Tom Mulcair will be Prime minister - Thread #4

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Tom Mulcair will be Prime minister - Thread #4

;;

NorthReport

Mulcair is no pushover

 

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/gerry-caplan/2012/04/mulcair-no-pushover

This had the makings of a real upset. The party would never sell out its ideals for something as tainted as actual power. Yet the innuendo failed entirely. The Thomas Mulcair who party members kept seeing and hearing had nothing in common with the caricature peddled by a small number of opponents.

As for the bitterly divided convention that would restore the party as the beautiful loser of Confederation, it never existed. Mr. Mulcair proved to have substantial support in the camps of every one of the candidates who dropped out, his lead increasing with each ballot until the inevitable conclusion. No one was coming up the middle. The winner was the real choice of a good majority of the party.

Of course there was anxiety right to the final moment that the much-hyped internal divisions would be on full public display at the worst possible moment. No such luck. Once the winner was proclaimed, there were Mr. Mulcair, Brian Topp, Ed Broadbent, deputy leader Libby Davies and all the other candidates hugging and kissing and generally carrying on as if they were stubbornly determined to work together for their common dreams and ideals.

The convention floor itself was a demographic revelation. Everywhere you looked there were kids, youth, you know – the young people who are so disaffected they don’t bother voting and have repudiated party politics. Remember the Quebec child-MPs elected on Jack Layton’s coattails, the lampposts who went to Parliament, the ones the media had such a blast mocking and humiliating for weeks after the election. Right. In fact many of them had the opportunity to speak on behalf of the various candidates and they blew the hall away with their bilingualism, confidence, eloquence, joie de vivre and political smarts. The cynical assumption that they were all destined to be one-term historical footnotes is in real danger of being badly disproved.

And to top it off, post-convention polling continues this groundbreaking trend. As one pollster summed it up this week, “It’s clear that the election of Tom Mulcair as NDP leader has considerably improved the party’s prospects.”

But New Democrats know that nothing could more fatal than complacency of any kind. There are hurdles and obstacles ahead, some of them not minor. Just think of the Conservative attacks on the new leader that have already begun. Everyone knows that dishonest adolescent bullying assaults on their rivals have worked for them before.

Look at what they’re trying to do to poor old Bob Rae. There was the honourable Jason Kenney asserting with his trademark sincerity that Bob Rae “led” Ontario into recession as premier of Ontario 22 years ago; in genteel parliamentary language this would be known as a shameless inversion of the truth. Clearly Stephen Harper’s enforcers believe their coming onslaught can undermine the new NDP leader in the same classy way they demolished Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff.

Who knows? Maybe they’re right. But the tides of March suggest this new NDP guy won’t be quite the pushover those Liberals were.

NorthReport

Mulcair just smoked Harper in QP over F35s

NorthReport

Here we go again - this should set tongues wagging in the rest of Canada but it is time Canadians from coast to coast to coast leart the realities of Quebec.

Canada opposition sees low bar for Quebec independence

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCABRE83210U20120403

NorthReport
Brachina

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/marathon-ndp-...

Peter Julian makes some interesting points both about the liberals always surrendering and not wanting to hear the cons spew thier robotic lies again.

Also interesting to note that Mulcair let Peter take the lead on this, 14 hours of constant attacking the budget from every perpective. Could this be a test of Peter Julian's abilities as finance critic to see if he should keep it or is it just a parting gift for a left wing member of Cacus before Peggy retakes it?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Did anyone see Mulcari on P&P? I saw Rae and Soloman. Rae was bluster, bluster, heards should roll. Soloman said Mulcair was "more coy". Do you think that Mulcair is already starting to make the case that he looks Prime Minsterial?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Rae made the case that Harper should resign, and he did it well, citing another country where a similar situation existed.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

How did Mulcair do? Who did better?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Mulcair certainly was more calm. Smile

CanadaApple

Arthur Cramer wrote:

How did Mulcair do? Who did better?

see for yourself.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

CA, thanks! I can't bear to watch it though. I have a hard enough time watching the CBC in real time and even though I post about what I saw, I generally don't watch much; it stresses the heck out of me.

Could you tell me how you think things are shaping up?

CanadaApple

Arthur Cramer wrote:

CA, thanks! I can't bear to watch it though. I have a hard enough time watching the CBC in real time and even though I post about what I saw, I generally don't watch much; it stresses the heck out of me.

Could you tell me how you think things are shaping up?

Your welcome.

Like Boom Boom said, Mulcair certainly came across as being calm, and quite reasonable I thought. Evan Soloman kept on pushing to see if he would call for anyone to resign, but Mulcair went for more of a "we'll wait and see" approach. Chris Alexander probably came across the worst, since he kept on trying to interupt Soloman. He seemed pretty anxious. Bob Rae came across as a bit angry, calling for the Prime Minister himself to resign. In fairness to Bob Rae though, he was apparent;y attending a funeral earlier today. Maybe emotions were just running high for him.

So yeah, I think of the three of them, Mulcair looked the best.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Question Period should be fun to watch tomorrow.

Gaian

Peter McKay should come well prepared. :)

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

CBC's "At Issue" panel (Chantal Hebert was absent) siad this is extremely serious, and the next few days will show whther the gov't wears this or not, depending on how they handle it. But there's more information to come out, and Mulcair and Rae need to keep the pressure on the gov't and hope they crack.

One of the panelists asked if Harper is feeling regret at appointing, first, Gordon O'Connor, and, then,  Peter MacKay - two folks with no prior experience of dealing with gov't bureaucrats. There's a tradition of cabinet ministers taking the fall before the PM does, but the Cons will likely foist all the blame on the bureaucrats at DND despite the Auditor General's statement that the bureaucrats are not to blame - it's the government.

Brachina

Peter McKay is to ambitious to fall on his own,sword, so it may well be Gordon or even Fanito who gets the honor, although this government is so delusional they probably won't ask either to do so and look for an outside scape goat.

Sean in Ottawa

No way is this government throwing Fantino overboard.

Mulcair looked fairly good-- Not sure why hold back on whether a minister will be asked to resign and why that was wait and see-- might have been better just to say-- "let's hear from him first"

Overall though a good outing for Mulcair.

Soloman was asking the hard questions of the government and he did go for the jugular. Alexander looked foolish. Soloman looked like a real journalist actually.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I think we really need to have a plan to finish off Dion on this quickly. What a Dick. What, he wants more stick it to the poor Paul Martin Budgets? What a disingenuous so and so! These guys will stop at nothing when it comes to power.

Gaian

NorthReport wrote:

Whatever message the Liberals want out there, Yaffe will do their bidding, no matter how dumb or idiotic the message is.

NDP portrayed as threat to national unity

 

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/portrayed+threat+national+unity/640772...

And here I was expecting to read that Mulcair was making unfair observations about oil's effect on the loonie! :)

Gaian

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

No way is this government throwing Fantino overboard.

Mulcair looked fairly good-- Not sure why hold back on whether a minister will be asked to resign and why that was wait and see-- might have been better just to say-- "let's hear from him first"

Overall though a good outing for Mulcair.

Soloman was asking the hard questions of the government and he did go for the jugular. Alexander looked foolish. Soloman looked like a real journalist actually.

Mulcair told Solamon, with a wry smile and a great deal of diplomacy, that Fantino meant bugger all in the debate. It may be that Steve will not endanger the new Toronto bridgehead by tossing the unfortunate Fantino, but failure to toss anyone is going to accomplish the same things for New Democrats.

Rejoice.

NorthReport

Liberal-lover Yaffe will do their bidding, no matter how dumb or idiotic the Liberal message is.

 

 

NDP portrayed as threat to national unity

 

 

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/portrayed+threat+national+unity/640772...

NorthReport
Gaian

Some New Democrats would perhaps more appreciate RIM products made by the workers of Waterloo Region, where the factory buildings are not surrounded by nets to protect despairing workers.

Keeping in mind the Mulcair campaign to support manufacturing in central Canada.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Bob Rae on CBC Newsworld just now: "...Stephen Harper is not fit to be Prime Minister of Canada".

I guess Rae is now off the PM's Christmas Card list. Laughing

NorthReport

I suppose things are just not going very well for Mr Rae these days what with the current polling, looking over his shoulder at Trudeau, etc.

Tension between NDP, Liberals as Rae calls Mulcair a ‘mini-Harper’

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/04/tension-between-ndp-liberals-as-...

 

janfromthebruce

Gaian wrote:
Some New Democrats would perhaps more appreciate RIM products made by the workers of Waterloo Region, where the factory buildings are not surrounded by nets to protect despairing workers. Keeping in mind the Mulcair campaign to support manufacturing in central Canada.
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

 

yes, I have a blackberry so it would be nice if we support Canadian companies

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Does anyone have a comment on what was going on between Mulcair and Rae today. Rae said something like "Mr. Mulcair wouldn't know the truth if the light was shining on it", or something similar to this. Is Rae trying to build a bulwark against Trudeau? Is it a case of the Libs are feeling frustrated over the fact they are the third party and are trying to fight the perception becoming reality in the minds of Canadians? What about Trudeau. No one on here has answered this. Is Trudeau going to run for leader? I think he is and they are going to try and say they need Trudeau to perserve Canada by keeping Quebec in Canada and that Trudeau is the second coming of his dad and the only one who can save Canada. How carzy sounding is this?

Sean in Ottawa

I think Rae is being foolish here.

I also think Mulcair should not engage in the pettiness.

I also think that there is an issue if the NDP was deliberately wasting time that other MPs needed to express their opinions. This needs to be explained and it has not been explained by the NDP. I would be disgusted if this was payback. Those Liberal MPs represent Canadians who want their MP to speak. Even if we have little respect for those MPs let us respect their constituents. The argument that the NDP took the time to prevent the Cons from wasting it is a horribly weak argument. The NDP could have made sure the Liberals got to speak and together blocked the Cons if that was the point.

The NDP and the Liberals are engaged in a petty who is the real opposition game and the NDP which is the real opposition ought to know better. I hope someone is reading this because this is not impressive and does not meet the standard the NDP claimed it wanted to set.So now the NDP after that issue is claiming to be shocked that Rae is taking a shot at them? Sorry but that's just not smart. Learn from it-- fast. Behave better and then you can expect and hold others to the same standard.

If there is some better explanation for what the NDP did then I'd like to hear it-- but so far the explanations they provided are very poor. I suggest the NDP apologize and move on and show that we can be better.

Gaian

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Does anyone have a comment on what was going on between Mulcair and Rae today. Rae said something like "Mr. Mulcair wouldn't know the truth if the light was shining on it", or something similar to this. Is Rae trying to build a bulwark against Trudeau? Is it a case of the Libs are feeling frustrated over the fact they are the third party and are trying to fight the perception becoming reality in the minds of Canadians? What about Trudeau. No one on here has answered this. Is Trudeau going to run for leader? I think he is and they are going to try and say they need Trudeau to perserve Canada by keeping Quebec in Canada and that Trudeau is the second coming of his dad and the only one who can save Canada. How carzy sounding is this?

Apparently it began with a bitter remark from Rae. And it just could have been prompte4d by a poll putting the NDP at 32 per cent, just two per cent behind the Cons, but some 12 or 13 per cent ahead of the Libs. Just caught the numbers in passing news, so have no idead where they're from or what they represent.

Gaian

quote: "If there is some better explanation for what the NDP did then I'd like to hear it-- but so far the explanations they provided are very poor. I suggest the NDP apologize and move on and show that we can be better."

You are advocating a turning the other blessed cheek, Sean?

NorthReport
NorthReport

Much todo about nothing here.

As the polls are showing, Rae's Liberals are a distant third, back to their 30 or so seats they got in the last election, Trudeau's upset boxing silliness has Rae looking over his shoulder at the possibility of Trudeau going for the LPC leadership, and Sean you seem to forget the LPC constantly voting for Harper's budgets.

Mulcair is absolutely correct that Rae is fearful, and so he should be.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I think Rae is being foolish here.

I also think Mulcair should not engage in the pettiness.

I also think that there is an issue if the NDP was deliberately wasting time that other MPs needed to express their opinions. This needs to be explained and it has not been explained by the NDP. I would be disgusted if this was payback. Those Liberal MPs represent Canadians who want their MP to speak. Even if we have little respect for those MPs let us respect their constituents. The argument that the NDP took the time to prevent the Cons from wasting it is a horribly weak argument. The NDP could have made sure the Liberals got to speak and together blocked the Cons if that was the point.

The NDP and the Liberals are engaged in a petty who is the real opposition game and the NDP which is the real opposition ought to know better. I hope someone is reading this because this is not impressive and does not meet the standard the NDP claimed it wanted to set.So now the NDP after that issue is claiming to be shocked that Rae is taking a shot at them? Sorry but that's just not smart. Learn from it-- fast. Behave better and then you can expect and hold others to the same standard.

If there is some better explanation for what the NDP did then I'd like to hear it-- but so far the explanations they provided are very poor. I suggest the NDP apologize and move on and show that we can be better.

Sean in Ottawa

North Report-- we don't care if the Liberal's look petty and stupid and disrespectful-- they can fill their boots. I have a problem when the NDP comes off that way. So I don't care that the Liberals said some stupid things-- they would have come off looking stupid if the NDP had not played games with time in the debate. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard if we want to be respected.

Mulcair is a strong performer-- he should be able to out muscle Rae without this kind of procedural stuff that actually is disrespectful to the people we want to have vote for us.

The issue is this is a response on a budget that is hurting people-- I expect the NDP to not try to prevent the Liberals from expressing that on behalf of their constituents. We can do it better and so we should but that is different from trying to prevent them from having time to do so.

Let's face it -- we lost that tactic-- it backfired predictably-- we gave ammunition to our enemies and made our allies uncomfortable. We need to accept it was a mistake and move on and not aggravate this by further engagement in the tit-for-tat stuff from the Liberals on this. This garbage plays in to the hands of the Cons-- an opposition party claiming to be ready for government does not do this and has to avoid pettiness.

Sean in Ottawa

I am saying it looks like the NDP behaved badly and therefore cannot win this.

The NDP wants the votes of the constituents in ridings held by Liberals -- they need to respect those people better than to waste time so their MP does not get to speak.

Sure fight with the Liberals-- attack them, criticize them of hypocrisy-- but don't use procedural advantage to muzzle them.

The Liberals were responding to the NDP preventing them from speaking and then took some shots at the NDP. When you are wrong it is better to stop fighting press the rest button and come back on something else rather than keep fighting from a bad position. I don't call that turning the other cheek-- perhaps backing down when in the wrong would be a better way to put it.

If you want to beat someone you have to stay on the reasonable side-- and then you can clobber them but when you do something that looks like dirty pool you lose the ability to claim being a victim.

So if the NDP wants hardball then take the shots-- if you don't like hardball play fair. Layton advocated the second approach and I want to see the NDP do that both because it is the right thing and it will also be a better strategy anyway.

Sean in Ottawa

And I am not being disloyal-- I want the NDP to win and this is not how you do that. Therefore I want the NDP to improve and avoid this kind of public relations screw-up.

We need to acknowledge this-- we need to learn from it quickly to be ready to face the government and win.

Gaian

I don't know. Being in a position to play to win and leave the Marquess of Queensbury rules aside for a bit appeals, suddenly. It could be justified by saying that the lives of the marginalized could be turned around more quickly, that Tweedledee had it's kick at the can for a helluva long time and didn't really function any differently than Tweedle bloody Dum back in the mid-90s.

But then, perhaps I'm just pissed off at the hypocrisy of noble Bob.

DSloth

Whinging about Parliamentary rules, sorry "conventions", is a tried and true way of losing electoral support and an important Liberal tradition. 

Bob Rae could have spent the whole day criticizing the budget if that's all he honestly wanted to do, instead he made his own insecurity the story, better yet the Liberals could have not supported 5 of the last Conservative budgets if they wanted to pretend to hold any integrity on this issue. 

Sean in Ottawa

But this is not how to win-- if we had been reasonable -- Rae might still have looked like an ass and the optics would not be both opposition parties are childish but that one was professional and the other whiney.

Rae can't help himself-- he does not need to be provoked to look bad. If we behave properly, he'll wear it and we will win. If we look as bad as he does people will either stay with the #@$% Cons or not bother to vote.

So sure cut the Liberals down but don't do it in such a way that you hurt yourself more than you hurt them and that is what the NDP did in this.

We won't win by being just a bit better than the Liberals. We will win by being a breath of fresh air. This garbage makes us look weak and scared. Dumb when the Liberals are not even deserving of being dignified with this attention.

ETA Layton knew when to ignore them and not give them a platform-- we should remember how effective that was. By trying to prevent them from speaking we made it look like we were worried about what they might say. Why the heck should we be worried about what that gang says?

 

Sean in Ottawa

DSloth-- the Liberals looked bad. But we muddied the waters by also looking bad. I am happy letting the Liberals and the Cons continue to look bad but I'd like the NDP to do better. Standing up in a time-limited debate and wasting time is not going to impress anyone. Since I am a member of the NDP I care what the NDP does and want to exploit not avoid the mistakes the Liberals make -- so fine let them be stupid but let's make sure we don't give them PR points by behaving badly ourselves. This has played very badly and won us nothing.

In the Communications strategy thread I started out emphasizing that we should not waste time with the inane or petty. That is what I am talking about. When we talk it should not be tit-for-tat stuff, petty crap or procedural games-- it should be factual, hard-hitting, respectful of the public that may be listening and professional. We did not make the grade on this and I wish there could be acknowledgement of that so we could learn and move on. Boosterism is not an appropriate response if we want to win. We made a mistake. It is not a huge deal. We can learn form it and move on -- but only if we admit it at least to ourselves. This strategy backfired. Thankfully, the Liberals out-stupided us so it did not hurt as much as it could have. Let us be the first of the two to smarten up.

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I am saying it looks like the NDP behaved badly and therefore cannot win this.

is there another article about this that you've been reading?

'cause i dont get that it "looks like"  at all from the NP article  linked above. Just the opposite that it's Rae behaving badly.

see I read this part:

Quote:
While the Liberals complained they, too, wanted a turn to weigh in on the budget, Mulcair argued they used just 11 of the 20 minutes they were allotted on Tuesday

 and what follows it and agree Rae's and the Liberals's asses are sucking wind.

 

Sean in Ottawa

I have read a few stories on this today as well as watched it on twitter.

Yes, the Liberals looked bad but so did we. I follow a lot of journalists and this did not impress people-- some of them important people becuase these are journalists who have recently been speaking well of the NDP.

 

Sean in Ottawa

This is how the article ended-- do you really think the NDP comes out well here? (At best the NDP only looks slightly better than the Cons in a situation where the Liberals could have looked terrible on their own:

****

Rae called Julian's stunt an "ego trip" rather than a "filibuster." He suggested it only served to silence fellow members of Parliament and had no impact on delaying debate, delaying the vote or altering the government's fiscal plan.

He argued turning into a "mini-Harper" was not the right strategy to defeat the Conservatives.

"It's not a strategy that's going to work but it says a lot about the NDP," he said.

Playing on lateleader Jack Layton's now famous final letter to Canadians, Rae suggested the NDP had entered a new era under Mulcair's leadership.

"If there was any doubt in anyone's mind in Canada, let me just say that the era of love and good feeling is clearly over inside the NDP. It's a new regime," he said.

"We've now moved to the world where anger apparently is better than love, arrogance is now better than humility and petulance is much stronger than respect."

 

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
We made a mistake.

What mistake?

I don't get throwing stones  when there is no reason to. Yesterday was Tuesday and the Liberals had sfa to say about the budget but we're now supposed to believe they do?

 

Peter Julian does not strike me as a flake and i think you've just attacked him needlessly and the whole NDP.

Sean in Ottawa

Are you denying that the NDP used the House's time with a filibuster-style speech designed to consume time rather than say something new?

Are you saying we look good for that?

I never called him a flake.

But I am saying it was very poor communications strategy on a day that should have gone 100% our way. Our behaviour went a long way to neutralize Rae's own stupidity and that is not good. You get opportunities and you ahve to manage them well.

As for needless-- I explained the need-- we have to do better.

quizzical

yep i am saying the NDP did not look bad except to Rae and his followers as the NDP consumed their time and i don't think it made anyone look bad.

you've inferred Peter Julian is a flake by condeming his actions of not just rolling over for the Conservatives anti-human budget the way the Liberals did yesterday.

What looks bad to me is Rae and the Liberals having sfa to say about the budget yesterday and whining today. Why are you repeating Liberal propaganda here don't we get enough of it in the anti-NDP media

Sean in Ottawa

Some of what was there on Twitter:

 

RT @gmacofglebe: Doesn't the Peter Julian stunt negate any #NDP criticism of closure, and having their time to debate taken away? #cdnpoli

Elizabeth May MP ‏ @ElizabethMay

Interesting stat: in time of Peter Julian's speech 128 MP speeches, Qs and comments could have been made. But he did have the right

kady o'malley ‏ @kady
Oh, come on, really? Have we not heard enough from Peter Julian already? Other MPs deserve a chance too! NDP MPs, even. #QP

Sit down Peter Julian..

****

A little less and then it would have been more.

13 hours did not look good.

At 4 hours with the best of what he had it could have been wonderful while still not earning the criticism of being a filibuster. Sharing the views of Canadians is good but there should have been no waste in there.

NDP website I hope has all the stuff there.

Anyway-- I wanted this just to be a learning thing-- pointedly, he went on for a long time before the complaints came up. He could easily have gotten a lot in there.

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

 

you've inferred Peter Julian is a flake by condeming his actions of not just rolling over for the Conservatives anti-human budget the way the Liberals did yesterday.

You have no justification to say this whatsoever.

NorthReport

SiO

I think you are way off base.

Rae is a non-event in Canadian politics now, and you are just playing into his hands. Best thing to do when he yaps is to just ignore him and focus on bringing down Harper. Let's not get side-tracked here by Rae's usual silliness.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Being dismissive does not make your point.

I have not called your opinions silly-- I suggest you rephrase.

 

quizzical

i should care what Elizabeth May has to say? and who is Kady O'Malley?

and the anon tweeter labelling Peter Julian's actions as a "stunt" you repeating it doesn't attempt to make Julian look like a flake?

don't take it personally as i respect your right to portray anyone as you see it just as i have a right to challenge that opinion as not being how i see it and I see it as you talking Rae's silly talking points.

the budget sucks and i think the NDP should do whatever it takes to get awareness that they are completely against it and if it takes a fillibuster so what? The Liberals had sfa to say after all.

Pages

Topic locked