Mulcair-led NDP (thread #12)

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

JKR wrote:

 And what would the rest of Canada look like as a unitary state? I think it would be a lot more equal and united.

We're way off topic here, but I have to question what you base the assumption that the "Rest of Canada" is one thing on. Nothing in our history or our current affairs that I can see. The provinces never were one thing, and the inequalities you imagine are not artificial (though it would be nice if someone had started talking about them 50 or 100 years ago).

"More equal and united"? How do you imagine that? I mean, I know Quebec is a nation and all, but I wonder how someone from Newfoundland, which actually was a separate country until '49, or people in the north feel about being mixed in together with the rest of us. 

I know it has been 150 years since the Canadians swindled and invaded their way into this part of the world, so they could build their railway to the coast. If there ever was some sort of unified state that was perverted by our provincial system, I sure am not aware of it.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

All this proves is that the Libs will stoop to ANYTHING, to keep power. Its ALL about the power.

How about Deabter, where are you? Still haunting these pages? How about hot shot? Why again should ANYONE vote Liberal? Huh?

Jacob Two-Two

I think the Cons are at a bit of a loss as to how they're going to start attacking Mulcair. They're just throwing things out randomly to see if anyone bites and if the muck of the day gets some legs, then they'll run with it, but nothing's working out. This little tidbit shows how desperate they are. The whole "dutch disease" thing really blew up in their faces, it seems to me. Rather than a debate over "does Mulcair hate the west?" which is a discussion he can't win no matter how it ends up, it's turned into a real debate about the country's energy policies, which is absolutely the last thing they wanted. Those guys must be chewing their ties off right now. Makes me smile.

Brachina

http://www2.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=720b6742-b58d-4faf...

57 billion dollars pillaged from EI in 2008. Yeah good like justifying your EI changes and the death of seasonal industies now Harper.

KenS

Just keep saying that the Dutch Disease thing has blown up in the Cons faces.

I can see that it is not necessarily going to bite us, but I dont know why people want Kool Aid so bad that they chant mantras that this is just hurting the Conservatives.

Even if this does pay off for us in the end.... that doesnt mean that it does not make perfect sense for the Cons to get in their licks while the opportunity is there. [But I doubt they are pessimistic about how long they can get benefits from ragging this.] They might not win this in the long run, but it is not some desperate gambit... not even remotely like that.

janfromthebruce

I'm with you bk - the problem with the quote also alluded to a false belief that our current NDP lack bench strength in business or diplomacy or whatever and thus isn't it great that we are attracting these elitist and sought after Canadians to strengthen our electorial attractiveness and add to our "ready to govern" meme.

Of course, it does not mean that was the intent of Mulcair quoted comments and that much is being read into this article but like you I don't want the johnny and jill come latelies to our party who think they deserve or merit safe seats. In fact, the strength of our MPs has been that they did have to work really really hard to get elected (well prior to the Orange Wave) and thus work really hard representing their constituencies and the NDP.

The last thing I want is someone who is it for themselves and thus when they get pissed when things aren't going their way take a hike across the floor.

 

 

bagkitty wrote:

[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]


 

 

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Jacob Two-Two

Well, this is the first time I've said it. In fact, I've been watching with interest to see how this played out and was genuinely concerned about how the media might jump on it, but after a bit of time I think it's come off pretty well. Not in the sense of making the NDP look good. Honestly, I doubt that any good or bad impressions left by something this small would still be around by the election. No, it did something that was much worse than making the NDP look good. It got Canadians talking about a real issue rather than distracted by gutter politics. It was supposed to define Mulcair and instead the whole thing went right over discussions about Mulcair and straight to honest musing about the viability of our resource extraction.

pookie

Arthur Cramer wrote:

All this proves is that the Libs will stoop to ANYTHING, to keep power. Its ALL about the power.

How about Deabter, where are you? Still haunting these pages? How about hot shot? Why again should ANYONE vote Liberal? Huh?

 

maybe you should lay off the sauce Arthur.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pookie, that isn't funny. Why don't you shut the hell up?

KenS

I thought it was sick pookie.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

It was supposed to define Mulcair and instead the whole thing went right over discussions about Mulcair and straight to honest musing about the viability of our resource extraction.

Thats an early declaration of victory, which I think goes well beyond being optimistic / hopeful.

There were going to be some of the chattering classes that liked what Mulcair said. Guaranteed. So nothing has been demonstrated now that we get the inevitable evidence of that.

The question is the overall effect. We dont know that yet. And we have very little to project from, when we have not seen the attack ads yet... which may not happen for months... like the Fall, or later still.

Brachina
jjuares

Pookie's comment is disgusting.

madmax

Star Candidates....

Mulcair may want Star Candidates, but New Democrats should show caution by any such talk of Star Candidates.

All Parties like Star Candidates. Sometimes a Star Candidate Finishes 4th regardless of Publicity and Fame.

I believe Byers was once a "Star" candidate and was not only an electoral flop, its probably a good thing for New Dems that he wasn't elected.

I fear star candidates with the intestinal fortidude of Bob Rae and the ethics of Emerson.

I think every party attracts hockey stars, movie/television stars, media stars....and whatever else someone claims as a star.

Stars fade, Stars fall....

The NDP like all political parties should continue to seek out the best candidates and thats what strong riding associations can achieve.

Ignatief was a star... wasn't he....

Stockholm

I have no problem with "star candidates" given that "star" typically means that they are high quality people with impressive qualifications to add to the party. Mulcair himself was touted as a "star candidate" when he first ran in Outremont. Here are some other people (going east to west) in the NDP caucus who have been described as "stars" - I leave up to those reading this post as to whether these people are as worthless as "madmax" seems to imply:

Ryan Cleary (talk radio host and journalist)

Robert Chisholm (former NS NDP leader)

Nycole Turmel (ex pres. of PSAC)

Francoise Boivin (ex-Liberal MP)

Romeo Saganash (you all know his story)

Mulcair

David Christopherson (ex-Ontario cabinet minister)

Peggy Nash (special exec. to the CAW)

Craig Scott (Rhodes scholar, well-known law professor)

Olivia Chow (city councillor and spouse of Jack layton)

Ginny Sims (former head of the BCTF)

these are just a few top of mind examples. I hope the NDP gets even more people running who have done great things in their careers before running for public office. The more stars the better. To me star candidates are another way of saying high quality candidates. In 2015 I hope that we get some leading economists and people who have been very successful from all walks of life who are brimming with ideas. I don't want the slate of NDP candidates in 2015 to be bunch of randomly selected mediocrities. I want to see a slate of highly qualified people who are seen as the next cabinet.

janfromthebruce

Well I agree with Stock and also with others - their fears of what was implied or suggested in "star candidates" - eg. business people and we would be so surprised "candidates". I don't have a problem with what we may associated with NDP star candidates, but not ones who aren't NDP, expect the star treatment and just parachute in supposed safe seats. And Stock, I look at our elected MPs now and see highly qualified people who are cabinet material. It's not like we are not lacking in that department now.

theleftyinvestor

Obviously candidates would have to be vetted. Senior business leader is a pretty broad category. If a former CEO of an oil company wanted to run as an NDP candidate I would retch. But someone who worked with a reputable and socially responsible business, well, tell me more.

Also in regards to the house - no matter what his reaction, it's gotta be better than Rob Ford's reaction to people asking questions about his house ;-)

CanadaApple

janfromthebruce wrote:

Well I agree with Stock and also with others - their fears of what was implied or suggested in "star candidates" - eg. business people and we would be so surprised "candidates". I don't have a problem with what we may associated with NDP star candidates, but not ones who aren't NDP, expect the star treatment and just parachute in supposed safe seats. And Stock, I look at our elected MPs now and see highly qualified people who are cabinet material. It's not like we are not lacking in that department now.

I agree. I hope that some of the young Quebec MPs stick around and evetually get into Cabinet.

jjuares

My main fear about star candidates is that they end up being opportunists who are simply joining the winning team.   

mark_alfred

Silly comic strip from the Globe:

 

 

 

MegB

Closing for length.

Pages

Topic locked