDP position on the environment: Make the polluter pay

  May 25, 2012 – 4:57 PM ET

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/25/the-ndp-position-on-the-e...

knownothing knownothing's picture

If Mulcair really wants to make an impression on Albertans he should drive up to Fort Mac on that infamous highway north from Edmonton( as opposed to flying in a plane or helicopter)...that would really give em something to talk about

Tommy_Paine

I think Mulcair is dropping the ball on the protests in Quebec.  I'd agree that as long as the issue was about tuition fees it's not in the federal balliwick, and it was a wise policy to remain mum on the subject.  However, the unconstitutionality of Bill 78 has transformed that protest into something larger, and something that invades the federal scene.

I always get into trouble with this subject, and I will gladly admit that Quebec politics is not my forte.  However, I will venture into these shark infested waters.  Bleeding. 

BUT it seems to me that one of the contributing factors, perhaps a big contributing factor to the growth of separatism was the Federal Government's and ROC indifference to Duplessis' "Padlock Law", which everyone regarded as a violation of the British North America Act, but allowed it to stand for twenty years before the Supreme Court finally struck it down. People in Quebec, I believe, looked upon this and wondered what was the point of being in a Confederation? 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

But, continuing on with that thought, we have a similar situation today.  Certainly a federal leader should be wieghing in on an unconstitutional law aimed at crushing disent?  And should Mulcair not be giving voice to that?

Just, you know, wonderin'.

NorthReport

Harper has big and powerful foreign allies.

Harper is right: Foreign radicals are after the oil sands

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/gerald-capla...

 

Stockholm

Tommy_Paine wrote:

BUT it seems to me that one of the contributing factors, perhaps a big contributing factor to the growth of separatism was the Federal Government's and ROC indifference to Duplessis' "Padlock Law", which everyone regarded as a violation of the British North America Act, but allowed it to stand for twenty years before the Supreme Court finally struck it down. People in Quebec, I believe, looked upon this and wondered what was the point of being in a Confederation? 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

OK, you're wrong and i am correcting you. If people in Quebec were really all that averse to the Padlock Law - why do you think they kept re-electing Duplessis and his band of criminals in the Union nationale election after election for 20 years??? In the 50s no one in Quebec was pleading with Ottawa to disallow the Padlock Law - they were busy trying to simply defeat Duplessis in a provincial election and he just kept winning over and over again. The Padlock law was finally repealed when the strongly federalist Jean Lesage won power in 1960 and ushered in the Quiet Revolution. Keep in mind that when the Padlock Law was brought in, Quebec was still an extremely conservative devoutly Catholic society where p[eople LIKED the idea of the government cracking down on communists and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Tommy_Paine

Point taken, Stockholm, however I think it's error prone to interpret the re-election of a corrupt politician with general pubic opinion, and it doesn't cover what the future leaders were thinking at the time.  Your refutation is somewhat incomplete, but I appreciate and value it all the same, and give it some weight.

Be that as it may, even if my historical references are off, isn't Bill 78 something Mulcair-- and other federal leaders-- should be wieghing in on?

 

Brachina

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Point taken, Stockholm, however I think it's error prone to interpret the re-election of a corrupt politician with general pubic opinion, and it doesn't cover what the future leaders were thinking at the time.  Your refutation is somewhat incomplete, but I appreciate and value it all the same, and give it some weight.

Be that as it may, even if my historical references are off, isn't Bill 78 something Mulcair-- and other federal leaders-- should be wieghing in on?

 

Bill 78 is a horrible law, but still a proviancal law. The fact that it violates charter rights does make it within the courts juristiction however.

Mulcair has shown his support as best he can without interfereing in provincially. He's calling for 800 million dollars in education transferes to lower student debt nationally. He called for both sides to come back to the bargaining table. Much more and he'd be interfering in the business national assembly.

Now if Harper did send in the military or even the RCMP to stop the protests then Mulcair could act more directly, which by that I mean,condeme it or a even filabuster it. Not much more then that. Of course the dynamic changes if Harper is stupid enough to use the war measures act. I shudder to think where that would lead.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that after decades of PQ/BQ complaining about the Ottawa interfering in Quebec's business they're upset because the leader of the federal NDP leader won't interfer? Am I the only one that finds it strange that the PQ leader attacking the federal NDP? Who wants to bet the NDP ends up being discussed a surprising amount during the next Quebec election, even during the debates. I see Pauline turning to Amir and attacking him for his NDP membership.

CanadaApple

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Point taken, Stockholm, however I think it's error prone to interpret the re-election of a corrupt politician with general pubic opinion, and it doesn't cover what the future leaders were thinking at the time.  Your refutation is somewhat incomplete, but I appreciate and value it all the same, and give it some weight.

Be that as it may, even if my historical references are off, isn't Bill 78 something Mulcair-- and other federal leaders-- should be wieghing in on?

 

Perhaps, but keep in mind that the HoC is on a break this week, so it's been pretty low-key for Federal Politics aside from the EI changes. I don't think I've even seen or heard Mulcair on TV since last sunday, and then it was all about his Dutch Disease comments.  And I don't think Bill 78 started getting alot of attention until after that. So we'll have to wait and see if Mulcair makes a comment on it. IIRC, Intergovernmental Affairs is under his name in the Shadow Cabinet, so he very well might.

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Kinda funny to hear Saskatchewan being referred to as "rich people" seeing as we're still paying off the debt left over by Grant Devine, and we still have a lower per capita income that the two central Canadian provinces.

And why on earth would you want to take a political system that is already top-heavy and vulnerable to authoritarian control, and make it even more vulnerable by removing two whole levels of government - the provincial and the municipal, which is currently under provincial jurisdiction? You might want to note the differences, however slight, between the political climates in different provinces before going through with that plan.

Most Canadians are being ripped off by our broken federal system. The biggest problem with our federal system is that it  didn't make non-renewable resources a federal jurisdiction. By making non-renewab;e resources a provincial jurisdiction, our system has created a system of inherent inequality and division. Unfortunately, the equalization program guarantee in the constitution has not been up to the task providing sufficient provincial equality. If Canada's non-renewable resource wealth and royalties were a federal jurisdiction or if Canada's equalization program assured that all provinces had comprable revenues, our federal system would benefit all Canadians. But our federal system does not meet one of those two criteria and because of that we have a broken federal system akin to the EU's broken system, where some jurisdictions like Germany benefit while others like Greece don't.

 

Concerning per capita GDP, Saskatchewan is in 2nd place after Alberta.

List of Canadian provinces and territories by gross domestic product

Quote:

Per capita GDP - 2010

1 - Alberta - $70,826
2 - Saskatchewan - 60,878
3 - Newfoundland - 55,138
4 - Ontario - 46,303
5 - BC -  44,847
6 - Manitoba - 43,950
7 - Quebec - 40,394
8 - New Brunswick - 39,117
9 - Nova Scotia - 38,475
10 - PEI - 34,937

 

Nova Scotia Alternative Budget 2012 - CCPA

Quote:

Per Capita Provincial Program Spending, 2009 [page 10]

1 - Newfoundland - $11,717
2 - Alberta - 10,479
3 - Saskatchewan - 10,173
4 - PEI - 9,908
5 - Quebec - 9,271
6 - New Brunswick - 8,955
7 - Manitoba 
8 - Nova Scotia - 8,390
9 - BC - 8,118
10 - Ontario - 7,266

Here in Canada, the people who live in provinces that represent approx 75% of the population are disadvantaged by our broken federal system.

A few changes would rebalance the federation, including:

- Non-renewable resource corporations should not be able to deduct provincial resource royalties from their federal tax.
- The equalization program should treat non-renewable resource royalties like other sources of income.
- The equalization program should insure that all provinces have comprable financial resources.
- Provinces that benefit from non-renewable reources should put their winfall income into a sovereign wealth fund as Norway has.

If our federal system doesn't start working better, it would benefit most Canadians if their province dissolved itself and handed their jurisdiction and debt to the federal government.

JKR

Instead of just defending against attacks that the NDP is "anti-West" the NDP could play up the fact that Harper and the Conservatives have been anti Ontario-Quebec-BC-Manitoba-Nova Scotia-New Brunswick-PEI.

Very Far Away

JKR wrote:

Instead of just defending against attacks that the NDP is "anti-West" the NDP could play up the fact that Harper and the Conservatives have been anti Ontario-Quebec-BC-Manitoba-Nova Scotia-New Brunswick-PEI.

 

Well said.

6079_Smith_W

@ JKR

My comment was about wages, not GDP. 

Though I have to thank you because I must have had some old data. You are right: Saskatchewan wages are higher than those in Ontario; it just happened for the first time ever in Canadian history this year. Obviously things are broken and need to be fixed right away.

Quebec wages are in fact lower - on par with those in Manitoba.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1092250--saskatchewa...

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/labr79-eng.htm

And actually, it wasn't an attack on Mulcair being anti-west. It was about the portrayal of Saskatchewan as "rich". when we have been at the mercy of the company store for most of confederation, and in some things, still are. Certainly the interests of regions outside Central Canada have never been assumed to be the same as Canadian interests. But when things start getting a little tight for Ontario, well then clearly things are unfair, and we need to fix it.

But what mystifies me even more is the notion that getting rid of the federal-provincial separation of power is a good thing - considering our federal government is currently being run out of one guy's office. There are plenty of situations in which a bad thing has been prevented by that separation, and part of the reason why things are not going so well currently is because we have a federal government which is not interested in enforcing its end of those powers.

It's a terrible idea, and I don't see that any case has been made for it. And again, given the historical context, it seems quite hypocritical to me. 

 

Brachina

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpo...

He makes some good points that connect with Mulcair's statement that this generation is going to be the first that have it worse then the one that preceeded them (actually much of this will also end up nailing generation x as well as generation y, but y has it worse).

JeffWells

Trying to understand the angle to this story. Is it Thomas Mulcair can't manage his own finances. Should you trust him with Canada's?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/27/mulcair-has-remortgaged-his-queb...

 

KenS

The angle is kind of obvious.

Its called muckracking. And I say that having a lot of respect for Glen MacGregor, who wrote the story. Glen isnt actually offering that subtext of 'cant manage Canada's finances, ' even implicitly.

He's muchracking where there is an interest. Thats non-ideological journalism these days. There is an interest out there, and I'm good at digging up facts. So here it is.

He does it to everybody- and I know that the Conservatives are his favourite target. But I think that is primarily because they are the biggest hypocrites, and secondarily because they shamelessly attack institutions fundamental to our democracy. I Wouldnt be surprised if he makes an effort to distribute his muckracking attention... those bourgois notions of journalistic impartiality.

6079_Smith_W

JeffWells wrote:

Trying to understand the angle to this story. Is it Thomas Mulcair can't manage his own finances. Should you trust him with Canada's?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/27/mulcair-has-remortgaged-his-queb...

 

I don't know about the angle, but obviously the writer is not someone who has never been self-employed, and clearly isn't aware of the fact that you could have a million-dollar property, but unless you are wealthy, if you don't have a paycheque banks won't trust you to walk across the street.

I learned the lesson watching a good friend of ours who is being forced to sell his family home because no bank will give him a mortgage - for the sole reason that he is a self-employed contracter. 

When it comes time to throw our mortgage in the fire, you can bet we'll be refinancing, or buying something else to keep ourselves in the loop.

It's fucked up, but it is how it is; and I am surprised that Canada's most right-wing mainstream paper is turning a blind eye to that. Whom do they think they are fooling? 

 

Geoff OB

I know we're focusing on the west here, but since this thread is about Mulcair's leadership in general, I'm wondering about Mulcair's position on the student protests in Montreal.  I've found very little in the mainstream media on the party's stand, and Rex Murphy seemed to delight in roasting Mulcair last Thursday on The National for not taking a position on the issue, particularly as it is happening in his home province.

Now, I wouldn't give a pinch of doggy-do for any opinion espoused by Rex Murphy, but I would like to see the NDP take a stand on what's going on in Quebec.  The party seems eerily silent - either that or perhaps I just missed it and will stand corrected.

theleftyinvestor

Well, let's see. Normally if you are carrying a mortgage you refinance every 5 years or so. Setting aside the fact that EVERYONE would have refinance more often than usual as the high-interest 1980s gave way to lower rates over the years... That means refinancing 6 times is "normal".

Now, how many election campaigns has he run in? Chomedey 1994, 1998, 2003. Outremont 2007, 2008, 2011. Plus the leadership race.

Do politicians frequently have to incur personal debt to run for office? Yes. What's the cheapest interest rate you're going to get for a loan if you have a home? A home equity line of credit. So it wouldn't be surprising if for every election campaign he refinanced to some degree one additional time. That adds up to 13. He did it 11 times.

So Mulcair is a guy who has had to borrow money every few years, and has never missed a payment, and is not living beyond his means. Isn't that relatively relatable? As opposed to a Romney type who is more likely to own 11 houses :P

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

[sound of gnashing teeth]

I so hate it when this kind of thing ("star" candidates) is brought up as a positive development. Frankly the prospect of "That's the type of people: senior business people, well-known names, and people with backgrounds in diplomacy, the highest government level. This is for us new territory and it's exciting." [direct quote from linked article] are not words that fill me with either excitement or enthusiasm. While I don't think having a high profile as, for an example, a "senior business person" should disqualify someone from being the party's standard bearer I also don't think it automatically qualifies them - all it does it indicate they have a certain degree of notoriety (often bearing little if any relationship to the agenda of the party), well that and raise questions as to what style of luggage they carry:

I also question the level of commitment such "stars" bring to any party. What role have they played in the development of policy for the party whose banner they are suddenly waving? How committed are they to respecting the decisions coming out of party conventions? Hell, how much loyalty to they exhibit to the party itself, and to the wishes of the constituents they are seeking to represent? I guess memories of David Emerson tend to come to the fore when I try to answer those questions.

The idea of parachuting candidates into "safe" ridings (mentioned in the article) also fails to generate any excitement or enthusiasm on my part. Had the NDP leadership race had a different outcome, I could understand the necessity of parachuting a leader into a safe riding (shades of Albertan Joe Clark representing the Nova Scotia riding of Kings-Hants circa 2000), but the circumstances that justify parachuting are few and far between, and I don't think "name recognition" is sufficient reason to pull the ripcord.

[/sound of gnashing teeth]


 

 

JKR

6079_Smith_W wrote:
But what mystifies me even more is the notion that getting rid of the federal-provincial separation of power is a good thing - considering our federal government is currently being run out of one guy's office. There are plenty of situations in which a bad thing has been prevented by that separation, and part of the reason why things are not going so well currently is because we have a federal government which is not interested in enforcing its end of those powers.

It's a terrible idea, and I don't see that any case has been made for it. And again, given the historical context, it seems quite hypocritical to me.

Looking through the lense of comparitive politics, I prefer unitary arrangements over federal ones. It seems to me that the situation in Quebec and Ontario is beginning to bear too much of a resemblence to the ones in Greece and Spain. I think Greece would be better off leaving the EU and I think a very good case could be made for Quebec leaving Canada. Both Quebec and Greece don't benefit from having to live with a currency that works against its political and social aspirations.  And what would the rest of Canada look like as a unitary state? I think it would be a lot more equal and united.

Since changing our constitution is difficult in Canada, creating more equality and unity should be achievd through limiting our artificially made federal inequalities as much as possible.

Brachina

JeffWells wrote:

Trying to understand the angle to this story. Is it Thomas Mulcair can't manage his own finances. Should you trust him with Canada's?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/27/mulcair-has-remortgaged-his-queb...

 

Disgusting, this is the man's home, this is scrapping the bottom barrel and Warren Kinesella is there to lick the,scum off that bottom, he's published a pic of Mulcair's garage. Omg he has a four car garage. Whoopy do. Between that and the above artical its clear,there getting desperate, they've tried everything.

Mulcair is an angery scary man boo, he hates the west, he has duel passports so he's not really Canadian, he's tax and spend socialist, he's a seperatist, he didn't try and stop Hitler, he hates the resource sector. He doesn't hate Quebec's students.

Every attack fails, this is just the latest and most pathetic yet. Many have an investment in Mulcair's failure. As for how he'd run a government, his enviromental department was well known to be efficent.

Is anyone investigating Harper's home? Has he had his wheaties today. Is he regular? What happens when you play Harper's nickleback CDs backwards, does it expose Satan selling his soul to Harper for Oilsand bitimen?

What's next on the attack list Mulcair's wife, oh wait I think they did that already, how about his kids, how about grandkids, medical reports, exgirlsfriends.

When the right fails to find a character defect big enough to exploit they revert to pure sleaze.

JeffWells

theleftyinvestor wrote:

So Mulcair is a guy who has had to borrow money every few years, and has never missed a payment, and is not living beyond his means. Isn't that relatively relatable? As opposed to a Romney type who is more likely to own 11 houses :P

Yes, that's what I took from it, too. So I wonder what muck there is to rake. Seems more virtue than vice.

Also, can't Kinsella recognize a two-car garage when he sees one? That's hardly palatial.

Pages

Topic locked