Mulcair-led NDP (thread #8)

133 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stockholm

Call it "character assassination" if you want - but i happen to believe that people who switch parties without first resigning and asking their ridings to ratify their switch in a byelection to be people of deplorable character!

kropotkin1951

Stockholm wrote:

Its Canada's constitution. You cannot just dismiss this as a provincial affair since the only way to ever get Quebec to sign the constitution is for the federal government to propose amendments and reforms. Its not like the Quebec government is ever going to wake up one morning and decide to sign the same unamended constitution that every other previous Quebec government has rejected.  That would be political suicide in Quebec.

I guess you aren't old enough to remember the Charlottetown Accord.  The 1993 election saw the NDP go from 43 seats to 9. The Bloc went from 0 to 54. The Reform Party went from 1 by election seat to 52.  Which side of the 1992 referendum was Mulcair on? 

Stockholm you have said the NDP shouldn't talk about NATO much or free trade or legalizing pot because they are controversial issues and you want the NDP to reopen the constitutional file?  i certainly hope that the NDP does not hand Harper his next majority by going down that road.  There is no solution to the constitutional problem. 

I believe a lot of Westerners are like me. I have respect for separatists but want no part in negotiations with sovereignists holding a secession gun to my head. The balance of power within Confederation is not an easy thing to achieve and so far every leader that has tried has lost personal popularity and their parties lost seats in subsequent elections. In Quebec opening the constitution must involve "righting the wrongs" and most Canadians don't see Quebec as anymore down trodden in relation to the central government than the rest of us.

 

kropotkin1951

Stockholm wrote:

Call it "character assassination" if you want - but i happen to believe that people who switch parties without first resigning and asking their ridings to ratify their switch in a byelection to be people of deplorable character!

I tend to agree but he didn't switch parties did he. He got into a snit with the party over something and is sitting as an Independent.  That is his right unless you believe the party owns the seat and he is not an MP but a quacking duck or trained seal.

Stockholm

Question, does anyone seriously think Hyer could ever have been elected for the first time running as an independent - with no party brand and party resources to exploit?

Stockholm

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I believe a lot of Westerners are like me. I have respect for separatists but want no part in negotiations with sovereignists holding a secession gun to my head.

First of all you don't waste your time negotiating with sovereignists who only want to see Canada fail. You negotiate with FEDERALISTS in Quebec if there is a federalist provincial government to talk to. Otherwise its a waste of time.

kropotkin1951

Agreed which is why any talk of it now is just being a loose cannon.  Playing for the home town crowd over this divisive topic when there is no provincial federalist option is playing with fire.

 

JeffWells

Found this interesting:

 

Quote:

I first met Bruce Hyer at the Federal Convention in 2011. I wanted to have a nice conversation with him based on the little hints he was wearing that suggested he was a pilot; I come from a line of pilots you see.

That chat didn’t last very long. It was Day 3 of the convention, the delegates were anxious for the debate of the day. For those that forget, we were going to debate changing the preamble of the Party’s constitution to both update it, and to eliminate the use of the word “socialist”.

...

Hyer asked what I was doing standing at a “con” microphone. I told him I was prepared to speak against the resolution and I felt I gave a decent description of what my feelings were. Bruce was apparently impressed and said bluntly: “You’re very articulate but very misguided.” I was shocked and insulted. This coming from an NDP Member of Parliament!

When I protested he cut me off saying “if you want to be a socialist, why don’t you quit and join the Socialist Party?” At this I had enough, I was polite, but made it clear that we were of separate minds.

In the Federal Leadership race 6-8 months later he was a strong advocate for Nathan Cullen. It was clear to me that since Cullen lost, Hyer was probably very disenchanted with the party. Especially after he was looked over for a shadow cabinet position.

He was never a good fit.

...

http://thenewdemocrat.ca/2012/04/lafleur-bruce-hyer-was-never-a-good-fit...

knownothing knownothing's picture

Mulcair was great in the scrum today on Afghanistan. "Afghanistan is over. Bring the troops home."

Stockholm

Mulcair has also declared that 100% of NDP MPs support abortion rights, but he would whip the caucus regardless to vote down the tory PMB that seeks to erode abortion rights.

BOB RAE on the other hand will allow a free vote so all those anti-choice Liberal MPs can "vote their so-called conscience". So much for the Liberal claim to be a socially liberal party!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/25/pol-abortion-stephen-wo...

toaster

Stockholm wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

It means the preferences of the people of that northern Ontario riding mean absolutely nothing to the Mulcair faction. The promise of a whipped vote over the issue only underscores the extent to which these people matter to the Mulcairites politically.

What about Charlie Angus, Carole Hughes, Glenn Thibeault and Claude Gravelle?

All NDP MPs from NORTHEN Ontario. All voted to SAVE the gun registry. All were RE-ELECTED by whopping margins last May. Don't you think that maybe they speak for northern Ontario just as much as Bruce Hyer does (or claims to)?

Angus's percentage of the vote went down 6%, one of only a couple NDP ridings where the percentange declined from 2008-2011, so I'd say it did affect him.  

NorthReport

Gee, and I thought the Cons were supposed to be these great financial magers of the public purse. I guess we can lay that myth to rest as well as many of the others about these fiscal clowns.

‘Significant things’ missing from Tory tab for F-35s, Auditor-General warns

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/significant...

NorthReport

How forgetful.
The Cons must be having memory losses just like Rupert Murdoch
F-35 costs had 'significant things missing'

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/26/pol-f35-auditor-general...

NorthReport

I feel a bit sorry for Chretien watching his Liberal Party get mixed up with the likes of Paul Martin and more recently Ignatieff. The same people are still in control with Rae as interim leader now and they basically have done the LPC in.

I do have a question though - how does Hebert know it was BC & Sask NDP voters that ensured Mulcair's victory?

Michael Ignatieff’s BBC comments on shaky ground

 

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1167952--michael-ign...

n the month since Thomas Mulcair won the leadership of the NDP, every sovereignist indicator dropped sharply.

On Tuesday, a CROP poll reported that support for the Bloc Québécois had fallen below 20 per cent.

Over the same period, the Parti Québécois lost six points and only 36 per cent of Quebecers would have been inclined to vote yes in a referendum.

It is hard to credit these changes to any event other than Mulcair’s victory. From a Quebec perspective, it was the only positive federalist development in a pretty glum month:

 • Stephen Harper’s Conservatives brought down an austerity budget that took hits at popular Quebec icons such as Radio-Canada.

 • Quebec took its counterpart to court to preserve the province’s gun registry data.

 • The federal government announced it was closing a major penal institution in Laval and declined to put up a fight to salvage hundreds of airplane maintenance jobs at Aveos.

 • Dissatisfaction with the provincial Liberal government rose to 73 per cent from 70 per cent as a massive student strike brought daily demonstrations to the streets of Montreal.

The CROP figures were published on the very day when former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was raising eyebrows for his depiction of Canada as a federation whose solitudes had grown so far apart as to have little incentive to continue living together.

In a BBC interview, Ignatieff argued that the two referendums battles had left Quebec and the rest of Canada with precious little to say to each other. When asked whether Quebec independence was inevitable he answered: “I think eventually that’s where it goes.”

It is possible that Ignatieff’s analysis stems from his own failure to connect with Quebecers in last year’s election. His underlying thesis of a massive post-referendum devolution of powers does not hold water. Every province has run its own health and education systems since Confederation and Quebec’s immigration powers pre-date the referendum wars.

But Ignatieff’s conclusion also overlooks the fact that another federalist leader had no problems finding common ground with Quebecers last May and that his party has continued to do so in the face of an untimely leadership succession.

Part of Jack Layton’s implicit bargain with Quebecers last May was that if they relinquished a protest party that they controlled for the NDP, it — in turn — would do what it took to be a serious contender for federal power.

The post-convention pro-NDP pro-federalist uptick suggests that selecting a ready-for-prime-time leader such as Mulcair amounted to living up to that bargain.

For the record, it was New Democrats from the rest of Canada — in particular Saskatchewan and British Columbia — who made Mulcair’s victory possible.

 

kropotkin1951

NorthReport wrote:

I do have a question though - how does Hebert know it was BC & Sask NDP voters that ensured Mulcair's victory?

It was a message she read from the smoke coming out her ass.  Correct me if I am wrong but with a one member, secret ballot there is no way to do any regional breakdown. 

Obviously some members from those provinces must have voted for him because otherwise he could not have won. DUH

In that sense her stupid comment is fundamentally true but likely could be said of any other province with significant membership.  PEI members for instance had no effect but Manitoba and Ontario would be more like Saskatchewan and BC

NorthReport

Oh my goodness imagine that - gerrymandering. Actually I would be upset if the NDP was in power and they didn't do this.

Electoral Boundary Commissions: Opposition Parties Fear Politics Will Influence Redrawing Of The Electoral Map

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/26/electoral-boundary-commissions-c...

NorthReport

Thanks so much writer for sharing this excellent exchange

It sure appears that Harper has finally met his match.  

Aristotleded24

JeffWells wrote:

Found this interesting:

 

Quote:

I first met Bruce Hyer at the Federal Convention in 2011. I wanted to have a nice conversation with him based on the little hints he was wearing that suggested he was a pilot; I come from a line of pilots you see.

That chat didn’t last very long. It was Day 3 of the convention, the delegates were anxious for the debate of the day. For those that forget, we were going to debate changing the preamble of the Party’s constitution to both update it, and to eliminate the use of the word “socialist”.

...

Hyer asked what I was doing standing at a “con” microphone. I told him I was prepared to speak against the resolution and I felt I gave a decent description of what my feelings were. Bruce was apparently impressed and said bluntly: “You’re very articulate but very misguided.” I was shocked and insulted. This coming from an NDP Member of Parliament!

When I protested he cut me off saying “if you want to be a socialist, why don’t you quit and join the Socialist Party?” At this I had enough, I was polite, but made it clear that we were of separate minds.

In the Federal Leadership race 6-8 months later he was a strong advocate for Nathan Cullen. It was clear to me that since Cullen lost, Hyer was probably very disenchanted with the party. Especially after he was looked over for a shadow cabinet position.

He was never a good fit.

...

http://thenewdemocrat.ca/2012/04/lafleur-bruce-hyer-was-never-a-good-fit...

The one time I talked to him at Convention 2011 he seemed very much more interested in his own ideas than in listening to what anyone else had to say.

Howard

Aristotleded24 wrote:

JeffWells wrote:

Found this interesting:

 

Quote:

I first met Bruce Hyer at the Federal Convention in 2011. I wanted to have a nice conversation with him based on the little hints he was wearing that suggested he was a pilot; I come from a line of pilots you see.

That chat didn’t last very long. It was Day 3 of the convention, the delegates were anxious for the debate of the day. For those that forget, we were going to debate changing the preamble of the Party’s constitution to both update it, and to eliminate the use of the word “socialist”.

...

Hyer asked what I was doing standing at a “con” microphone. I told him I was prepared to speak against the resolution and I felt I gave a decent description of what my feelings were. Bruce was apparently impressed and said bluntly: “You’re very articulate but very misguided.” I was shocked and insulted. This coming from an NDP Member of Parliament!

When I protested he cut me off saying “if you want to be a socialist, why don’t you quit and join the Socialist Party?” At this I had enough, I was polite, but made it clear that we were of separate minds.

In the Federal Leadership race 6-8 months later he was a strong advocate for Nathan Cullen. It was clear to me that since Cullen lost, Hyer was probably very disenchanted with the party. Especially after he was looked over for a shadow cabinet position.

He was never a good fit.

...

http://thenewdemocrat.ca/2012/04/lafleur-bruce-hyer-was-never-a-good-fit...

The one time I talked to him at Convention 2011 he seemed very much more interested in his own ideas than in listening to what anyone else had to say.

You could say that of several MPs Laughing

6079_Smith_W

If Harper bothered to really think that one through he might have remembered that the country he now considers Canada's closest ally - the U.S. - was also officially anti-interventionist until the attack on Pearl Harbour.

And I guess he doesn't even care about how dredging up the anti-conscription issue will play in Quebec.

 

NDPP
KenS

There is absolutely no news in that CJN article. It is a "story" recounting past glories, which of course they want to trumpet and remind everyone.

He has said nothing on the issue as NDP Leader. My guess is that from now on he'll say nothing that Jack Layton would not say. So of course the CJN wants to play up the past while they still can.

6079_Smith_W

Just read a facebook post from Cathryn A. that the CCF council voted 13-9 in September 1939 to support the declaration of war. 

I bring this up not as a point of patriotism, but rather as a point of Stephen Harper not knowing what the fuck he is talking about.

 

quizzical

6079_Smith_ wrote:
the CCF council voted 13-9 in September 1939 to support the declaration of war. 

I bring this up not as a point of patriotism, but rather as a point of Stephen Harper not knowing what the fuck he is talking about.

 

dude who wrote the lame article in the National Post is a waste of time. he did not even bother fact checking himself before he wrote the article.  had he that would've been an actual "story' to report on.

and who are those who post those right wing comments about newspapers in Canada being controlled by the left? they sound like they have a grade 2 education or one lacking  in almost everything to do with facts.

Policywonk

quizzical wrote:

6079_Smith_ wrote:
the CCF council voted 13-9 in September 1939 to support the declaration of war. 

I bring this up not as a point of patriotism, but rather as a point of Stephen Harper not knowing what the fuck he is talking about.

 

dude who wrote the lame article in the National Post is a waste of time. he did not even bother fact checking himself before he wrote the article.  had he that would've been an actual "story' to report on.

and who are those who post those right wing comments about newspapers in Canada being controlled by the left? they sound like they have a grade 2 education or one lacking  in almost everything to do with facts.

Harper was talking about the Leader, however it was the Leader of the CCF, J.S. Woodsworth.

This is what Mackenzie King had to say about him at the time:

"There are few men in this Parliament for whom I have greater respect than the leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. I admire him in my heart, because time and again he has had the courage to say what lays on his conscience, regardless of what the world might think of him. A man of that calibre is an ornament to any Parliament."

 

 

NorthReport
flight from kamakura

that's a really nice quote on woodsworth.  certainly, mackenzie king was a greater man than harper could ever hope to be.  what was that quote about the hobgoblins of small minds?

NorthReport

What a change going on in the fortunes of the various political parties in Canada

 

Passengers jump from sinking Liberal ship

 

http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion/Columns/2012-04-27/article-2964551/...

It is a fascinating, possibly unprecedented, period of transition in Canadian party politics. The possible disintegration of the Liberal Party nationally and in many provinces is playing out in an almost chaotic fashion. And as with any sinking ship, it appears that Canada's largest political vessel is slipping beneath the surface in fits and starts, the final submersion to occur once the whole structure is completely decimated.

In two provinces, B.C. and Alberta, Liberal supporters seem to be on the forefront of a merger or talks with another party to save their political necks, although the party they are embracing in both cases is the Conservative Party, rather than the NDP.

In British Columbia, the collapse of the Liberals and the rise of the Conservatives has led to open solicitations from some senior B.C. Liberals that they combine forces against the poll-dominating provincial New Democrats. And one of the country's most strident and storied right-wingers, former Conservative MP John Reynolds, is leading the charge for the Liberals, saying on Tuesday, "Those of us who are conservatives are going to make sure that everyone on the conservative side will be with the Liberals."

And in Alberta, many Liberals have already abandoned ship, rushing easily and quickly to the ruling Conservatives. This Monday's election saw Alberta's Liberal vote drop from 26 per cent to nine per cent, this two-thirds collapse going almost entirely to the Alberta Conservatives. So yes, it appears merger activity is underway, at least in parts of the country, between two centre-right parties.

Across the country, what support among progressives there was for the Liberals seems to have firmly migrated to the NDP, if the last few months of federal polling can be believed, which shows the NDP neck and neck for the lead with Conservatives in the mid 30 per cent range and the Liberals stuck at 19 per cent of voter support.

writer writer's picture

“In 1939, the NDP leader didn’t even want to support the fight against Hitler.” — Harper

[Murmurs from the opposition that the NDP didn’t come into existence until 1961, birthed by a union between the socialist Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and the Canadian Labour Congress.]

“CCF, NDP, same difference.” — Harper 

“I guess we can start talking about Reform Party policies.” — Mulcair 

[Cue sounds of delight along the opposition benches.]

 

When Godwin's Law visited Parliament

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

NDPP, your post #78 contains homophobic language, which is against babble policy. I would appreicate it if you would retract it.

6079_Smith_W

writer wrote:

Back on topic, I sure hope somebody reminds Harper of the 1939 Conservative Party leader's position in regards to the docking of the St. Louis. 

 

Seeing as Canada's current refugee policy also sends people away to their deaths, it would be an appropriate comparison.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/19/veronica-mexico-refugee.html

However, it is a smear tactic probably best left to our prime minister, and not taken up by the leader of the opposition.

It's unfortunate that many of the responses to that article are just running with the story that the CCF didn't want to fight the Nazis. In fact the party supported giving material and capital support rather than cannon fodder. And in the end Canada's contribution of relief (and our merchant marine risked death as much as any other person going into the war) and serving as an air training ground was one of our greatest contributions.

As well, progressive people in Canada were probably the first to engage in that conflict during the Spanish Civil War.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/amy-macpherson/sent-to-globe-national-pos...

And of course, it should not need to be said that pacifism is not cowardice.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I hate ivison, what a smug sob!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I hate ivison, what a smug sob!

writer writer's picture

This is my favourite story about it, Smith: #HarperHistory lesson

6079_Smith_W

Yes, good one. I just finished reading the CBC's  piece on it.

...of course, I wish the NDP had had something to do with the Metis rebellion, but, like Harper's ramblings, that is just wishful thinking.

(edit)

It should also be noted that Woodsworth stepped down from the leadership because of his stand. That is an example Harper's minister of defense might want to take note of.

 

 

NDPP

Catchfire wrote:

NDPP, your post #78 contains homophobic language, which is against babble policy. I would appreicate it if you would retract it.

NDPP

sorry, it's gone.

NDPP

Much the same, just another toadie to the American rich. Rockefellar flunky and occultist kook.

kropotkin1951

To Harper i can only reply.

Neville Chamberlan was a Conservative.

Cool

writer writer's picture

I sure hope somebody reminds Harper of the 1939 Conservative Party leader's position in regards to the docking of the St. Louis. 

[Edited thanks to NDPP.]

writer writer's picture

Thank you, NDPP.

NDPP

thank you - quite correct too.

TheArchitect

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It should also be noted that Woodsworth stepped down from the leadership because of his stand. That is an example Harper's minister of defense might want to take note of.

Woodsworth didn't step down as leader.

He remained leader of the CCF until his death on March 21, 1942.

6079_Smith_W

TheArchitect wrote:

Woodsworth didn't step down as leader.

He remained leader of the CCF until his death on March 21, 1942.

You are right, thanks.

And in fact he did resist calls to resign at that point (he only did resign shortly before hid death in 1942).

What did happen in 1939 though is that Woodsworth was permitted to state his position, but the party policy was announced by M. J. Coldwell, who later succeeded him. According to Kenneth McNaught and Allen Mills (A Prophet in Politics: A Biography of J. S. Woodsworth) Woodsworth's position became honorary at that point.

 

 

CanadaApple

Did anyone else get an e-mail from Mulcair today?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Me.

NDPP

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I hate ivison, what a smug sob!

NDPP

and not a word of truth in any of it..

Sean in Ottawa

CanadaApple wrote:

Did anyone else get an e-mail from Mulcair today?

My fellow New Democrat,

Just a few weeks ago we gathered together in Toronto for an historic convention. The largest and most innovative in our party's history.

I want to thank you for the faith you have given me, and the support I have received from across the country. Like you, I am committed to continuing the work we started together, and working towards a New Democrat victory in 2015.

This week, parliament was back in session after a two-week break. Your New Democrat team is stronger than ever, more united than ever, and ready to take on Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

We're fighting the reckless cuts to the public services families rely on, and putting forward practical solutions that put the public interest first.

We're holding the government to account as the list of Conservative scandals grows by the day. On F-35s and military procurement, on electoral fraud and conflict of interest, and on Ministerial spending.

You can be sure that our Caucus is focused and ready to get results for Canadians. We're standing up for your pension and retirement security, for accessible health care, for protection of the environment and for a just, balanced approach to the economy. It's time that your government put the public interest ahead of big banks and big business.

The work has already begun. Here in Ottawa, and across the country - we are ready to take on the Conservatives in the next election - and win.

Soon, I will be asking you again for your support - for your time volunteering in your local electoral district, or for your financial support as we gear up for the next election. But today, on behalf of your New Democrat team, I want to thank you for helping us get here.

We started something special together. Now let's get the job done.

Tom Mulcair
Leader
Canada's New Democrats

 

Sean in Ottawa

That is a good letter with the right tone. Pretty much what his convention speech did not say he has now said.

I would say so far I am feeling positive about where Mulcair is headed and while in voting for him I felt I was taking a risk, I am now glad I did.

I hope I will still be in 3 years but all indications for me are good.

Very Far Away

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

That is a good letter with the right tone. Pretty much what his convention speech did not say he has now said.

I would say so far I am feeling positive about where Mulcair is headed and while in voting for him I felt I was taking a risk, I am now glad I did.

I hope I will still be in 3 years but all indications for me are good.

 

+1

 

Mulcair was my second choice (I put Topp on top of Mulcair) in the leadership race, but I`m happy that Mulcair is the new leader of NDP. I think he will be a great prime minister.

 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/28/bob-rae-thomas-mulcair_n_1461679.html?ref=canada

 

Anyone have thoughts on this? How serious should we take Rae, and how if at all should Mulcair react if at all?

KenS

Without even reading it: why take Rae seriously?

As time goes by ther is ever less reason to do it Arthur. And it just gnaws at you.

 

Pages