Thomas Mulcair - Thread #7

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
Howard

I find 3 deputy leaders kind of weird but it remains to see what their role will be. If Mulcair is out of the House a lot because he is touring, they can cover for him and cover the regions that need representation. Only Leslie has French if I am not mistaken.

If Mulcair's plan for the deputies is to treat them like "lieutenants" (i.e. send them out on tour), then this may have proven a shrewd move. Davies never struck me as the lieutenant type though. Maybe she will be his number two in the house and the others do outreach. That would be interesting. Mulcair could focus on the prairies and Leslie & Christopherson could focus on the other regions where the NDP needs growth.

This move also makes me wonder how large the new shadow cabinet will be.

Howard

JeffWells wrote:

Okay then. I was anxious this signaled Leslie being shuffled out. Until we learn more I'll attempt to remain calm....

At convention, if you were looking for Leslie she was hanging out in the Mulcair section link. Don't know if that suggests anything.

quizzical

Howard wrote:
I find 3 deputy leaders kind of weird but it remains to see what their role will be. If Mulcair is out of the House a lot because he is touring, they can cover for him and cover the regions that need representation. Only Leslie has French if I am not mistaken.

If Mulcair's plan for the deputies is to treat them like "lieutenants" (i.e. send them out on tour), then this may have proven a shrewd move. Davies never struck me as the lieutenant type though. Maybe she will be his number two in the house and the others do outreach. That would be interesting. Mulcair could focus on the prairies and Leslie & Christopherson could focus on the other regions where the NDP needs growth.

This move also makes me wonder how large the new shadow cabinet will be.

i  kinda like the idea of 3 deputy leaders.  power sharing and all ya know. seems  to have a regional  presence all 'cept for the prairies.

makes more sense to have Megan be 2nd in the House given she has french .

 on a tangent maybe Linda Duncan could be environment minister? that'd be a huge break through for the Prairies.

flight from kamakura

Ippurigakko wrote:

 

:D

hah

Howard

quizzical wrote:

Howard wrote:
I find 3 deputy leaders kind of weird but it remains to see what their role will be. If Mulcair is out of the House a lot because he is touring, they can cover for him and cover the regions that need representation. Only Leslie has French if I am not mistaken.

If Mulcair's plan for the deputies is to treat them like "lieutenants" (i.e. send them out on tour), then this may have proven a shrewd move. Davies never struck me as the lieutenant type though. Maybe she will be his number two in the house and the others do outreach. That would be interesting. Mulcair could focus on the prairies and Leslie & Christopherson could focus on the other regions where the NDP needs growth.

This move also makes me wonder how large the new shadow cabinet will be.

i  kinda like the idea of 3 deputy leaders.  power sharing and all ya know. seems  to have a regional  presence all 'cept for the prairies.

makes more sense to have Megan be 2nd in the House given she has french .

 on a tangent maybe Linda Duncan could be environment minister? that'd be a huge break through for the Prairies.

Duncan was Environment critic previously. She crossed to Mulcair when Dewar dropped off after the first ballot. After the first caucus meeting she was quoted in the media as being "thrilled" or something like that with Mulcair's new leadership.

quizzical

 she would've been critic  when the Libs were the OO then. and sweet maybe there is something to my ill-informed musings.

quizzical

where did I write that?

KenS

Cullen is House Leader

Quote:

Cullen, the father of twin toddlers, did not take on a critic role after the May 2 election at his request.

 

Assuming that isnt revionist history that explains somethings.

I wondered why Nathan was dropped down. Just chalked it up to so many new people. Though I did still wonder why Nathan. But it had to be somebody(s).

Haddy

Apparently it is being reported here in Ottawa that Comartin is holding a press conference tomorrow morning.  It is being reported that he is retiring or stepping down as MP for Windsor. 

KenS

write what?

:)

Howard

I have heard that the Liberals are recruiting candidates for a byelection in Bourassa, as Denis Coderre is expected to step down and run for Montréal mayor. Still, I'll believe it when I see it.

Howard

Irwin Cotler and LSD will also be 75 by the next election. I wonder when/if they will recruit successors?

quizzical

Haddy wrote:
Apparently it is being reported here in Ottawa that Comartin is holding a press conference tomorrow morning.  It is being reported that he is retiring or stepping down as MP for Windsor. 

you're giving all these niggling barbs that seem to infer wedges in the NDP.

if there is a fact he was going retire maybe it is stepping down to give Topp a seat?

going to go wiki him 'cause i know nadda about him.

he was the Ontario beachhead in 2000 and is 65 this year seems like a really nice man went to his website and listened to his spiel.

he also announced his 6th grandchild today..congrats Mr Comartin

Stockholm

I'm sceptical when all of a sudden I see gossipy stories about Comartin out of the blue being posted by someone who coincidentally joined babble just today.

Stockholm

Howard wrote:

I have heard that the Liberals are recruiting candidates for a byelection in Bourassa, as Denis Coderre is expected to step down and run for Montréal mayor. Still, I'll believe it when I see it.

The Montreal mayoral election isn't until Fall of 2013 - so even if Coderre runs - he probably would not resign from Parliament for another year...I heard some pundits saying that the NDP was also already talking about star candidates to run in Bourassa if such a byelection materializes.

Stockholm

More details being tweeted about the shadow cabinet:

Comartin - Democratic Reform (I guess he isn't going anywhere)

Dewar - back to Foreign Affairs

Nash - back to Finance

Chisholm - Fisheries

Boivin - Justice

Harris - Defence

Saganash - Int'l Cooperation

Ashton - Status of Women

Turmel - Whip

...more to come

ghoris

Mulcair is apparently keeping Intergovernmental Affairs for himself (previously held by Turmel). Cullen is House Leader.

Dewar's return to Foreign Affairs won't sit well with some people. I wonder what will happen to Helene Laverdiere?

KenS

Turmel would seem a good choice for Whip.

Whatever her qualities as a public face leader, she is obviously a leader, and has led this Caucus.

No surprise Mulcair keeping IGA for himself.

Does Cristopherson have something substantive now that he will not be Democratic Reform?

Stockholm

Here is the whole list http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/04/19/team-mulcair/

Megan Leslie retains Environment. Laverdiere is now Consular Affairs and the Americas, Peter Julian is now Energy and Natural Resources

KenS

Bet its Cullen and Julian tag teaming on Northern Gateway and other megaproject issues. Good set-up.

Stockholm

I have to say that i see little evidence that Mulcair has gone out of his way to demote MPs who backed his opponents or promote people just because they supported him for the leadership. In any cabinet or shadow cabinet shuffle, there are always a few appointments that make you scratch your head - but i think these appointments seem to be very merit based

JeffWells

Glad to see Nash return to Finance and Leslie keep Environment. Disappointed in Dewar keeping Foreign Affairs, though I can understand why Mulcair would want to avoid the impression of punishing a rival. (And I agree with a comment above, Saganash would have been an inspired choice.) Also, Tyrone Benskin would have been excellent for heritage, IMO.

Surprised that Rathika got nothing. And Cash and Morin didn't get more.

Howard

There are lots of things to like with the new shadow cabinet. It's hard to dislike a shadow cabinet so similar to Jack's and as inclusive as this one. I hope all the MPs will work hard in their new roles.

flight from kamakura
Brachina

Okay for the most part I like the changes, although its a much bigger shift then I expected. Two promotions I noticed that surprised me and I think are an amazing idea is that Charmaine Borg got Digitial issues, which I don't even remember being a full seperate critic before, but which is about time, and picking such a young person for the role sends a huge message, and shows alot of faith in Ms. Borg. The other is Borg's co prez at McGill, Dube gettting sports, with thoughts running along the same lines. I like that Romeo Saganash got international development and deputy trade critic roles, not foriegn affairs, but close when combined. Dewar is popular with human rights orgs and diplomats and blaming him for Libya isn't fair, Parties leaders make the decision to go to war, no one else. Four demotions I noticed are Christine Moore lost Military Procurement and Rathika lost Education, Laren Lui lost Deputy Enviroment and Anne Quach lost deputy health. I think I know why Rathika lost hers, she's had a few really minor and avoidable, minor scandals, during a major speech she didn't know the population of Canada, wasn't even close to being correct which lead to some public embarrassment. Its a shame because I hear she's an awesome MP and lots of talent. Hopefully she'll gain a chair position on a commitee. Not sure why Christine Moore was demoted, she was getting alot of respect for her work on Military Procturement, that's not choice I would have made. Anne and Lauren getting demoted deprives Libby and Megan of thier deputies sadly. I did notice some patterns that suggests Mulcair's stradetgy. One lots of focus on international affairs, with international development critics, international trade critic, foriegn affairs, Consular affairs and the Americas, Pacific Gateway, Altantic Gateway, U.S.-Canada Border, ect... Two A strong focus on the enviroment, with Nathan as House Leader, Magan as both Deputy leader and enviroment critic (don't think having enviroment critic as Deputy leader isn't meant to send a message to enviromentalists), Kennedy Stewart on Science and technology, Peter Julian on energy etc... Three the regional focus. Three Deputy leaders one for the West, Central, and East, making all the development agencies prominet critic roles in thier own right, Quebec Ontario continential Gateway and keeping the intergovernmental role for himself makes a clear statement. Thier maybe some additions later and of course committee chairs and vice chairs have to be announced.

flight from kamakura

post in the thread for shadow cabinet and also break it up into paragraphs to make it a bit more readable.

clambake

Ugh, the Liberals seem to have a better stance on pot decriminilzation than the NDP under Mulcair: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/20/pol-mulcair-position-on...

NorthReport

The Liberals can promise anything seeing as they haven't a snowball's chance in hell of forming government. 

 

Did the Liberals legalize pot when they were in power - of course the lying Liberals didn't. 

 

Never mind what people say they are gonna do, just look at what they did when they had power, eh! 

 

Check out HowdTheyVote.com or something like that.

 

What are u smoking?  lol

 

NorthReport

Do u think he rolls his own?  lol

DECRIMINALIZATION
Mulcair clarifies stance on pot in time for 4/20 'pot holiday'

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulcair-clarifies-stance-on...

Brachina

Bingo, lets see if they put up a bill legalizing it, or is it just so much smoke ;p

The liberal membership has been for legalization for ever, but when in power they do nothing.

Unionist

I'd like to see the opposition parties put forward a joint motion.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

"joint motion" - Laughing

Unionist

I know lots of parties where they'd pass a joint motion. Hey Boomer, we're on a roll!

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

DECRIMINALIZATION
Mulcair clarifies stance on pot in time for 4/20 'pot holiday'

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulcair-clarifies-stance-on...

So, Mulcair doesn't even support decriminalization of possession, let alone decriminalization of cannabis as a whole. He's talking about "not going to jail" for "possession" of "small amounts". In other words, he's talking about sentencing.

The NDP has never seriously pursued decriminalization (forget about legalization) and never will, short of a sea change. Brad Lavigne's  banishment of Dana Larsen from the Halifax convention, on phoney grounds, was the last nail in that coffin.

pookie

So....Mulcair's clarification is based on HIM getting confused between decriminalization and legalization?

Riiight.

ETA: I recall a number of bablers who were rushing to defend M's call for a "committee" to study the effects of decriminalization, because today's pot is oh-so-bad.  Gosh, I wonder if they still feel that way. ;)

DSloth

pookie wrote:

So....Mulcair's clarification is based on HIM getting confused between decriminalization and legalization?

Riiight.

I remember at the time his spokesman came out immediatly after and clarified he would decriminalize for small amounts of pot, the same position he holds today.  That interview was at the height of the leadership contest where he was traveling non-stop and doing interviews everyday. A slight slip in the talking points is not out of the question, aside from the misuse of the term decriminilzation the answer Tom gave was almost a verbatim rendition of Jack's answer about the same question in the May election (including the silly Baby Boomer BS about potent pot). 

 

A majority of Liberal Party apparatchiks voted for legalization, so would most any vote held among the NDP membership, but actual politicians are way more cautious than that and are never going to reverse this continent's prevailing drug policy except by baby steps. 

kropotkin1951

I am so pleased to know that if I buy my pot a joint at a time the NDP thinks I shouldn't go to jail.  What if I can't afford the price the Angels want by the joint or I just don't want to deal with the criminal element and instead want to grow my own? 

The War on Drugs is a war on people for their habits.  Is it true that excessive internet use can lead to a myriad of mental health issues?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

  Is it true that excessive internet use can lead to a myriad of mental health issues?

 

Yes. :wigout

janfromthebruce

so that's what is wrong with you BB - now I get it! Kiss

mark_alfred

I think marijuana should be legalized, regulated, and taxed.  Mulcair and the NDP are just being wimps on this issue.

takeitslowly

what a disappointment...the federal NDP needs to talk about mental illness, but not in the context of criminalizing pot users.

Howard

mark_alfred wrote:

I think marijuana should be legalized, regulated, and taxed.  Mulcair and the NDP are just being wimps on this issue.

Mulcair's policy is not the correct one. We should try to change this at the next convention.

Howard

-

kropotkin1951

Howard wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

I think marijuana should be legalized, regulated, and taxed.  Mulcair and the NDP are just being wimps on this issue.

Mulcair's policy is not the correct one. We should try to change this at the next convention.

See Unionist's post at #84 above and good luck to you. Dana was well funded and had a great deal of support after doing out reach work as a member with other NDP members.

Doug

mark_alfred wrote:

I think marijuana should be legalized, regulated, and taxed.  Mulcair and the NDP are just being wimps on this issue.

 

Legalized how? Regulated how? Taxed how? The how is really an important issue. I don't think a policy that blows the gates wide open and allows marijuana to be produced and sold like any other item complete with advertising and becoming a flavour-of-the-month at Tim Hortons will be very popular. 

janfromthebruce

mark_alfred wrote:

I think marijuana should be legalized, regulated, and taxed.  Mulcair and the NDP are just being wimps on this issue.

yes Mark. And the how is the way we should go, and Mulcair is not the "party" and we didn't elect a "king" so he has no devine right to state that his personal position is the NDP's position. That pissed me off.

JeffWells

I think - hope? - Mulcair's learned the damage he can do by musing aloud on such matters. But as Unionist reminded us, the treatment of Dana Larsen speaks to some institutional hypocrisy that is not Mulcair's fault alone. The Liberals see a wedge on the left, and some at least mean to cynically exploit it. The NDP, and not just Mulcair, needs to rehabilitate its credibility here, and had better know it's not only the right thing but the politically smart thing to do.

Brachina

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/for-quebec-canadas-westward-s...

If Quebecers think Alberta is the new face of Canada well that makes me mad. Albertan politics is a freak show by the standards of every proviance, not just Quebec.

I voted NDP I don't want to be judged by the standards of Alison Red or Daniella Smith.

Stockholm

I don't see what the problem is with Mulcair's position. Step 1 - immediately ditch all the Tory mandatory minimum sentences for possession of small quantities of cannabis, Step 2 - have a commission report on a comprehensive policy approach on ALL currently illegal drugs - many of which i think should stay illegal (ie: heroin, crystal meth etc...) and some others should be decriiminalized.

Its not as if it was EVER NDP policy in the first place that if we won power - within the first 100 days people would start being able to buy pot at their nearest convenience story...the current policy is very vague and more of a statement of principles than anything else. If NDP members didn't think Mulcair went far enough in supporting instant legalization of drugs - they were free to elect someone else as leader. We elected Mulcair and he now has our mandate to develop actionable drug policies

I think that its also a very positive sign that Mulcair has appointed Francoise Boivin as Justice critic and Craig Scott as her deputy critic. They are both people with very socially liberal views on justice issues.

We have been down this road before, everytime the NDP takes a position that falls short of instant legalization of absolutely all drugs - we hear these Cassandras warning that 100% of young people will drop the NDP like a hot potato (of course this also smacks of this ageist stereotype that all young people only care about being able to do drugs). We were warned that when the NDP made it clear that Dana Larsen was "persona non grata" at the Halifax convention in 2009 - the NDP would pay some huge price. We paid a price all right - 103 seats and more support among younger age cohorts than ever before.!

kropotkin1951

Thx Stockholm for your timely reminder that power is the ultimate goal. 

The problem is not a vague policy on the issue it is that your leader spouted stupid MSM talking points instead of intelligent comments.  If he had answered with something other than a foolish bogeyman no one would have noticed. He is the author of his own foot in mouth disease.  Loose canons sink ships and he is the loose canon on this issue.

That comprehensive report you want was done by Ledain 40 years ago and we are still waiting for pot to be legal. Sorry for getting a little impatient to hear that the new King of the NDP thinks we need to go back to square one.  In the meantime how many peoples lives will be ruined by being charged? How many people will die in the gang wars fueled by the War on Drugs?

Nothing to see there their lives are irrelevant in relation to the ultimate goal.

Pages

Topic locked