As they don't have a winner's mentality, who cares who leads the NDP?

129 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

The two measures Mulcair praised were in the NDP platform. Then he is SHOCKED to find there was no reference to childcare in the WHOLE speech. Why would there be? It wasn't part of Trudeau's platform and he didn't mention it in any speeches.

Actually, child care is a part of the Liberal platform under "social infrastructure", and is covered in the Liberal policy resolutions.  See https://www.liberal.ca/policy-resolutions/3-national-strategy-universal-...

So it makes sense for Mulcair to call them out on this. 

ETA:  From their platform:

Liberal platform wrote:
With historic new investments in social infrastructure, we will achieve both.

We will improve quality of life for millions of Canadians by prioritizing investment in affordable housing, seniors’ facilities, early learning and child care, and cultural and recreational infrastructure.

Pondering

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Trudeau is going to spend this four years keeping his campaign commitments and doing everything he can to burnish the Liberal government as wildly successful. In 2019 their campaign will likely include a daycare plan better than what the NDP offered.

Funny how the same Liberal partisans who have been all over the NDP for the past decade for voting to bring down the Martin government when they were totally! just about to! bring in the child care plan they'd been promising since 1993! are now saying all we have to do is wait until 2019, and we'll have something even! better!, by the year the newborns who would've been included in the original Red Book will be 26.

The Liberals did not have a daycare proposal in this budget. I was very surprised not to see it especially as Mulcair announced his plan so far in advance.

That means it was a strategic decision. The Liberals have been long-term planning since Trudeau won the leadership. They knew the cupboard would be bare. Most of their platform promises are free or very low cost. They decided they could fight the NDP daycare proposal by pointing out how long it would take to roll out, that the provinces had not agreed foot their part of the bill, and that the cupboard is bare therefore the NDP would be unable to deliver while keeping the budget in balance. It worked.

It's possible there will be no daycare plan in 2019 but I strongly suspect that there will be one. It definitely won't happen before 2019 because it wasn't part of the Liberal platform plus they want to have something big to roll-out in 2019.

If the NDP spends the next four years complaining that the Liberals don't have a childcare plan it will only help the Liberals if and when they do pull one out.

One lesson to learn from the past 2 years is that the Trudeau Liberals are politically clever. Coupled with the strong tendency of Canadians to re-elect governments for at least two terms, especially Liberals, it will not be easy to take them down in 2019 or 2023. That doesn't mean they don't have any weaknesses or vulnerabilities but steady picking at them won't work and will likely backfire while they are this popular. Traditional politics won't interrupt the cycle.

The NDP has no choice but to abandon the centrist "Liberal lite" strategy if it wants to move ahead. There are two areas where the Liberals will definitely fail. The environment and income inequality.

The NDP has to fight Bay Street.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Trudeau is going to spend this four years keeping his campaign commitments and doing everything he can to burnish the Liberal government as wildly successful. In 2019 their campaign will likely include a daycare plan better than what the NDP offered.

Funny how the same Liberal partisans who have been all over the NDP for the past decade for voting to bring down the Martin government when they were totally! just about to! bring in the child care plan they'd been promising since 1993! are now saying all we have to do is wait until 2019, and we'll have something even! better!, by the year the newborns who would've been included in the original Red Book will be 26.

The Liberals did not have a daycare proposal in this budget. I was very surprised not to see it especially as Mulcair announced his plan so far in advance.

They haven't released a budget yet, but it is in the Liberal platform and their policy resolutions as I mentioned above.

ETA:  here's more from the Lib platform:

Quote:
We will meet with provinces, territories, and Indigenous communities to begin work on a new National Early Learning and Child Care Framework, to deliver affordable, high-quality, flexible, and fully inclusive child care for Canadian families. This work will begin in the first 100 days of a Liberal government and will be funded through our investments in social infrastructure.

Note:  it says "within the first 100 days".  So it's perfectly reasonable for Mulcair to point out that child care was missing from the Throne Speech.

Sean in Ottawa

The Liberals had a seperate promise on child care and the child benefit. Pondering, you are ignoring this. And childcare is urgent, essential and life-changing enough that it should have made the Throne speech especially as so many much lesser priorities did.

scott16

How much could Nathan Cullen's past leadership bid where he wanted to cooperate with the Libs and Greens hurt him in the next possible leadership?

(If and hopefully when there is a leadership race.)

scott16

Can the mods please change the name of this thread to Ndp leadership thread?

mark_alfred

scott16 wrote:

Can the mods please change the name of this thread to Ndp leadership thread?

That would be a thread on a completely different subject then. 

You could start an NDP leadership thread yourself.

swallow swallow's picture

Plenty of Liberal radio ads about child care. In fact those are the only Liberal radio ads I heard. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Trudeau is going to spend this four years keeping his campaign commitments and doing everything he can to burnish the Liberal government as wildly successful. In 2019 their campaign will likely include a daycare plan better than what the NDP offered.

Funny how the same Liberal partisans who have been all over the NDP for the past decade for voting to bring down the Martin government when they were totally! just about to! bring in the child care plan they'd been promising since 1993! are now saying all we have to do is wait until 2019, and we'll have something even! better!, by the year the newborns who would've been included in the original Red Book will be 26.

SO NAILED IT!!!!!!!!!!!! Libs hoisted on their own petard!!!! Love this comment!

Sean in Ottawa

Arthur Cramer wrote:

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Trudeau is going to spend this four years keeping his campaign commitments and doing everything he can to burnish the Liberal government as wildly successful. In 2019 their campaign will likely include a daycare plan better than what the NDP offered.

Funny how the same Liberal partisans who have been all over the NDP for the past decade for voting to bring down the Martin government when they were totally! just about to! bring in the child care plan they'd been promising since 1993! are now saying all we have to do is wait until 2019, and we'll have something even! better!, by the year the newborns who would've been included in the original Red Book will be 26.

SO NAILED IT!!!!!!!!!!!! Libs hoisted on their own petard!!!! Love this comment!

It is an odd statement to make, given the committment in the election to bring in childcare, that we would see a Trudeau zealot promoting the idea that it be the subject of a promise in the next election.

I think if the Liberals with this majority can only promise something in the next election that promise would actually lose them votes. At some point people want the reality more than the promise and wonder why the Liberals are still at the promise stage four years from now.

As well it is interesting to note that the same person who suggests this could be a promise in the next election is criticizing the NDP for questioning why it was not in the throne speech. Perhaps that is the issue -- left out of the throne speech we might indeed see it left out of this mandate and relegated to a promise in 2019. If that is what Liberal/Trudeau zealots are thinking then Mulcair was right to question the degree of committment to a key plank like childcare that was left out of the speech.

Again there is still the refusal by this Trudeau zealot to provide any kind of list of what that was more important than childcare was also left out. She says you can't include everything. So I am asking this again what more important committment than childcare was left out of the Throne Speech?

mark_alfred

Well, the zealot (zealotering?) making a big deal of Mulcair saying he was shocked that child care didn't even appear in the Throne Speech is typical.  It is shocking that this government didn't feel child care was worthy of a mention in its Throne Speech, and thank goodness the NDP has a leader that would point this out.

mark_alfred

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Again there is still the refusal by this Trudeau zealot to provide any kind of list of what that was more important than childcare was also left out. She says you can't include everything. So I am asking this again what more important committment than childcare was left out of the Throne Speech?

It's a Guinness Book of Records thing, I think.  The Liberals failed to bring in child care, despite promising it back in '93, for three majority government terms in a row, and now the zealot wants them to go for #4.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Again there is still the refusal by this Trudeau zealot to provide any kind of list of what that was more important than childcare was also left out. She says you can't include everything. So I am asking this again what more important committment than childcare was left out of the Throne Speech?

It's a Guinness Book of Records thing, I think.  The Liberals failed to bring in child care, despite promising it back in '93, for three majority government terms in a row, and now the zealot wants them to go for #4.

Is there a record for the most times a party has brought the same promise without it ever taking place?

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Again there is still the refusal by this Trudeau zealot to provide any kind of list of what that was more important than childcare was also left out. She says you can't include everything. So I am asking this again what more important committment than childcare was left out of the Throne Speech?

It's a Guinness Book of Records thing, I think.  The Liberals failed to bring in child care, despite promising it back in '93, for three majority government terms in a row, and now the zealot wants them to go for #4.

Is there a record for the most times a party has brought the same promise without it ever taking place?

If there is I would be surprised if it isn't the Liberals.

Mulcair was unable to tie Trudeau to old liberal sins during the election and he tried to every chance he got.

Trudeau will be judged on his history alone in 2019. If he has a strong record of following through then people will believe him and no whining about the Liberals never keeping their promises will work even if he doesn't keep 100% of his commitments.

To answer your question Sean, I don't think anything more important than childcare was left out of the Throne Speech. I think the ministerial mandate letters are a more significant indication of priorties in terms of what he wants to achieve first than the speech from the Throne. That still doesn't cover all the meetings type promises he made but the 88 page platform does exist for that.

The throne speech is a ceremonial tradition with no legal obligation. Not saying something within it is not an indication that whatever it is won't get done. Mulcair's criticism that he didn't mention childcare in it is no more significant than criticizing him for not mentioning ISIL in the speech. Both comments are just negative background noise, petty criticisms without substance intended to play to the base.

All I have said is that it is a petty complaint therefore it just projects negativity.

That is a really minor criticism to send people into such a tizzy of accusations of zealotry. So much so that it implies zealotry on your part.

If I were a troll you guys would be so easy to crank-up.

quizzical

"ceremonial tradition"? wtf? it sets down all the things they are doing in a year. if in a minority situation governments fall on a non-confidence  in the Throne Speech.

the first one is alays about what was in the platform the gvernment was elected on.

for you to minimize this is outrageous and deceitful.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Again there is still the refusal by this Trudeau zealot to provide any kind of list of what that was more important than childcare was also left out. She says you can't include everything. So I am asking this again what more important committment than childcare was left out of the Throne Speech?

It's a Guinness Book of Records thing, I think.  The Liberals failed to bring in child care, despite promising it back in '93, for three majority government terms in a row, and now the zealot wants them to go for #4.

Is there a record for the most times a party has brought the same promise without it ever taking place?

If there is I would be surprised if it isn't the Liberals.

Mulcair was unable to tie Trudeau to old liberal sins during the election and he tried to every chance he got.

Trudeau will be judged on his history alone in 2019. If he has a strong record of following through then people will believe him and no whining about the Liberals never keeping their promises will work even if he doesn't keep 100% of his commitments.

To answer your question Sean, I don't think anything more important than childcare was left out of the Throne Speech. I think the ministerial mandate letters are a more significant indication of priorties in terms of what he wants to achieve first than the speech from the Throne. That still doesn't cover all the meetings type promises he made but the 88 page platform does exist for that.

The throne speech is a ceremonial tradition with no legal obligation. Not saying something within it is not an indication that whatever it is won't get done. Mulcair's criticism that he didn't mention childcare in it is no more significant than criticizing him for not mentioning ISIL in the speech. Both comments are just negative background noise, petty criticisms without substance intended to play to the base.

All I have said is that it is a petty complaint therefore it just projects negativity.

That is a really minor criticism to send people into such a tizzy of accusations of zealotry. So much so that it implies zealotry on your part.

If I were a troll you guys would be so easy to crank-up.

I clearly don't have to respond since Quizzical said it so well.

But I will just underline the degree of importance is so great that any criticism that it was left out cannot, by definition, be considered petty.

You could argue that the Liberals might do it anyway, even if they did not have it in the speech. But instead, you ahve suggested it might be a promise for 2019 and that the Liberals may only have had it as a political but not real promise to hold back the NDP.

Shame on you.

If you measure and crow about winding us up -- I suspect that does make you a troll -- by definition.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
But I will just underline the degree of importance is so great that any criticism that it was left out cannot, by definition, be considered petty. 

Of the Throne Speech? Good luck convincing anyone that the contents of the Throne Speech impacts Canadians in any way.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
You could argue that the Liberals might do it anyway, even if they did not have it in the speech. But instead, you ahve suggested it might be a promise for 2019 and that the Liberals may only have had it as a political but not real promise to hold back the NDP.

That was not my argument. I said they will keep their campaign commitment to discuss childcare with all the provinces and indigenous peoples.

Trudeau did not promise a national daycare program so he is not bound to create one during this mandate. Find me one person that thinks he did.

I think the result of the meetings will lead to the Liberals offering a daycare plan in 2019 and keeping their promise just as they are keeping their campaign promises of 2015. They may offer basic income too (in 2019) or they may save that for 2023.

If the NDP isn't thinking long term political strategy then they are fools.

The NDP banking on the Liberals not keeping their commitments so you can call them liars is a bad strategy. It's just as bad as relying on the strategy that Trudeau would gaffe himself into defeat and really was a lightweight that Mulcair would wipe the floor with. It turned out the other way around and if Mulcair stays there will be a repeat performance in 2019.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
If you measure and crow about winding us up -- I suspect that does make you a troll -- by definition. 

I didn't say I did wind you up, I said it would be easy to do because you already have conniption fits just because I am so critical of the NDP while supporting the Trudeau Liberals. You are outraged that I believe a Trudeau government will deliver on more progressive policies than the NDP would or could have.

A bunch of you go hog wild on the Liberals all the time for the least little reason and rant about old history and what they did in this decade or that decade as if it matters today.

Dissecting the Throne speech may be of interest to political pundits and hobbyists but it has no bearing at all on political success or defeat nor on what actually gets done.

swallow swallow's picture

For someone who thinks the throne speech doesn't matter, Pondering, you sure are worked up about the incredible importance and awfulness of Mulcair's response to the throne speech! 

mark_alfred

Mulcair raising the issue of child care in his comments about the Throne Speech helped raise awareness here of the fact that child care is a Liberal promise for this term.  Raising public awareness is significant.

Pondering

swallow wrote:

For someone who thinks the throne speech doesn't matter, Pondering, you sure are worked up about the incredible importance and awfulness of Mulcair's response to the throne speech! 

I'm not at all worked up about it. I think the people that are worked up are the ones attacking me over it as if I just accused Mulcair of being the devil incarnate because I don't agree that this was a tactically good move on the part of Mulcair.

I just heard Mulcair in Question Period challenging Trudeau on environmental reviews on the existing pipelines but Trudeau dodged it easily because the question was too wordy.

quizzical

he dodged it easily ecause those were the words he was taught to say before he went to his first question period.

 

and i find it interesting you are proud of him dodging instead of  his answering like a true leader and agent for change.

NorthReport

These are common place tactics the right-wing will use.

Until the left stops going into confrontations or other challenging situations without being adequately equipped or prepared, they will not win because the right-wing backers insist that right-wing politicans deliver for them.

The dirty tricks of the Shrewsbury trials expose the dark heart of the radical 1970sPaul MasonPaul Mason

The trials of 24 trade unionists, including Ricky Tomlinson, seem to have been unduly influenced by Edward Heath. The more we learn about that decade, the more its injustices will haunt us

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/07/shrewsbury-trials-1...

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

I just heard Mulcair in Question Period challenging Trudeau on environmental reviews on the existing pipelines but Trudeau dodged it easily because the question was too wordy.

You must be kidding.  Mulcair's question was clear and concise, and Trudeau was clearly shaken by it.  Trudeau began by trying to deliver the line, "Canadians know we need both a protected environment and a strong economy."  But he screwed up the line and stammered.  Then, after stammering, he buried his head into his paper and began reading a bunch of environmental themed non-sequitors at lightning speed before sitting down.  It was painful to watch.  It was a simple yes or no question, yet Trudeau was clearly shaken by it.

The video is here.  It's the second of Mulcair's two questions in the video:  http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2680040156

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

he dodged it easily ecause those were the words he was taught to say before he went to his first question period.

and i find it interesting you are proud of him dodging instead of  his answering like a true leader and agent for change.

I'm not proud of it. I'm not expressing moral approval.

Politics as it exists today is not an avenue to the radical changes that we need.

That you would refer to him as a "true leader and agent for change" to me is expecting too much from a mainstream politician.

He is the best the Liberals could come up with and it appears that was plenty good enough to beat the competition. Whether or not you win a race doesn't depend on how fast you can run, it depends on how fast your competition can run. Trudeau won by default. All of Harper's wins were by default.

Trudeau is effective and a "good" leader in terms of he achieved his party's goal, to defeat Harper and Mulcair.

I also think he will be an extremely successful "status quo" PM who may end up rivaling his father as the most popular Canadian politicians ever.

He will not make a significant impact on climate change or income inequality. I think he believes in himself and his values and that they reflect mainstream thinking. That is why he will be successful. If you think being successful is the definition of being a good leader than yes, I agree he is good from that perspective. I think skillful is the better term.

In my opinion if Trudeau believed that we have to shut down the oil sands for the sake of his children's future he would do it. It isn't a matter of character defect it is a matter of accepting conventional thinking.

For years and years we were told peak oil was coming, we were going to run out of oil so we should conserve and look for other sources of power. The price would only go up. Nobody is talking about peak oil anymore. People almost have a magical thinking faith-based belief in the ability of science to produce solutions.

While climate change activists are condemning the pipelines and the oil sands based on climate change that is not the primary opposition "on the ground".  The battle against the pipelines is succeeding because the communities along them are afraid of disasters that could devastate their land making it worthless for decades to come.

Harper being gone is a huge change and Trudeau is a big improvement but he is no messiah. But then, neither is Mulcair or the NDP. Public daycare is not a panacea for income inequality. It's a tweak when what we need is a reset. It's better than nothing but it's a mainstream solution not daringly progressive. Better environmental reviews for pipelines are great but ultimately they have to be stopped.

The Liberals and the NDP presented their leaders and platforms. For better or worse voters chose Trudeau and his platform. Trudeau didn't trick them into electing him and Mulcair didn't present a particularly more progressive alternative yet posters act like the NDP would have made such a huge difference that it's practically a crime Trudeau was elected.

Even now the complaints of the NDP are minor in comparision to climate change and income inequality. Most seem perfectly content that Mulcair was only supporting better pipeline reviews and saying nothing about the oil sands having to wind down. Even now the complaints are more along the line of complaining about his silencing of critics of Israel as if that matters in comparison to the destruction of the planet. The Sherbrooke Declaration is supposedly this principled stand for democracy that must be stood up for even if it isn't popular with anyone because that's the principle it's important to live or die on. That's the policy you can't give up for political expediency but weak criticism of CETA and TPP is okay to accept based on political expediency.

And oh yeah, Trudeau not mentioning childcare in the throne speech is shocking. There was no mention of poverty, homelessness or mental health care in the speech either but I guess those aren't NDP priorities.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I just heard Mulcair in Question Period challenging Trudeau on environmental reviews on the existing pipelines but Trudeau dodged it easily because the question was too wordy.

You must be kidding.  Mulcair's question was clear and concise, and Trudeau was clearly shaken by it.  Trudeau began by trying to deliver the line, "Canadians know we need both a protected environment and a strong economy."  But he screwed up the line and stammered.  Then, after stammering, he buried his head into his paper and began reading a bunch of environmental themed non-sequitors at lightning speed before sitting down.  It was painful to watch.  It was a simple yes or no question, yet Trudeau was clearly shaken by it.

The video is here.  It's the second of Mulcair's two questions in the video:  http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2680040156

Then it is down to a matter of opinion. I saw nothing wrong in Trudeau's response. He came off way worse in the debates yet was praised for his performance and won credibility based on it. No clips for attack ads here.

Mulcair did great against Harper on Duffy because his questions were super short so it was clear that Harper was prevaricating. In this case Mulcair's question was so long it sounded like Trudeau did answer him.

A shorter more specific question would have been more effective, not that anything is going to pierce Trudeau's armor while people are on this high of post-Harper euphoria.

For example:

Will Energy East have to pass a new more stringent environmental assessment or will it be evaluated under Harper's stream-lined process?

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

Then it is down to a matter of opinion. I saw nothing wrong in Trudeau's response.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2680040156

I'm perturbed that he didn't agree to pass something like the Climate Change Accountability Act, which he could have agreed to in the first question.  The Liberals under Dion did support this bill, so Trudeau now not supporting enacting a bill like it shows how much more right-wing the Liberals have become under him.

Likewise for the second question.  He could have answered yes, the Liberals intend to include assessments of greenhouse gas impacts in ongoing evironmental assessments of things like pipelines.  But he didn't.  Instead he stammered and meandered almost nonsensically.  It's worrying.

Sean in Ottawa

Again Pondering has put in so much volume so tangled with much of it incoherent that the effort to refute the inconsistencies, contradictions and sheer garbage would take so much more effort than these posts are worth. That is the MO here. So not spending an hour to go line by line through the latest crap should not be taken as agreement with any of it.

mark_alfred

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Again Pondering has put in so much volume so tangled with much of it incoherent that the effort to refute the inconsistencies, contradictions and sheer garbage would take so much more effort than these posts are worth. That is the MO here. So not spending an hour to go line by line through the latest crap should not be taken as agreement with any of it.

I dunno.  I didn't see anything incoherent or inconsistent in what Pondering said.  She clearly said that she saw "nothing wrong in Trudeau's response", whereas I clearly said I found Trudeau's response disturbing and more right-wing than what the Liberals were just a few years back (when they agreed with the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act).  Two differing opinions, but that's what this place is about. Sharing different viewpoints.  It's all good.

Why she is not disappointed about his answer like I am I don't know, but I've never really understood right-wingers that well anyway.  So even if she were to explain why she feels it's okay for the Libs now to not support the idea of enacting a climate change accountability act, I likely wouldn't get it anyway.  I just accept that right-wingers are less into climate regulation than NDPers like me.

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
And oh yeah, Trudeau not mentioning childcare in the throne speech is shocking. There was no mention of poverty, homelessness or mental health care in the speech either but I guess those aren't NDP priorities.

you were responding to me. i personally am the one advocating childcare as a priority. this conversation with me has nothing to do with the NDP.

this conversation with me has to do with childcare, the Liberals, their hyprocrisy and lies, and the extreme hypocrisy and privilege of their leader Justin Trudeau and his wife Sophie Trudeau Gregoire.

as for you stating you're not proud of Justin for dodging your words say otherwise.

and i consider  politicians as our elected representatives to be agents for change. the Liberal  platform was about CHANGE. and now you're telling us there'll be no changes and expecting politicians to make change is ludicrous.

fkn Liberal lyin liars.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Again Pondering has put in so much volume so tangled with much of it incoherent that the effort to refute the inconsistencies, contradictions and sheer garbage would take so much more effort than these posts are worth. That is the MO here. So not spending an hour to go line by line through the latest crap should not be taken as agreement with any of it.

I dunno.  I didn't see anything incoherent or inconsistent in what Pondering said.  She clearly said that she saw "nothing wrong in Trudeau's response", whereas I clearly said I found Trudeau's response disturbing and more right-wing than what the Liberals were just a few years back (when they agreed with the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act).  Two differing opinions, but that's what this place is about. Sharing different viewpoints.  It's all good.

Why she is not disappointed about his answer like I am I don't know, but I've never really understood right-wingers that well anyway.  So even if she were to explain why she feels it's okay for the Libs now to not support the idea of enacting a climate change accountability act, I likely wouldn't get it anyway.  I just accept that right-wingers are less into climate regulation than NDPers like me.

I am talking about effectiveness in question period not moral right and wrong. I saw nothing wrong in Trudeau's response from the perspective of question period performance.

The question was tactically weak but I will address that in the thread you started on these particular questions but I will say this much. If you want a simple answer ask a simple question.

quizzical

dodging in QP is effective? lmaooooooooooooooo some change the Liberals advocated.......

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Again Pondering has put in so much volume so tangled with much of it incoherent that the effort to refute the inconsistencies, contradictions and sheer garbage would take so much more effort than these posts are worth. That is the MO here. So not spending an hour to go line by line through the latest crap should not be taken as agreement with any of it.

I dunno.  I didn't see anything incoherent or inconsistent in what Pondering said.  She clearly said that she saw "nothing wrong in Trudeau's response", whereas I clearly said I found Trudeau's response disturbing and more right-wing than what the Liberals were just a few years back (when they agreed with the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act).  Two differing opinions, but that's what this place is about. Sharing different viewpoints.  It's all good.

Why she is not disappointed about his answer like I am I don't know, but I've never really understood right-wingers that well anyway.  So even if she were to explain why she feels it's okay for the Libs now to not support the idea of enacting a climate change accountability act, I likely wouldn't get it anyway.  I just accept that right-wingers are less into climate regulation than NDPers like me.

The lack of coherence is mostly in her statements about the promise being for political reasons, that she could see them re-offering "a better plan in 2019" in her explanations defending childcare not being in the speech. Then saying that it means nothing, that it is petty to attack the speech. She has also stated that lots of things have been left out of the speech but when pressed could not come up with anything this important. It is important yet a reminder form Mulcair asking why it was not mentioned is being petty -- even though she imagines in the same breath that it might not be kept but later that it will be. Pondering has been all over the road on this for the last couple weeks.

The only consistancy is the usual: a defence of the Messiah no matter how many contradictions are required to keep it up.

This is just part of it -- there are more wierd statements and the whole post is not worth the time and energy to deconstruct.

She is all over the road with alternate defenses that contradict each other.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

And oh yeah, Trudeau not mentioning childcare in the throne speech is shocking. There was no mention of poverty, homelessness or mental health care in the speech either but I guess those aren't NDP priorities.

Good observation.  I checked the Hansard, and found the following:

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) wrote:
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech and thank him for it.    

Throne speeches are always an interesting read because of all the things they include. They are also interesting because of the things they leave out. The new Liberal government's throne speech left a few things out, including three words, two concepts: “social housing” and “poverty”. The only mention of poverty in the Liberal government's throne speech had to do with fighting poverty abroad, as though poor people here in Canada and Quebec had suddenly disappeared.    

Can my colleague give us some specifics about the plan to help poor families in Quebec and British Columbia and across Canada?

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal (Surrey—Newton, Lib.) wrote:
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for his second day in the House and for putting this question forward.    

I am certain that the member is very well aware that this government is going to put $125 billion in infrastructure, green infrastructure, and that a certain amount of dollars is reserved for social housing.     

When it comes to poverty, this government is going to help middle-class families and also bring in child care benefits for families that need these the most, which will help poverty disappear. I am as committed as the member on the other side to bringing everyone to prosperity.

A thing that drives me crazy about the Liberals is the lack of a break down on how much they're going to spend on specific items.  They have this one figure for infrastructure that they've grouped almost everything into.  So when someone asks them about something like social housing, they cite this figure rather than saying how much exactly they're planning to spend on social housing.  So much for their commitment to "openness".

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

The thing from this quote that sticks out for me is Boulerice using the phrase "Canada and Quebec" as though they were 2 separate countries. It doesn't bother me, but it seems a bit unwise for one who may hope to lead a (Canadian) national party some day.

mark_alfred

Michael Moriarity wrote:

The thing from this quote that sticks out for me is Boulerice using the phrase "Canada and Quebec" as though they were 2 separate countries. It doesn't bother me, but it seems a bit unwise for one who may hope to lead a (Canadian) national party some day.

Yeah, but it doesn't matter really.  After all, "as they don't have a winner's mentality, who cares who leads the NDP?"

PS, thanks for providing me the opportunity to finally say something in line with the topic of this thread.

 

Aristotleded24

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

And oh yeah, Trudeau not mentioning childcare in the throne speech is shocking. There was no mention of poverty, homelessness or mental health care in the speech either but I guess those aren't NDP priorities.

Good observation.  I checked the Hansard, and found the following:

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) wrote:
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech and thank him for it.    

Throne speeches are always an interesting read because of all the things they include. They are also interesting because of the things they leave out. The new Liberal government's throne speech left a few things out, including three words, two concepts: “social housing” and “poverty”. The only mention of poverty in the Liberal government's throne speech had to do with fighting poverty abroad, as though poor people here in Canada and Quebec had suddenly disappeared.    

Can my colleague give us some specifics about the plan to help poor families in Quebec and British Columbia and across Canada?

Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal (Surrey—Newton, Lib.) wrote:
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for his second day in the House and for putting this question forward.    

I am certain that the member is very well aware that this government is going to put $125 billion in infrastructure, green infrastructure, and that a certain amount of dollars is reserved for social housing.     

When it comes to poverty, this government is going to help middle-class families and also bring in child care benefits for families that need these the most, which will help poverty disappear. I am as committed as the member on the other side to bringing everyone to prosperity.

A thing that drives me crazy about the Liberals is the lack of a break down on how much they're going to spend on specific items.  They have this one figure for infrastructure that they've grouped almost everything into.  So when someone asks them about something like social housing, they cite this figure rather than saying how much exactly they're planning to spend on social housing.  So much for their commitment to "openness".

At least Dhaliwal in his response attempts to address the issue, even if the answer he gives is lacking. Can't say the same thing about his leader.

quizzical

what Aristotleded24 you're not proud of Justins dodging questions in QP? huh guess the Liberal backroomers are going to have to sell Canadians Justin's dodging as cute harder.

...sounds to me like their infrastructure project is going to be an Omnibus Bill.

NorthReport
DaveW

Michael Moriarity wrote:

The thing from this quote that sticks out for me is Boulerice using the phrase "Canada and Quebec" as though they were 2 separate countries. It doesn't bother me, but it seems a bit unwise for one who may hope to lead a (Canadian) national party some day.

get used to it,

it is simply political reality and standard vocabulary for a downtown Montreal leftish official

kropotkin1951

DaveW wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

The thing from this quote that sticks out for me is Boulerice using the phrase "Canada and Quebec" as though they were 2 separate countries. It doesn't bother me, but it seems a bit unwise for one who may hope to lead a (Canadian) national party some day.

get used to it,

it is simply political reality and standard vocabulary for a downtown Montreal leftish official

"Get used to it", sounds like a really bad strategy for a national party to adopt. It is not the best way to convince voters in BC to vote NDP. With that kind of language the NDP might win back some seats in Quebec in 2019 but that language is very problematic outside of Quebec and Ontario.  The NDP with a leader who speaks in those terms could lose most of its seats in Western Canada. The NPD could become a left version of the Creditistes, a Western protest party that lingers on in Quebec for a few elections longer than where it originally sprang from.

Stockholm

FWIW, in the highly hypothetical scenario where Boulerice was leader of the NDP - you can be sure he would take a crash course on how to reinvent himself as a national Canadian leader and to expunge his speeches of any vestigial references to Quebec as if it were not part of Canada. In fact if Bouelrice became leader he would likely wrap himself in canadian flags and pose beside beavers building dams and mounties...

Sean in Ottawa

Stockholm wrote:

FWIW, in the highly hypothetical scenario where Boulerice was leader of the NDP - you can be sure he would take a crash course on how to reinvent himself as a national Canadian leader and to expunge his speeches of any vestigial references to Quebec as if it were not part of Canada. In fact if Bouelrice became leader he would likely wrap himself in canadian flags and pose beside beavers building dams and mounties...

You can't take back what is said so that ship sailed.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

You HAD better get used to our nationality and citizenship here in Quebec. It has been recognised by the Canadian House of Commons.

Sean in Ottawa

montrealer58 wrote:

You HAD better get used to our nationality and citizenship here in Quebec. It has been recognised by the Canadian House of Commons.

Canada as a concept includes Quebec -- at least for now. And this does not negate Quebec as a nation so you really do not ahve a strong point there. The BQ used this construction to state that Canada does not include Quebec but that is a problematic point to make for a federalist party.

kropotkin1951

montrealer58 wrote:

You HAD better get used to our nationality and citizenship here in Quebec. It has been recognised by the Canadian House of Commons.

When are the divorce papers coming through? The people of Quebec can claim anything they want but the reality is that Quebec is one of ten provinces in one country. You are culturally a distinct nation as the House of Commons rightly recognizes but you are not constitutionally any different than my province of BC. Canada is not a duality it is a Confederation.  The people of the most of the other provinces would not agree to a duality arrangement so get used to it.  It is the essential Canadian conundrum and why no sane politican wants to reopen the Constitutional debate.

swallow swallow's picture

If the construction "Canada and Quebec" can't ever be used, you will exclude roughly 100% of francophone Quebecers as potential leaders of the NDP. Tom Mulcair has used the phrase, and no one objected. (eg "It seems to me that Canada and Quebec deserve better than wedge politics, the politics of division.")

Sean in Ottawa

swallow wrote:

If the construction "Canada and Quebec" can't ever be used, you will exclude roughly 100% of francophone Quebecers as potential leaders of the NDP. Tom Mulcair has used the phrase, and no one objected. (eg "It seems to me that Canada and Quebec deserve better than wedge politics, the politics of division.")

Mulcair's construction is different given the subject.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The House resolution is that Quebec is a nation within a united Canada. You know, a federalism. Quebec came before Canada.

Sean in Ottawa

montrealer58 wrote:

The House resolution is that Quebec is a nation within a united Canada. You know, a federalism. Quebec came before Canada.

Does not change the fact that the collective word "Canada" includes Quebec unless there is a reason to identify the concepts differently. There is no reason to do so if the distinction has no purpose in concept: So if you are saying the people of Canada and the United States drive on the right you do not say the people of Canada and Quebec drive on the right unless you are trying to seperate Canada from Quebec to deny Quebec as a part of Canada. When politicians who are part of federalist parties do this they limit the number who will respect them (If you want Quebec to be an independent state and are part of a party who thinks of it that way then that is appropriate). This is not about nationalism or anything else-- it is a construction designed to deny the inclusion of Quebec in Canada as a fact present today.

Yes this would serve to damage Boulerice's potential to be PM of Canada (the thing he cannot call by name). Most who do so would never want that position and it does not offend me to hear Duceppe, for example, use the distinction since that is what he stands for.

This is different than speaking about Quebec and Canadian culture for example.

This argument some nationalists make that you cannot refer to all of Canada as a single entitiy becuae it denies Quebec's nationhood is illogical and embarassing for those who make that argument outside of the minority who want to deny the existence of Canada as an entity that at least for now includes Quebec.

It has nothing to do with a denial of Quebec's self determination or nationhood. It is dishonest to suggest that refering to Canada as one thing does any of that.

There are people who torture logic to make a point -- this is an example.

And even if Quebec removed itself from the Canadian state, there will still be a collective non-political word for Canada including both countries -- it might even still be Canada. It is likely that the rest of Canada would have to find a way to differentiate itself. (Think PRC and ROC in China's case.) Quebec has a shared history and is part of something called Canada even if it is not a single state. The concept of Canada is older than Canadian unity and the political construction of Canada (union of Upper and Lower Canada).

I don't like Quebec haters or those who insult or diminish Quebec as a nation or its self determination. But on this debate we see the other extreme. There you have the people who wish to argue that to reference Canada as a single thing somehow insutls them or even to object to others speaking of a country unable to use a collective name for that country insults their ambition or nationhood. It doesn't.

The idea of being unable to reference Canada (which still exists as I write this) as a single thing is an insult to all who see themselves as Canadains as it is not a statement of the future, or intention. To call Canada -- Canada rather than "Canada and Quebec" does not diminish any concept of nationhood, self determination etc.

It is a provocation to be unable to use a word that still stands for the entity and that is what it is meant to be.  PQ and BQ leaders used the construction in order to claim a separation that already exists to the point that you cannot say the word Canada and mean the whole thing.

When you say Quebec and Canada -- to mean the realtionship between them or the nationhood that is one thing but when used for non administrative things like for example -- to say "it is cold in Canada and Quebec." Is designed to be insulting to those who recognize Quebec as part of Canada.

When I say Canada I mean Quebec, I also mean all the Indigenous Nations as well and I minimize none of them.

For the record, When I refer to the British Iles I do not minimize the independence of Ireland or the right of Scotland to be Independent. Nor do I limit any of the parts of Spain to be independent simply by refering, for whatever pedestrian purpose, to the existence of Spain as an entity that at least presently includes them.

kropotkin1951

montrealer58 wrote:

The House resolution is that Quebec is a nation within a united Canada. You know, a federalism. Quebec came before Canada.

Just so you get a basic about constitutional law. A House and/or Senate resolution does not and cannot supercede the constitution. The constitution makes Quebec one of ten provinces in our federation. Any change to that would need unanimity of the provinces

Quebec came before Canada and Acadia came before Quebec. So what was your point again.  I think that the nations of Acadia, Quebec and Canada are all great.

Pages